If You’re Against Teacher’s Unions Then You’re Against Teachers [EvolutionBlog]

In a post from four years ago, I wrote this:

[A]s a society we do everything in our power to make teaching as unappealing a profession as possible. In most districts the pay and benefits are laughable compared to other professions. Even worse, there is a deep lack of respect for the work that teachers do. People who haven’t set foot in a classroom since their own, typically undistinguished, academic careers, and who wouldn’t last five minutes if they ever did enter a classroom, seem perfectly happy to give lectures on how easy teachers have it, what with their nine-month school year and workday that ends at 3:05. Teachers are the only one’s blamed for poor student performance. It is never the fault of spineless, unsupportive administrators, or lazy, shiftless students and their irresponsible, enabling parents. The only forces working against all this are the unions, and bless their hearts for doing so.

Nothing has happened in the ensuing four years to make me reconsider this.

I might have added that teachers routinely do work well beyond what their contract requires, often at considerable personal expense. If teachers ever start working to code the schools will have to shut down.

Occasionally, though, some whiny right-wing teacher will start blubbering about the sheer injustice of having to join the union. You see, teacher’s unions have noticed that one of our political parties is entirely contemptuous of teachers and is not too fond of public education generally, so they sometimes give money to the other party. The teachers who object to this should be forced to accept whatever contract the district was offering before the union did its work. They’d be lucky to get bus fare.

As it happens, no one can be forced to join a union. But you can be forced to pay a “fair-share fee”. Collective bargaining is expensive, and unions are forced by law to bargain on behalf of all their workers. That includes freeloaders. So it’s entirely reasonable to expect everyone to contribute something to the effort.

A 1977 Supreme Court case found that such fees were constitutional. That precedent is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court. A gaggle of right-wing groups managed to find ten freeloading teachers who want the higher salary and better benefits the unions get them without having to pay anything. Their legal argument is that since teacher salaries are paid by taxpayers, anything the union does is inherently political. Therefore, you cannot separate collective bargaining activities from the more overtly political activities the union undertakes. Forcing people to pay fair-share fees is thus an infringement of the free speech rights of teachers.

Whatever. If you care, you can read this for a cogent explanation of why this argument is crap. It hardly matters, though, since the five right-wing ideologues on the Court despise unions and rarely pass up an opportunity to rule against them. Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote in cases involving cultural issues (he did the right thing on gay marriage, for example), but he pretty much always favors management over labor.

The case has had an unusual history, as described here. No factual record has been developed in this case. The lower courts, at the urging of the plaintiffs (the ten teachers), issued summary judgment in favor of the unions on the grounds that the 1977 precedent is still in force. The point was to get the case to the Supreme Court so that the 1977 precedent can be overturned. However, as explained at the link, the lack of a factual record is legally very problematic, and really ought to lead to the petition being dismissed.

It will not be the end of the world if the Court rules against the unions. But it will be one more blow against labor in this country, and one more instance of the endless right-wing effort to shift power upward. In enacting their agenda they need a large supply of useful idiots to vote against their interests, like these ten teachers. Sadly, they rarely have a problem finding what they need.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KapFee

In a post from four years ago, I wrote this:

[A]s a society we do everything in our power to make teaching as unappealing a profession as possible. In most districts the pay and benefits are laughable compared to other professions. Even worse, there is a deep lack of respect for the work that teachers do. People who haven’t set foot in a classroom since their own, typically undistinguished, academic careers, and who wouldn’t last five minutes if they ever did enter a classroom, seem perfectly happy to give lectures on how easy teachers have it, what with their nine-month school year and workday that ends at 3:05. Teachers are the only one’s blamed for poor student performance. It is never the fault of spineless, unsupportive administrators, or lazy, shiftless students and their irresponsible, enabling parents. The only forces working against all this are the unions, and bless their hearts for doing so.

Nothing has happened in the ensuing four years to make me reconsider this.

I might have added that teachers routinely do work well beyond what their contract requires, often at considerable personal expense. If teachers ever start working to code the schools will have to shut down.

Occasionally, though, some whiny right-wing teacher will start blubbering about the sheer injustice of having to join the union. You see, teacher’s unions have noticed that one of our political parties is entirely contemptuous of teachers and is not too fond of public education generally, so they sometimes give money to the other party. The teachers who object to this should be forced to accept whatever contract the district was offering before the union did its work. They’d be lucky to get bus fare.

As it happens, no one can be forced to join a union. But you can be forced to pay a “fair-share fee”. Collective bargaining is expensive, and unions are forced by law to bargain on behalf of all their workers. That includes freeloaders. So it’s entirely reasonable to expect everyone to contribute something to the effort.

A 1977 Supreme Court case found that such fees were constitutional. That precedent is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court. A gaggle of right-wing groups managed to find ten freeloading teachers who want the higher salary and better benefits the unions get them without having to pay anything. Their legal argument is that since teacher salaries are paid by taxpayers, anything the union does is inherently political. Therefore, you cannot separate collective bargaining activities from the more overtly political activities the union undertakes. Forcing people to pay fair-share fees is thus an infringement of the free speech rights of teachers.

Whatever. If you care, you can read this for a cogent explanation of why this argument is crap. It hardly matters, though, since the five right-wing ideologues on the Court despise unions and rarely pass up an opportunity to rule against them. Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote in cases involving cultural issues (he did the right thing on gay marriage, for example), but he pretty much always favors management over labor.

The case has had an unusual history, as described here. No factual record has been developed in this case. The lower courts, at the urging of the plaintiffs (the ten teachers), issued summary judgment in favor of the unions on the grounds that the 1977 precedent is still in force. The point was to get the case to the Supreme Court so that the 1977 precedent can be overturned. However, as explained at the link, the lack of a factual record is legally very problematic, and really ought to lead to the petition being dismissed.

It will not be the end of the world if the Court rules against the unions. But it will be one more blow against labor in this country, and one more instance of the endless right-wing effort to shift power upward. In enacting their agenda they need a large supply of useful idiots to vote against their interests, like these ten teachers. Sadly, they rarely have a problem finding what they need.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KapFee

EarthSky News with Deborah Byrd

Three-and-a-half minutes of Deborah delivering the news … and an awesome two-and-a-half minutes of Chris Hadfield’s now-classic delivery of Bowie’s Space Oddity from ISS. RIP, David Bowie.

This week … see video of SpaceX’s sea-going and land-based attempts to land a rocket upright, a belch from a supermassive black hole, and get an update on the magnificent planet-hunting Kepler spacecraft.

Special thanks to Slooh.com for producing this video.

Producer: Tricia Ennis

Assistant Producer: Ryan Little

Check out Slooh.com’s new 24/7 broadcast schedule

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1SKPV5U

Three-and-a-half minutes of Deborah delivering the news … and an awesome two-and-a-half minutes of Chris Hadfield’s now-classic delivery of Bowie’s Space Oddity from ISS. RIP, David Bowie.

This week … see video of SpaceX’s sea-going and land-based attempts to land a rocket upright, a belch from a supermassive black hole, and get an update on the magnificent planet-hunting Kepler spacecraft.

Special thanks to Slooh.com for producing this video.

Producer: Tricia Ennis

Assistant Producer: Ryan Little

Check out Slooh.com’s new 24/7 broadcast schedule

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1SKPV5U

Oh, Give Me a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

A gift from the NY Zoological Society helped restore buffalo herds to the Southern Plains.

By Marcia Anderson

Thanks to a gift of 15 buffalo from the New York Zoological Society, predecessor to the Bronx Zoo, the Southern Plains of the United States has a substantial heard of buffalo roaming southern Oklahoma’s Wichita Mountains Wildlife Reserve, the nation’s oldest refuge.

The great southern prairies were home to numerous Indian tribes, who lived with the land, not just on it. This is where Native American teepees stood and wild buffalo roamed the Great Plains. The Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge got its start when Congress set aside much of southwestern Oklahoma in 1867 as a reservation for Kiowa, Comanche and Kiowa-Apache tribes. The reservation encompassed the Red River north to the Washita River, including all of the Wichita Mountains. At that time, Indian lands meant nothing to commercial hunters. They encroached into Indian Country, and killed thousands of animals at a time for their pelts.

Today, over 600 buffalo freely roam the 59,000 acre Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

At the turn of the century, Oklahoma businessmen were petitioning Congress to reserve the Wichita Mountains as a national park. Even then-Vice President Roosevelt was approached by his Rough Riders to create a national park. But when Congress adjourned in 1901, there was still no park. At that point President McKinley agreed to preserve the land, not as a park, but as a National Forest Preserve. The preserve status kept land seekers at bay, but did nothing to deter the hunters who found rich hunting in the Indian lands. All large animals were exterminated down to the last wolves and bears.

In 1905, newly-elected President Roosevelt, began his quest to return the buffalo to the plains. William Hornaday, first director of the New York Zoological Park, solicited funds to purchase bison from the remaining private herds. The animals were cared for at the New York Zoological Park, predecessor of the Bronx Zoo. A member of the NY Zoological Society surveyed the Wichita Mountain site to see if the area was appropriate for bison restoration. In March 1905, the NY Zoological Society told Congress that they would donate several bison if they would cover the cost of fencing and maintenance. Congress approved the site and funding.

Thanks to Roosevelt, Horniday and the NY Zoological Society, the dream of restoring a piece of the nation’s heritage came to pass.

In October 1907, 15 bison from four herds with differing bloodlines traveled by train from New York City to Oklahoma. After the 1,800 mile journey, the bison were unloaded from the rail cars at Cache, and transferred to wagons for the final 13 miles. Everyone for miles around came to observe the historic spectacle. Children, who had never seen the wild animals, were enthralled. Comanche elders wore their finest tribal attire to welcome the Great Spirit Cattle back home. The buffalo were given names of great Indian warriors, including Geronimo.

Buffalo grazing on prairie grass.

As a northeasterner, the closest I ever came to a bull was a moose in Maine. The closest I had ever been to a buffalo was looking at the far side of a nickel. That was until a trip this summer to Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

It is early morning and the ground thunders as their hooves pound the prairie. The buffalo run, then slow. They are the color of dark chocolate brownies and extremely photogenic. They are massive creatures, over a ton, and graze in a meadow with all of the prairie grass they can eat. A few hundred yards away is a lake with all the water they can drink. Good thing, for it seems that the bulls drink water by the gallon. They use the surrounding rocks to scratch their bellies or other parts they cannot easily reach, leaving tufts of shed fur perfect for lining the nest of a bird or prairie dog den. After lunch and a long drink, it is time to take a nap. The hot summer sun has many of the herd resting and rolling on the ground, except for the calves, who romp and play while their parents doze to beat the heat.

This is a scene that has not been observed since the 1870s – a herd of buffalo roaming the Southern Prairie. Today, over 600 buffalo freely roam the 59,000 acre Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

 

About the Author: Marcia is with EPA’s Center of Expertise for School IPM in Dallas, Texas. She holds a PhD in Environmental Management from Montclair State University along with degrees in Biology, Environmental Design, Landscape Architecture, and Instruction and Curriculum. Marcia was formerly with the EPA Region 2 Pesticides Program and has been a professor of Earth and Environmental Studies, Geology, and Oceanography at several universities.

 

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1OeilCb

A gift from the NY Zoological Society helped restore buffalo herds to the Southern Plains.

By Marcia Anderson

Thanks to a gift of 15 buffalo from the New York Zoological Society, predecessor to the Bronx Zoo, the Southern Plains of the United States has a substantial heard of buffalo roaming southern Oklahoma’s Wichita Mountains Wildlife Reserve, the nation’s oldest refuge.

The great southern prairies were home to numerous Indian tribes, who lived with the land, not just on it. This is where Native American teepees stood and wild buffalo roamed the Great Plains. The Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge got its start when Congress set aside much of southwestern Oklahoma in 1867 as a reservation for Kiowa, Comanche and Kiowa-Apache tribes. The reservation encompassed the Red River north to the Washita River, including all of the Wichita Mountains. At that time, Indian lands meant nothing to commercial hunters. They encroached into Indian Country, and killed thousands of animals at a time for their pelts.

Today, over 600 buffalo freely roam the 59,000 acre Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

At the turn of the century, Oklahoma businessmen were petitioning Congress to reserve the Wichita Mountains as a national park. Even then-Vice President Roosevelt was approached by his Rough Riders to create a national park. But when Congress adjourned in 1901, there was still no park. At that point President McKinley agreed to preserve the land, not as a park, but as a National Forest Preserve. The preserve status kept land seekers at bay, but did nothing to deter the hunters who found rich hunting in the Indian lands. All large animals were exterminated down to the last wolves and bears.

In 1905, newly-elected President Roosevelt, began his quest to return the buffalo to the plains. William Hornaday, first director of the New York Zoological Park, solicited funds to purchase bison from the remaining private herds. The animals were cared for at the New York Zoological Park, predecessor of the Bronx Zoo. A member of the NY Zoological Society surveyed the Wichita Mountain site to see if the area was appropriate for bison restoration. In March 1905, the NY Zoological Society told Congress that they would donate several bison if they would cover the cost of fencing and maintenance. Congress approved the site and funding.

Thanks to Roosevelt, Horniday and the NY Zoological Society, the dream of restoring a piece of the nation’s heritage came to pass.

In October 1907, 15 bison from four herds with differing bloodlines traveled by train from New York City to Oklahoma. After the 1,800 mile journey, the bison were unloaded from the rail cars at Cache, and transferred to wagons for the final 13 miles. Everyone for miles around came to observe the historic spectacle. Children, who had never seen the wild animals, were enthralled. Comanche elders wore their finest tribal attire to welcome the Great Spirit Cattle back home. The buffalo were given names of great Indian warriors, including Geronimo.

Buffalo grazing on prairie grass.

As a northeasterner, the closest I ever came to a bull was a moose in Maine. The closest I had ever been to a buffalo was looking at the far side of a nickel. That was until a trip this summer to Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

It is early morning and the ground thunders as their hooves pound the prairie. The buffalo run, then slow. They are the color of dark chocolate brownies and extremely photogenic. They are massive creatures, over a ton, and graze in a meadow with all of the prairie grass they can eat. A few hundred yards away is a lake with all the water they can drink. Good thing, for it seems that the bulls drink water by the gallon. They use the surrounding rocks to scratch their bellies or other parts they cannot easily reach, leaving tufts of shed fur perfect for lining the nest of a bird or prairie dog den. After lunch and a long drink, it is time to take a nap. The hot summer sun has many of the herd resting and rolling on the ground, except for the calves, who romp and play while their parents doze to beat the heat.

This is a scene that has not been observed since the 1870s – a herd of buffalo roaming the Southern Prairie. Today, over 600 buffalo freely roam the 59,000 acre Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

 

About the Author: Marcia is with EPA’s Center of Expertise for School IPM in Dallas, Texas. She holds a PhD in Environmental Management from Montclair State University along with degrees in Biology, Environmental Design, Landscape Architecture, and Instruction and Curriculum. Marcia was formerly with the EPA Region 2 Pesticides Program and has been a professor of Earth and Environmental Studies, Geology, and Oceanography at several universities.

 

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1OeilCb

Protecting Communities through Superfund Enforcement

By Cyndy Mackey

December 2016 marked the 35th Anniversary of the Superfund program, the federal government’s most successful program designed to clean up the nation’s contaminated land and water and respond to environmental emergencies. I oversee EPA’s Superfund enforcement program, which focuses on cleaning up neighborhoods, ensuring that the polluter pays, and protecting human health and the environment.

The past 35 years have brought significant changes to Superfund through congressional amendments, changes to perspective through reauthorization discussions, and interpretations from the judicial system. Not only has the law changed, but technology has, too.

I am proud to have dedicated my career to cleaning up contaminated sites, and my goal in my current role is to support EPA’s work to find responsible parties and make sure that polluters pay for the cost of cleanups instead the American taxpayers.

For every dollar spent by the Superfund enforcement program, private parties commit to spending eight dollars toward cleanup work leading to restoration of land and water, facilitating reuse and revitalization, and protecting communities. Since the program inception, EPA has secured over $35.1 billion in private party commitments and over $6.9 billion to recover past cleanup costs. EPA has been instrumental in helping to get the responsible parties to pay for cleanup of sites across the country. For example:

• A 2006 enforcement agreement with General Electric resulted in a $2.7 billion cleanup of contaminated sediment and 300,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) being removed from the Hudson River riverbed. The dredging of the Hudson River PCB Superfund Site was completed in October 2015.
• A 2014 settlement to resolve fraudulent conveyance charges against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee associated with the Tronox bankruptcy means $1.9 billion will go toward cleanup of contaminated Superfund sites across the country.
• A 2009 agreement required $975 million for the cleanup of contamination at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee. This agreement facilitates the cleanup of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash waste impacting the Emory River and adjacent land.
• In 2007, EPA collected more than $124 million from Hercules Incorporated to recover costs for the Agency’s cleanup work at the Vertac Chemical and Jackson Landfill Superfund Sites in Jacksonville, Arkansas.

EPA’s Superfund enforcement program is strong and is committed to finding new solutions as we address new sites, industrial processes, and hazardous substances to ensure human health and the environment are protected in communities across the country.

More information about Superfund’s accomplishments over the past 35 years.

About the author: Cyndy Mackey oversee EPA’s Superfund enforcement program, which focuses on cleaning up neighborhoods, ensuring that the polluter pays, and protecting human health and the environment.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RHksAW

By Cyndy Mackey

December 2016 marked the 35th Anniversary of the Superfund program, the federal government’s most successful program designed to clean up the nation’s contaminated land and water and respond to environmental emergencies. I oversee EPA’s Superfund enforcement program, which focuses on cleaning up neighborhoods, ensuring that the polluter pays, and protecting human health and the environment.

The past 35 years have brought significant changes to Superfund through congressional amendments, changes to perspective through reauthorization discussions, and interpretations from the judicial system. Not only has the law changed, but technology has, too.

I am proud to have dedicated my career to cleaning up contaminated sites, and my goal in my current role is to support EPA’s work to find responsible parties and make sure that polluters pay for the cost of cleanups instead the American taxpayers.

For every dollar spent by the Superfund enforcement program, private parties commit to spending eight dollars toward cleanup work leading to restoration of land and water, facilitating reuse and revitalization, and protecting communities. Since the program inception, EPA has secured over $35.1 billion in private party commitments and over $6.9 billion to recover past cleanup costs. EPA has been instrumental in helping to get the responsible parties to pay for cleanup of sites across the country. For example:

• A 2006 enforcement agreement with General Electric resulted in a $2.7 billion cleanup of contaminated sediment and 300,000 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) being removed from the Hudson River riverbed. The dredging of the Hudson River PCB Superfund Site was completed in October 2015.
• A 2014 settlement to resolve fraudulent conveyance charges against Anadarko and Kerr-McGee associated with the Tronox bankruptcy means $1.9 billion will go toward cleanup of contaminated Superfund sites across the country.
• A 2009 agreement required $975 million for the cleanup of contamination at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee. This agreement facilitates the cleanup of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash waste impacting the Emory River and adjacent land.
• In 2007, EPA collected more than $124 million from Hercules Incorporated to recover costs for the Agency’s cleanup work at the Vertac Chemical and Jackson Landfill Superfund Sites in Jacksonville, Arkansas.

EPA’s Superfund enforcement program is strong and is committed to finding new solutions as we address new sites, industrial processes, and hazardous substances to ensure human health and the environment are protected in communities across the country.

More information about Superfund’s accomplishments over the past 35 years.

About the author: Cyndy Mackey oversee EPA’s Superfund enforcement program, which focuses on cleaning up neighborhoods, ensuring that the polluter pays, and protecting human health and the environment.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RHksAW

If the Candidates Talk About Big Science Issues … [Greg Laden's Blog]

… maybe they’ll actually do something about them.

Remember the Democratic and Republican party debates that were held just before that major international meeting about climate change, participated in by every country in the world? Of course you do. Do you remember the candidates’ responses to the questions about climate change posed during those debates? No, you don’t. Not a single question about climate change, or any other big science issue, was asked.

When we think about the big science issues, climate change is often one of the main topics that comes first to mind. But there are many other big science issues that should be more openly and full discussed by candidates in the ongoing US Presidential election, as well as other state and federal elections. ScienceDebate.org has been collecting questions by interested citizens. Here is a sampling (go HERE to see all the questions and submit your own).:

• How would you reduce our pollution from fossil fuel combustion and encourage more American jobs in energy efficiency?
• Will you support science-based tobacco product regulation, and so stop FDA ban of e-cigarettes, a low-risk alternative that reduces smoking?
• How should we manage global population growth?
• What policies will you put forth to ensure scientific literacy?
• How do we ensure adequate clean fresh water for the US in years to come?
• Will you support substantial funding for high capacity energy storage and enhanced long distance electrical grids?
• Will you support a person’s right to obtain genetic information about them that has been collected by government funded projects?
• Will you bring back the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)?
• How would you address the world’s aging nuclear arsenals?
• What steps will you take in dealing with the threat that current agricultural monocultures pose towards biodiversity?
• What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?
• How would you ensure that government policy is based on evidence and science rather than ideology or personal opinion?
• What actions would you support to enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health, and when should exemptions be allowed?
• Do you believe that basic research should receive government funding, or should it all be left to the private sector?
• Given states’ rights, do you justify a ban on stem cell research in states that support it?
• We lack cyber security, from voting machines to governmental systems. How would you address cyber security?
• There is a distinct correlation between “fracking” and increased seismic (earthquake) activity. What are your views on fracking?
• How would you make the NIH a more efficient funder of government health efforts?
• What steps should the United States take to protect our population from emerging diseases?
• What would you as US president do to harden the American electrical grid against severe EMP events?
• What Will You Do to Reduce The Human and Economic Costs of Mental Illness?

As Shawn Otto recently pointed out, science is central to a large number of our policy challenges, but there are almost no scientists in Congress (about a half dozen during any given term). In fact, we don’t necessarily need a lot more scientists in Congress, but we do need to have science savvy people in elected office. What better way is there to ensure a higher level of science awareness than to make science policy a normal part of our election cycles, through debates, policy statements, and the journalism that covers those elections?

ScienceDebate.Org has been pushing for an actual science debate for a few POTUS elections now. They have had great success in getting their message out … most people have heard of the organization by now. And, there have been some successes in getting the candidates to address science. For example, when President Obama was challenged by Governor Mitt Romney, the two of them produced science policy statements.

This year is different from previous years. For the first time, climate change, one of the big science issues, is part of several national level campaigns. Oddly, the US press seems to be moving very slowly in addressing the fact that more and more citizens are concerned about this and other science issues. But with a bit of a push, the big networks and major journalistic outlets can be convinced to press candidates to address these issues.

Look again at the list of science policy questions above. My impression is that when a lot of people hear about a science debate, they imagine something different, where the candidates are asked science questions, to test their science literacy. That is not what the sciencedebate.org project is about. Candidates for national office, as well as state and local office, are expected to understand economics, crime, international relations, health care, and all sorts of other academic areas. They are not tested on their ability to write the equation for Pareto Efficiency, tactical strategies for dealing with a hostage situation, to speak widely spoken foreign languages, or demonstrate that they can conduct a liver transplant. They are asked about policy, like those science questions listed above. Not only should candidates be able to do that, but the people who are considering voting for them (or not) should have a good idea of how a given candidate will address these issues, or at least, to have evidence that the candidates have more than a vague idea of what these issues entail.

Sheril Kirshenbaum notes,

On Wednesday we’ll watch another Republican presidential debate, but how much do you expect to hear about topics like mental health and climate change? Funding for biomedical research and energy? Research innovation and global leadership? Given these are the issues that will impact the way all Americans live for decades to come, why are they so often the exception in debates, rather than the expectation?

ScienceDebat.org has produced a very compelling commercial that makes this point, and if you agree (and you know you do!) please pass this around on the usual social media for people to see. Here it is:

Here is something you should know: “ScienceDebate.org and Research!America, a group that advocates for medical research, commissioned a national poll that showed that 87% of likely voters think the candidates ought to be well-versed on these issues. The group held online exchanges between President Obama and his opponents in 2008 and 2012, each time making nearly a billion media impressions. “This cycle, we’d like to see one on national television,” said the group’s chair, science writer Shawn Otto. ”

As noted above, you can submit questions to Science debate, and you can support the effort in other ways as wall (like, for example, giving them money!).

Others who are joining the call for a science debate are talking about this commercial:

DeSmogBlog: Presidential Debates Ignore Climate Change, So Children Are Demanding Answers
EcoWatch: Kids Demand Presidential Candidates Address Climate Change
Yale’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Candidates Should not Avoid Science Debate
PZ Myers at Pharyngula: Do we want our politicians to address science issues? (and here at Scienceblogs)
Eli Rabett at Rabett Run: Questions, Bunnies Got Questions

And, of course, ScienceDebate.org organizers Shawn Otto and Sheril Kirshenbaum have posts on this as well.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JFN7Fb

… maybe they’ll actually do something about them.

Remember the Democratic and Republican party debates that were held just before that major international meeting about climate change, participated in by every country in the world? Of course you do. Do you remember the candidates’ responses to the questions about climate change posed during those debates? No, you don’t. Not a single question about climate change, or any other big science issue, was asked.

When we think about the big science issues, climate change is often one of the main topics that comes first to mind. But there are many other big science issues that should be more openly and full discussed by candidates in the ongoing US Presidential election, as well as other state and federal elections. ScienceDebate.org has been collecting questions by interested citizens. Here is a sampling (go HERE to see all the questions and submit your own).:

• How would you reduce our pollution from fossil fuel combustion and encourage more American jobs in energy efficiency?
• Will you support science-based tobacco product regulation, and so stop FDA ban of e-cigarettes, a low-risk alternative that reduces smoking?
• How should we manage global population growth?
• What policies will you put forth to ensure scientific literacy?
• How do we ensure adequate clean fresh water for the US in years to come?
• Will you support substantial funding for high capacity energy storage and enhanced long distance electrical grids?
• Will you support a person’s right to obtain genetic information about them that has been collected by government funded projects?
• Will you bring back the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)?
• How would you address the world’s aging nuclear arsenals?
• What steps will you take in dealing with the threat that current agricultural monocultures pose towards biodiversity?
• What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?
• How would you ensure that government policy is based on evidence and science rather than ideology or personal opinion?
• What actions would you support to enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health, and when should exemptions be allowed?
• Do you believe that basic research should receive government funding, or should it all be left to the private sector?
• Given states’ rights, do you justify a ban on stem cell research in states that support it?
• We lack cyber security, from voting machines to governmental systems. How would you address cyber security?
• There is a distinct correlation between “fracking” and increased seismic (earthquake) activity. What are your views on fracking?
• How would you make the NIH a more efficient funder of government health efforts?
• What steps should the United States take to protect our population from emerging diseases?
• What would you as US president do to harden the American electrical grid against severe EMP events?
• What Will You Do to Reduce The Human and Economic Costs of Mental Illness?

As Shawn Otto recently pointed out, science is central to a large number of our policy challenges, but there are almost no scientists in Congress (about a half dozen during any given term). In fact, we don’t necessarily need a lot more scientists in Congress, but we do need to have science savvy people in elected office. What better way is there to ensure a higher level of science awareness than to make science policy a normal part of our election cycles, through debates, policy statements, and the journalism that covers those elections?

ScienceDebate.Org has been pushing for an actual science debate for a few POTUS elections now. They have had great success in getting their message out … most people have heard of the organization by now. And, there have been some successes in getting the candidates to address science. For example, when President Obama was challenged by Governor Mitt Romney, the two of them produced science policy statements.

This year is different from previous years. For the first time, climate change, one of the big science issues, is part of several national level campaigns. Oddly, the US press seems to be moving very slowly in addressing the fact that more and more citizens are concerned about this and other science issues. But with a bit of a push, the big networks and major journalistic outlets can be convinced to press candidates to address these issues.

Look again at the list of science policy questions above. My impression is that when a lot of people hear about a science debate, they imagine something different, where the candidates are asked science questions, to test their science literacy. That is not what the sciencedebate.org project is about. Candidates for national office, as well as state and local office, are expected to understand economics, crime, international relations, health care, and all sorts of other academic areas. They are not tested on their ability to write the equation for Pareto Efficiency, tactical strategies for dealing with a hostage situation, to speak widely spoken foreign languages, or demonstrate that they can conduct a liver transplant. They are asked about policy, like those science questions listed above. Not only should candidates be able to do that, but the people who are considering voting for them (or not) should have a good idea of how a given candidate will address these issues, or at least, to have evidence that the candidates have more than a vague idea of what these issues entail.

Sheril Kirshenbaum notes,

On Wednesday we’ll watch another Republican presidential debate, but how much do you expect to hear about topics like mental health and climate change? Funding for biomedical research and energy? Research innovation and global leadership? Given these are the issues that will impact the way all Americans live for decades to come, why are they so often the exception in debates, rather than the expectation?

ScienceDebat.org has produced a very compelling commercial that makes this point, and if you agree (and you know you do!) please pass this around on the usual social media for people to see. Here it is:

Here is something you should know: “ScienceDebate.org and Research!America, a group that advocates for medical research, commissioned a national poll that showed that 87% of likely voters think the candidates ought to be well-versed on these issues. The group held online exchanges between President Obama and his opponents in 2008 and 2012, each time making nearly a billion media impressions. “This cycle, we’d like to see one on national television,” said the group’s chair, science writer Shawn Otto. ”

As noted above, you can submit questions to Science debate, and you can support the effort in other ways as wall (like, for example, giving them money!).

Others who are joining the call for a science debate are talking about this commercial:

DeSmogBlog: Presidential Debates Ignore Climate Change, So Children Are Demanding Answers
EcoWatch: Kids Demand Presidential Candidates Address Climate Change
Yale’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Candidates Should not Avoid Science Debate
PZ Myers at Pharyngula: Do we want our politicians to address science issues? (and here at Scienceblogs)
Eli Rabett at Rabett Run: Questions, Bunnies Got Questions

And, of course, ScienceDebate.org organizers Shawn Otto and Sheril Kirshenbaum have posts on this as well.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1JFN7Fb

Dynamic effects in computing NMR (and a patent issue?)

The prediction of NMR chemical shifts and coupling constants through ab initio computation is a major development of the past decade in computational organic chemistry. I have written about many developments on this blog. An oft-used method is a linear scaling of the computed chemical shifts to match those of some test set. Kwan and Liu wondered if the dynamics of molecular motions might be why we need this correction.¹

They suggest that the chemical shift can be computed as

<σ> = σ(static molecule using high level computation) + error

where the error is the obtained by using a low level computation taking the difference between the chemical shifts obtained on a dynamic molecule less that obtained with a static molecule. The dynamic system is obtained by performing molecular dynamics of the molecule, following 25 trajectories and sampling every eighth point.

They find outstanding agreement for the proton chemical shift of 12 simple molecules (mean error of 0.02 ppm) and the carbon chemical shift of 19 simple molecules (mean error of 0.5 ppm) without any scaling. Similar excellent agreement is found for a test set of natural products.

They finish up with a discussion of [18]annulene 1. The structure of 1 is controversial. X-ray crystallography indicates a near D_6h geometry, but the computed NMR shifts using a D_6h geometry are in dramatic disagreement with the experimental values, leading Schleyer to suggest a C₂  geometry. Kwan and Liu applied their dynamic NMR method to the D_6h, D_3h, and C₂ structures, and find the best agreement with the experimental chemical shifts are from the dynamic NMR initiated from the D_6h geometry. Dynamic effects thus make up for the gross error found with the static geometry, and now bring the experimental and computational data into accord.

One final note on this paper. The authors indicate that they have filed a provisional patent on their method. I am disturbed by this concept of patenting a computational methodology, especially in light of the fact that many other methods have been made available to the world without any legal restriction. For example, full details including scripts to apply Tantillo’s correction method are available through the Cheshire site and a web app to implement Goodman’s DP4 method are available for free. Provisional patents are not available for review from the US Patent Office so I cannot assess just what is being protected here. However, I believe that this action poses a real concern over the free and ready exchange of computational methodologies and ideas.

References

(1) Kwan, E. E.; Liu, R. Y. "Enhancing NMR Prediction for Organic Compounds Using Molecular Dynamics," J. Chem. Theor. Comput. 2015, 11, 5083-5089, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00856.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C18H18/c1-2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16-18-17-15-13-11-9-7-5-3-1/h1-18H/b2-1-,3-1+,4-2+,5-3+,6-4+,7-5-,8-6-,9-7+,10-8+,11-9+,12-10+,13-11-,14-12-,15-13+,16-14+,17-15+,18-16+,18-17-
InChIKey=STQWAGYDANTDNA-DWSNDWDZSA-N

from Computational Organic Chemistry http://ift.tt/1TPWEKd

The prediction of NMR chemical shifts and coupling constants through ab initio computation is a major development of the past decade in computational organic chemistry. I have written about many developments on this blog. An oft-used method is a linear scaling of the computed chemical shifts to match those of some test set. Kwan and Liu wondered if the dynamics of molecular motions might be why we need this correction.¹

They suggest that the chemical shift can be computed as

<σ> = σ(static molecule using high level computation) + error

where the error is the obtained by using a low level computation taking the difference between the chemical shifts obtained on a dynamic molecule less that obtained with a static molecule. The dynamic system is obtained by performing molecular dynamics of the molecule, following 25 trajectories and sampling every eighth point.

They find outstanding agreement for the proton chemical shift of 12 simple molecules (mean error of 0.02 ppm) and the carbon chemical shift of 19 simple molecules (mean error of 0.5 ppm) without any scaling. Similar excellent agreement is found for a test set of natural products.

They finish up with a discussion of [18]annulene 1. The structure of 1 is controversial. X-ray crystallography indicates a near D_6h geometry, but the computed NMR shifts using a D_6h geometry are in dramatic disagreement with the experimental values, leading Schleyer to suggest a C₂  geometry. Kwan and Liu applied their dynamic NMR method to the D_6h, D_3h, and C₂ structures, and find the best agreement with the experimental chemical shifts are from the dynamic NMR initiated from the D_6h geometry. Dynamic effects thus make up for the gross error found with the static geometry, and now bring the experimental and computational data into accord.

One final note on this paper. The authors indicate that they have filed a provisional patent on their method. I am disturbed by this concept of patenting a computational methodology, especially in light of the fact that many other methods have been made available to the world without any legal restriction. For example, full details including scripts to apply Tantillo’s correction method are available through the Cheshire site and a web app to implement Goodman’s DP4 method are available for free. Provisional patents are not available for review from the US Patent Office so I cannot assess just what is being protected here. However, I believe that this action poses a real concern over the free and ready exchange of computational methodologies and ideas.

References

(1) Kwan, E. E.; Liu, R. Y. "Enhancing NMR Prediction for Organic Compounds Using Molecular Dynamics," J. Chem. Theor. Comput. 2015, 11, 5083-5089, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00856.

InChIs

1: InChI=1S/C18H18/c1-2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16-18-17-15-13-11-9-7-5-3-1/h1-18H/b2-1-,3-1+,4-2+,5-3+,6-4+,7-5-,8-6-,9-7+,10-8+,11-9+,12-10+,13-11-,14-12-,15-13+,16-14+,17-15+,18-16+,18-17-
InChIKey=STQWAGYDANTDNA-DWSNDWDZSA-N

from Computational Organic Chemistry http://ift.tt/1TPWEKd

The Early Universe’s Most Massive Galaxy Cluster Revealed (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“If you take a galaxy and try to make it bigger, it becomes a cluster of galaxies, not a galaxy. If you try to make it smaller than that, it seems to blow itself apart.” -Jeremiah P. Ostriker

13.8 billion years ago, the Universe as we know it was born with no stars, no clusters and no galaxies. But over time, gravitation has built up all sorts of complex structures, with the largest galaxy cluster today, El Gordo, weighing in at 3 quadrillion Suns.

The El Gordo galaxy cluster, imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope and with the dark matter mapped out. Image credit: NASA, ESA, J. Jee (University of California, Riverside, USA).

But back when the Universe was just a quarter of its present age, the cluster IDCS J1426.5+3508 already has a mass of 500 trillion Suns, a mass that’s been measured by three different methods. By time we fast-forward to today, this cluster is probably the most massive one contained within our visible Universe.

A Hubble space telescope image of galaxy cluster IDCS J1426.5+3508. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Brodwin (University of Missouri).

Go get the whole story in pictures and no more than 200 words on Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1RxpmSN

“If you take a galaxy and try to make it bigger, it becomes a cluster of galaxies, not a galaxy. If you try to make it smaller than that, it seems to blow itself apart.” -Jeremiah P. Ostriker

13.8 billion years ago, the Universe as we know it was born with no stars, no clusters and no galaxies. But over time, gravitation has built up all sorts of complex structures, with the largest galaxy cluster today, El Gordo, weighing in at 3 quadrillion Suns.

The El Gordo galaxy cluster, imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope and with the dark matter mapped out. Image credit: NASA, ESA, J. Jee (University of California, Riverside, USA).

But back when the Universe was just a quarter of its present age, the cluster IDCS J1426.5+3508 already has a mass of 500 trillion Suns, a mass that’s been measured by three different methods. By time we fast-forward to today, this cluster is probably the most massive one contained within our visible Universe.

A Hubble space telescope image of galaxy cluster IDCS J1426.5+3508. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Brodwin (University of Missouri).

Go get the whole story in pictures and no more than 200 words on Mostly Mute Monday!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1RxpmSN