Coming Attractions: An Advocacy Survey

Photo Credit: jorge.correa on Flickr

It’s Friday, and you’re probably thinking about whether or not you want to see a movie this weekend. Well, how about two free movie tickets to help you out?

Complete the survey below and help Research!America improve its website and advocacy resources. Plus, if you provide your name and email at the end, you’ll be entered to win a pair of free movie tickets.

Only complete survey responses will be entered into the drawing. The survey closes March 18, with the winner announced soon after. Take about 10 minutes now and you could be seeing movies on us.

Take the Online Advocacy Resources SURVEY

New Voice Sheril Kirshenbaum on the Today Show!

In the lead up to one of Hallmark's favorite holidays, there's no doubt that kissing will be on the minds and lips of lots of people around the world. Which is perfect for New Voice Sheril Kirshenbaum; her new book The Science of Kissing explores the history and science of kissing. We'll be reviewing the book later this month, but we're offering congratulations this afternoon since Sheril's book tour included a segment on NBC's Today show this morning. Here it is in case you missed it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Congratulations Sheril!

(I'm only on Chapter 3, but it's a great read so far and definitely worth picking up for some sweet reading.)

Thoughts on the State of the Union Address

Now that it's had a bit of time to sink in, here are our thoughts on the State of the Union address made Tuesday evening.

The following passages are the opinions of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent those of any affiliated organizations.

Max's Take:
Science in the SOTU

Innovation is the light at the end of the tunnel for Obama. In his State of the Union speech, he spent an unprecedented amount of time discussing the role of science and research in leading the nation toward renewed prosperity. His remarks were undergirded by a fundamental belief in the societal benefits of science and pursuit of basic knowledge.

Even in the face of shifting national priorities and at a time when both sides of the isle are talking about cuts, Obama has been resolute in his support of science. This is especially striking given that many of the scientific investments being made today may not bear fruit in the short term, and probably not in time for the coming Presidential election.

Obama specifically mentioned the role of government support in the creation of the Internet, GPS, and computer chips. What other groundbreaking innovations should be included here? This is a tremendous opportunity for you to share how research has improved our world.

Heather's Impressions
Structural Integrity

By now you've read all of the promises about investing in biomedical research. Word is spreading far and wide about President Obama's call for innovation and more simply regulated salmon. Our Sputnik moment is upon us. And while others are discussing the verbage, I can't stop thinking about the construct.

I have a bit of a background in speechwriting and oral communications, so much of my time watching speeches is paying attention to rhetorical devices and style. Structurally, the president started with formalities and then led his content sections with science and education. Although I believe it is a priority for him - and that should be reflected in the upcoming budget as promised - I don't think that's why he led with it.

Science and education paved the way in the SOTU because they are topics everyone can get behind (as evidenced by years of public opinion data). No one wants America to be left behind. But it was more than just a warm-up; a unifying set of topics to bring on the applause.

Investment in research and innovation are about to face an epic fight for funding, and by framing it his way first, the president was attempting to counter early attacks. The position in the speech is just as important as the words he used.

As contradictions in the text of the speech already show, not everything mentioned on Tuesday night is going to happen. (I challenge anyone to find a SOTU where everything mentioned was actually accomplished as laid out in the speech.) However, that isn't the point of the SOTU. It's about goals, a vision, an ideal look at the future.

Beyond the structure of the speech is the structural integrity of its vision. Will the president be able to make his vision reality in the face of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression and a Congress with other plans? For the sake of science, I hope so.

Books to Inspire Young Scientists

I have always been interested in learning how things work, particularly the biology in the world around me, which is why it wasn't surprising for me to major in Biology. I don't know when I picked up this curiosity in living things, but it could have started with my love of reading and the books I chose. I've compiled a list of books, both fictional and true, that will stimulate young adults' interest in learning about science.

 
Death Be Not Proud by John Gunther. A touching true story following the author’s son’s battle with a brain tumor at 17. John Gunther describes Johnny’s selflessness and courage as he struggles with the transition from a curious, budding scientist to clinical research subject.



The Scent of Desire: Discovering Our Enigmatic Sense of Smell by Rachel Herz. This book explores the sense of smell and its importance to our lives. The author is able to clearly describe neurobiological principles and make them interesting. This book is sure to stimulate your curiosity in psychology and neuroscience.



 A Night Without Stars by James Howe. A young girl must undergo open-heart surgery, but no one will tell her what’s going on. This story explores her fear and her friendship with another patient at the hospital.


Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys But Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life by Sandra Aarnodt and Sam Wang. An “owner’s manual” for your brain, this book covers a wide range of everyday topics helping describe how the brain works. Welcome to Your Brain manages to be informative, interesting and easy-to-read.

Too Young to Die by Lurlene McDaniel. A talented high school student learns new lessons when she is diagnosed with leukemia. This is a touching story of friendship and life that also describes the diagnosis of cancer and the treatment process. A moving and informative story for all young adults learning about life.

Do Scientists Understand the Public?

First thing first: there is no such thing as one public. If there were, we’d only have one type of clothing store, one political party, one television channel … there are lots of people in a variety of publics out there. That being said, it is much easier to call all of those diverse audiences “the public” rather than parse them all out each time.

Second thing second: although scientists are their own special breed of people, they still qualify as being part of the public! In just the short history of New Voices, I’m sure I’ve said that scientists need to communicate better with the public – which, in a way, makes it as if scientists are not part of the public. That is not at all what I meant.

Scientists live in their communities (even if it feels like they live in their labs), vote in the same elections, eat in restaurants, buy new tech gadgets, drive on interstates … they are the public. We are ALL the public. But again, it is a bit easier to type “the public” than “non-scientific audiences.”

Now that we’ve cleared up that we’re only using the phrase “the public” because it is convenient, let’s get into the question of the day: do scientists understand the public?

To answer that, I think we have to look at what makes scientists different from the rest of the public. The number one thing is probably thought processes. From the four focus groups mentioned in the Mooney article to countless other examples throughout history, it seems as if the approach scientists take to an issue is incredibly different from the approach of someone without scientific training.

Some claim that the emotion that the public brings to a debate leads to impractical decisions. Others say that the lack of (com)passion shown by scientists in a debate denotes a lack of interest in any position but their own. This isn’t a gulf or even a two cultures issue – this is simply a communication problem.

As with any relationship, knowing others and how they work makes things easier. Just as men being from Mars and women being from Venus doesn’t stop male-female interaction, scientists and the public can successfully come together and understand each other. But everyone must take the time to get to know everyone else instead of resorting to stereotypes and popular (mis)conceptions.

Mooney presented a number of other issues in the piece. What struck you as most important? What are the next steps to answering the title question? To better communication between scientists and the public?

Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation

Image credit: Echoey13

In previous posts, I've shared how research demonstrates a link between endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and negative health effects, such as obesity. Since EDC exposures are a health concern, the government needs to identify chemicals of concern and implement policies to reduce exposures, as was done for lead. Unfortunately, U.S. chemical regulation is not a straightforward process.

Chemical regulation is split between several agencies. Two of the main agencies are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FDA oversees chemicals we are exposed to through certain consumer products like pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food additives, while the EPA regulates exposures that are more environmental, such as air pollution.

Some authorities are further split, as is the case for water, with bottled water being regulated by the FDA and tap water by the EPA. As a result, individual contaminants could end having different maximum permissible amounts in bottled vs. tap water.

This fragmented regulation makes it difficult to protect public health. But there were also a large number of chemicals in commerce that were initially unregulated if they were not covered under other existing laws, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act which regulates pharmaceuticals. In an attempt to close this gap, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, which gave EPA the authority over all unregulated chemicals.

A major flaw is that TSCA treats new chemicals differently than chemicals that existed before the act. Existing chemicals were not evaluated and were just presumed safe. At the time TSCA passed, there were already about 62,000 chemicals in commerce. Regulation of new chemicals isn’t much better and has limited requirements. Companies are only required to submit available data and don’t have to test for toxicity. It is estimated that only 15% of new chemicals have complete health and safety data.

TSCA had the potential to unify regulatory authority, by giving the EPA authority over chemicals of unreasonable risk to health or the environment. For example, BPA is approved by the FDA as an indirect food additive, but because of concerns for human health, the EPA is using its authority under TSCA to investigate BPA.

However, the phrase “unreasonable risk” created another major hurdle, because it places the burden of proof on the EPA, and requires a significant level of evidence prior to regulatory action that can take years to develop. As a result, chemicals are only regulated when proven harmful rather than requiring they are proven safe to enter the market.

TSCA was introduced over 30 years ago. Today, there are over 80,000 chemicals approved for use in the products we use, such as household cleaners, shampoo, and makeup. But to date, the EPA has only been able to regulate 5 chemicals and require testing for about 200. I feel the numbers clearly show that TSCA has failed to protect Americans.

Image credit: Abeeeer

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), the agency that evaluates the effectiveness of government programs and policies, also believes TSCA has not given the EPA the necessary authority to protect human health and the environment. U.S. GAO put the EPA's process for "assessing and controlling toxic chemicals" on its "high-risk" list in 2009. The list includes federal programs, policies, and operations that should be a top priority for reform

Currently, Congress is considering legislation to reform TSCA. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a bill called the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 in the Senate. Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) have released a discussion draft of the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 in the House. Only time will tell if these bills will provide Americans with meaningful reform that will improve public health.

This is Part 7 in the Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Temple Grandin: Innovator. Author. Activist. Autistic.

This Saturday, February 6th HBO will be premiering their movie, Temple Grandin, which is a biographical account of a high-functioning autistic woman who managed defy all expectations, earning her Ph.D. in Animal Sciences and becoming a respected scientist and autism advocate.

This movie couldn't have been released at a more important time, as The Lancet, a leading medical journal, formally retracted the seminal paper linking autism to vaccinations.

Some history...
In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield and co-workers published an article in the Lancet that suggested a possible link between autism and the common childhood vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. The paper sparked widespread concern over the safety of vaccinations, and resulted in an increase in the number of parents who chose not to have their children vaccinated. Yesterday, the Lancet fully retracted the paper in response to the ruling by U.K.’s General Medical Council that Dr. Wakefield acted dishonestly and that the specific study, which started the anti-vaccine movement, did not actually demonstrate a causal relationship between autism and vaccines.

Autism is a disease that affects approximately 1 in 110 children. Autism is diagnosed on a spectrum and no two patients have exactly the same symptoms. There has been a lot of research into the causes and potential treatments for autism, but at this point very little is known.

Two of your New Voices bloggers got to see a sneak peek of the movie last night. Here's what they thought:

Sarah’s reaction
Temple Grandin highlighted major strides made for the widespread recognition of the human component of autism. At the start, the movie showed the struggles a mother faced when her daughter was diagnosed with autism in the 1950’s. Doctors in that era were quick to suggest that the solution for the disease was institutionalizing autistic children. They believed that the cause of autism was poor parenting and that there was no potential for recovery. But by the end of the movie, in the 1980s, parents were trying to get more involved and were seeking out information about the condition and trying to play an active role in their children’s treatment.

The movie also provided insight into the autistic mind through the story of the life of Temple Grandin. It related difficulties autistic people have navigating social interactions by showing how Temple did not understand how to use her face to convey emotions. The movie also tried to give viewers a glimpse into the way autistic children think. The director used series of rapid pictures to convey the way Temple’s mind uses imagery to process information. As a result, the film successfully juxtaposed some advantages and disadvantages of her pictorial reasoning.

Heather's impression
Temple Grandin is a mix between Rain Man, Forrest Gump, and October Sky. From animated scenes in Temple's mind to the portrayal of her human and animal research, this movie gives anyone who isn't "normal" a heroine to look up to and love.

The film captured the essence of not only Temple's view of the world, but the world's view of her. Autism is difficult for even researchers to define, so it isn't so unbelievable that many people don't understand the disease. We can only hope that as stories like Temple's become more mainstream, that discrimination against autistic individuals will decrease.

This is a must see film about an incredible woman who has made an amazing impact in both medical and animal research. She also happens to be autistic.

Unscientific America Reviewed

All of us here at New Voices are strong proponents for science communication and advocacy. Which is why we were delighted to get a chance to read an early copy of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Today, Heather and Ilse are going to share their reviews with you.

It's important to note that both reviews are based on a galley copy (which means it wasn't finished being edited for print yet). So, any statements made about form and content may have been altered before printing. We got our copies this morning as we were finishing typing up these reviews, giving us a chance to mark the quotes accurately. However, the rest of our general statements are based on the early version of the book.

We think this book - which discusses the ways science and society interact with each other (or don't, for the most part) - is worth your time. And, we hope our reviews convince you of that.

So without further ado ...
Ilse's Thoughts on Unscientific America & Heather's Take on Unscientific America

Ilse's Thoughts on Unscientific America

At a time when scientific research and advancements are increasingly and undeniably significant to the lives of Americans, it seems reasonable that the public should have some idea of what is happening in science. However, as Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue in their book, Unscientific America, the majority of Americans are strikingly uninformed about science. Because of this disconnect and the importance of science to our lives, Mooney and Kirshenbaum contend that we need to develop a new generation of science communicators to not only mend the rift between science and culture, but "to create a perfect union.” (132)

Through their analysis of the historical and present relationships between science and several facets of American culture, the authors make a fairly good case. After introducing the divide and the issue of scientific illiteracy, Mooney and Kirshenbaum trace the history of science and scientific popularization in America since the end of WWII in "From Sputnik to Sagan."

Subsequent chapters delve into the rifts between science and humanists, national politics, the press, the entertainment industry, religion, and the Internet; the authors conclude with a call to broaden our conception of science education and train scientists to be effective communicators because “scientists, and the people who care about their work, know best what is being missed.” (132)

The case studies that Mooney and Kirshenbaum incorporate into each chapter establish a clear picture of how science is perceived today. These examples demonstrate how widespread scientific illiteracy is and also show how gaps have been bridged in the past (and could be bridged in the future).

However, for a book that is intended to inspire people to bridge divides, Unscientific America’s strong political overtones seem ironically divisive. At one point, Al Gore is referred to as “the man who should have been president”; such comments have the potential to alienate those who, one might argue, most desperately need to hear this message. (89)

Furthermore, the book does not place sufficient responsibility on American society as a whole; even if our nation is able to develop efficient ambassadors for science, it will not be helpful if those in the media, Hollywood, and everywhere else are unwilling to receive them.

Unscientific America is an engaging and thought-provoking read. It is well-researched and the writing is accessible. Best of all, the thematic approach ensures that chapter-by-chapter it will appeal not only to scientists and science enthusiasts but also to religious figures, members of the media, and virtually anyone else.

Heather's Take on Unscientific America

Non-fiction is not my favorite type of reading, usually because as much as I'm interested in the material, it is an absolute drag to get through. For a reason that will never be clear to me, many authors seem to think "facts" and a sense of storytelling don't belong together. However, this was not the case with Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Style
The book - which as the title implies, discusses the relationship between science and society - is clear and concise in a readable format (either cover to cover, or by topical chapter). It discusses many of the major discussions going on in the science communication community today without the rambling feeling of a literature review. There are three stylistic points that didn't really suit my fancy (though they may yours):

1. Trailing end notes. Other people have discussed this and the authors responded, but it didn't help me too much. I liked the smoothness of the book's flow, but when I got to the end and felt the need to basically re-read the chapters through their footnotes, I wasn't as thrilled.
2. Left-leaning political bias. Chris is the author of The Republican War on Science, so I knew it was going to be in there, I just hoped it wouldn't.
3. Self references. The book sometimes went from third person to a plural first person. I'm hoping this got cleaned up in the final edits.

Thematic Content
The thematic content of the book was so on point about the changes we need in the culture of science today, that Research!America (the organization behind New Voices) is sending it to our "cadre of scientists" who we hope will soon be science ambassadors. The authors make it clear that what the scientific community needs is a shift in how we associate and integrate with the public at large. They show that the fault line between science and society is caused by both sides, and that only through changes in both sides can a bridge across be built.

Format & Audience
Each chapter begins with a story-like introduction that sets the stage for the topic, discusses the main issues, then argues the authors' point and finishes with a conclusion or suggestions for how to improve the situation. It was clear that Chris and Sheril knew members of the scientific community (or those who follow it closely) would be the primary readers of the book - and they wrote it to them. The examples are relevant to that audience and help to drive the points home.

They make plenty of suggestions about what scientists can do themselves: advocate, improve communication skills, learn more about interests outside of their community, etc. While they also recommend sweeping reforms for the scientific community: introduce more interdisciplinary training, "redefine the role of the scientist in public affairs" (61), or "invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of America's citizenry." (130) The most difficult part about making these changes though is something they introduce in the beginning: there is little support for popularization or really any communication outside of scientific specialties.

Contradictions
My only real disappointment with the book was that the authors seemed to contradict themselves from time to time.

For example, when discussing scientific literacy early on, the authors make the point that perception can be more important than specifics (say, around the Pluto being a planet issue). They later spend a chapter talking about how the New Atheists aren't necessarily helping the scientific community by bashing religion. Then in the concluding chapter they say (in reference to cementing the scientific community's place in American society):

"Maybe we might think about taking a rest if the percentage of Americans subscribing to young-Earth creationism dipped below 20-but until then, we must be constantly vigilant." (131)

If they had to use a measure of scientific literacy (which they'd already mentioned was a dated measure), did they have to choose that one? I know they're writing to a specific audience, but they spent a WHOLE chapter explaining that we need to work with the religious community, and then they say that their belief structure should be the basis of the scientific community's constant vigilance. This type of position statement deteriorates the other well-worded messages they spent time developing.

Conclusions
All in all though, this book should be read by anyone who wants to see changes in the way science is perceived in American society today. There were certainly specific points in the book that I disagreed with - and I look forward to debating those with all of you after you've read it, and hopefully Chris and Sheril. But, even with those points of difference, the over-arching message of Unscientific America cannot be disputed: we need a change.

Congratulations to Chris and Sheril for an enjoyable and well-researched read and what I'm sure will be the basis of excellent discussion about the importance of science communication in society today.