LJWorld.com

Posted by Paul Decelles on December 28, 2009 at 9:22 a.m.

• permalink

Anticipation

Reply 12 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on November 26, 2009 at 1:55 p.m.

• permalink

The Day Patrol

Reply 12 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on October 21, 2009 at 10:26 p.m.

• permalink

In Amber Light…

Reply 7 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on May 29, 2009 at 5:27 p.m.

• permalink

Hey Maggots!

Reply 31 comments from and 4 others

Posted by Paul Decelles on March 14, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.

• permalink

Some people watch for the first robin of spring

Reply 14 comments from and 2 others

Posted by Paul Decelles on January 17, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.

• permalink

What’s blooming?

For me it's plants especially in the winter here, since there is rarely enough snow in Lawrence to make winter worthwhile.This bloom is from a cactus called Gymnocalycium. The flowers are not that spectacular,. The whole plant is maybe 2 inches tall not counting the flower. But in the right light maybe most anything can be beautiful.This afternoon as the light fades the flower closes.By the way, a chlorophyll lacking variety of Gymnocalycium is what's used to make those red topped grafted cactuses you see in stores. Since it can't make chlorophyll the only way to maintain it is is to graft it onto another cactus which can carry out photosynthesis.

Reply 2 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on October 28, 2008 at 11:37 p.m.

• permalink

Science and the Kansas Board of Education Race

By the way,Kansas Citizens for Science has just released a survey of the Board of Education candidates in this year's election. Might be of interest to note that evolution is not dead as a political issue. Also one local candidate did not respond. So go to, read the survey and draw your own conclusions and if you want post your own answers!The survey asked the following questions:1. As a State Board of Education member, which of the following organizations would you trust to inform your decision-making in regards to science? Check all that apply:a. American Association for the Advancement of Science_b. The Intelligent Design Network _c. The National Academies of Science _d. The Discovery Institute _e. The American Institute of Biological Sciences _f. Answers in Genesis
_g. The National Science Teachers Association _h. The Institute for Creation Research
_Other organizations you trust in the area of science: (Please name) 2. Would you, if elected, propose revising the science standards before the next regularly scheduled revision, or support such a revisionif another board member proposed it?3. Do you support an age-appropriate, medically-accurate, comprehensive approach (often referred to as abstinence plus) to sexual education for the students of Kansas?4. Do you think it is appropriate for individual state board members to write state curricular standards instead of relying on the board's own appointed committees of professionals from each curricular field?5. Do you have any other comments about science education you would wish to share with the voters of Kansas?

Reply 7 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on October 28, 2008 at 7:23 p.m.

• permalink

Sarah Palin and Fruit Flies

Governor Palin has taken swipe at science. In a recent speech she criticized geneticists for studying fruit flies of all things. I guess if you have never taken biology or maybe were half a sleep you might not know that fruit flies are one of the major model organisms used in genetics. Fruit flies have been used to investigate all aspects of genetics from development to evolution. And fruit flies have even contributed to our understanding of autism and other developmental disabilities, allegedly a key interest of Palin.Watch Governor Palin's fruit fly speech here:Now granted, she is giving her famous earmark speech, but perhaps she ought to look at bigger financial fish to fry. I really hoped for better than this sort of populist pandering from the McCain ticket. After all, except for an occasional foray into populist rhetoric with his anti bear DNA study comments, Senator McCain is supportive of science and technology. But Governor Palin has proven herself to be scientifically illiterate, or at the very least scientifically ignorant.Here is just one example of the contribution fruit flies have made to understanding biology, and one close to Palin's interest in autism:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905123832.htmBut I guess if you are skeptical about evolution as Palin apparently is, then maybe you simply have no rational reason to think studying other organisms can contribute anything to understanding humans. Sorry Senator McCain, but the Governor is a deal breaker for this biologist.

Reply 21 comments from and 7 others

Posted by Paul Decelles on October 17, 2008 at 8:31 a.m.

• permalink

Technology Investment..where to begin

There is a nice article in the NY Times comparing the two presidential candidate's vision for investment in science and technology. Definitely this is worth a look since McCain and Obama have very different visions for the role of government and the private sector in technology investment.Of course it is all for naught if we as a society are not investing in making sure our kids are scientifically literate. The other day an LJWorld article trumpeted the success Lawrence schools were having in improving math and reading scores. That is very commendable assuming that the tests used have any relationship to reading ability in the real world.But look more closely at the graphic that came with the article:http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/e... that science has not fared so well. Curiously neither has history. Could it be because these represent areas of learning where reading and math skills need to be applied? Maybe our reading and math test scores don't really translated to applications.Or maybe or society does not value science and history. After all these disciplines say some things that are upsetting to people's cherished beliefs and as we have learned people don't like that very much. So our politicians pander to anti-scientific constituencies.A society that values consumption at the expense of production is another culprit. For instance John McCain wants us to build more nuclear power plants. I wonder if we even have the capacity to build and run advanced plants entirely in this country. Yes I know we have companies with advance reactor designs (GE for instance whose stock I own), but the skilled work force to build and run these plants and handle the radioactive materials is aging. Indeed the whole of our scientifically literate work force is aging and there is little replacement from within our own society. I suspect -granted with little hard data- that foreign scientists who might train here are less likely to stay here now as science becomes more globalized.By the way I am not blaming the schools for the test scores. At least in Lawrence we have very dedicated science teachers. But they are working against a whole range of social trends from a consumption oriented society to the anti intellectual/populist nature of our society to parental indifference, peer pressure and over emphasis on sports in the media.Quite frankly either Senator McCain or Obama will be an improvement over President Bush as I have noted before. My preference is for Senator Obama's science policies. But neither one is going to have much luck fostering science and technology in our country unless a lot more is done at the state and local and family level to promote interest in science as a career.

Reply 6 comments from

Posted by Paul Decelles on August 29, 2008 at 2:04 p.m.

• permalink

Obama and McCain on Science

Several people have asked for my take on the two Presidential tickets with respect to their attitudes toward science. So here goes. From my perspective, there are good things and bad things about both candidates and science. Looking at the official web sites, Obama appears to have the better fleshed out positions and there are some important differences.McCain seems more supportive of the idea that we need to consider nuclear power as part of our new energy mix, a stand I actually support given the new safer reactor designs that are available. Obama's position on nuclear power is less clear.McCain's position on the space program is more similar to mine since I believe that a strong space program including a manned component along with robotics is vital to our long-term security and technological innovation. Obama has been openly skeptical of NASA's current direction and it is not clear to me that he has the same enthusiasm for the Space program that McCain has.http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.phpBut see this article from SpaceRef:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880where the Obama campaign has fleshed out a detailed set of proposals. So maybe my initial impression is misplaced.Obama seems more committed to increasing government support for science and science education than does McCain at least according to this article:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93539298Of course what will happen when campaign promises meet economic and political reality is not at all clear.The article has a good comparison between the two candidates stand on other science related issues.With respect to global warming (I mean climate change) their positions are similar on the surface. However Obama seems less willing to rely just on free market forces to respond without targeted government investment in development of new technologies. Both candidates support a so called cap and trade system for trading carbon credits but Obama seems to be arguing that if we are not careful the system will end up benefiting oil and coal producers.Obama is more enamored with use of biofuels such as ethanol than I might like. Indeed he has the endorsement of the American Corn Grower's Association:http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08/25/american-corn-growers-association-endorses-obama/McCain sometimes seems to be positioning himself as a bit like William Proxmire whose "Golden Fleece" awards were meant to expose government boondoggles but from time to time merely exposed Proxmire's ignorance or unwillingness to find out why scientists do some of the seemingly crazy studies they do. This McCain tendency was highlighted when he poked fun a study of DNA in bears, not understanding that these sorts of genetic studies are useful for understanding the biology of bears and managing bear populations.Maybe this is just be an expression of McCain's maverick streak, but it could play out in bad science policy.See:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bearsMy unease about McCain is heightened now that we have the VP choices. Biden is known as a strong science advocate who supports embryonic stem cell research.See these links from The Scientists and Engineer's For America (SEA) web site about Biden:http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/joseph-biden-presidential-candidate/http://sefora.org/2008/08/22/obama-picks-biden-for-vp-how-is-he-on-science/See also this analysis from Scientific American:http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=biden-brings-focus-on-energy-policy-2008-08-25According to the Scientific American analysis, Biden is less enamored with clean coal technology than Obama saying we ought to export it to China given that countries rapid building of coal fired plants.Biden's attitude toward the space program is hard to assess. One tidbit from the blog Science Politics is Obama's plan to resurrect the National Space council which is chaired by the Vice President. This could raise the visibility of science in an Obama administration.http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/08/23/biden-on-space/Palin's views on science are less clear but she supports teaching creationism or at least letting it come up in discussions about evolution.http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.htmlAt least she seems to recognize that climate change is real and we need to respond to it. Of course she's from Alaska where the effects of human activity on climate are pretty hard to deny. I suspect that she would not support embryonic stem cell research given her anti choice stance.Biden has made his feeling about intelligent design and creationism quite clear. According to the SEA article Biden is quoted as saying about intelligent design and creationism:""This is reversible, man. This is reversible. We don't have to go down this road. I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!"By the way McCain believes in evolution:http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/mccain_and_crea.htmlHe is quoted as saying:"'I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view,' he said. 'I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not."Obama is more forthright:"Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.aspOne refreshing thing- both McCain and Obama have pledged to avoid the politicization of Science that has plagued the current administration. See this link for details:http://evolvinginkansas.blogspot.com/2008/08/npr-mccain-obama-vow-to-keep-politics.htmlSee alsohttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93539298So there you have it, my take on what the two tickets are saying about science and technology. Both tickets have to be an improvement over the current administration at least at the very top, though I am disturbed about what McCain's VP choice suggests about his real attitudes toward science.For more on the candidate's science positions see these links fro the American Association for the Advancement of Science:Obama:http://election2008.aaas.org/comparisons/obama.shtmlMcCain:http://election2008.aaas.org/comparisons/mccain.shtmland this link from Physics Today:http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/On balance I believe Obama has the better fleshed out positions and seems more likely to support science aggressively. I am bothered by McCain's Proxmire like dismissal of science he doesn't understand as evidenced by his bear DNA comments, and his running mate's misconceptions about science are equally disturbing.So just based on science policy, this admittedly liberal geek is giving Obama the nod.

Reply 22 comments from and 5 others