Take care of your goldfish

In the October 16 NYT Trilobites blog, we learned, what some of us have long suspected, fish get depressed. "The trigger for most domestic fish depression is likely lack of stimulation," reported Heather Murphy. Fish are naturally curious, Murphy quotes Dr. Victoria Braithwaite who recommends adding new objects to your fish tank, or moving them around.

Since at least in 2008, it has been common knowledge that low levels of anti-depressants are making their way out of our bodies, through the waste stream, and into the ocean (and back into our supply of drinking water). Fairly contained bodies of water, like Puget Sound, don't get flushed thoroughly. Here's a recent summary from 2016 on Vice (and abstract for the underlying research.)

For my Bay Area friends: Drugs in Water.

Here's a poem from five years ago about barnacles and the gasping ssri sea.

If you recall Darwin made his name in barnacles before publishing On the Origin of Species. His friend and mentor, Joseph Hooker, told Darwin that he and his fellow scientists would have little confidence in any speculation about the possibility of species evolving if it came from someone who had not done the real, nitty-gritty taxonomic work of describing some group in detail. Darwin replied to Hooker: “How painfully (to me) true is your remark.” He chose barnacles; he'd collected many in his travels. (Source: Naming Nature.)

In 1854, after 8 years of studying barnacles, Darwin wrote, "I hate a barnacle as no man ever did before, not even a sailor in a slow moving ship."

Just do what you can do. Take care of your goldfish.

Whose Science?

In December, The New York Times's David Hakim reports on Scientists Loved and Loathed by Agrochemical Firm Syngenta; and vice versa, corporate research grants loved and loathed by scientists.

The article goes into the 3 different examples of scientists working in Agrochemical research.

• Pesticide effects on bee health (Dr. James Cresswell)
• Herbicide atrazine effects on prostate cancer & other health issues (Dr. James Simpson)
• GMO corn engineered to kill insect larvae (Dr. Angelika Hilbeck)

Issues covered: It starts with money of course. In UK 15% of university research is funded by private industry.

Scientific findings bound by confidentiality agreements. The funding source has "editorial control."

Partnerships between corporations, researchers and government which include secret patent deals.

Regulators as collaborators not watchdogs.

This pre-dates Trump; it is a good example of why March for Science shouldn't focus just on what is going on in Congress and White House today.

This is the questions I have: "whose science?, and how can an informed citizen know?

I listened to a great podcast this week where David Axelrod interviewed Former HHS Secretary, former Utah governor, and former head of the EPA, Mike Leavitt.

Why @GOP Congress should proceed with caution on Obamacare. Former Bush HHS secy Mike Leavitt on #AxeFiles. https://t.co/uGG6gUgGf5 pic.twitter.com/6XVQrMtlKl

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 16, 2017

I've been seeking out podcasts recently which feature thoughtful Republicans. I want to learn where the common ground is. The first half of this podcast is on the Affordable Care Act (good listening too), but at minute 35 the conversation shifts to the EPA. When talking about the environment, Leavitt found political balance between, for example, sustainability and development, almost impossible. The objective of policy makers, Leavitt says, "is to find that balance."

In minute 43, when the conversation shifts to nuclear power, Leavitt asks "whose science?" I've found a transcript for an earlier conversation that captures the same point:

People continue to ask me, "Why is it that you politicians ignore the science in developing public policy?" The frustration I feel is the question: "whose science?" because, as a policymaker, I am constantly having scientists of general, good reputes give me different points of view. I have come to find out that all scientists do not agree; that it's not something that is absolute, and there are people of substantial sincerity and enormous credential who see the world differently. So, when you're in a public policy making role and you follow one science,there is always another science that disputes what you've said.

In Seattle Science March, and the work the group continues long-term, this is a central question.To find the scientific consensus on an issue, where do we go? Who do we ask?  There is always doubt, additional questions, unknowns--that is the nature of scientific pursuit--but we do learn things over time. Our knowledge of how things work does progress.