Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.

I go away to San Antonio, have a good time at SICB, come back, and the building bit me. First thing Monday morning.



I didn't take my finger out of the door frame of my lab fast enough. And my lab door is surprisingly heavy.

Going to be a few months before that's gone.

The Zen of Presentations, Part 15: The Gore Method

I finally managed to watch An Inconvenient Truth a few weeks back, because I has heard so much about how effective a presentation it was, and I wanted to try to figure out what made it so effective.

The number one lesson and reason for its success, in my mind, is this:

Make what you're talking about concrete. Make it real and tangible.

Climate change has got to be one of the most abstract subjects imaginable. It covers thousands of years of data, highly complex computer simulations, and so on.

But Gore find something concrete to make the point: a devastating series of pictures showing snow and ice retreating in mountain range after mountain range. Suddenly, you're sitting thinking, "This is not something to worry about in the next two hundred years, it's been happening in front of my eyes."

And he shows the pictures right next to each other, not right after the other, so the images are within "eyespan," as Edward Tufte puts it, and can be immediately compared.

Whenever possible, show real physical objects, not just graphs. Our brains seem highly responsive to these. Just think of how many of our common expressions make abstract things understandable by referring to physical objects. To attempt to lead is to "step up to the plate." To set high ambitions is to "raise the bar." And so on.

Gore had lots of other advantages, too. Superb rehearsal, which showed in the perfect synchrony of his speech as years are ticking by in a timeline behind him. The biggest screens I've ever seen, allowing him to pull off the great visual point to get up on a cherry picker to indicate the predicted top of a exponential trend. And just excellent, low key, simple graphics. I think some those graphs could have been improved somewhat, but that is quibbling over details. An Inconvenient Truth is a fantastic presentation.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 12

I've been gaining a lot of respect for the Austin American-Statesman for its continued and very good coverage of Texas education, starting with its uncovering of the Chris Comer story. Today, it has a new article on the Institute for Creation Research's application to grant Master's degrees in higher education, and an interesting postscript.

I can't help but snicker at this somewhat reserved statement:

Paredes has asked an informal panel of scientists and science educators to comment on the institute's curriculum, which is flavored with a Christian worldview.

Saying the institute is "flavored" with a Christian worldview is a little like biting into a mouthful of habanero peppers and saying it's "a little spicy."

But I'm also reminded of something Kevin Padian said at the SICB meeting in San Antonio. He really objects when students say they don't accept evolution "because I'm a Christian." He points out that many Christians have no problem with evolution, so if you're going to let religion be a sticking point, be honest enough to admit that you're rejecting evolution because you're a fundamentalist. Similarly, I think ICR should be tagged as a fundamentalist Christian institution, because the qualifier really is important in distinguishing their particular point of view. Their views are not supported by all -- probably not even most -- branches of Christianity.

For instance:

(T)he institute's bylaws, tenets and other records show that students and faculty members are required to believe that humans did not evolve from animals but were created in fully human form from the start, that God created all physical and living things in the universe in six days, and that anyone who rejects Jesus Christ will be consigned to "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Not exactly an institution that's big on the idea of academic freedom, really. I'm sure they allow people lots of freedom within that framework, but it's a very narrow framework indeed.

The associated postscript notes that Paredes is being extraordinarily careful over this situation, as ICR has shown a tendency to sue when things don't go their way.

Great balls of fire!

What Doctor Who character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as The Third Doctor. A man of science, a gadget king, you can put up a good fight. You are just what the doctor ordered. 3rd Doctor 92% 9th Doctor 75% 4th Doctor 67% 10th Doctor 67% 8th Doctor 50% 7th Doctor 42% 1st Doctor 42% A Dalek 33% 6th Doctor 25% 2nd Doctor 25% Davros 17% 5th Doctor 8%

The Zen of Presentations, Part 15: Take a bow

It’s kind of fun to search blogs for comments on things that you yourself went to. Since I’ve been writing about the SICB meeting, I looked for that and found this post, which had good presentation advice. So I thought I would elaborate on it.

I was reading a book on magic once, and the author said it was important when you finished an illusion to bow. Now, he immediately elaborated that he didn't literally mean “bend at the waist.” He meant that you should do something to indicate clearly that the trick was done. It was also important not to immediately start the next one, but to create a space for the audience to show their appreciation – to applaud.

Because people’s attention may drift, it’s also helpful to cue them that the talk is coming to a close. Say something like, “In conclusion...” or “To sum up...” or “The take home message is...”.

Several bad ways to end a presentation include:

• Just not talking. Definitely the worst way to go, as people are really unsure of whether they should listen or clap.
• Ending with a perfunctory, “That’s it,“ or “That’s all.” This is usually thrown in as a desperate sign to the audience after the above method (just not talking) fails.
• Anything mentioning questions (as in the linked blog post), as people don’t know if they should stick up their hands or clap.

My typical way to end is to put up an acknowledgments slide, which I do not read, but leave it up during questions. Then, I say, “I thank these people for help with my science, and I thank you for your attention.”

By thanking the audience, you create a chance for them to say, “You”re welcome,” with their applause.

Workin' at SICB

Got a lot of comments about the T-shirt. Geek to the end!

Turning up the heat

At the SICB meeting I had a chance to see Flock of Dodos and sit in on some discussions with filmmaker and former scientist Randy Olson. He revealed that he has another movie coming out, a comedic documentary about global warming called Sizzle.

The film isn't listed on IMDB's database yet, so just consider this your insider entertainment scoop for the day.

In it, Olson describes how he tried to subvert the normal science documentary process, which is to take cameras to campuses and film a bunch of scientists talking. Interviews start out that way, but then a "skeptical" cameraman starts throwing in questions about climate change. Olson said it was really interesting to watch the dynamic change at that point...

Olson also said that he thought that people who saw both films would find the similarities. The data and the issues are different, but the kinds of people who argue against the scientific consensus and the kinds of arguments they use are almost identical. Olson mentioned that the skeptics / deniers in both the intelligent design issue and the climate change issue are very fond of conspiracy theories, for instance.

I'm really looking forward to it.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 24

Lauri Lebo (pictured at left), the local reporter who covered the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and author of the upcoming book Devil in Dover, has an article in the Washington Spectator that discusses Chris Comer's situation in some detail and has a few new comments from some of the people involved, such as Don McLeroy.

Leaving the constitutional legal matter of such a maneuver aside, what aspects of evolution does McLeroy consider controversial? He cites the principle of common descent, in particular the idea that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, as one debatable issue. Yet in the science community, there is no controversy over the idea that all living organisms are descended from a shared ancestor. The mapping of the genetic code in recent years has only confirmed anew scientific support for life's universal connection.

Still, McLeroy says he isn't interested in pushing creationism. "I resent the notion that I'm speaking in code," he said. But in Texas, just as in Dover and in other earlier battles in Kansas and Ohio, the scientific arguments of evolution's critics are intertwined with their religious views.

And the article ends with a description of what Comer has been facing since her forced resignation. I've added the emphasis, because I do think it needs to be emphasized that Chris Comer has been harmed.

As both sides wait to see how this will play out, Christine Comer is adjusting to caring for her disabled father and paying her bills on a pension that provides less than the salary she lost. "But I feel like this is my contribution," she said. "This is my time to draw my line in the sand for science."

She had watched what took place in Dover and remembers being outraged at the time. "But I guess I wasn't outraged enough," she said. Because she never did anything about it.

Now, teachers she knows in small towns across Texas have come to her to say they've been forced to teach creationism in science class for years. She asked them why they didn't do anything about it. "Come on," they told her. "What can I do? It's Texas."

I had the good fortune to talk to Eugenie Scott at the SICB meeting about the Comer and ICR stories, which I've been blogging so much about. I asked her why the ICR story has been so much quieter than the Comer story, and she said it was partly the writer's strike, and partly because Comer was a martyr, so to speak. I certainly have been avoiding that term, because it is emotional and easy to overuse. But during her presentation, Dr. Scott mentioned that Chris Comer is struggling financially right now. She indicated that anyone who was interested in finding out what they could do to help support Ms. Comer could email Eugenie Scott at the NCSE.

SICB, Day 5

And for the final talks today: pot luck! I went to talks with no rhyme or reason. During each talk, I looked through the list to see which was the one coming up that looked the most interesting.

An easy and uneventful drive home. Now is the time to set wheels in motion for some of the plans hatched during the conference...

SICB, Day 4

Today was definitely crustacean day for me. I pretty much saw decapod crustacean talks all day. It was kind of nice, because I don't get to interact with that crowd very much and met a lot of people whose names I had previously only known from reading their papers.

Then my Master's student Sandra and I both gave our posters. I generally had only one person at a time, but there was pretty much always someone in front of my poster talking to me, asking the right questions and agreeing with what I thought the data were showing me. Sandra was also busy at her poster.

Then -- socials! Crustacean social, then neurobiology social, then the general student appreciation social (Hi Candace! Hi Mike! Hi Turkesha!). The poor hotel staff was spending a long time trying to get the clueless scientists out of the social room. Turn lights up -- turn lights down. Turn them up -- turn them down.

One half of one day to go!

SICB, day 3

Argh! Why does wi-fi work on Thursday but not Friday?

Lots of stuff going on today. Today was tough for me personally, because there were talks on evolution and neurobiology and crustaceans -- which is kind of my trifecta. I gave up on neurobiology, and just flitted back and forth between the other two.

Barbara Forest gave one of my favourite talks today -- wonderfully energetic, forceful, direct, concise. She dedicated her talk to Chris Comer, about which I have written much recently, as it was an announcement of Forest's talk that precipitated Comer's forced resignation. The dedication received some applause throughout the audience. Not a huge number, as I think not everyone was aware of the story. But more know now. Forest's talk was, "Still creationism after all these years," showing that intelligent design is creationism, end of story. A lot of other fine talks on teaching evolution, too, talking about the inadequacies of lecturing, and how creationist ideas can be talked about in a class in an effective way.

Another highlight was seeing an IMAX film called "Volcanoes of the Deep." I love movies, I like the IMAX format a lot, and this one has some brilliant undersea footage from deep sea hydrothermal vents. Carrying on with a theme, this film was not allowed to play in some cities because some people objected to some of the evolutionary content. And it had lots of crustaceans in it, which I also liked.

I was also pleased to talk to several people about Marmorkrebs, which generated uniformly high interest. That I also liked, and does help convince me I might have something useful for people. (That website again: http://marmorkrebs.org!)

Tomorrow: two posters to give!

SICB, day 2

High light of the day has been seeing a screening of Flock of Dodos, a film about intelligent design. I really enjoyed it and found it much funnier than most of the rest of the audience, judging by the amount of laughter. My laughter, that is.

The screening was followed by a discussion and Q&A with filmmaker / former biologist Randy Olson. He's given a lot of thought to how scientists communicate. His assessment: he'd rather play poker with the intelligent design crowd.

Sheila Patek's talk was a close second. Search the blog; I've linked to a TED talk of hers you should be able to find. I think this was the first time I'd seen film taken at 100,000 frames per second. Wow.

A thought experiment

Imagine you had a friend who was smart, funny, and charming. There was just one thing.

Every time you asked that friend where he was, he invariably said, "I am in my home in Moscow, Russia."

This friend has never been to Russia. No matter where he goes, the answer is always the same. He could be in the middle of the Arizona desert and insist he was at home in Moscow. When asked where his house was, he might say, "I have a really big backyard."

On every other matter under the sun, you would have a perfectly reasonable conversation. Just as long as you didn't ask him where he was. It's just on this one quirky issue that this person has an unshakable -- but obviously false -- belief.

(There are cases of people with particular brain damage who do, in fact, have these sorts of convictions. So this is not purely a hypothetical case.)

What would you say if that person ran for Mayor of your town? Would you recommend him?

SICB, Day 2

Hooray to SICB for providing free wi-fi at their meeting!

Already have seen four cool talks- 2 on crayfish fighting, dinosaur singing, bird bill shape...

Fun stuff!

SICB Day 1

Will this day never end?!

This day has had a series of gaffes and mistakes and confusions. Student running behind, the big one- me forgetting my own posters!- and a veritable comedy of errors trying to get the rooms for the REU students straightened away.

Some days can only be improved by how fast you can hit unconsciousness.

Rethinking granting, part 2

Research grants in the U.S. (and many other countries) are so competitive that many, many good ideas go unfunded. When funding success is at 10%, many researchers think applying for a grant is just rolling the dice. Obviously, there are certain things that can improve the likelihood of getting a grant, but there seems to be a large component of luck in the process now.

Why not just admit it and award some grants through a lottery system?

They do it for green cards in the United States.

Obviously, there would have to be some criteria to insure that grants do not go to poorly written proposals. Make them small -- micro grants, even. Make them just as accountable as large grants.

It could help ensure greater diversity of ideas (just like the green card lottery helps promote diversity). It would provide insurance that “old boys networks” and coalitions of researchers don't have complete control over the review process.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 11

Texas Citizens for Science is reporting this morning that Raymund Paredes (pictured) has asked for a second site visit and report on the Institute for Creation Research. This would be consistent with several earlier hints of Paredes not being satisfied with the first report, which recommended approval to give Master's degrees in science ed.

Who owns ideas?

I'm working at the lab today, mostly to write a grant proposal. Now, many people would think I could do that easily from the comfort of home. It's a holiday, there is nobody but nobody else in the building (as far as I can tell), so why not just work at home?

Turns out it's very difficult to do any serious scientific writing (a grant proposal or manuscript) at home, because I constantly need to look up references. When I write something serious, I'm always being forced to track down papers I haven't read before. Or I have to find papers where I've read the abstract, but not the main text.

And I can't get to most of those papers from home.

I can from my lab, because it's a university. And the university has paid various publishers for the right to have electronic access to many of the journals I need to refer to when I do serious scientific writing.

That's a direct consequence of copyright and intellectual property issues, and the business models of scientific publishers, most of which are run by for-profit companies.

This week's Science Show has a really wonderful, thought-provoking set of talks about intellectual property issues. Highly recommended.

Indeed, to harken back to the last post, one of the things I think I've changed my mind about is about intellectual property. I used to be much more supportive of copyright protection overall. Now, I see more and more benefits of a more relaxed attitude towards accessing information, thanks to programs like the one above, Creative Commons (particular Lawrence Lessig's advocacy), the push towards Open Access, and more.

(And in addition to all the stuff about copyright, there's a bonus revelation about just how much power internet computing is using up. I never considered how much juice Google HQ must suck back.)

Changing your mind

Given that much of what I've been writing about recently concerns people who have consistently failed to revise their hypotheses in light of contrary evidence (much of what I've been writing about ICR, for instance; a lot of posts on skepticism), I absolutely love this page:

What have you changed your mind about?

And, paradoxically, one of the first ones I come across is one that I like a lot, but I don't think is easily digestible to non-scientists, and indeed, runs counter to much of what I've been writing. Irene Pepperberg talks about the the importance of doing more than hypothesis testing.

As to her first point, my favourite version of that is from Niko Tinbergen, who, in one of his most famous papers, wrote:

Contempt for simple observation is a lethal trait in any science(.)

As for Pepperberg's third point: strong inference, baby.

I'm going to be reading this page a lot, methinks. Fantastic.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 10

Henry Morris III, the ICR director, has a letter in the Dallas News this morning objecting to their recent editorial. Time for a fisking.

It came as a surprise to both faculty and administration when the editorial stated that the Institute for Creation Research "rejects so many fundamental principles of science."

That shouldn't be a surprise, since people have been pointing out that creationism isn't science for years now. There have been court cases about it. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education in 1982 (summarized here -- # 3) was a prominent one. And ICR, then under Henry Morris's grandfather, Henry Morris, Sr., featured rather prominently in that case (search the linked text for ICR).

Odd that Henry Morris III wouldn't know about that court case.

Funny that it would come as a surprise to Mr. Morris that people don't think his institute is doing science.

ICR would like to know which "principles of science" are supposedly rejected by our school.

Methodological naturalism and willingness to revise hypotheses in light of contrary evidence.

Surely not Newton's gravitational theory.

Not a principle of science. That's a particular body of information generated by the principles of science, but it is not the principle itself.

Nor Mendel's laws of heredity.

Not a principle of science.

Nor do we deny natural selection, suggested by Edward Blyth 24 years before Charles Darwin's writings.

Yes, natural selection was recognized before Charles Darwin. Nevertheless, Darwin's contribution was huge. Darwin was the first to recognize natural selection as a creative force with the ability to create new forms of life. Stephen Jay Gould writes about this quite a bit in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

All were creationists.

Irrelevant. They probably all had two legs, too. Nobody disputes that many scientists have been and are Christians. This is about evidence, not authority.

Also, it's a total shell game to say, "Newton and Mendel were creationists" because there really were any strong competing theories at the time! If you were able to go back, bring Newton or Mendel or any of those people to the present day, show them the evidence that we have now... would they still hold to the doctrine that the earth is a few thousand years old and that species were specially created? There's no way to say. Mendel, for example, was an Augustinian monk -- a Roman Catholic. And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. Indeed, one of my colleagues learned evolution from a nun.

If Mendel were alive today, he would probably not be a creationist.

What ICR scientists openly question is Darwin's "descent with modification" or macroevolution. Even renowned evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that "evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory."

Oooh, a quote mine! No context, no date, no source. Let's see if I can find this in Talk Origins... and yes, here it is. It's from 1971 or 1972. And we've learned a few things since then.

Despite what The News implies, ICR is a science-oriented institution, employing experts since 1970 whose credentials meet or exceed the qualifications of numerous secular universities and who conduct research across various disciplines. Many researchers bring extensive experience from such recognized facilities as Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, Cornell, UCLA and Texas A&M.

Do they make predictions, conduct experiments, analyze data, and publish results in peer-reviewed journals? They probably have in the past, but what's their output recently?

The graduate programs of ICR, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect: ICR bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God, as opposed to the naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions of evolution.

And here comes the wedge: A real Christian can't support evolution. Only atheists support evolution. Choose!

What a tremendous disservice -- actually, an insult -- to the many, many Christians and other believers who see no incompatibility between their faith and scientific evidence.

And it also shows the the ICR does not abide by one of the working assumptions of scientific inquiry: no miracles allowed.

Perhaps before suggesting that men and women of faith have no place in teaching science, The News should verify the credentials and scientific contributions of those it impugns who are both committed Christians and recognized, productive scientists.

Interesting how the letter ends without mentioning how many peer-reviewed papers come out of the ICR. How many externally funded grants ICR personnel currently hold. I'm willing to guess that the number is low.

Not surprising to see familiar and not very substantive arguments here.