elsaf
in
obama_2008
Science... think about it
Last night, John McCain mocked the idea of using federal funds to study "bear DNA." Let's set aside for a moment the fact that McCain did not vote against that particular earmark project. What I want to point out is that this is part of the general "anti-science" stance of the Republican party.
McCain said something to the effect that he didn't know whether it was a criminal investigation or paternity tests. Ha, ha...
What that particular $1.1 million went for was a study to determine the exact size and distribution of the endangered grizzly bear population in Montana. Scientists gathered and tested grizzly bear fur off strategically positioned "bear hair traps" and analyzed the DNA to determine how far each group of bears was ranging and whether separate groups were mixing.
The Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project
Project Description
The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) in northwest Montana is one of the last strongholds of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. Of the six established grizzly bear recovery zones, the NCDE is the third largest in area, potentially harboring the greatest number of grizzly bears, and is the only zone contiguous to a strong Canadian population. For these reasons it may have the best prospect of long-term survival for this threatened species. However, little information exists about the bears in this region and as agencies strive to recover the threatened grizzly bear, it is clear that there is a need to assess the grizzly bear population in the NCDE.
Managers and biologists are working to identify population size, trend, survival, and the corridors that link separate populations. Advances in genetic technology allow us to address these parameters through the identification of species, sex, and individuals from DNA extracted from bear hair without ever handling a bear. This project will apply these techniques in conjunction with statistical models to estimate the number of grizzly bears inhabiting the NCDE. DNA will be analyzed from bear hair collected along survey routes and from systematically positioned hair snag stations. Grizzly bears identified from hair samples will be used in a mark recapture model to estimate the population of bears in the NCDE and will provide an independent calibration of the population index developed from survey routes. This information will be used to address future bear conservation issues.
In short, DNA testing offers a cheaper and safer alternative to capturing, tranquilizing and tagging bears. The objective is to determine just how endangered the bears are and how much management is needed to protect them without interfering with the ranching activities of humans in the same general area. (Montana)
Is this money wasted? You could argue that studying and protecting bears is less important than providing health care to children. But Republicans are opposed to health care for children as well. That same $1.1 million would have paid for a little less than 5 minutes of the war in Iraq. (Based on a $10 billion per month cost.)
But silly comparisons aside, the question remains: What is basic scientific research worth? Not just in dollars, in what it contributes to our society.
Science is under attack these days. It seems like every month we hear about another school board that wants to undermine science education by forcing teachers to teach "intelligent design" (creationism repackaged) along beside it. We know that John McCain has chosen a running mate who holds just that view. She also denies the human responsibility for global warming, and may even be a "Dominionist."
Out here in the "reality based community," we understand that there simply isn't any conflict between faith and science. Faith and science exist side by side for entirely different purposes. I always like to say, faith allows us to believe things that are hard to understand, and science allows us to understand things that are hard to believe.
By mocking the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, McCain is coming down on the side of those who fear science.
The earmark question is worth considering. We probably do need a better method of divvying up federal funding for local projects. Barack Obama has said as much.
But McCain's disdain for this particular project points out one of the reasons why we need a better system. McCain mocks the project because he doesn't understand it. And why should a military man and politician understand the intricacies of wildlife conservation. If you asked Sen. McCain "Is it reasonable to spend $1 million a year on wildlife conservation?" he'd probably say, yes, because everybody wants to be green these days.
Scientific projects should be reviewed and prioritized by people with expertise in the field, not politicians.
And our politicians need to help educate the public about the goals of scientific research. No matter how deeply we probe the origins of the universe with huge particle colliders, or the structure of life with gene mapping and DNA analysis, the goal is NOT and has never been to disprove or prove the existence of God. This is simply not what science does.
Science seeks to illuminate the mechanisms of life and creation. It has no opinion and seeks no opinion about the issues of whether a supreme being set those mechanisms in motion. Scientists are people of faith in approximately the same proportion as any other segment of the population.
So, please, Sen. McCain, try to understand a project before you mock it.
(This essay may be reposted with credit.)
McCain said something to the effect that he didn't know whether it was a criminal investigation or paternity tests. Ha, ha...
What that particular $1.1 million went for was a study to determine the exact size and distribution of the endangered grizzly bear population in Montana. Scientists gathered and tested grizzly bear fur off strategically positioned "bear hair traps" and analyzed the DNA to determine how far each group of bears was ranging and whether separate groups were mixing.
The Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project
Project Description
The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) in northwest Montana is one of the last strongholds of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. Of the six established grizzly bear recovery zones, the NCDE is the third largest in area, potentially harboring the greatest number of grizzly bears, and is the only zone contiguous to a strong Canadian population. For these reasons it may have the best prospect of long-term survival for this threatened species. However, little information exists about the bears in this region and as agencies strive to recover the threatened grizzly bear, it is clear that there is a need to assess the grizzly bear population in the NCDE.
Managers and biologists are working to identify population size, trend, survival, and the corridors that link separate populations. Advances in genetic technology allow us to address these parameters through the identification of species, sex, and individuals from DNA extracted from bear hair without ever handling a bear. This project will apply these techniques in conjunction with statistical models to estimate the number of grizzly bears inhabiting the NCDE. DNA will be analyzed from bear hair collected along survey routes and from systematically positioned hair snag stations. Grizzly bears identified from hair samples will be used in a mark recapture model to estimate the population of bears in the NCDE and will provide an independent calibration of the population index developed from survey routes. This information will be used to address future bear conservation issues.
In short, DNA testing offers a cheaper and safer alternative to capturing, tranquilizing and tagging bears. The objective is to determine just how endangered the bears are and how much management is needed to protect them without interfering with the ranching activities of humans in the same general area. (Montana)
Is this money wasted? You could argue that studying and protecting bears is less important than providing health care to children. But Republicans are opposed to health care for children as well. That same $1.1 million would have paid for a little less than 5 minutes of the war in Iraq. (Based on a $10 billion per month cost.)
But silly comparisons aside, the question remains: What is basic scientific research worth? Not just in dollars, in what it contributes to our society.
Science is under attack these days. It seems like every month we hear about another school board that wants to undermine science education by forcing teachers to teach "intelligent design" (creationism repackaged) along beside it. We know that John McCain has chosen a running mate who holds just that view. She also denies the human responsibility for global warming, and may even be a "Dominionist."
Out here in the "reality based community," we understand that there simply isn't any conflict between faith and science. Faith and science exist side by side for entirely different purposes. I always like to say, faith allows us to believe things that are hard to understand, and science allows us to understand things that are hard to believe.
By mocking the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, McCain is coming down on the side of those who fear science.
The earmark question is worth considering. We probably do need a better method of divvying up federal funding for local projects. Barack Obama has said as much.
But McCain's disdain for this particular project points out one of the reasons why we need a better system. McCain mocks the project because he doesn't understand it. And why should a military man and politician understand the intricacies of wildlife conservation. If you asked Sen. McCain "Is it reasonable to spend $1 million a year on wildlife conservation?" he'd probably say, yes, because everybody wants to be green these days.
Scientific projects should be reviewed and prioritized by people with expertise in the field, not politicians.
And our politicians need to help educate the public about the goals of scientific research. No matter how deeply we probe the origins of the universe with huge particle colliders, or the structure of life with gene mapping and DNA analysis, the goal is NOT and has never been to disprove or prove the existence of God. This is simply not what science does.
Science seeks to illuminate the mechanisms of life and creation. It has no opinion and seeks no opinion about the issues of whether a supreme being set those mechanisms in motion. Scientists are people of faith in approximately the same proportion as any other segment of the population.
So, please, Sen. McCain, try to understand a project before you mock it.
(This essay may be reposted with credit.)