Question Technology

Liveblogging Your Vasectomy

On a related note... Medical science blogger "Abel Pharmboy" liveblogged his vasectomy last week.  You can relive the adventure here if you have the stomach: Liveblogging the Vasectomy Chronicles.  It's yet another proud milestone for the web.  I don't know who is creepier -- the blogger who did this or the readers who tuned in live.

(Via io9.)

"Sperm Bank Love" and other Repro-Tech Tunes

In response to the previous post, reader Mark sent in a link to his entertaining songs about reproductive technology and other issues: Sperm Bank Love.

Podcast: Brave New Family

The CBC Radio show Ideas posts some of its shows as (limited-time) free podcasts.  I've been listening to a new two-part series called Brave New Family that's an excellent exploration of the consequences of sperm donation.  The summary:

Sperm donation has proven to be a Pandora's Box. The vast majority of donor dads do not want to be found. In rare cases some children are seeking and finding dad and half-siblings in the process. Science journalist Alison Motluk explores the complex portrait of the brave new family.

Links: Brave New Family (a short article and list of references), Podcasts.

Note that these podcasts are only available for a few weeks.

Ideas is the show that broadcasts the Massey Lectures.  I just noticed they've got a new series called How to Think About Science that looks very interesting too.

What are the True Threats to Reason?

Dan Hind writes in New Scientist:

The Enlightenment is in mortal danger from irrational forces. We know this because its self-styled defenders continually tell us so. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins declares, in tones which make the flesh creep, that "primitive darkness is coming back".  Politician Dick Taverne warns that "the new Rome that science built is under siege by the barbarians". [...]

No one would want to deny the challenges to the Enlightenment that are posed by fundamentalist religion and the other forces of unreason. But if we consider the facts dispassionately, it becomes clear they do not deserve top billing among the enemies of free inquiry. In fact, the institutions that noisily lay claim to the enlightened inheritance - the corporation and the state - pose a much more serious, pervasive threat to reason.

Link: What are the true threats to reason? (subscription required)

The article is based on a talk that Hind gave last November, and he has posted a transcript and audio of the talk at his blog: The Threat to Reason.  That's also the name of his book, from which all of this is drawn: The Threat to Reason.  He describes it as "still the best book-length attempt to prise the Enlightenment from the grasp of Richard Dawkins, Dick Taverne and Christopher Hitchens."  Sounds like a fine endeavor.

Presidential Candidates Invited to Science Quiz, er, Debate

The Science Debate 2008 campaign sent out invitations to the four major candidates recently for the debate, now set for April 18th if anyone shows up.  In the invitation they write:

This is a policy debate.  It is not intended to be a science quiz. Nor are we interested in state-level battles such as the evolution versus creationism/ID debate.  Our goal is to find out how aware candidates are of America's major science and technology problems and opportunities, and how they propose to offer the kind of visionary leadership and policy solutions that will tackle those challenges and ensure America's place as the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation on earth.  This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are such a leader.

It's telling that they needed to reassure candidates that it's not a quiz, because when Science Debate first came on the scene it was clear that many of the people pushing for it wanted a quiz.  There was gloating in comment boards about the chance to make fun of candidates who don't believe in evolution or don't understand science.  (Not that those are excusable -- thank the gods that Mike Huckabee doesn't have a chance of winning.)

There are important science and tech policy issues to discuss, but I'm still skeptical of the need for a separate debate on this.  (Previous post: Do we need a presidential debate on science?)

There have been several recent articles on the story:

• New Scientist Short Sharp Science blog
• Wired (where the commenters definitely don't get the quiz vs. debate distinction, and the techno-libertarians are upset Ron Paul wasn't invited).
• Nature expresses skepticism: Nature's The Great Beyond blog, Nature editorial.
• The New York Times addresses the quiz vs. debate problem as well.
• Biopolitical Times points to Nature's doubts and has some good quotes.
• There's some interesting discussion (and confusion) in comments at the blog of Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, two of the organizers: The Intersection.

Ethics and Climate Change

Philosopher and writer Nigel Warburton interviewed James Garvey about his new book The Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming World.  An excerpt from the interview:

Nigel: Why did you write this book? What is its main message?

James: I wrote the book to help people into thinking about the ethical dimension of reflection on climate change.  There’s a great deal written concerning action on climate change, but often it’s from a scientific or economic or political point of view.  All of that matters, but climate change presents us with a host of moral problems. Getting those in plain sight is part of the point of the book.  What we do about our changing planet depends a lot on what we value, on what we think is morally right.

[...]

Nigel: Despite the bleak factual picture you paint in your first chapter, you end the book on an optimistic note. Isn't this inconsistent?

James: There is a lot of unnecessary suffering ahead if we fail to take action now.  I’m not sure that governments and businesses will do what’s right, but I surprise myself sometimes with the thought that the rest of us will.  According to a BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries, large majorities of people all over the world believe that human activity causes climate change and that strong action must be taken, sooner rather than later.  Human beings eventually do the right thing, and that gives me a little hope.  There’s nothing inconsistent in worrying about our future, all the while hoping that we do the right thing in the time we still have.

Link: James Garvey Interviewed on the Ethics of Climate Change (virtualphilosopher.org, Nigel Warburton's blog).

I really like that last sentence.

James Garvey writes at the Philosopher's Magazine's blog and has a short post about his book there: New Book: The Ethics of Climate Change.

How Software Affects Your Thinking

New Scientist magazine had a short piece recently about a study of physics students' use of Wolfram Mathematica software, which is a symbolic math program that does algebra and calculus and many other things.  The researchers found that, while the software is a powerful supplement, it "narrows the breadth of their thinking.  Their reasoning is drawn into local attractors where they look to calculation schemes to resolve questions instead of, for example, mapping the mathematics to the physical system at hand."  They don't recommend banishing the software; rather they say instructors should be aware of this effect and watch for it.

The New Scientist piece is here: Physics tool makes students miss the point (subscription required for full text).  Oddly, the print magazine, where I read it, has a much softer title: "When it's time to sit back and think again."

The research paper, by Thomas Bing and Edward Redish is called "Symbolic Manipulators Affect Mathematical Mindsets" and is available at Arxiv.org: abstract, full paper (pdf).

New Scientist's harsh title led Theodore Gray, one of Mathematica's co-founders, to write a lengthy rant at the Wolfram company blog: Flipping Out over Technology in Education, which I confess I have not read in full.  I think he's right insofar as the title is bad.  The rest of the New Scientist article seems fair, though, and it's only 466 words so you can't expect much nuance.

This is not a new phenomenon, of course (as the article states).  It's easy to get trapped into certain kinds of activity when it'd be better to step back and rethink your approach to a problem.  I saw this when I taught programming and watched students flail away at the keyboard, and I've done it myself way too many times.

Technology in Wartime Conference -- Video Now Online

Video from the Technology in Wartime conference that took place a couple weeks ago is now online.  I've been meaning to write up my notes from this but haven't found the time.

It was an excellent event -- CPSR did a great job of gathering some really impressive speakers.  Particularly good were security expert Bruce Schneier, roboticist and ethicist Ronald Arkin,  Benetech's Patrick Ball on human rights data analysis (see HRDAG), and Neil Rowe on the ethics of cyberweapons.  So if you're checking out the videos I recommend starting there.  I left before the last session, which also promised a good line-up.

Link: Technology in Wartime Video.

Mohinder Suresh is Activating Evolution (on the Web)

The TV show Heroes has a new promotional tie-in site called Activating Evolution, on which the character Mohinder tells you all about evolution and the existence of radically evolved humans.  What's creepy is the site's resemblance to real sites on the web made by transhumanists and other proponents of radical human enhancement and/or a new eugenics (e.g. Better Humans).  I wonder if the transhumanists will start contributing to Mohinder's wiki.

(via io9)

Defending Incandescent Bulbs

Update: Brendan Koerner has written a pretty solid rebuttal of Rosenbaum's article: The Case for CFLs (Slate).  I'm still not convinced about the light output, but maybe I just haven't seen the right bulbs (or data) yet.

--

Ron Rosenbaum has an article in Slate about what we lose when we outlaw incandescent bulbs in favor of compact fluorescents.  He's a bit too nostalgic for my taste, but he does raise some important points.  Excerpt:

Yes, the idiots in Congress, too torpid and ineffectual to pass a health-care bill for children, have busy-bodied themselves in a bumbling way with the way you light up your world. In December, they passed legislation that will, in practice, outlaw incandescent bulbs because they won't be able to meet the new law's strict energy-efficiency standards. The result: Between 2012 and 2014, incandescent bulbs will be driven from the market. Replaced by the ugly plasticine Dairy Queen swirl of compact fluorescent lights.

From a purely environmental perspective, this move is shortsighted. CFLs do use less energy, which is good. But they also often contain mercury, one of the most damaging—and lasting—environmental toxins. Not a ton of mercury, but still: A whole new CFL recycling structure will be required to prevent us from releasing deadly neurotoxins into the water table. CFLs: coming soon to sushi near you.

Failing to properly recycle your CFLs won't be the same as putting an Evian bottle in the wrong slot. It'll be genuinely hazardous, particularly dangerous to children. Way to go, congressional dimbulbs!

And God forbid you break a bulb. If you do, you are advised by some experts to evacuate the room for 15 minutes to escape the release of mercury vapor, then scrub the area as though there'd been a plutonium spill, virtually wearing a hazmat suit as you dispose of the glass shards. [...]

Good luck. But the greater crime of the new bulbs is not environmental but aesthetic. Think of the ugly glare of fluorescence, the light of prisons, sterile cubicle farms, precinct stations, emergency rooms, motor vehicle bureaus, tenement hallways—remember Tom Wolfe's phrase for the grim, flickering hallway lights in New York tenements: "landlords' haloes"?—and, of course, morgues. Fluorescents seem specially designed to drain life and beauty from the world.  [...]

Not fair!, say the CFL advocates. Our new fluorescent technology is not your father's fluorescence, it doesn't drain blood from complexions like a vampire, it doesn't buzz and flicker the way the old ones did.

I've tried the new CFLs, and they are a genuine improvement—they don't flicker perceptibly, or buzz, or make your skin look green. There is a difference, and I'd be in favor of replacing all current fluorescent bulbs with CFLs. But even CFLs glare and blare—they don't have that inimitable incandescent glow. So don't let them take lamplight away. Don't let them ban beauty.

Link: In defense of incandescent light.

I use CFLs, but still have some incandescents kicking around.  I couple of years ago I bought some full-spectrum incandescents, which I find much nicer for reading than regular incandescents, and they also last very long.  CFLs give worse light than either, and people seem to be ignoring the disposal/recycling problem.

Google tells me there are now bulbs marketed as "full-spectrum compact fluorescent" but I can't tell if the light output is really comparable.  I suspect "full" is marketing-speak for "a little bit wider" spectrum, but I may be wrong.
 

The Greening of Nuclear Power

Karl Grossman has an article in Extra!, the magazine from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), on the forces behind the new push for nuclear power.  He begins:

Nuclear advocates in government and the nuclear industry are engaged in a massive, heavily financed drive to revive atomic power in the United States—with most of the mainstream media either not questioning or actually assisting in the promotion.

“With a very few notable exceptions, such as the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. media have turned the same sort of blind, uncritical eye on the nuclear industry’s claims that led an earlier generation of Americans to believe atomic energy would be too cheap to meter,” comments Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The nuclear industry’s public relations effort has improved over the past 50 years, while the natural skepticism of reporters toward corporate claims seems to have disappeared.”

The New York Times continues to be, as it was a half-century ago when nuclear technology was first advanced, a media leader in pushing the technology, which collapsed in the U.S. with the 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accidents. The Times has showered readers with a variety of pieces advocating a nuclear revival, all marbled with omissions and untruths.

Link: Money is the Real Green Power.

I heard about this on FAIR's radio show, CounterSpin.  I usually find CounterSpin pretty grating to listen to, despite the fact that I agree with their positions (usually quite far left).  To me the hosts sound awfully smug most of the time.

The Politicisation of Science

Sociologist Frank Furedi has an interesting column at Spiked Online about how scientific authority is replacing religious and moral authority.  Link: The tyranny of science (via Arts & Letters Daily).

National Research Council says Cell Phone Health Studies are Needed

From Reuters:

Researchers should study more children and pregnant women in trying to figure out if cell phones or other wireless devices could damage health, the U.S. National Research Council advised on Thursday.

A few studies have indicated a possible link between mobile telephone use and brain tumors, although far more show no connection. But because wireless devices have become almost ubiquitous, researchers wants to ensure their safety.

The Food and Drug Administration asked the National Research Council to recommend some future lines of study. The Council, which advises Congress and the federal government on scientific matters, held a meeting of experts including engineers and biologists and has now released the full report.

Most studies have looked only at short-term effects on healthy adults, the report said.

         

More study needs to be done on multiple, long-term, low-intensity radiofrequency (RF) exposure, the report said.

Link: Study children and cell phones, researchers advise (Globe & Mail/Reuters).

The NRC's press release, which links to the full report is here: Report Identifies Research to Bolster Knowledge of Any Potential Health Effects of Wireless Communication Devices.

Technology in Wartime Conference

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is hosting a one-day public conference on Technology in Wartime.  It will take place January 26th at Stanford University.  From the conference description:

This conference will explore how computer technology is used during war -- both for the purposes of combat/defense, as well as for human rights interventions into war-torn regions. Topics will include high tech weapons systems, cyberwarfare, autonomous aircraft, mobile robots, internet surveillance, anonymous communication, and privacy-enhancing technologies that aid human rights workers documenting conditions in war-torn countries and help soldiers communicate their experiences in blogs and e-mail.

Our goal will be to consider the ethical implications of wartime technologies and how these technologies are likely to affect civilization in years to come. Ultimately we want to engage a pressing question of our time: What should socially-responsible computer professionals do in a time of high tech warfare?

Participants will include technology experts, military professionals, policy-makers, scholars, and human rights workers. Confirmed speakers include Bruce Schneier (BT Counterpane Security), Barbara Simons (ACM), Herb Lin (NSF), Cindy Cohn (EFF), Patrick Ball (Benetech), Neil Rowe (US Naval Academy), Ronald Arkin (Georgia Tech), and Noah Shachtman (Wired magazine's war correspondent).

The proceedings will be broadcast live on the Web, and the presentations collected in book form online, released under a CC license, and made available to the public and policy makers looking for expert opinions on wartime technology issues during the election year.

Link: Technology in Wartime.

I'm planning to attend and will write something about it here afterwards.

See also this post about it by conference organizer Annalee Newitz at io9: Will We Hold Robots Accountable for War Crimes?

Nominate Your Choices for Best Tech Writing

Digital Culture Books (a project out of the University of Michigan) publishes a series called The Best of Technology Writing and is looking for nominations for the next edition, to be edited by Clive Thompson.  The first two years had a lot of excellent stuff.  You can buy them in paperback or read them for free online: Digital Culture Books. 

Nominations of your favorite pieces published in 2007 will be accepted until January 31st -- nominate here.

(via if:book)