Thursday, November 30, 2017

Scientists Peer Review The Trump Administration: "It's Gone From A War On Science To A War On Facts"

by
SCIENCE IS UNDER ATTACK. DROP OF LIGHT/SHUTTERSTOCK

In case you missed it, scientists are running for Congress. Largely thanks to the actions of the political action group 314 Action, academics from fields as diverse as cancer research and volcanology are gearing up to take on the climate change-denying acolytes of the Trump administration.

Back in June, we spoke to the masterminds behind this unprecedented drive to make American science great again. In the months since then, their efforts to get qualified scientists back into politics – precisely the opposite of what the current President is doing – has made giant strides forwards.
314 Action recently had a gathering in Washington DC of those on the frontline of the war on science, including researchers that are currently in power and those that were seeking office for the first time.
We at IFLScience thought this was a good opportunity to ask them to do what scientists are exceedingly well practiced in: peer review. This time around, the research focus was on the Trump administration, and it’s safe to say that they’re enraged, saddened, and aghast. As a result, they’re all the more emboldened to resist.
Here’s what some of them had to say.
Aerospace engineer Joseph Kopser tells us that the Trump administration's treatment of scientists remind him of the “hysterical witch hunts of yesteryear... the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Dark Ages.”
“We should be elevating the amazing works that scientists have accomplished throughout history and celebrating the continued accomplishments thereof – from Benjamin Franklin, to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, to the young men and woman who will pioneer the next great breakthrough.”
[next]
Kopser is running for TX-21, where Lamar Smith – the Republican Representative who is currrently is in charge of the embarrassingly anti-scientific House Science Committee – announced he is retiring from in 2018. If successful, Kosper said he “would restore science to its proper place... to ensure it’s viewed as a way to advance society, improve life, and enhance a greater understanding of our world.”
A Democratic congressman with a background in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering and a long history of supporting scientific research, Representative Paul Tonko (NY-20) thinks we’re at a flashpoint in history.
“Not since the Scientific Revolution has there been a more important moment to stand for the basic ideas that inquiry must be free and facts and evidence matter,” he tells IFLScience.
[next]
“Our economic growth depends on investing in scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs and engineers,” he highlights, explaining that “belittling the scientific community or cutting basic research will only cede our global leadership to nations that are determined to create the products and ideas of the future.”
Wary of the infiltration of industry-backed climate deniers into the federal government, Tonko recently introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, a bill that would “put a firewall” between state-funded science “and the lobbyists and industries that work tirelessly to influence or distort the scientific findings from that work.”
Citing the EPA under Scott Pruitt, the massive proposed cuts to federal science, and the withdrawal from the Paris accords, neuroscientist Dr Hans Keirstead tells IFLScience: “At every turn it has become more and more apparent that the worst-case scenario for science is unfolding before our eyes at the hands of the President.”
“It's clear the Trump Administration has no respect for the opinions of scientists,” he notes, adding that he’s running for office and sacrificing much of his scientific career so that he can “give science a voice in the halls of power, and to push back on the attacks on science.”
[next]
This world-renowned stem cell researcher is running for Congress, and is seeking to displace Dana Rohrabacher, a high-ranking Republican member of the House Science Committee. Rohrabacher is a long-time climate change denier, and recently asked NASA if there were ever alien civilizations on Mars in the last few thousand years.
“American science has always been ‘great’ – it just hasn't had a voice in Congress lately to support or defend it,” Keirstead surmises.



Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, is arguably one of the most dangerous operators in the US government. Rena Schild/Shutterstock

A Democratic congresswoman with an education in computer science, Representative Jacky Rosen (NV-3) has spent much of her career at the Capitol fighting for STEM education rights for girls. She’s now running for Senate against Dean Heller, the senior Republican Senator from Nevada.
“From withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords to rolling back the Clean Power Plan, this administration is no ally to the scientific community,” she tells IFLScience.
Describing the White House’s plan to pull out of the Paris accords as an “abdication of American leadership,” Rosen says that the country “needs lawmakers in office who will fight for evidence-based policy solutions that address our country's most urgent challenges.”
Referencing her background, she suggests that Congress “should be encouraging individuals, especially young students, to become well-versed in STEM education and do more to highlight the many possibilities that a STEM education can provide.”
[next]
Proving that she’s happy to put her words into actions, Rosen has recently introduced two bipartisan bills to the House that fund STEM education for both young boys and girls.
“It's gone from a war on science to a war on facts,” said Shaughnessy Naughton, a chemical scientist and 314’s founder.
“The president is instructing Federal Agencies to ignore the science behind climate change,” she adds. “This is not only a threat to environmental and social issues but also a threat to our national security.”
Jess Phoenix, a volcanologist running for Congress, has always had strong words for the federal government, and this time round was no exception.
“Using our brains is the reason for much of America’s success. If you hobble someone’s intellect – if you tell them to not use their brains – you are making people slaves to an ideology. In this case, the ideology is profit, profit, profit,” she tells us.
“We believe what we’re fighting for. We have the courage of our conviction. All the people on the other side? All they have is profit.”
[next]

Q: Why would a scientist run for office? A: I can save more lives in Congress, than I can working on volcanoes.
[next]
Referencing the EPA, she explains that the government is systematically dismantling it. “There will be some irreparable and irreversible damage. It’ll be on their heads, but they’ll be rich enough – or they’ll be dead – so that it won’t hurt them. But it’ll hurt our kids.”
“The current EPA under Pruitt and Trump is a perversion of the organization’s fundamental mission,” she concludes.
Another Congressional candidateMatt Longjohn – an MD who served as National Health Director for the YMCA – feels much the same way. He strongly feels that an antidote to the Trump administration’s disparaging of science is to “prioritize investment in early childhood STEM education programs,” and to “champion the success of fact-based policies.”
“America has the best universities and the brightest minds in the world; to willingly cast aside their expertise is downright irresponsible,” Congressional candidate Roger Dean Huffstetler, chemist and tech startup CEO, tells IFLScience.
Explaining that there is a huge deficit in STEM educators in American schools, he suggests that the country needs “to do a better job educating the next generation of scientists and engineers if we are to ensure that America remains the most innovative country in the world.”
Congressional hopeful Chrissy Houlahan, an engineer and Air Force Veteran, laments that “tragically, the Trump Administration has made science a partisan issue.”
“Science is, was, and always will be great. What we need to do, as a government, is support science and leave it to the scientists and science professionals.”



The goal. f11photo/Shutterstock

It cannot be overstated that these scientists are essentially giving up their life's work in order to fundamentally alter the way the US government works. Will their rebellion prove to be successful during the 2018 midterms? That, of course, depends on what kind of America you're hoping to see: one of facts or alternative facts.

Republicans Want To Force The Critically Endangered Red Wolf Into Extinction

by
A CAPTIVE RED WOLF AT POINT DEFIANCE ZOO AND AQUARIUM. USFWS

The red wolf, Canis rufus, currently exists only as a small population in one part of North Carolina. It’s listed under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as critically endangered, which means it’s one step away from being extinct in the wild.
That’s why it strikes us as odd that, hidden in a Senate report related to funding for the Department of the Interior, is an order to end the red wolf recovery program that’s currently being run by the federal government.
“The Committee acknowledges the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s request that the [Fish and Wildlife] Service end the Red Wolf recovery program and declare the Red Wolf extinct,” it said.
It cites impacts on “landowners and other species” as being the reason, also noting that “the program has failed to meet population goals for the red wolf.” The text contains no citations to any research that backs up these claims.
“The Committee encourages the Service to consider ending the program in fiscal year 2018,” it concludes.
Right now, thanks to habitat destruction in the 1960s, there are only around 45 to 60 red wolves left in the wild. They had to be reintroduced after an extensive breeding program succeeded in bringing them back from being extinct in the wild in 1987.
At the time of writing, it still says on the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) website that red wolves are “one of the world’s most endangered wild canids.”
“Currently, adaptive management efforts are making good progress in…building the wild red wolf population in northeastern North Carolina,” it adds.
Despite this, the aforementioned North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has for several years now wanted to end the recovery program for the reasons cited in the report. Landowners and hunters generally support the move to push red wolves into extinction.
Most scientists and conservationists, however, disagree, and it seems the FWS has been on their side until the recent changing of the guard.

Trump's Science Agency Nominee Actually Accepts That Humans Cause Climate Change

by
MYERS, SEEN HERE DURING HIS LATEST CONFIRMATION HEARING. MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES

Back in October, Barry Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, was nominated to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Considering that this is the government agency tasked with monitoring weather patterns and climatic extremes, we thought it was a shame that he wasn’t a scientist, but a businessman and lawyer.
Still, it had to be said that he had never once denied climate change’s anthropogenic link, unlike a slew of other key nominations. Now, during a recent confirmation hearing at the Senate, Myers was asked about that very issue, and remarkably, he agreed that humans are the primary drivers of the phenomenon.
Admittedly, it took him some time to confirm that he agreed, but he got there in the end during a somewhat laborious back-and-forth with Democratic Senator Ed Markey.
Senator Markey noted that NOAA scientists are “very fearful that they’re going to be punished” for doing their jobs in the light of the Trump administration. He brought up the recent federal report that conclusively linked humans to the changing climate, and asked Myers if he accepted them.
“I’ve read the reports and I have no reason to disagree with them,” he responded.
“So you agree that humans are the main cause of climate change?” Markey said. After an awkwardly long pause, he added: “Is that what you’re saying?”
“That is what I’m saying, yes,” Myers responded. He even added that NOAA scientists should be allowed to continue their climate work “unfettered” in response to questioning from Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth.
The fact that this is a surprise, and the fact that this is the strongest endorsement of climate science from a key federal nominee to date, is incredibly depressing.
When it comes to President Trump’s nominations to the federal government, you can almost certainly guarantee one of several things: They are incredibly unqualified for the post, they’re proponents of climate change denial, or they’ve spent their lives working in controversial industries that scream conflict of interest.
From the likely future head of NASA to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), climate change is seen as a bit of a dirty phrase. Sometimes, they go further than just muddying the waters – the underlying science of carbon dioxide is brought into question.
Myers has never taken a position either way on climate change, and AccuWeather is seen as a danger by the state-owned National Weather Service. People were, and will remain, skeptical of this appointment, particularly over his company's views on the privatization of meteorological data.
Yes, his confirmation hearing was atypical, but we'd argue that the appointment of a scientist, particularly at a time when science is under attack, would have been a far better choice.

Specially Evolved Brain Structures Make Bats Better Hunters

by
BY HAVING CERTAIN NEURONS POSITIONED CLOSE TOGETHER, BATS CAN PROCESS SENSORY INFORMATION QUICKER. IVAN KUZMIN/SHUTTERSTOCK
Catching flying insects is a tricky business, especially when you can only spot them using sound. Bats are masters of this, using echolocation to visualize their prey, and now researchers have found that a special structure in their brains lets them process this information extremely quickly.
Echolocation is a kind of biological sonar used by certain animals to navigate their surroundings and hunt prey. It involves emitting calls – generally clicking sounds – and then listening to how the calls are returned from the environment. Echolocation is famously used by bats and dolphins, but it can also be observed in all other species of toothed whale, as well as shrews and swiftlets.
Bats are known for lurking in low light, spending their days hanging upside down in caves, trees, and attics, but at night they come alive, heading off into the darkness in search of food.
When foraging, they have to process more than 120 echolocation clicks every second, a rather impressive feat. So, researchers at Johns Hopkins University decided to test whether this requirement has led to the evolution of a unique brain structure to maximize efficiency. Their findings are published in The Journal of Neuroscience.
They conducted their research using the species Eptesicus fuscus, otherwise known as the big brown bat, which is native to the US, the Caribbean, Central America, and the most northern part of South America.
The scientists looked at the bats’ superior colliculus (SC), a layered structure found in the brains of mammals. It is important in processing sensory information and helps its owner to orient themself within their environment. The SC has mainly been studied in animals that primarily rely on sight, so the researchers decided to test whether being reliant on sound and echolocation affected its structure.
Recording the activity of the SC in four bats whilst prey location was manipulated, the team found that both sensory and motor neurons were present in every layer of the SC. Their proximity to one another was thought to help the bats to process information extremely quickly. Neuron activity also changed as the bats got closer to their prey, decreasing auditory response time. 
A bat tracking and intercepting its prey during the experiment. Melville Wohlgemuth
"The real benefit of using the bats is that we can just measure how quickly the animal is vocalizing so we have a quantitative measure of how much information that animal is taking in at that time," explained lead author Dr Melville Wohlgemuth to BBC News.
"It has to take in lots of information and crunch that data very quickly to do something with it," he added.
The adapted SC in the brain of bats is just one of many examples of how evolution has allowed different species to occupy their own specific ecological niches. 

Top Ad 728x90