Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
HuckleB
HuckleB's Journal
HuckleB's Journal
February 16, 2016
"Rapid reversals of Earth’s magnetic field 550 million years ago destroyed a large part of the ozone layer and let in a flood of UV radiation, devastating the unusual creatures of the so-called Ediacaran Period and triggering an evolutionary flight from light that led to the Cambrian explosion of animal groups. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which proposes a connection between hyperactive field reversals and this crucial moment in the evolution of life.
The Kotlinian Crisis, as it is known, saw widespread extinction and put an end to the Ediacaran Period. During this time, large (up to meter-sized) soft-bodied organisms, often shaped like discs or fronds, had lived on or in shallow horizontal burrows beneath thick mats of bacteria which, unlike today, coated the sea floor. The slimy mats acted as a barrier between the water above and the sediments below, preventing oxygen from reaching under the sea floor and making it largely uninhabitable.
The Ediacaran gave way to the Cambrian explosion, 542 million years ago: the rapid emergence of new species with complex body plans, hard parts for defense, and sophisticated eyes. Burrowing also became more common and varied, which broke down the once-widespread bacterial mats, allowing oxygen into the seafloor to form a newly-hospitable space for living.
Scientists have long argued over what caused the Cambrian explosion in the first place. Potential explanations have included rising levels of atmospheric oxygen due to photosynthesis, allowing for the development of more complex animals; the rise in carnivorous species and new predatory tactics, such as the flat and segmented, armor-crushing creatures known as anomalocaridids; and the breakup of the super-continent Rodinia, which may have created new ecological niches and isolated populations as the continents drifted apart.
..."
-------------------------------------------
Very interesting!
Hyperactive magnetic field may have led to one of Earth’s major extinctions
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/hyperactive-magnetic-field-may-have-led-one-earth-s-major-extinctions"Rapid reversals of Earth’s magnetic field 550 million years ago destroyed a large part of the ozone layer and let in a flood of UV radiation, devastating the unusual creatures of the so-called Ediacaran Period and triggering an evolutionary flight from light that led to the Cambrian explosion of animal groups. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which proposes a connection between hyperactive field reversals and this crucial moment in the evolution of life.
The Kotlinian Crisis, as it is known, saw widespread extinction and put an end to the Ediacaran Period. During this time, large (up to meter-sized) soft-bodied organisms, often shaped like discs or fronds, had lived on or in shallow horizontal burrows beneath thick mats of bacteria which, unlike today, coated the sea floor. The slimy mats acted as a barrier between the water above and the sediments below, preventing oxygen from reaching under the sea floor and making it largely uninhabitable.
The Ediacaran gave way to the Cambrian explosion, 542 million years ago: the rapid emergence of new species with complex body plans, hard parts for defense, and sophisticated eyes. Burrowing also became more common and varied, which broke down the once-widespread bacterial mats, allowing oxygen into the seafloor to form a newly-hospitable space for living.
Scientists have long argued over what caused the Cambrian explosion in the first place. Potential explanations have included rising levels of atmospheric oxygen due to photosynthesis, allowing for the development of more complex animals; the rise in carnivorous species and new predatory tactics, such as the flat and segmented, armor-crushing creatures known as anomalocaridids; and the breakup of the super-continent Rodinia, which may have created new ecological niches and isolated populations as the continents drifted apart.
..."
-------------------------------------------
Very interesting!
February 16, 2016
"It dates back at least to Galileo. A scientist finds evidence that contradicts a cherished popular belief. Instead of a rational examination of his evidence, he is subjected to vicious personal attacks. Alice Dreger examines the phenomenon in her book Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science. She is eminently qualified to do so. She is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics, a historian, a gifted writer, an activist for patient rights, and an indefatigable investigative journalist who has herself been a victim of the kind of persecution she describes.
The histories she recounts are horrifying. She gives example after example of activists using lies and personal attacks to suppress evidence they don’t like. She reveals dirty linen in the most unexpected places.
...
A pattern repeats itself. The scientist’s message is distorted; critics often don’t bother to read the book or the article in question, but are content to rely on someone else’s garbled misinterpretation. They are not angry about what the scientist actually said, but about what they thinkhe or she said. When E. O. Wilson wrote his book Sociobiology, his intent was to help humans understand their own nature. His message was misrepresented as an attempt to exonerate people from responsibility for crimes or social problems, and even as supporting “the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.” Hatred of Wilson escalated to the point that a group of his detractors rushed onstage and doused him with a pitcher of water at a scientific conference.
...
Good people with the best intentions can do bad things. Dreger concludes that we need both scholars and activists; we need people pushing for truth and for justice if we’re going to get both right. She is fair to both sides: she exposes the sins of activists and the sins of scientists and scientific institutions. Highly respected thinkers like Jared Diamond, Edward O. Wilson, Elizabeth Loftus, and Steven Pinker have endorsed the book. Diamond says it would be “this year’s most gripping novel” except that her stories are true. Wilson says she “reveals the shocking extent to which some disciplines have been infested by mountebanks, poseurs and even worse, political activists who put ideology ahead of science.” A good read, valuable information, a cautionary tale, and plenty of food for thought."
----------------------------
The reviewer gives some amazing examples of the persecution in the title. I can't wait to read this one. It looks good.
Galileo's Middle Finger: Persecuting Scientists Whose Findings Are Seen As Politically Incorrect
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/persecution-of-scientists-whose-findings-are-perceived-as-politically-incorrect/#more-40844"It dates back at least to Galileo. A scientist finds evidence that contradicts a cherished popular belief. Instead of a rational examination of his evidence, he is subjected to vicious personal attacks. Alice Dreger examines the phenomenon in her book Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science. She is eminently qualified to do so. She is a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics, a historian, a gifted writer, an activist for patient rights, and an indefatigable investigative journalist who has herself been a victim of the kind of persecution she describes.
The histories she recounts are horrifying. She gives example after example of activists using lies and personal attacks to suppress evidence they don’t like. She reveals dirty linen in the most unexpected places.
...
A pattern repeats itself. The scientist’s message is distorted; critics often don’t bother to read the book or the article in question, but are content to rely on someone else’s garbled misinterpretation. They are not angry about what the scientist actually said, but about what they thinkhe or she said. When E. O. Wilson wrote his book Sociobiology, his intent was to help humans understand their own nature. His message was misrepresented as an attempt to exonerate people from responsibility for crimes or social problems, and even as supporting “the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.” Hatred of Wilson escalated to the point that a group of his detractors rushed onstage and doused him with a pitcher of water at a scientific conference.
...
Good people with the best intentions can do bad things. Dreger concludes that we need both scholars and activists; we need people pushing for truth and for justice if we’re going to get both right. She is fair to both sides: she exposes the sins of activists and the sins of scientists and scientific institutions. Highly respected thinkers like Jared Diamond, Edward O. Wilson, Elizabeth Loftus, and Steven Pinker have endorsed the book. Diamond says it would be “this year’s most gripping novel” except that her stories are true. Wilson says she “reveals the shocking extent to which some disciplines have been infested by mountebanks, poseurs and even worse, political activists who put ideology ahead of science.” A good read, valuable information, a cautionary tale, and plenty of food for thought."
----------------------------
The reviewer gives some amazing examples of the persecution in the title. I can't wait to read this one. It looks good.
February 15, 2016
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
"For several years now the popular media has run headlines about “a war on science.” Reporters note that federal funding for research is down, campaigns to undermine climate science attract hundreds of millions of dollars and politicians routinely reject findings that are uniformly accepted by scientists. But a panel of scholars last weekend argued for the most part against calling these aversive movements a war, with two historians even scolding scientists who embrace the idea as out of touch with public concerns.
Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.
Millstein was the pacifist. “There is no war on science, is what I’m claiming.” Or maybe there is a war on science, she said, but calling it such is “counterproductive.”
Co-panelist Mark Largent of Michigan State University, a science historian who has interviewed many parents who refuse to fully vaccinate their children, took the argument further. Scientists should shift away from an embattled position, he said, and acknowledge that they have tremendous power over various social arenas. Scientists today are an “intensely privileged group of people,” Largent said. “You are revered. You have more cultural and social authority than any other group, other than very wealthy people.” A defensive stance misrepresents science’s influence and can alienate people already mistrustful of vaccines or other socially relevant findings, he argued.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
A fair enough article that downplays possible damage done by the anxiety that leads to science denialism, nevermind that it ignores some of the causes, such as outlandish, fear-based marketing and media personalities. Nonethless, a worthy read.
Is There Really A War on Science?
People who oppose vaccines, GMOs and climate change evidence may be more anxious than antagonistichttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/
"For several years now the popular media has run headlines about “a war on science.” Reporters note that federal funding for research is down, campaigns to undermine climate science attract hundreds of millions of dollars and politicians routinely reject findings that are uniformly accepted by scientists. But a panel of scholars last weekend argued for the most part against calling these aversive movements a war, with two historians even scolding scientists who embrace the idea as out of touch with public concerns.
Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.
Millstein was the pacifist. “There is no war on science, is what I’m claiming.” Or maybe there is a war on science, she said, but calling it such is “counterproductive.”
Co-panelist Mark Largent of Michigan State University, a science historian who has interviewed many parents who refuse to fully vaccinate their children, took the argument further. Scientists should shift away from an embattled position, he said, and acknowledge that they have tremendous power over various social arenas. Scientists today are an “intensely privileged group of people,” Largent said. “You are revered. You have more cultural and social authority than any other group, other than very wealthy people.” A defensive stance misrepresents science’s influence and can alienate people already mistrustful of vaccines or other socially relevant findings, he argued.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
A fair enough article that downplays possible damage done by the anxiety that leads to science denialism, nevermind that it ignores some of the causes, such as outlandish, fear-based marketing and media personalities. Nonethless, a worthy read.
February 15, 2016
EXPERT REACTION: Is a pesticide, not Zika virus, causing microcephaly? (Not likely.)
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-is-a-pesticide-not-zika-virus-causing-microcephaly
February 15, 2016
"...
Each case is different, though; so let’s take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, it’s a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, it’s a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now here’s the thing. It’s not as though pyriproxyfen hasn’t been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one can’t help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. It’s been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. It’s all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. There’s lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. That’s why it’s so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
There are some big problems with this claim.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/15/say-it-aint-so-george-george-takei-falls-for-a-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory/"...
Each case is different, though; so let’s take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, it’s a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, it’s a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now here’s the thing. It’s not as though pyriproxyfen hasn’t been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one can’t help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. It’s been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. It’s all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. There’s lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. That’s why it’s so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
February 15, 2016
"...
Each case is different, though; so let’s take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, it’s a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, it’s a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now here’s the thing. It’s not as though pyriproxyfen hasn’t been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one can’t help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. It’s been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. It’s all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. There’s lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. That’s why it’s so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
And yet this nonsense is getting play at DU, and I suspect it will get more.
Oh, myyyy! George Takei falls for a Zika virus conspiracy theory
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/15/say-it-aint-so-george-george-takei-falls-for-a-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory/"...
Each case is different, though; so let’s take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, it’s a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, it’s a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now here’s the thing. It’s not as though pyriproxyfen hasn’t been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one can’t help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. It’s been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. It’s all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. There’s lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. That’s why it’s so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
And yet this nonsense is getting play at DU, and I suspect it will get more.
February 15, 2016
"I have been going through the difficult and saddening process of leaving my field. I was not a naturopathic doctor. I went down the path of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and became a licensed acupuncturist and herbalist. While searching for encouragement online, I happened upon NaturopathicDiaries.com. I felt connected to Britt’s story of leaving a pseudo-medical field and admire her for taking a stand against the dangerous misinformation in the alternative health care industry.
...
When I enrolled in my 4-year TCM program, I was 20 years old and brimming with optimism. I bought into the fallacy that mainstream medicine only treats symptoms and that alternative medicine treats the body as a whole and gets at the “root of the problem.” I went in genuinely believing that I would come out benefiting people using the power of traditional wisdom that had been tested for millennia. My family strongly believed in me and happily made sacrifices so I could afford the exceedingly expensive tuition.
After about two years into my program, I started to have doubts. There were so many things that seemed blatantly wrong. From the vitalist concept of qi to the curious mishmash of science classes and antiquated anatomical theories. The concepts were contradictory, and problems seemed endless. Even though I began questioning my faith, I was so deeply invested that I felt like I couldn’t back out.
...
The feeling of being wrong is dreadful, but continuing to practice a faith-based system of medicine with indifference is terribly worse. I am hopeful that more people who are wrapped up in holistic health fields will begin questioning the validity of alternative practices. Better yet, I hope these people will open their minds to the possibility that they have been deceived."
-------------------------------------------
Good stuff. It's a start, anyway.
What’s the point of acupuncture? A TCM practitioner wants out
http://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/whats-the-point-of-acupuncture/#more-937"I have been going through the difficult and saddening process of leaving my field. I was not a naturopathic doctor. I went down the path of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and became a licensed acupuncturist and herbalist. While searching for encouragement online, I happened upon NaturopathicDiaries.com. I felt connected to Britt’s story of leaving a pseudo-medical field and admire her for taking a stand against the dangerous misinformation in the alternative health care industry.
...
When I enrolled in my 4-year TCM program, I was 20 years old and brimming with optimism. I bought into the fallacy that mainstream medicine only treats symptoms and that alternative medicine treats the body as a whole and gets at the “root of the problem.” I went in genuinely believing that I would come out benefiting people using the power of traditional wisdom that had been tested for millennia. My family strongly believed in me and happily made sacrifices so I could afford the exceedingly expensive tuition.
After about two years into my program, I started to have doubts. There were so many things that seemed blatantly wrong. From the vitalist concept of qi to the curious mishmash of science classes and antiquated anatomical theories. The concepts were contradictory, and problems seemed endless. Even though I began questioning my faith, I was so deeply invested that I felt like I couldn’t back out.
...
The feeling of being wrong is dreadful, but continuing to practice a faith-based system of medicine with indifference is terribly worse. I am hopeful that more people who are wrapped up in holistic health fields will begin questioning the validity of alternative practices. Better yet, I hope these people will open their minds to the possibility that they have been deceived."
-------------------------------------------
Good stuff. It's a start, anyway.
February 12, 2016
"ST. LOUIS, MO – Executives at the dungeon lair headquarters of Monsanto are breathing a sigh of relief today as they finally were implicated in a conspiracy theory involving the Zika Virus in Brazil.
The latest conspiracy revolves around a larvacide called Pyriproxyfen, which is actually manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese company.
However, at some point the chemical may have been either worked on or owned by Monsanto or something, something Monsanto is evil.
“We watched for a few weeks as GMO mosquitoes, vaccines, Bill Gates and even lizard people were getting all the conspiracy coverage,” said Diablo Lucifer, Monsanto CEO. “Now it’s finally our turn. This couldn’t come at a better time for us either, since people seem to be getting less and less crazy about GMOs and not mentioning us as much on social media.”
..."
--------------------------------
The Spudd does it again!
(And, yes, Natural News, the Organic Consumers Assinine-ation, and other conspiracy folks are actually promoting this "connection" to a "Monsanto product" made by a Japanese company, that interestingly doesn't appear to be causing any problems in the rest of the world where it has been used. Hmm.)
Monsanto finally makes it into Zika virus conspiracy theory
http://thespudd.com/monsanto-finally-makes-it-into-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory/"ST. LOUIS, MO – Executives at the dungeon lair headquarters of Monsanto are breathing a sigh of relief today as they finally were implicated in a conspiracy theory involving the Zika Virus in Brazil.
The latest conspiracy revolves around a larvacide called Pyriproxyfen, which is actually manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese company.
However, at some point the chemical may have been either worked on or owned by Monsanto or something, something Monsanto is evil.
“We watched for a few weeks as GMO mosquitoes, vaccines, Bill Gates and even lizard people were getting all the conspiracy coverage,” said Diablo Lucifer, Monsanto CEO. “Now it’s finally our turn. This couldn’t come at a better time for us either, since people seem to be getting less and less crazy about GMOs and not mentioning us as much on social media.”
..."
--------------------------------
The Spudd does it again!
(And, yes, Natural News, the Organic Consumers Assinine-ation, and other conspiracy folks are actually promoting this "connection" to a "Monsanto product" made by a Japanese company, that interestingly doesn't appear to be causing any problems in the rest of the world where it has been used. Hmm.)
February 12, 2016
"Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2) and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause (3), which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014 (4). We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers' knowledge, but also values, is critical.
Prior surveys [e.g., (5, 6)] suggest that many teachers devote class time to climate change. Although these surveys are suggestive, their use of nonprobability sampling undermines the validity of their results. None quantified the amount of class time or the specific topics covered in class. We undertook the first nationally representative survey of science teachers focused on climate change. Working from a commercial database of 3.9 million teachers, we drew a stratified probability sample of 5000 names and implemented a multiple-contact paper and Web survey protocol during academic year 2014–15. We collected data from 1500 public middle- and high-school science teachers from all 50 U.S. states, representative of the population of science teachers in terms of school size, student socioeconomic status, and community economic and political characteristics. See supplemental materials (SM) for details.
...
POLITICS AND IDENTITY THREAT. Content knowledge is not the only area in need of attention. Rejection of sound scientific conclusions is often rooted in value commitments rather than ignorance (16), and science teachers are not immune from this tendency. A question measuring political ideology was a more powerful predictor of teachers' classroom approach than any measure of education or content knowledge, with those leaning toward “It's not the government's business to protect people from themselves” most willing to teach “both sides” (table S8).
Our data suggest that, especially for political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice. Education efforts will need to draw on science communication research and acknowledge resistance to accepting the science and addressing its root causes (17, 18). College and university instructors will need help reaching teachers and teachers-in-training who bring diverse political and value commitments to the classroom—particularly in avoiding “boomerang effects,” in which attempts to promote a particular view can instead harden opposition. This may entail acknowledging and addressing conflicts that teachers (and their students) may feel between their values and the science. Such instruction will promote understanding of the science as well as the pedagogy that future teachers will need to promote climate science literacy."
----------------------------------------------------
Very frustrating.
Study: Many U.S. Teachers Appear To Be Confused About Climate, Repeat Unsupported Claims
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664.full"Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2) and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause (3), which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014 (4). We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers' knowledge, but also values, is critical.
Prior surveys [e.g., (5, 6)] suggest that many teachers devote class time to climate change. Although these surveys are suggestive, their use of nonprobability sampling undermines the validity of their results. None quantified the amount of class time or the specific topics covered in class. We undertook the first nationally representative survey of science teachers focused on climate change. Working from a commercial database of 3.9 million teachers, we drew a stratified probability sample of 5000 names and implemented a multiple-contact paper and Web survey protocol during academic year 2014–15. We collected data from 1500 public middle- and high-school science teachers from all 50 U.S. states, representative of the population of science teachers in terms of school size, student socioeconomic status, and community economic and political characteristics. See supplemental materials (SM) for details.
...
POLITICS AND IDENTITY THREAT. Content knowledge is not the only area in need of attention. Rejection of sound scientific conclusions is often rooted in value commitments rather than ignorance (16), and science teachers are not immune from this tendency. A question measuring political ideology was a more powerful predictor of teachers' classroom approach than any measure of education or content knowledge, with those leaning toward “It's not the government's business to protect people from themselves” most willing to teach “both sides” (table S8).
Our data suggest that, especially for political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice. Education efforts will need to draw on science communication research and acknowledge resistance to accepting the science and addressing its root causes (17, 18). College and university instructors will need help reaching teachers and teachers-in-training who bring diverse political and value commitments to the classroom—particularly in avoiding “boomerang effects,” in which attempts to promote a particular view can instead harden opposition. This may entail acknowledging and addressing conflicts that teachers (and their students) may feel between their values and the science. Such instruction will promote understanding of the science as well as the pedagogy that future teachers will need to promote climate science literacy."
----------------------------------------------------
Very frustrating.
February 12, 2016
"Hospitals with more registered nurses and doctors per bed can reduce patient death by as much as 20 percent, researchers in England found in a study of clinics there.
Having more nurses and doctors overall is not enough, as researchers at the University of Southampton found having more unregistered nurses increased the death rate at hospitals.
The researchers focused on cost-cutting measures -- either reducing overall staff, or hiring unregistered healthcare support workers to reduce workload -- as at fault for some part of current mortality rates.
"When determining the safety of nurse staffing on hospital wards, the level of registered nurse staffing is crucial -- hospitals with higher levels of healthcare support workers have higher mortality rates," said Jane Ball, a research fellow at the Karolinska Institutet, in a press release. "Patients should not be asked to pay the price of receiving care from a less skilled and less educated member of staff, just to make up for the failure of the system to ensure enough registered nurses. Staffing decisions need to be made on the basis of patient safety, not on the basis of finance. Current policies geared towards substituting [these] workers for registered nurses should be reviewed."
..."
--------------------------------------------------
Yup.
Hospital mortality drops with lower patient-to-nurse ratio
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/02/10/Hospital-mortality-drops-with-lower-patient-to-nurse-ratio/6281455110040/"Hospitals with more registered nurses and doctors per bed can reduce patient death by as much as 20 percent, researchers in England found in a study of clinics there.
Having more nurses and doctors overall is not enough, as researchers at the University of Southampton found having more unregistered nurses increased the death rate at hospitals.
The researchers focused on cost-cutting measures -- either reducing overall staff, or hiring unregistered healthcare support workers to reduce workload -- as at fault for some part of current mortality rates.
"When determining the safety of nurse staffing on hospital wards, the level of registered nurse staffing is crucial -- hospitals with higher levels of healthcare support workers have higher mortality rates," said Jane Ball, a research fellow at the Karolinska Institutet, in a press release. "Patients should not be asked to pay the price of receiving care from a less skilled and less educated member of staff, just to make up for the failure of the system to ensure enough registered nurses. Staffing decisions need to be made on the basis of patient safety, not on the basis of finance. Current policies geared towards substituting [these] workers for registered nurses should be reviewed."
..."
--------------------------------------------------
Yup.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
