thinkevolution.net

Anti-science people usually hate evolution. But science denier and House Representative Joe Barton (R, Texas) likes it. He thinks it’s a practical, affordable strategy for dealing with climate change in these hard economic times. Here he is presenting his idea before Congress at the March 25 hearing on climate change:

A few gems from his speech:

Adapting is a common, natural way for people to adapt to their environment.

I think that mankind has been adopting—er, adapting to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains we find shelter, when it’s hot we get in the shade, when it’s cold we find a warm place to stay.

Adaptation is a practical, affordable, utterly natural reflex response to nature when the planet is heating or cooling.

Representative Barton is a long-time global warming skeptic, opponent of greenhouse gas emissions regulation, and advocate for the oil and coal industries. He is a ranking member and former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

On the other hand—but same side of the issue—Pastor Calvin Beisner doesn’t pick and choose which parts of science are acceptable. At the same congressional hearing, he invoked the “balanced, Biblical” view in his address to Congress: “The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and… therefore robust, resilient, and self regulating, like the product of any good engineer.” And like any good science denier, Paster Beisner hates evolution.

Figure 1 from Bolduc and Tully’s recent paper in Fly. It shows that many genes characterized for memory function in animal models affect mental retardation in humans. Click to enlarge.

Way back in October, politics were stressful and Sarah Palin (and others) were confused about fruit fly research. But now, even politicians should understand that there is no conflict of interest between basic science research on fruit flies and saving the children: in a special issue of the journal Fly, a new review paper describes the utility of Drosophila in studying the biology of intellectual disabilities.

Many forms of mental retardation have genetic determinants, and science research into the biological basis of these disabilities is an obvious avenue to improving lives. As the paper by François Bolduc and Tim Tully describes, Drosophila is a valuable animal model for investigating the genetic basis of intellectual disabilities. About 87% of the genes identified in humans to cause mental retardation have orthologs in Drosophila.

It turns out that Drosophila is an especially good model for studying mental retardation. Genes for learning and memory are more well-conserved between humans and flies than other classes of genes, and flies are well-developed as a model system for conditioning and memory assays. Because they are small and breed quickly, flies are also a useful resource for testing pharmaceutical treatment. This paper describes a number of mental disabilities that are caused by mutation at single genes, and the insights gained by evaluating the Drosophila orthologs. And as more genetic determinants are identified, research on model systems like fruit flies will reveal valuable information on how these genes are expressed and whether medical interventions are safe and effective.

As you may have heard, Sarah Palin had something to say about science in her recent policy speech in Pittsburg. The woman may be all about seal DNA research, but she thinks fruit fly research is absurd. I kid you not! A quote, from her speech promoting investment of federal research dollars towards childhood disabilities like autism:

For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference. […] We’ve got a three trillion dollar budget, and Congress spends some 18 billion dollars a year on earmarks for political pet projects. That’s more than the shortfall to fully fund the IDEA. Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

So here’s the thing. Fruit fly research is valuable because it contributes to our knowledge of things like… autism. Here’s a list of recent basic science research findings using Drosophila melanogaster, my model organism of choice, that have contributed to understanding autism.

September 2007: Research on Drosophila describes the function of neurexin, a protein encoded by a gene for autism. This gene is currently being developed for autism screening in children. Popular press. Scientific article.

April 2008: Drug screening in Drosophila reveals that some pharmaceuticals have the potential to reverse the effects of fragile X syndrome, a leading cause of autism. Popular press. Scientific article.

October 2008: Research on Drosophila shows that mutations at the gene that causes fragile X syndrome affect the transport of mRNA molecules, and suggests a new mechanism for how the disease works. Scientific article.

In progress: A research group in Belgium (not the same as France, but close!) is investigating a gene thought to cause autism, neurobeachin, using Drosophila. Project announcement.

And I am not a genius. These were the first few hits on Google for “drosophila autism.” Furthermore, a quick Pubmed search for “drosophila autism” generates 114 hits (that’s 114 published scientific papers, Palin) and a search for “drosophila ‘mental retardation’” generates 826 hits. That’s research that has an awful lot to do with the public good.

Yesterday Talking Points Memo pointed out that several of Alaska Governor Palin’s earmark requests were for… science. Specifically:

Palin’s office requested $2 million in federal monies to study crab mating habits; $494,900 for the recreational halibut harvest and $3.2 million for seal genetics research.

Most of the blogospheric attention on this has been focused on the scandal of Palin’s love of earmarks or the inconsistency of her positions. But there has also been some implicit criticism of spending so much money on something as preposterous as research on seal DNA. Josh Marshall of TPM redirected the discussion by addressing the issue head-on, explaining, along with the fact that his father was a marine biologist, that he did not mean to imply that spending money on such research is wasteful just because it sounds funny. This point was motivated by several substantive comments, which included the declaration that while spending taxpayer dollars on ecologically important issues is good, doing so through pork barrel initiatives is not. For example:

good science is funded through peer review, not via earmarks and lobbying.

we don’t want science funded this way, it leads to croneyism and misuse. give the money to NIH and NSF and don’t do by congressman trading favors.

earmarks are lousy way to fund science, bad, bad, bad.

Governor Tim Pawlenty defends intelligent design on this morning’s Meet the Press

This morning on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw interviewed Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to discuss the McCain campaign. And, to my surprise, they talked about evolution.

McCain running mate Sarah Palin’s support of creationism has been picked up by the national media and I’m totally enthused by the idea that the Republican campaign may be forced to address this issue head-on and produce a coherent stance on evolution and creationism in public schools. Of course, there was absolutely no coherence in Governor Pawlenty’s response to Brokaw’s question about whether Palin was right to promote teaching creationism:

I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let’s–if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented, or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both, and–or more, and have a chance to be exposed to the, to the various theories and make up their own minds.

As tipster commenter Andrew pointed out, Pawlenty begins by calling it “creationism” but then drifts into calling it “intelligent design.” (Just more proof that the Dover prosecutors got it right: intelligent design is just religious creationism dressed in an ugly labcoat.) He dodges the real issue of what should be enforced in school curricula by arguing for local power at each school district, but he happily outs himself as an anti-evolutionist:

Intelligent design is something that in my view is a plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in.

So there’s another one for the list. You can read the transcript or watch the Netcast of today’s Meet the Press here.

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and John McCain’s just-announced running mate in the current presidential race, supports creationism.

Her position was made clear in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, when she said it should be taught alongside evolution. Creationism, unlike intelligent design, is an openly religious ideology and is prohibited from being taught in public schools by the First Amendment. Palin later soft-pedaled her statement, explaining, “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” But the Republican Party of Alaska’s position is that “Creation Science be given equal representation with the other scientific theories in the classroom.”

Regarding her personal views, she has said: “I believe we have a creator,” and was unable to explain whether she accepted evolution: “I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be.”

Senator Joe Biden, announced yesterday as Obama’s running mate, is unequivocal about his support of science.

Not only does he oppose teaching creationism and intelligent design in schools, he has expressed exasperation at how many Americans accept those ideas: “I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!”

In an earlier conversation with blogger John Logsdon, Biden said he would support a doubling of the NSF and NIH budgets. He has voted to expand embryonic stem cell research and claims an aggressive stand on addressing global climate change. Read more about Biden’s positions at On the Issues.

Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) has just launched the Science, Health And Related Policies (SHARP) Network. It’s a website interface that allows citizens to track their representatives’ positions on science policy as well as contribute new information via an interactive wiki. The network can be explored by browsing by category: Committee, People or Issue. Each committee, issue and people page contains a static top portion with basic information, and an editable wiki below.

For example, the SHARP profile of Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) provides a summary of his voting record on energy, global warming, health, and other topics. There’s nothing yet on Specter’s record on teaching evolution in public schools, but if you’re a SEA member you can log in and edit the wiki.

Over on Hullabaloo, tristero writes that a candidate’s response to the evolution question is “a litmus test.” Governor Mike Huckabee was one of three Republican candidates to disavow evolution in a previous debate. In this clip he is asked whether he believes the story of creation. Huckabee retorts that it’s an unfair question because it “asks in a simplistic manner… whether there is a God or not.” So I guess the religious beliefs of presidential candidates… are not anything the voting public should care about?

Of course, Huckabee is very invested in our knowing that he believes in God. And to him, it’s straightforward: “A person either believes that God created this process, or that it was an accident.” He’s unequivocal: accepting evolution is rejecting God. Huckabee gets so much more wrong in this two minute response, beyond distorting the question into a test of faith. Conflating the theory of evolution with the origin of life is a blunder that confuses major scientific disciplines—but for Huckabee that’s not relevant, because to him research into the origin of life and evolutionary biology are wrongheaded and only within his sphere of interest as threats to Christian faith. His suggestion that evolution is a purely random (accidental) process is so misguided that it’s staggering that a presidential candidate would promote it with such confidence. Which leads us to the real problem. Huckabee says (not for the first time) that this question has no business harassing a presidential candidate—the question of evolution is for someone writing “an eighth grade science book.” Huckabee’s dismissal is alarming, and tristero’s right: if a candidate doesn’t recognize that a government must rely on basic science research to develop responsible and ethical policies, that candidate has no business in the White House.

New York city mayor Michael Bloomberg has just quit the Republican party, raising speculation that he will make a bid in the 2008 presidential race as an independent. No third-party candidate has ever won a presidential election, only disrupted things for the other two parties. The race was already looking pretty exciting, and if Bloomberg joins the fray I’m anticipating even more thrills. And why am I really happy? Because on issues of science, Bloomberg has been throwing some elbows. In a speech at Johns Hopkins, he denounced intelligent design, calling it “creationism by another name.” He also pulled no punches in accusing conservatives of distorting scientific understanding: “Today we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agendas.” But Bloomberg’s strongest criticism came in a speech at the University of Southern California, where he again accused conservatives of endangering America by ignoring science:

It’s scary in this country, it’s probably because of our bad educational system, but the percentage of people that believe in Creationalism is really scary for a country that’s going to have to compete in the world where science and medicine require a better understanding.

Creationalism is scary, if it’s anything like creationism. I’m hoping Bloomberg’s unequivocal stance on science and evolution will embolden the Democratic candidates to defend science more vigorously and force the Republicans to clarify their own positions.