Big brother type surveys--no thank you!

Allegedly, graduating doctoral students are required to complete the government's Survey for Earned Doctorates (SED). This document started with seemingly benign questions about my matriculation date, research discipline, university, etc. However, as I progressed to the later pages, this questionnaire began to ask, what I thought, were ridiculously personal questions.

For example, the SED asked how much personal debt you would have at the time of graduation from either undergraduate or graduate education. Then the SED began to probe the nature of your employment status following graduation. Simply asking what sector you would be working in was not enough, the survey went further when it asked what company hired you, where you would be located, and it even had the gall to ask the exact salary you would be receiving for your position. Now, for bashful survey takers (because this was not anonymous) the survey was generous enough to provide an alternative method to answer this question, where you could select narrow salary rangest.

Now, you may ask whether the government survey ended here? Shockingly, it did not. To conclude, the SED asked for the last 4 digits of one's social security number, place of birth and birth date, as well as personal contact information in case the need should arise to communicate with me regarding my answers on this survey.

As a responsible citizen, I understand the need to statistically analyze the work force. It does provide a snapshot about the health of the nation, as well as enable future projections of the economy. Furthermore, much like the national census, I see how it is historically interesting to record trends in the demographics. One day, I may be a data point that historians note was the time where young women with doctoral degrees began outnumbering men.

What I do object to however, is the disturbingly intrusive nature of this governmental SED questionnaire. Now, the majority of graduating students probably willingly provided all of the requested information without blinking an eye. But what concerns me the most is that there may have been many other students that begrudgingly supplied this private personal information despite a feeling of apprehension because of the mandate that this survey be turned in to the registrar's office for completion of one's degree.

My hope is that these fellow students arrived at the same conclusion that I did, which was to leave the intrusive sections blank. Whether it's a government survey, or a private solicitation of personal information, you have the right to not participate. So, don't be pressured to comply when your gut says no, especially when it is not anonymous.

Obama emergency disaster hypocrisy

After the recent water main break in Weston Massachusetts that caused a disruption of clean water to 2 million customers, the Obama administration made an Emergency Disaster Declaration. Essentially, this permits FEMA to send federal aid money to Massachusetts. As a resident of MA was was affected during this incident, I found this response by the White House to be absurd.

First of all, the water supply was never disrupted. Customers could still shower and use toilets as normal. The only precaution necessary during the water main break repair process was that water should be boiled for a few minutes prior to use for brushing your teeth, cooking or drinking.

As a scientist, I was shocked at how ridiculous some people were being as a result of this boil-water order. Local news coverage talked about stores suspected of price-gauging and consumers hording bottled water. Instead of local and federal government assuming a leadership position and telling the public that there should be no fear of drinking the water so long as it was boiled, the state and federal government declared a state of emergency.

While MA was receiving a swift handout of federal tax payer dollars, legitimate catastrophes slowly found their way on the Obama Administration radar map. For example, it took several days for Obama to issue a similar Emergency Disaster Declaration for Tennessee after massive rainfall in that state killed 21 people and caused millions of dollars in property damage. Furthermore, it took over a week for the Obama administration to get involved in the environmental and human health hazard of the ongoing BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

In juxtaposition to these two serious disasters, I still fail to see why the state of Massachusetts merited federal disaster relief money. This begs the question whether Obama loosely grants federal aid to friends of the White House like the Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Isn't this politics as usual? Doesn't this exemplify everything Obama claims to be against? Is this not the epitome of hypocrisy?

The erosion of American volunteerism

I had an interesting conversation with some co-workers the other day regarding volunteerism. One colleague came from Germany, another from China. Both explained how in their countries there were not opportunities to volunteer for a day, like soup kitchens. They elaborated that there was no cultural understanding of volunteerism because the mentality was that if you devote time to something you should be financially compensated in some manner.

These simple anecdotes made me reflect on how American volunteerism, or individually motivated social charity, is our nation's most commendable asset. Therefore, this trait should be nurtured and instilled in each new generation because it defines everything that is good about America. Knowing this, I think we must rethink the popular political philosophy that it is the government's job to take care of all our social woes.

Let's be honest about the consequences of big government by revisiting the issue of existing insolvent entitlement programs like social security, medicare and medicaid. Politicians have galvanized support for these pieces of legislation with palatable slogans that they are moral and charitable policies. True, the government has identified real problems. But these governmental solutions are fiscally unsustainable.

Also, I think there is a hidden cost to entitlement programs. As the federal government slowly monopolizes the social charity industry, the constituency will be stripped slowly of their personal compassion and kindness. To paraphrase Glenn Beck, "Do you feel more charitable when you personally help someone or volunteer, or when you pay taxes?"

For those that don't understand the opposition from the Tea Party and Republican party toward government expansion, this unintended consequence of entitlement programs which I have just articulated is one justification for the current cultural strife. People, including myself, are deeply concerned that if we do not divert from our current trajectory, future generations will no longer inherit the values that have defined the American spirit of giving. Sadly, this will mean the end of American exceptionalism.

Entitlement will be the death of us?

With federal spending ballooning and the top presidential economic advisor suggesting tax increases are looming around the corner, most responsible Americans are left wondering why should we pay more for what amounts to a false sense of social entitlement? March 18th I wrote about Mitt Romney's book "No Apologies". In that post, I mentioned the exploding costs of social security and the projected bankrupting of American due to Medicaid. To add to that economic insult, Obama's health care monstrosity will dump 30-50 million more people into the already insolvent Medicaid program. While this health care bill wins him short term gains among his base, it has signaled a death toll for future American economic prosperity.

The reason for this rant, is that today I saw advertisements targeting the elderly. This ad encouraged seniors to visit The Scooter Store in order to get their very own scooter. The best part of this ad, is that the scooter is completely free of charge thanks to Medicaid. The advertisement even had the audacity to say to prospective customers not to worry because there would be "no cost to you."

So, if the elderly patient doesn't pay, who does? Oh, that's right, everyone else will pick up the tab for this non-essential device. Sure it might increase the individual's mobility, but who is checking first to see whether the individual truly can not afford this device on their own budget?

I don't know about you, but I'm shocked at our contemporary mindset that is pervasive in popular media. When did it become expected that you should have whatever you want in this world, even if you can't afford it or don't earn it for yourself? Furthermore, when did we start embracing this sentiment that hard working people should have to support free-loaders?

You might have heard people argue that these entitlement programs are the moral thing to do. The next time you hear this mass coddling, tell them the Christian (or other religiously motivated) noble form of charity is based on helping those less fortunate to help themselves. Like a child, the moral way to help the needy is to provide them resources and tools so that they become self-reliant and no longer need your support. Because only in such an upbringing, will the needy acquired character, a work ethic and sense of personal responsibility. When that has happened, then the truly moral end will have been reached, which is that these men will have become uplifted through true freedom. So, the next time you hear this false morality justification of government entitlement programs, tell those pied pipers that what they offer is merely a modern form of slavery that fetters man in a perpetual state of dependency on the state.

Another Obama takeover of the private sector?

Under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is pushing forward with their calls for "Net neutrality." This policy agenda aims to restrict and regulate internet service providers (ISPs) from making business decisions on how to control their private sector communications networks.

The FCC would like to limit ISPs from making sound business decisions that balance consumer access with product quality considerations. One example is how ISPs, in particular wireless companies, have different service plans that vary in price given the amount of a consumer's data usage. Under Net neutrality, the FCC wants to prohibit this "discrimination." Instead, the FCC argues that all plans are created equal, thus people should pay a single rate for unlimited access. Does this philosophy sound eerily familiar to the health care movement of the Obama administration?

Although, the reality of the matter is that the FCC and the Obama administration have it all wrong. Broadband and other wireless access are limited resources in the sense that at any point in time there is a maximal usage capacity that is defined by the infrastructure that these private ISPs have spent their own capital to create. Therefore, because the network capacity is limited, these ISPs have marketed a product where the consumer pays only for what he uses and not for what everyone else is using. This fair policy based on stratified usage/cost plans is not corporate greed, rather a consumer benefit aimed at maintaining product quality. The principle for this is that as more people pay for higher usage plans, ISPs have more capital to invest in infrastructure improvements.

If the FCC and the Obama administration get their way, private telecommunications, wireless and cable companies may soon find that these new regulations become too costly and or decrease the product quality to an extent that consumer satisfaction is compromised. What happens then? The market self adjusts as consumers bail on sub-par plans, thus leading ISPs to increase prices in order to cover pre-existing network infrastructure costs. At that point you will most likely hear people say "look, the private ISPs can't provide cost effective free press access to the internet so the government should start to provide these services. Because after all, access to information is a right for all Americans." That's when we wake up one day with government controlled internet or state-run free press.

Before we get to this worrisome state of affairs, let's acknowledge how the status quo has been quite beneficial. Specifically, it has grown industries, made jobs and spawned new technologies. These FCC Net neutrality policies are nothing but another governmental intrusion that is simply a domestic form of industrial and economic sabotage. Let's face it, you can't stack the deck against industries and expect them to keep our economic engine going. In order to protect the prosperity of our nation, we have to fight government encroachment into sectors that freely respond to market, i.e. consumer driven forces.

If you want to stop this insult into our nation's economy, share this article and visit http://nointernettakeover.com/ before April 8th to petition these policies.

Tinnitus remedy or hoax?

As someone who occasionally has tinnitus, a false sensation of ringing, buzzing or whooshing in the ear, I tune in when I hear advertisements regarding this medical oddity. Recently, I've seen marketing strategies for a product called Quietus.

Like so many vitamins or supplements, this homeopathic "remedy" is not FDA approved. Furthermore, I could find no documentation regarding the "active" ingredient or compounds incorporated into the Quietus digestible tablets and ear drops.

What concerns me is the number of people who may actually order products like Quietus. The reality about these alleged panaceas, is that they have not been scientifically scrutinized with regard to their efficacy and safety. There are no data demonstrating that this product targets any biological pathway implicated in the tinnitus disorder. Therefore, this company is selling a product to people without evidence that it does anything beneficial while not causing adverse side effects. This seems downright irresponsible and even criminal. So, buyer beware!

CNN indirectly endorses the anti-religion movement

Given my recent post titled "Founding fathers rejected virtuous atheism, shouldn't we?" I thought it was relevant to discuss a recent CNN news feature (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/25/ted.sam.harris/index.html). This mainstream media report discusses the message of Sam Harris. He studied philosophy at Stanford University, and received his doctoral degree in neuroscience from UCLA. Laudable achievements that I commend, until I discovered the way in which Harris has decided to "help" society.

Harris gained much fame for his books titled "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." These books topped the New York Times bestsellers list. He even received a literary award. More recently, Harris founded "Project Reason", a nonprofit organization which he has dedicated to marginalizing religious values within society. It is Harris' belief that science has all the answers that rational beings need and secular values are sufficient for a stable society.

Why Harris has received so much acclaim escapes me. His work isn't seminal or novel. In fact, it merely plagiarizes past atheistic sentiment. Most of the CNN video clip shows Harris incoherently rambling from one topic to another, blaming religion for all the world's ills, as well as our inability to overcome them. He belittles the religious for having false certainty without proof, in other words faith. However, he then goes on to make unsubstantiated claims of his own, which is apparently okay as long as he's not religious.

In our current times of uncertainty, it is tempting for people to believe that Harris' message will offer a new pathway forward. But proceed with caution, for such a belief is more likely to lead to societal regression, and consequently, more frightening times. Imagine a world where man is supreme and beholden to none for his actions in this world. Can we say "Lord of the Flies?"

Before one even considers following Harris' message, it is important to point out the fallacious nature of his argument. When one does so, it becomes obvious that the atheist movement is not a loftier more righteous path, but just a more judgmental or elitist one. The reason I say this is because this counter-cultural movement is rooted in the belief that we, the contemporary generation, are superior intellectually to the previous ones. It exhibits complete disregard for the numerous great minds that have spanned the ages from all disciplines like mathematics, science, literature, art and philosophy. This movement is like the dog that bites the hand off the one that feeds him.

In addition to this arrogant belief, Harris makes another unsubstantiated logical leap to arrive at his atheistic solution. If our science and knowledge is truly greater than our predecessors, as he believes, then our forefathers' reverence for religion must surely be inferior as well. Ergo, our modern age has rendered religion defunct and unenlightened. However, I would contend that our society's continued respect for classical art, music, literature, philosophy, law, architecture, mathematics and science is irrefutable proof that Harris's logic is actually flawed. In fact, the old is not dead, but deeply alive and central to everything modern. The only difference that I can see between the modern and past intellectual elites, is that the past ones pursued knowledge and truth with humility.

Sadly, when I was younger and misguided I could see plausibility in Harris' argument. But now, I attribute that to the fact that man's ego distorts reality. In actuality, we are not unique because human nature has changed very little over the ages. We are still driven and motivated by the same good desires, and struggle with the same destructive temptations. The need for religious values is no more obsolete than will air be for our very breathe.

It is true freedom to live in a country where people like Sam Harris can publish and share his viewpoint. However, we should question why CNN and the mainstream mass communications market only ever highlight Harris's atheistic viewpoint. Such practices have the same effect on society as propaganda movements, whereby presenting one view often enough will make it appear that there is only one logical view. After all, when mainstream media demands secularization this inevitably creates a monopolistic control on the public conversation that can only be filled by the views espoused by people like Harris. This propagates the notion that no one intelligent believes in religion because no one is allowed to be publicly seen talking about it anymore. It is the blind leading the blind.

In CNN's article, Harris discusses that religion is detracting us from more pressing geopolitical issues. I think Harris' myopic viewpoint that the challenges we face today are more terrifying than those of our forefathers is the real lie. Like our predecessors, there is fear of the future and uncertainty over whether we can rise to the task. The one true and tested way that human kind has persevered through the centuries of doubt has been through men of character shaped by their faith and religious virtue. So next time you hear sentiments like these, ask why the war on religion? It's led us this far.

Sick and twisted: public high school helps child get abortion without parental consent

I heard this story last night on the news and I was disgusted! A clinic within a Seattle Washington public high school helped a 15 year old child, a minor, go for an abortion after she tested positive with a pregnancy test that she had taken at the school. The child's mother was furious and has recently gone public about her ire, and I would say rightly so.

I was shocked to realize that there are such morally corrupt people in this world. This clinic lobbied a minor, without parental consent, to terminate a pregnancy. Worst of all, "they [the school clinic] just told her [the child] that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility." Children at all ages look to adults for guidance. What kind of person would think it is acceptable to teach an impressionable child that personal responsibility is dead and that saving a few bucks is more important than saving a life?

Even if you separate from the abortion issue, this clinic's subversion of the family unit is deplorable. What kind of person thinks that it is acceptable to teach a minor that they should lie and hide information from their parents?

I know abortion is a divisive issue, and that there are people that fervently believe in a woman's right to choose. But, I think even pro-choice individuals would have to agree that the actions of this Seattle school clinic are radical and disgraceful. I think every parent expects his rights as his child's legal guardian to be respected here in America.

If you want to protect your parental rights, fight back and reclaim them! If you find this equally appalling, ask your local school district what their policy is on the acquisition of parental consent before termination of a pregnancy. Also, be advised that you should read the fine print and ask questions before you unknowingly sign away your parental rights. The mother of this Seattle teen signed a consent form with the clinic at the beginning of the year, assuming it was to grant permission for the clinic to give her child simple or routine medical care in her absence. This matter extends beyond the school district. You may find that you have to lobby your local representatives in order to overturn state legislation that permits such predatory practices on a child patient.

Please share this article to parents, or anyone, that you know.

Scientist misrepresents research in a bizarre op-ed piece

CNN news featured an article that I have linked to the title of this post. It was titled "Love, sex and the male brain." It was full of interesting and controversial comments from Dr. Louann Brizendine. CNN listed that she has the following credentials:

1. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
2. National Board of Medical Examiners
3. Clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco.
4. Founder and director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic

Naturally, she must be a credible and reliable scientific voice, right?

I started reading the article that claimed men have a larger dorsal premammillary nucleus which makes them more territorial and hormone fluctuations cause elderly men to become grumpy or jovial. She also states that testosterone is what makes men, well, men. I must say, this is quite a banal hypothesis. Therefore, I don't think Dr. Brizendine will be receiving the Nobel Prize anytime soon.

Where Dr. Brizendine lost me as a reader was when she claimed that men are hardwired biologically to ogle attractive woman in front of their significant other because of testosterone. In essence, she was accusing the male sex of being primitive cave men who can't control themselves. One, I'd argue that woman can and do partake in this same behavior. So this is not a testosterone dependent behavior. In reality, it is a socially learned behavior that simply reflects a lack in social manners and etiquette. Both sexes are equally attracted to people. The real issue is what your parents do or do not teach you is the ideal manner in which to comport oneself. Basically this boils down to whether the person is of the mindset that they see nothing wrong in continuing to window shop for a more attractive model.

Forget this controversial material. After all, Dr. Brizendine was providing an op-ed piece. What bothered me the most is her assertion that female pheromones make men produce prolactin to become doting fathers. Now, this is where I became angry because this seemingly reputable scientist is falsifying scientific data to strengthen her thesis.

First of all, pheromones are well studied in animals and lower organisms. However, very few respected scientific studies have provided data to support the concept of human pheromones. Now, this doesn't mean they don't exist, it's just that they have not been scientifically proven to the extent that it is accepted as fact for animals.

Secondly, her example of pheromones being secreted in order to induce the brain to synthesize prolactin for the benefit of creating a bond with a newborn actually comes from studies in rats. That's right, rats! Furthermore, she has the sexes reversed. The published study titled "Male pheromones initiate prolactin-induced neurogenesis and advance maternal behavior in female mice" from the journal Hormonal Behavior was published in 2008. As the title reveals, it was actually the male rats that released the hormone to strengthen the mother's bond with her pups.

I understand making mistakes, but flagrant manipulation of data is an entirely different beast. Regardless of your area of expertise, you have an obligation to not mislead people intentionally. This article by Dr. Brizendine is nothing more than an irresponsible op-ed piece that overstates and misrepresents scientific data. One can only assume that perhaps she chose to do this in hopes of promoting her new book and upcoming television appearances. Nonetheless, such abuse of power through distortion of the truth at any level should not be condoned.

Another instance of misleading UN global warming data?

Followers or regular readers may remember my earlier posts (noted below) that discussed a United Nations (UN) claim that sadly has gained considerable traction in the mainstream media. Back in 2006, the UN published a report stating that the livestock industry is the major culprit behind global warming. I went on to post my frustration and concern regarding the radical response within Massachusetts to this UN report. Specifically, the city of Cambridge and my own university dining facility have implemented "Meatless Monday" or "Friday Flexitarian" dietary policies in order to combat global warming.

You also may remember that I notified my university dining facility that I would no longer be purchasing food from them as long as such a personally invasive policy was endorsed. They responded, but expectantly were not swayed to change the policy because of my one email. But, today I may have gained some surprise support.

When perusing internet news, I stumbled across the following American Chemical Society (ACS) report:

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_024369&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=28aee2ce-192f-4158-8d7b-136c8433e8eb

This article describes a recent presentation at an ACS meeting by University of California scientist, Dr. Frank Mitloehner. In his talk, Dr. Mitloehner directly challenges the 2006 UN report which claims that the livestock industry is the leading greenhouse gas producer, responsible for 18% of the total global emissions. The basis of his argument is that the the UN did not equitably compare the livestock and transportation (fossil fuel) industry. Specifically, Mitloehner explained that the UN calculated the livestock industry greenhouse gas footprint by counting all sectors of the livestock industry, from growing animal feed, to animal digestive emissions, as well as downstream steps of processing meat and milk into foods. By totaling these many steps, the UN arrived at the widely quoted 18% figure stamped on the livestock industry. However, this same broad analysis was not done for the transportation industry. Dr. Mitloehner discussed that the "transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport life cycle" stages such as the acquisition, processing, burning and shipping of fossil fuels. Inclusion of these other parameters would actually show that transportation dwarfs the livestock industry contribution to global greenhouse gas emission.

Now, this doesn't meant that efforts shouldn't be made to improve the livestock industry. As Dr. Mitloehner states, this "this lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue. I would even argue that it has once again discredited the UN's credibility and underscores the shoddy nature of their scientific analyses. Furthermore, it highlights the ridiculousness of liberal policies to ban meat in the wake of sensational media hype over this issue.

Needless to say, I forwarded this ACS article to my university dining facility. I am interested to see what their response will be in the wake of learning that their personally intrusive "Friday Flexitarian" meal station was irrationally radical and not based on a sound data analysis.

I don't know if you agree, but rather than worrying so much about this fictitious cow and pig threat to the planet, maybe we should be more worried about the transformation of people into such easily manipulated sheep!




Earlier referenced posts:

Friday, March 12, 2010
Flexivores welcome, or not!
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/03/flexivores-welcome-or-not.html

Sunday, February 14, 2010
Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming
http://aroguescientist.blogspot.com/2010/02/cows-and-pigs-are-responsible-for.html

Founding fathers rejected virtuous atheisim, shouldn't we?

My March 8 posting (linked to the title of this post) focused on a recent public school curriculum battle over the central role of religion in our nation's history. Hearing about this controversy rekindled my interest in this subject matter. If anyone is interested in this issue, I've found that W. Cleon Skousen's "The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World" is an easily digestible source of information.

What I've deduced to be the root cause of the recent Texas text book controversy is the fact that there is a growing popular movement within our contemporary American society. This new belief structure embraces the idea that our nation can remain prosperous and just without religion. How can this be accomplished? Through acceptance of the frequently espoused concept of virtuous atheism.

What is virtuous atheism? It is the idea that one can be an atheist, one who does not believe in the existence of a god, but still live a moral and virtuous life. While this is possible for some individuals, its success on a national scale is dubious. This is precisely the reason why our founding fathers articulated their fundamental belief in the importance of religious education in schools.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin all believed in the central importance of religious education in creating a moral and virtuous constituency. Thomas Paine commented that such teaching would ensure that the American people would continue to be "industrious, frugal and honest." For these reasons, the founding fathers advocated teaching core religious principles in schools. Now this didn't mean teaching the Bible, because even in their day the founders were sensitive to denominational differences. Therefore, the founders desired that five fundamental religious beliefs common to all religious sects be taught. It was through this prioritization of core beliefs about the human condition that America became a humble, just and educated people.

Just 40 years after the founding of our nation, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his book "Democracy in America" about America's recipe for success. De Tocqueville noted how "in New England every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things." If the founding fathers had achieved such a high educational standard, it makes one wonder whether the contemporary pressure to expunge these lessons from the public educational curriculum has been a monumental mistake.

Our founding fathers knew what was at stake by not teaching these principles to each generation of Americans. In the words of Thomas Paine, author of "Common Sense," the founders looked to Europe and saw "luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure." Furthermore, they saw the chaos that ensued as a result of popular dechristianization and atheism movements during the bloody French Revolution. In order to safeguard our fledgling nation against the moral decay prevalent in Europe, the founders sought to uphold religious virtue in its citizenry through the home, church and schools.

Some might argue that religious virtues being taught in school, or being present in a politician, violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. However, this is not so. This is because separation was never meant to strip morals and virtue from public officials or the public educational curriculum. Rather, it was meant to ensure individual religious freedom and prevent the church from becoming a tyrannical ruling power, akin to a monarch, who oppressively taxed (through exorbitant tithes) or exerted total and corrupt political authority.

The American realization of separation of church and state was recognized by de Tocqueville. While the prevailing belief in Europe was "that religion and liberty were enemies of each other," de Tocqueville observed that Americans were living proof that personal liberty and religious faith could co-exist. Unlike in Europe, de Tocqueville admired how in America the "clergy remained politically separated from the government but nevertheless provided a moral stability among the people which permitted the government to prosper." This is precisely what the founding fathers dreamed of, a government ruled by the people who in turn were guided by religiously based virtue.

Sadly, somewhere within the 20th century, the motivation behind separation of church and state has been distorted from the original intent. This perversion has happened because of contemporary political agendas. As a result, the true and tested morals and virtues revered by the founders have been erased from the public school curriculum. In addition, politicians are lambasted for voting their conscious in an effort to hold the American people to a higher moral code of conduct.

In reality, this political contentiousness is nothing new. De Tocqueville explained how in Europe it was common practice that "unbelievers...attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a [political] party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government." Even in his day, de Tocqueville keenly realized the false adversarial relationship created in the minds of progressive atheists. Instead of realizing the disagreement was solely in a religious sphere, they elevated the conflict into the political plane.

Unquestioningly, this 170 year old observation by de Tocqueville still accurately depicts today's political arena. This makes one realize how not much has changed. Our forefathers struggled with these same competing belief structures. Yet they wisely saw the threat of virtuous atheism and they chose to reject that path. As a result, we have inherited a powerful and prosperous nation. Therefore, as a nation, we must question the potential outcome of continuing down a pathway of religious rejectionism.

Praise for "No Apology"

A few years ago, Mitt Romney gave a speech at a Department of Homeland Security conference that I attended in Boston. His latest book "No Apology, The Case for American Greatness" reminded me of the content of his speech from 5 years ago.

This book discusses the various problems America is now faced with. Romney touches on foreign threats, as well as our lagging defense spending and failure to produce scientists and engineers. In addition, Romney offers free-market solutions to our economic, health care, energy and educational struggles. Throughout the book, Romney shares his vision on how to move our country forward while staying true to our nation's lofty ideals.

On the potential eve of a new entitlement program, Romney's book is very timely. One chapter of "No Apology" is devoted to the existing entitlement programs promised by our government. Social security, medicare and medicaid are bleeding us dry. The numbers quoted in this book were staggering. In 1965, President Johnson estimated social security would cost $500 million a year. Now in 2010, the annual expenditure is $500 billion, 1000 times higher than anticipated. To understand just how large the entitlement burden is on our economy, Romney states that "the total cost of US entitlement programs accounts for more than half of all federal spending...and is 11 percent of our GDP." For comparison, Romney points out that the entire defense budget is only 4% of the GDP, and that is while we are in two major wars.

Seeing these data is enough to give any rational person pause pertaining to the proposed Obama-care legislation. This controversial health care bill will account for 6% of our GDP. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced today that this bill is conservatively estimated to cost $940 billion for 6 years of government spending (I am excluding the four years we are suppose to pay into the system without receiving benefits). How can any responsible citizen not stop and ask will this entitlement program balloon by a factor of 1000 in forty years just like social security?

At times, Romney's position may be viewed as controversial. Particularly, in his call to decrease pregnancies out of wedlock. However, the statistics about the percentage of pregnancies out of wedlock were shocking. Back in 1960, only 7% of births were to people out of wedlock. Now, some 40% of all pregnancies are out of wedlock. Romney goes on to connect this pregnancy epidemic with our nations economy. He points out that many pregnancies that don't result in marriage often stunt the economic potential of the parent, child and consequently the US economy as a whole.

With regard to education, Romney is pro-choice. Romney supports the right to choose to send children to better performing schools, whether public or private. In addition, Romney offers insight into how to improve our public schools, something essential to our future national prosperity. At the same time, the book's education chapter publishes data showing how smaller class size and more money don't necessarily translate into improved student success. In reality, the only way to improve the educational system is to improve the quality of the teachers. One staggering fact outlined in Romney's book states that "In Finland, they (teachers) are recruited from the top 10 percent; in South Korea from the top 5 percent. But in the United States...our teachers are generally drawn from the bottom third of graduates." This fact was appalling.

Finally, this book leaves the reader with the sentiment that our country has been and still is a great country. Sure we make mistakes and have had flawed policies at times, but overall our country and military is there when it matters for people around the world. Romney offers a refreshingly frank opinion of how ludicrous it is to empathize with the enemies that hate our country and ideals.

I highly recommend this book if you are looking for a simple synopsis of contemporary geopolitical and social challenges coupled with practical small-government solutions. In the wake of all the political shape-shifting in Washington, it is nice to hear a principled and coherent policy agenda that concurrently cultivates the American work ethic, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Modern day eugenics right here in America

The first thing that comes to mind with respect to eugenics, is Nazi Germany's work to cleanse the population of people they deemed genetically undesirable due to their handicap, low intelligence or sexual orientation. But surely eugenics isn't still happening, and certainly not in America, right?

Well, according to a recent FOX News article (linked within this post's title) eugenics is freely being endorsed by a North Carolina based social organization called Project Prevention. The focus of this organization has been to reduce births to drug-addicts, a seemingly noble idea. Unfortunately, the methods employed by this organization are nefarious.

Recently, Project Prevention has decided to offer drug-addicted woman a $300 incentive to not become pregnant. It sounds harmless until you hear the lengths to which this organization will go in order to achieve this objective.

As cited in a recent BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8500285.stm), Project Prevention has pushed women to use long-term birth control. But most deplorable of all, this organization has had a hand in the permanent sterilization of 1,226 woman and 35 men.

Clearly, there is something tragic about a child being exposed in utero to drugs and or being born into a volatile home. However, this does not give Barbara Harris, the founder of Project Prevention, the right to rob men and woman of their reproductive potential. In fact, this work seems downright criminal. After all, alcoholic intoxication is sufficient to negate sexual consent in criminal rape cases. Therefore, it seems logical that the Project Prevention clients, who are addicted to powerful illicit narcotics, could not be able to provide legal consent to irreversible sterilization procedures.

If you find this organization's work to be as alarming as I do, please share this article with others. Hopefully, by raising public awareness, we can stop this domestic eugenics program.

Flexivores welcome, or not!

You may remember my post from February 14, 2010. In that post I discussed Cambridge Massachusetts' recommendation for a mandatory meatless day to help the environment. Well, this intrusive proposition appears to have been embraced even across the river in Boston.

Today, my cafeteria within the university's research building, actually had a food station labeled for "flexivores." What's a flexivore, other than a made-up word? According to the creators of this word, a flexivore is a person that eats meat, but chooses to incorporate less or no meat meals into his diet.

You know why this made me so angry? What was so infuriating is the fact that, rather than just presenting this food station as a vegetarian option, the cafeteria publicized this station with some imaginary flexivore label. This label, provided with the definition outlined above, was in plain view in what was essentially a brain-washing propaganda effort to plant the seed in our minds that we should become more conscious of cutting out meat from our diet.

I'm sorry, but this manipulation is deeply disturbing and alarming. In addition, it's insulting that the catering group or even the university would condone displaying this message. As if this silly flexivore label would make it easier to swallow the fact that we were being subjected to a forced dietary restriction.

Later, when I went online to find contact information to send a letter to the catering company hired by my university, I discovered that this organization has implemented a "Meatless Monday" at one of our university's Cambridge based dining facilities under a new "sustainability" initiative. Let me just say that I told the catering organization that they would lose my business if its policy was to infringe on our rights.

If you enjoy being in charge of what you do or do not eat on a daily basis, then join me in saying flexivores are NOT welcome! More importantly, don't let government or organizations start to chip away at your rights and personal freedom. If you do, you'll wake up one day and realize you have none left.

Heating up in Boulder Colorado

Over the last week, things are heating up in Boulder Colorado. As stated in the linked CNN news article, a lesbian couple is upset that its child was not allowed to re-enroll in a private Catholic school. To top it off, supporters have rallied behind the couple and think the Catholic school is in the wrong.

The arguments levied against the church are that this is an intolerant viewpoint and only punishes the child for the parents' sin. They have also made the case that many Catholics use birth control or get divorced, and yet their children are still allowed to attend. Therefore, if all parents are not forced to adhere to the Catholic teachings, then why is this lesbian couple being singled out?

In a culture that is becoming more restricted and suffocated by political correctness, I can see how it is easy to side with the lesbian couple. But if you step back from the emotional gut reaction, and really think about this issue, I think the Catholic Church's position is the correct one.

The Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, is the oldest sect of Christianity. Its belief structure, has been relatively unchanged for centuries. Part of its appeal and exclusivity comes from the strict adherence to original doctrine, and that continuity through the ages unites people around the world in one common faith. You don't have to like their belief structure, and if that is the case then you can choose to affiliate with another Christian or religious faith.

As the Colorado Archdiocese states in the linked article, the Church's position is not intolerant, in fact it is "quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ." Knowing this primary tenet of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian faith, how can one be surprised or even angry about the Catholic Church's position on this matter?

Being a Catholic isn't a right, it's a choice. You may be baptized in the church, but you must earn the right to be a Catholic and receive communion through years of classes, followed by regular confession and mass attendance. In addition, you are expected to strive to live by the teachings of the Church. This is a religion that requires a commitment, and yes some stray here or there, but overall there is a universal understanding among Catholics because of these unwavering practices.

Furthermore, for a child to be baptized in the Catholic Church, typically your parents and god-parents are screened to determine whether they meet the strict standards of the Catholic Church. Why is this necessary? Because the parents and god-parents are making a promise before God, that they will instill the values of the Catholic faith in that child.

One can still try to argue that this is unfair and something horrid on the part of the Church. But this is not a practice unique to the Church. I think this is analogous to how people with a history of illicit drug-use are, in general, not welcome in governmental agencies like the FBI. Now, this isn't because all of these people are horrible criminals. Instead, it's because the FBI wants to recruit people that have demonstrated and lived the values that the FBI espouses, most paramount of which is strict interpretation and respect for the law.

So, with regard to the Boulder incident, I think the mistake was admitting the child in the first place. Not because of anything wrong on the child's part, but simply because the lesbian parents simply do not meet the Catholic standards that must be met by all heterosexual couples seeking to raise or educate their child with the Catholic faith.

For some reason the civil rights and woman's liberation movements have created this notion that nothing in this life is not within reach, and that social justice is universal. Unfortunately, not everything in life is an automatic right. There are many things that you have to earn. Quite frankly, being brought up in the Catholic faith is one of those. I'm sorry to the child involved, but I think the Catholic Church was correct in this matter.

Texas book storm

In continuation of my Saturday posting regarding curriculum, I found the recent discussion of the Texas text book controversy to be interesting. Of late, Texas has been the battle ground for intense debates on curriculum revision.

Last year the fight was over science material. The issue was whether creationism and or intelligent design should be incorporated into the evolution discussion. Eventually these theories were not mandated, but teachers were required to at least discuss the strength and weaknesses of the evolution theory.

The more recent debate has focused on the social studies curriculum. Apparently, some groups want to repaint the American historical landscape. Points proposed to be expunged from the texts include the religious heritage and "exceptionalism" of American. Why this sanitization? Because some feel that it is potentially offensive to people and has no place in a secular public school system.

Frankly, whether you believe in God or not, I don't see how you could decide to ignore a facet of history or assert one theory as fact while lowering the burden of proof. In fact, doesn't such a white-washing of the curriculum seem radically closed minded and less enlightened? Shouldn't we divulge all perspectives in an unbiased way and encourage independent analytical thinking? Otherwise, you're not educating, you're indoctrinating.

To me, choosing to erase the religious dimension of American history is akin to the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and 9/11. It's unfathomable to me to think any intelligent and educated person would do something so extreme. Whether you like it or not, religion and history have been inextricably linked for centuries. Regardless of your religious affiliation, to accurately study a past era you often must understand the religious context of the historical event.

I don't know about you, but to deny the existence of religion is to deny our past, present and future. Would you really want to half teach your children about history? I worry about this reactionary rejection of religion in all its forms. Such unchecked revision will lead to a lost generation in our nation's history, one no longer anchored in the continuum of the human experience that is both less cultured and less educated. Is that really future you want for your child?

Cats sense death

This story is a few years old, but no less fascinating. I remember hearing about it on the news several years ago, probably around the time the linked CBS news article was published. But, I came across Oscar the cat's incredible story in a recent Smithsonian magazine article and it rekindled my original astonishment.

Oscar is an orphaned cat that now resides at a Rhode Island nursing home, along with many dementia patients. Somehow, Oscar knows when patients are approaching death. In those final hours, he will wander into the patient's room, jump into their bed and keep watch. Shortly after the patient has passed, Oscar makes his exit.

What fascinates me about this story, is this scientifically unexplained bond between human and animal. Some unknown signal, potentially an undiscovered chemical pheromone, alerts Oscar to the patient's impending death. While it is incredible that Oscar signals the doctors to notify the patient's next of kin, this isn't the most remarkable part of the story. I think it's even more amazing that Oscar seems to give the dying person company in their final moments. It really makes you wonder how much more animals understand about the world that escapes our notice.

Divide and conquer the generations

I watched Friday's Glenn Beck episode on FOX News titled "what are your kids learning?" A portion of it can be found at the website linked into the title. All I can say, is that I was pretty disturbed by the content of the show.

Al Gore, the former vice president of the United States of America, a position to be respected and trusted, was quoted in this Beck episode. Apparently, Gore told middle and high school students who were in attendance of an inaugural youth conference that "there are some things about our world that you know, that older people don't know." He was essentially telling children to ignore their parents because they wont possibly understand the knowledge that this new generation has.

In what way can this message be responsible? In reality, all it does is to sow a seed of insubordination and rebellion in impressionable children. I mean I would be furious if someone tried to come between me and my children and pressure them to believe something while simultaneously telling them to not trust or value our family unit or my perspective. Can we say peer pressure? If this was a drug they were selling I think everyone would, without question, be irate. It's really no different, it's the same tactic. It's simply divide and conquer.

In addition, elementary age children were shown in this Beck episode to be singing in school. What were they singing? Surely songs like "God Bless America" or "O Beautiful." You know, traditional songs sung when we were young and in elementary school. No, they were singing nothing of the kind, but rather were filmed singing "Yes, we can, can, can! Yes, we can, can, can! Yes, we, can, can, can!" or "Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama, he said that all must lend a hand to make this country strong again. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama, he said we must be fair today equal work means equal pay. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Hussein Obama." Ok, let's try to be fair for a minute and say maybe this was from the campaign time. But that doesn't make me feel any less uneasy. I mean when and where did it become appropriate to have little kids sing and pledge their loyalty to one man or political party over our collective nation?

I too am part of this "We" generation born between 1978 and 2000 that is being targeted to progressively move our country in a profoundly new direction. And yes, I agree we have monumental issues that need to be addressed. But I am very suspicious and skeptical about the efficacy of the message being conveyed to this "We" generation. This incendiary message does nothing other than promote a generational divide between the youth and their parents, while simultaneously undermining the values and history of our nation and ancestors. In times like these, we need less of this divisive rhetoric and more emphasis on the strength and perseverance of past generations who weathered the storms of great wars and depressions in order to give us a world better than the one they received.

I think one thing this Beck show teaches, is how essential it is to be involved in your child's development even once they enter public or private school. Stay engaged, inquire about what they're learning and, if necessary, pitch in to help shape and improve their curriculum.

Cell robbers?

A co-worker lent me the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot. I read it last week, hence the intermittent posting, and I thought I would comment on the content of this work of non-fiction.

Skloot's book tells the story of a woman named Henrietta Lacks, who died of cervical cancer. Cells from her biopsies, which were taken during her treatments at John's Hopkins, lead to a biomedical research boom. Around the world in the biomedical research community, Lacks' cells became known as the HeLa (pronounced He-lah) cell line. HeLa cells grow robustly in the laboratory because they harbor the human papillomavirus HPV-18 type, the cause of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer. These cells are still used every day around the world in numerous laboratories to conduct experiments.

Overall, this book gave an interesting clinical history of Henrietta Lacks' treatments. It captured some of the socio-economic issues of her day, some of which are still seen when the book discusses Lacks' family in the present day. As a scientist, the descriptions of the science were accurate and well explained in layman's terminology.

Personally, the most interesting and alarming part of the book was the portion that discussed the ethical concerns surrounding the acquisition of patient cells without their consent. In some cases, these cells or other biological material is exploited by scientists through patents and profit from discoveries made with these patient specimens.

Because I work within the biomedical research community, I'm keenly aware of how these human samples are necessary for scientific discovery. However, even I found myself shocked and horrified to think that my own cells, or even the foreskin of a future son, could be donated to biomedical research without my consent or knowledge as a result of me consenting to treatment or common procedures. I find the whole thing quite deceitful and I felt like this was a huge invasion of privacy.

These ethical concerns have led to new requirements mandating patient approval for some scenarios, but these improvements are insufficient. It is true that human specimens can no longer be named in laboratories in a manner such that identifying personal information could expose the true identify of the patient from which the material originated. Despite these small changes, it is my belief that for most procedures patients are not asked for permission regarding the subsequent use of their "body" parts that are taken during treatment.

Skloot mentions how in some cases biological material acquired from patients can be quite lucrative, yet patients have no legal rights to any of the proceeds made from patents on or sales of their own material. Skloot cites the legal justification made in one court case that stated patients have no claim to these materials because they were deemed to have "abandoned" the material. Other patent law arguments were made to uphold this ruling by stating that man's ingenuity modified these materials such that it was no longer as it was found in nature. Another argument was that patients would hold up scientific progress because of their greed and desire for a cut of the profit from the use of their own biological material.

Regardless of the philosophical argument, it is my opinion that patients should be asked before each biopsy or diagnostic test whether they consent to donate their material to research. Just like people have to choose to donate their organs upon death, we should be asked and have our wishes legally respected regarding what is done with our biological material. Anything else is akin to doctors stealing bodies, like they did back in the 1800's and early 1900's in order to have fresh cadavers to practice on in medical school. Body-snatching is not allowed anymore, and yet doctors have ample access to cadavers. So, I don't quite buy the argument that asking for patient consent would hinder science, just like it didn't cut down on blood, sperm, bone marrow or organ donation.

Next time you have a biopsy done, ask your doctor what will happen to your material. And if you are uneasy about this exploitation of patients, then please share this article and contact your local congressman or senator!

Out for blood

First of all, I find Family Guy to be hilarious. But at the same time, I find the success of Family Guy to be a paradox because the series rely almost exclusively on politically incorrect jokes in our politically correct world.

I missed the recent episode that stirred up political controversy, but I heard all about it after the fact. In case you missed it, the uproar was over how the show mocked Sarah Palin's actual handicapped 1 year old son through the portrayal of a fictitious mentally handicapped character in the episode. People at work said "it was clearly sarcasm, what was all the fuss about?" Without having seen the show, I couldn't comment.

But now I have seen the clip, as well as Palin's response to the episode. After seeing both, I must say that I didn't find the Family Guy scene to be particularly funny, and I sympathized with Palin. Occasionally choked-up, Palin said she couldn't believe how cruel people can be in making fun of a little child that already is going to grow up with a difficult life. To her, Trig is like every other child, happy and enjoying the world. In that moment, listening to her describe her parental perspective, all I saw was a mother defending her child from a vicious world.

No matter what one's political persuasion, I just couldn't believe how people could hate someone so much to think that such a low blow was in any way fair game. It just made me stop and think about how ugly things have become. It is as if blood has been tasted and the kill must be completed. Is this really what our mainstream culture and media is all about nowadays?

Literally, you're dumb if you smoke

I read the following article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html) on the FOX News website and found the conclusions to be controversial. This article describes a scientific study titled "Cognitive test scores in male adolescent cigarette smokers compared to non-smokers: a population-based study" that was published this month in the journal Addiction.

This study examined whether there was a correlation between smoking habits and the intelligence quotient (IQ) of over 20,000 Israeli military recruits. This paper reported that the average IQ of non-smokers was 101, but dropped to 94 for smokers. Furthermore, they claim that the drop in the IQ score correlated with the amount of cigarettes consumed by the individual. So, the average IQ was 98 for less than five cigarettes a day, and dropped to 90 if over a pack of cigarettes were smoked per day.
In conjunction with previously published reports, the authors of this scientific study conclude that a low IQ score is a risk factor for smoking addiction. Thus, they propose that anti-smoking campaigns should target youth with low IQ scores.

I don't know why, but I can't help feeling that the conclusions made by the authors of this study are biased by the age in which we live. For starters, tobacco was a major American agricultural crop because there was an insatiable European and global desire for this product for centuries. Smoking in some form, whether by cigarette, cigar or a pipe, was common among all strata of society. Now flash forward to modern day, a time where science has shown that smoking is an addiction known to cause death from lung cancer. Given our increased understanding of tobacco cigarettes as a carcinogen, I see the temptation to say in jest that choosing to smoke is stupid. But joking and attempting to prove such a sentiment are two completely different things.

Personally, my gut says the observed correlation between IQ and smoking may have a better scientific hypothesis. Nicotine, a compound that targets neurons and influences their activity, could have profound effects on the development and long-term function of an adolescent brain. Therefore, I'm curious to see whether studies in mice have examined whether nicotine exposure induces cognitive damage that could explain this study's observation that smokers have a lower IQ.

Are hotdogs the new Camel Joe?

Until reading the linked FOX News article, I was not aware that hotdogs currently have a choking hazard warning label on their packaging. But apparently, this already over-the-top safety measure isn't enough.

Tragically, a 4-year old died from choking on hotdog pieces. Now, this child's mother, backed by The American Academy of Pediatrics, is pushing for more warnings to be implemented regarding the danger of hotdogs. In addition, she is calling for changes in advertising of this classic American treat so that the ads are not targeted at children.

Obviously, choking is a serious issue and losing a child is devastating. But, am I alone in feeling like this reaction is extreme? I mean hotdogs aren't a pack of Camel cigarettes, whose manufacturer was accused of enticing children to begin a fatal addiction through the use of the Camel Joe cartoon image. My feeling is that every food could potentially cause a child to choke. So, where do we draw the line between predatory corporate advertising and personal accountability?

When we die...

During one episode of The O'Riley Factor last week, I saw O'Riley interview Dr. Jeffrey Long. Long is a medical oncologist who recently wrote a book titled "Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences." This book is a summary of approximately 1300 international questionnaires and personal accounts of near death experiences (NDEs).

Most of the book is anecdotal with little to no concrete evidence. Therefore, the argument of an afterlife requires the reader to take a leap of faith and trust that these NDE accounts have not been falsified. But, as someone deeply curious about the philosophical and religious question of what happens when we die, I found myself intrigued by Dr. Long's book.

People that have had NDEs, called NDErs, remember experiencing very lucid visions of coming out of their body. Often, they see their own dead corpse below them during these out-of-body experiences (OBEs). Furthermore, NDErs witness conversations even some distance from their body, and these conversations are often corroborated once they are resuscitated. During an NDE, people frequently encounter known or unknown dead relatives who guide them through this journey. Interestingly, words are often not needed because telepathy is used to communicate to the NDErs. Frequently, NDEs include a life review in which the person sees forgotten actions and judges whether they were kind or good during their lifetime. Finally, the person reaches a barrier in which they ultimately can not pass before they are commanded back to their earthly body. These experiences are so powerful that NDErs are often transformed for the rest of their life.

Like many people, I've heard of out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people seeing white lights as well as past memories. I've also heard the medical establishment's perspective that these lights must be due to the death of optical neurons, that the replaying of past life events are because of dying memory neurons, or that these people are dreaming and not really dead. However, Dr. Long points out that NDEs occur in people who are clinically dead with no heart or brain activity, and thus, who have no ability to produce dreams, visions or conscious thought. Therefore, clearly the current medical explanation is incomplete.

Personally, some of the more compelling "evidence" discussed in this book pertained to people who have been blind since birth. These individuals have NDEs that are identical to people that are not blind. Meaning, people blind since birth have very vivid visual experiences during their NDE. To me, there is no medical explanation for a blind person having residual visual neural circuitry that could be randomly firing during the death of these neurons.

One of the last points of this book, was that there appears to be universalilty to the NDE experience. By comparing NDE accounts from around the world, Dr. Long reports that the same elements are present in NDEs regardless of the culture or religion in which the individual is associated. This is suggestive of a common human bond in life and death.

In conclusion, I found this book thought-provoking. However, I would like to see more data, which reminded me of a news article I read a while ago that can be found at the following website:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842627,00.html

This article describes an ongoing scientific study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation). The AWARE study is an international effort by 25 European, Canadian and American medical centers where cardiac arrests occur. In order to scientifically study the NDE, this study employed the strategic placement of visual elements or cues in locations within an emergency room that can be seen only from the ceiling. The hypothesis is that patients who report out-of-body experiences should be able to describe these visual cues if they were able to hover by the ceiling while looking down at their body. Unfortunately, this study is still ongoing and therefore these data have not yet been reported. But, I am anxious to see the results from this study!

State backlash to federal health care mandate

With Obama's Health care summit less than a week away, many of us are anxious to see whether the original bill is scrapped and a new bipartisan one is forged. Personally, I agree some reform needs to happen. But $848 billion worth, or the $2.5 trillion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is that really necessary?

Look, there are major injustices within the current health care system that need to be addressed. Some of these include being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or stopping benefits that cover life-saving treatments. Also, it's imperative to deflate the ballooning malpractice premiums for doctors, that in turn, drive up insurance premiums. Up until here, I am in total agreement with the Democrats.

Where the Democrats go astray and lose my support is with their logic that in order to fix these legitimate problems, then we need to spend nearly $850 billion and create a government health care system. One obvious flaw in this logic that leaps out at me is that the government could simply pass legislation to ban insurance companies from denying coverage or benefits. Oh wait, the current bill does this. Then why does this bill have such a huge price tag?

One reason is this push to get everyone insured. For people that can't afford private insurance, this bill would establish an alternative government health care program. But once again the Democrats lose me. Why is it necessary to spend billions to create a new government program, when people on both sides of the isle have proposed more economical solutions like creating a national cooperative. A coop would solve the woes of many buy allowing citizens to obtain portable private health care insurance that would not be dependent on their employment status. In addition, it would lower premiums because of the huge pool of customers enrolling in such a coop. I just don't get it, this seems like such a rational solution to the average American's health care complaint and at the same time doesn't break the bank. In addition, a coop could go into effect almost immediately without the need to establish a large government agency, thus providing immediate and affordable coverage to the average American.

If time is a factor in delivering relief to the American people, then why is Congress pushing a health care bill that does not go into effect until 2014? Although we'd start paying for this bill now, people wouldn't have affordable health care until 2014. To me, it seems like the policy makers backing this bill are disconnected from the people who are pleading for immediate reform.

While the federal government appears to be out of ear's range, the local state governments hear the disapproval from their constituents and have decided to act. Both Idaho and Virginia have approved state constitutional amendments to reassert their ability to ignore any federally mandated health care bill not supported by their residents. Another 32 states have proposed similar amendments to assert their state rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the Unites States.

If Obama truly wants a health care bill that delivers real change, then he has to scrap the original bill before next week's summit. Such an act would be widely perceived as a good-will gesture, while indicating that he is truly committed to a bipartisan health care reform bill. Otherwise, all hope of real health care reform will be dead for some time.

Bring back the safety coffin!

As of today I was not aware of the Lazarus Syndrome. But once you hear this story, I bet you will not forget it either. I stumbled across the following report on the FOX News Health page:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586302,00.html

It describes a female patient in Colombia who was declared legally dead after medical equipment failed to detect her heart rate or blood pressure. She was then sent to a funeral home to be prepared for burial. As the morticians were about to apply the embalming fluid to the body, "the patient began to breathe again and make movements." Apparently, she was not dead!

The Lazarus Syndrome is a phenomenon in which a patient can not be resuscitated, but unexpectedly has a miraculous restoration of circulation. This syndrome is extremely rare. Since 1982, there have been only 25 documented cases of Lazarus Syndrome.

Fear of being buried alive was rampant during the 18-19th centuries. As a result, some were interested in being buried in a safety coffin. Basically, the idea was to incorporate a way for an interred person to signal to the outside world in the event that he came back to life after being buried. One version of the safety coffin was to have a string or rope in the coffin that would connect to a bell above ground.

In reality, I don't think we have to worry about being incorrectly declared dead or buried alive. So, I don't envision that safety coffins will fly off the shelves anytime soon. But, I must say, it makes one wonder when one is truly dead, especially if you're like me and you are a registered organ donor.

Doctors are human, aka...they don't know everything!

Anyone close to me knows that I am a staunch advocate of patient activism in one's own personal health care. I, and many friends and family, have had doctors blow off legitimate concerns only to be proven wrong months down the road.

I heard this story last night on FOX News, and found the following link describing one woman's frustrating battle with her doctor:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/16/czech-surgery-tool-abdomen.html

As reported in this news article, a Czech patient underwent surgery for some gynecological issues. Then, for five months after the surgery, she complained to her doctor that she was suffering from major abdominal pain. For months, the doctor dismissed her and recommended pain medications. Finally, and I mean finally, the doctor requested an abdominal X-ray. What did they find? A foot long surgical tool in left inside her abdominal cavity since the surgery 5 months earlier!

What's the take home message? You should speak up and move-on! If your doctor doesn't listen to your concerns, dump him! If he wont incorporate your intuition and symptom reporting, or he makes you feel like it's all a figment of your imagination, dump him! If he doesn't make you feel that your health and well-being are his number one priority, then the fact of the matter is that you are not his priority.

Look, it's not just the doctor's fault. They're often overworked. But there are plenty of other doctors out there that will make the time for you and who will give you the kind of doctor-patient relationship that's right for you.

Finally, at the end of the day, doctors are human and make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't afford the delay. I would strongly recommend that you don't simply trust your one doctor's opinion. You've probably heard it before, but get a second opinion and find a doctor that will listen and help you.

Climategate continued...

In continuation of yesterday's post, I thought it was timely to discuss the recent BBC interview with Phil Jones. Jones resigned from his position as head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) after his scandalous emails leaked to the media.

The full Q&A from the Jones interview is accessible at the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The most pertinent data presented in this feature story are the following warming trends for four different periods since 1860:
Period______Length___Trend (Degree C/decade)__Significance
1860-1880_____21_____0.163____________________Yes
1910-1940_____31_____0.15 ____________________Yes
1975-1998_____24_____0.166____________________Yes
1975-2009_____35_____0.161____________________Yes

Clearly, there have been four statistically significant periods of warming since the pre-industrial 1860-1880 time frame.

Jones also acknowledged that the rate of warming from 1995 to the current day (a 15 year period) was 0.12C. Although the trend is smaller by 0.3-0.4C, Jones says the short length of this time period means that this reduced trend does not yet meet the 95% significance level. But, it will be interesting to see what happens to this rate in 5 years time.

In conclusion, Jones's interpretation of the data is that the observed warming is man-made because volcanic and solar activity records can not explain the temperature increases in these 4 periods. However, I wonder what contribution heat transfer from within the earth's core could do this system and what those measurements look like. Alternatively, there could simply be other factors that have not been discovered yet that could account for these warming periods.

My feeling, as a scientist, is that you should never over-interpret your data and make statements that the data don't support. Therefore, I personally would not stake my professional reputation on a claim that these trends are man-made merely because we currently don't know yet what the real force driving the system is. Even I, in my 10 years of research experience, have learned that good science is well controlled and that interpretation of the data should be used to make narrow claims clearly substantiated by the data. To date, there has been no irrefutable evidence that man has acted and the global temperature has responded to that action.

Furthermore, there are clearly periods between the four warming periods mentioned in the BBC interview. I wonder what happened to the trends in these periods. Was there cooling or steady warming but at a lesser rate?

Speaking of cooling, Jones admits in the interview that from 2002 to the present, we have not been warming. In reality, we have been cooling for the last 8 years. Yes, the data have shown a cooling rate of -0.12C/decade. But once again, this period is too short to reach a 95% significance level. But, this SHOCKED me given that all anyone hears is that we're warming, warming and warming.

I think my final words on this issue are that 1) we have times of warming and cooling and 2) we have not yet identified the precise factors that have caused each warming trend.

Snowmageddon or Climategate?

If you watch major news networks, likely you will have heard about the recent Snowmageddon that's descended upon the Mid-Atlantic. The recent weather has caused the global warming debate to heat up once more. If you're like me, that leaves you wondering whom do you believe on this issue?

My recommendation would be to investigate on your own and look at the 1) raw data, 2) data collection methods and 3) validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. As a scientist, that's the way I've been trained to approach experimental problems and this approach is universally applicable. So, I decided to scratch the surface and actually track down some of the data that lies at the heart of this political storm.

At first glance, I found widely cited current and pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels. In fact the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has published a document online that covers global warming that can be found at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E03.pdf

Within this document, Table 3.1 cites that pre-industrial greenhouse gas CO2 levels were 280 parts per million (ppm) c1750, with current levels reported to be around 382ppm. Clearly man must be causing higher CO2 levels if time point A is lower than time point B, right?

Well, my first concern was to examine the accuracy of the low pre-industrial CO2 level measurements. Secondly, I wanted to examine the CO2 levels between 1750 and today. After scouring the internet, I found numerous sites describing what amounts to flawed and at times unethical science. Some of the claims are that scientists selectively averaged only the lower pre-industrial CO2 data points and corrected non-overlapping CO2 sampling data sets (from Siple ice core samples and Mauna Loa direct atmospheric sample) to create a smooth curve that showed the desired CO2 trends over time. However, without knowing the source of these data I couldn't possibly endorse the validity of them.

I did discover an interesting study published in Energy and Environment that was written by scientist Ernst-Georg Beck. In this published journal article titled "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" that can be found online at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

Beck reports on numerous, well-controlled CO2 data sets from mainly European sampling stations spanning the 19-20th centuries. When looking within these controlled data sets, Beck reports that there is considerable fluctuation in CO2 levels over this 180 year period, with several atmospheric CO2 spikes as high as the current CO2 levels. Strikingly, some of these data directly refute the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ice core data from which the IPCC bases it's claim for man-made increases in CO2 levels. Specifically, Beck shows that atmospheric CO2 levels were sometimes as high as ~350ppm when IPCC ice core data claim the levels at that time were as low as 290ppm. Beck's analysis of various large atmospheric CO2 data sets suggest considerable fluctuation that is cyclical and does not match commonly cited trends that CO2 has steadily increased since the pre-industrial era.

So, if data exist to discredit the great global warming hype, how come we never hear about them? The nonprofit organization called The Friends of Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) offers an alternative analysis of the climate change data, but their perspective is not well publicized.

To fuel the skepticism, the recent "Climategate" scandal has rocked the world. As discussed on CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html) and FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/11/21/climate-skeptics-smoking-gun-researchers-leaked-e-mails/), leaked emails from a British university have revealed possible scientific misconduct. Allegedly, these emails suggest that prominent climatologists were cooking the books and hiding new data that would argue against global warming in order to keep funding and grant money flowing into their research projects. In addition, as described in a story covered by Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece), the United Nations climate chief has apologized publicly for allowing scientifically unsubstantiated predictions regarding the rate of melting for the Himalayan glaciers to be publicized as fact.

Because global warming has become political, with calls for government mandated emission caps and other future government imposed energy restrictions imminent, I think the citizens of America deserve to hear a Congressional review of the climate data before potentially unnecessary and intrusive legislation is imposed. I think scientists on both sides of the argument should present their cases and point out the validity or weakness of the data and interpretations of the data. Such a forum would finally allow the American public to decide for themselves what is fact or fiction.

I would urge you to contact your local representatives and call for a televised Congressional review. Regardless of your persepctive on this debate, getting to the truth is essential to moving forward with intelligent policies! If you agree, please share this blog.

Cows and pigs are responsible for global warming

Doctors often recommend lowering red meat consumption to minimize the risk of obesity, cancer and coronary disease. In a 2007 Lancet Medical Journal article titled "Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health", McMichael and colleagues argue that cutting red meat consumption could also help combat global warming. The little data that the paper shows has been adapted from the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, an organization that proposes that livestock production is responsible for 18% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.

Other online websites from National Geographic have reiterated the sentiments of the McMichael article, and expand the recommended ban of meat to include both beef and pork. This article can be found at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16573-eating-less-meat-could-cut-climate-costs.html

Apparently, this new scientific theory has found a following in Cambridge Massachusetts where a recent city Congressional panel convened to brainstorm new city legislation aimed at combating the "climate emergency". The public notes from this meeting, which was held December 12th 2009, can be found online at:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CityOfCambridge_Content/documents/Climate_Congress_Notes_12-12-09.pdf

The controversy sparked by this meeting has been featured on many major news stations for its numerous proposed taxes on the use of both plastic and paper bags, as well as the disruptive elimination of all street curb-side parking within the city. Most alarming of all, these Cambridge meeting notes propose ways to change behavior by mandating "diet changes like eating no (or less) meat" because people don't know the "connection between red meat and methane gas emissions." Explicit recommendations to "try not eating meat for 1-2 days" were made.

These Cambridge Congressional meeting notes also mention public reactions to these proposed policies because people are not "ready to make sacrifices. However, extreme actions may be necessary." 

I don't know about you, but I'm a bit scared of what these "necessary" and "extreme actions" may entail. It's quite alarming that governments in America are trying to regulate our daily diets. Can anyone say Big Brother? Are we going to one day have red meat and pork banned from the grocery stores and only be able to consume it illegally in underground hideouts reminiscent of speakeasies during the prohibition era?

It also seems ludicrous to me that Massachusetts is willing to push an agenda to make meat a controlled substance because it harms the environment, when it pushed to decriminalize marijuana through question 2 of the 2008 election ballot. Apparently Massachusetts didn't get the memo about all the health problems from marijuana use, let alone the crime associated with drug-trafficking. But that discussion is for another day.

Religious people may have a "damaged" brain

So, I have to share the final straw that made me snap and decide to create a blog to voice my opinion publically. Today, while checking the headlines on the CNN and FOX News websites, I stumbled across the following link:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/12/scientists-spirituality-center-brain/

I was stunned after reading this article from FOX News website. The story described the contents of a recent Neuron (Cell Press) journal article by an Italian research group that performed a clinical study of 88 patients that had various forms of brain cancer. In this study, Urgesi and colleagues report that the surgical removal of cancers in a certain region of the brain caused small increases in a supposedly scientific and quantitative questionnaire that was designed to measure the spirituality of an individual. This article goes on to say that damage to certain brain regions is responsible for post-operation increases in spirituality among patients who had a lesion within this particular region of the brain.

Now, it's true that some people suffering from certain mental illnesses or dementia exhibit changes in self-transcendence (ST), which is a term described in this recent Neuron article as the ability to "identify the self as an integral part of the universe as a whole," which is tied to one's spirituality (Urgesi et al, 2010). Also mentioned in this article, nuns and monks that practice meditation are known to have increased brain activity in the same region of the brain identified in this Urgesi et al brain cancer study.

What I am deeply concerned about is that this research will lead to a theory that people who possess faith or spirituality will soon be viewed as damaged in some way, or chemically imbalanced to say the least. And we all know what comes after a medical discovery, research to find a pharmacological drug to "cure" the disorder or disease. Soon, the religious and spiritual can overcome these "delusions" by taking a simple pill once a day.

Am I being an alarmist? Yes, probably I am. But, does that make me wrong? After all, the Neuron journal article alludes to such an idea in the last paragraph of the discussion section that states "some personality dimensions may be modified by influencing neural activity in specific areas. This would carry out the fundamental implication that novel approaches aimed at modulating neural activity" may "ultimately pave the way to new treatments of personality disorders" (Urgesi et al, 2010). So, yes, I am quite concerned that I might one day be diagnosed as having a spiritual personality disorder because of exhibiting symptoms of higher philosophical, spiritual and religious beliefs. Am I alone in this fear?

A scientist outs her sprituality and conservatism

Hello and welcome!
Currently, I am a soon to be graduating doctoral student at a top Ivy League medical school. However, I don't quite fit the mold when it comes to the prototypical PhD student in the biomedical sciences. Why do you ask? Because I have other interests than just science, and worst of all, have begun to embrace what many colleagues may consider heretical views.

For starters, I have grown to entertain intelligence design. Also, I have become increasingly spiritual. Consequently, I have begun re-exploring my religious faith during the last few years. So, I might not be a "respectable" scientist because I am not satiated by Darwin's theory of evolution.

To make matters worse, I've abandoned my youthful liberalism and have increasingly aligned myself with the more conservative viewpoint on a wide range of political and social issues. Where does that leave me? Eschewed from the deeply entrenched liberal camp that resides within New England.

I welcome any and all people who are interested in hearing one young scientist's perspective on spirituality, as well as contemporary political and social issues. I hope that this will encourage future dialogue that might help narrow the growing gulf that exists between the public and scientists.