In my opinion. And I think a lot of people will agree. It is the job of the news media to report the truth in a comprehensive and unbiased fashion. The whole idea behind journalism should be to seek out what the truth of a story it and report it as such. In many cases there are two very distinct sides to an issue and the reporting should attempt show these two sides without bias.
But what happens when there are two sides only one side is truth and the other lies? Should it be the job of the media to illuminate both sides of the pseudo-debate and report each equally? This is where balance in the media really comes unstuck. Too often it seems that the media will give equal weight to ideas and view points that have no basis or support simply in the name of balance. When there is clearly a truth to one side of the issue. It should be the job of the journalist to report it as such.
This is partially a result of the attempt by journalists to avoid any share of responsibility for the information they provide. As one Journalist recently said.
"Reporters are messengers – their job is to tell, as accurately as they can, what has been said, with the benefit of such insight as their experience allows them to bring, not to second guess whether what is said is right”.
What a load of rubbish. As long as Journalists are allowed to hide behind this kind of reasoning. They can distance themselves from any negative consequences that may result from the dissemination of bad information. By the very fact that they are providing information to the public. Information that may be complicated and have the potential to impact lives. They have a responsibility to make sure that the information has some real truth behind it.
Journalistic laziness is also a contributor to this problem. Because of the speed of the news cycle and the competition between reporting sources. There is a tendency for information to be reported as quickly as it is obtained without much effort put into ensuring it's veracity or worth. This leads to the publication and dissemination of bad, and possibly wrong, stories and reports. If a little more effort were put into fact checking and verification. I'm sure it would lead to stories of far higher quality and accuracy.
Probably one of the most prevalent forms of bad reporting. Is the creating of a false spectrum on an issue. This happens often in the reporting of stories relating to health and medicine.
A good example is some of the coverage of the vaccine autism link in the US. On one side of the issue are some parents and children with autism. On the other side is the medical community and the now more than a decade of research that shows conclusively there is no link between vaccines and autism. The correct way to report this story is to say what the evidence shows. The way it is most often reported is a parent will appear and tell their heart wrenching story of dealing with an autistic child. Followed by a few minutes of some random doctor or official saying that the link between vaccines and autism doesn't exist.
There are not two sides to this story. The truth is clear and should be reported as such. By not taking this approach the media surely must share some of the blame for spreading the false information that in this case is costing actual lives.
In conclusion. The media has an obligation to the public to ensure that the information they provide is accurate and is the truth. They can and should be held accountable for the dissemination of bad and harmful information to the public.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Life may have started in ice.
It has been a long accepted idea that the beginnings of life played out in a warm ocean. The so called primordial soup. But recent research suggests that life may have got going in pockets of water trapped in ice.
The beginnings of life is a real interesting topic. There are a few things we know for sure. Life does exist. Well actually thats about all we know for sure about where life came from. There are several possibilities for the origin of life on earth. I think I'll briefly go through a few here.
Extra Terrestrial
The possibility exists that life came to earth from space. It could have come here in the form of microbes or other such replicators on an asteroid. It may have come from mars. It may have come from another solar system. This is an idea that is gradually losing support tho. Finding life elsewhere in our solar system, or out in the galaxy, that resembled our own would give more weight to this theory.
Intelligently designed
Now to be clear. When I say that life on earth could be intelligently designed. I mean designed by either an alien biological intelligence or an artificial intelligence. Not an omni present, all powerful and wholly fictitious sky magician. The possibility that life on earth was started by an intelligence is intriguing and may be impossible to ever completely rule out. It is possible that an intelligence of some type seeded our planet about 4 billion years ago with some type of replicating molecule. Or they may have jumped ahead and gone for full blown life right away.
It seems pointless to guess at the motives of such an agent. But it's fun to do it anyway. So I'm gonna.
It might be that they are running a large, long term experiment of some kind. They may simply have thought that the earth would be better if there was life here. They may have been trying to spread their own biology out into the universe. Or they may have done it with the hope that some species emerge that may be suitable to serve as their slaves.
The reason I said that this may be impossible to disprove is that it is hard to imagine a way that we could distinguish life that arose here out of non-life. From life that came here from somewhere else. If we discovered life elsewhere in the universe that was similar to our own. Then we may be able to infer a relationship. But even if life elsewhere is different. Independent origins don't necessarily mean that our life arose on earth. The problem is that early forms of life leave no trace and so it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to prove they were ever here.
Terrestrial Origin
Life evolved here on earth a few billion years ago. I find this to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life on earth. It starts with a single molecule that is capable of replication. That is it takes other molecules from its environment and makes a copy of itself. We know this can happen. It's going on right now inside your cells and in the cells of all living things on earth. Once in a while. One of these replicating molecules makes a mistake in the copying process. The resulting molecule is slightly different and so has different properties. Most of the time these mistakes occur. The resulting molecule is useless and unable to replicate. But every now and then. One of these changes results in a molecule that replicates itself faster. This molecule now has an advantage over the others and so it makes more copies of its self and BAM!!!!
Evolution has arrived.
The new research has to do with the reactions that created that first replicator. As I said, it was previously thought that these took place in warm water. A warmer environment means more energy means quicker reactions. However the study found that the reactions taking place in the cold water started out slowly. But they kept on going, caught up to and passed the warm water reactions that had stalled. If this new idea turns out to be true. It could have some really neat implications. The best of which is that there is a lot of ice in our solar system. Mars has subsurface ice. Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, is completely covered in ice and planet scientists believe it has a liquid ocean underneath. If life can get going in cold and icy conditions. Then it increases the chances that we may be able to find life on another world right in our own back yard.
Now that would be something truly mind blowing.
The beginnings of life is a real interesting topic. There are a few things we know for sure. Life does exist. Well actually thats about all we know for sure about where life came from. There are several possibilities for the origin of life on earth. I think I'll briefly go through a few here.
Extra Terrestrial
The possibility exists that life came to earth from space. It could have come here in the form of microbes or other such replicators on an asteroid. It may have come from mars. It may have come from another solar system. This is an idea that is gradually losing support tho. Finding life elsewhere in our solar system, or out in the galaxy, that resembled our own would give more weight to this theory.
Intelligently designed
Now to be clear. When I say that life on earth could be intelligently designed. I mean designed by either an alien biological intelligence or an artificial intelligence. Not an omni present, all powerful and wholly fictitious sky magician. The possibility that life on earth was started by an intelligence is intriguing and may be impossible to ever completely rule out. It is possible that an intelligence of some type seeded our planet about 4 billion years ago with some type of replicating molecule. Or they may have jumped ahead and gone for full blown life right away.
It seems pointless to guess at the motives of such an agent. But it's fun to do it anyway. So I'm gonna.
It might be that they are running a large, long term experiment of some kind. They may simply have thought that the earth would be better if there was life here. They may have been trying to spread their own biology out into the universe. Or they may have done it with the hope that some species emerge that may be suitable to serve as their slaves.
The reason I said that this may be impossible to disprove is that it is hard to imagine a way that we could distinguish life that arose here out of non-life. From life that came here from somewhere else. If we discovered life elsewhere in the universe that was similar to our own. Then we may be able to infer a relationship. But even if life elsewhere is different. Independent origins don't necessarily mean that our life arose on earth. The problem is that early forms of life leave no trace and so it is difficult, and maybe impossible, to prove they were ever here.
Terrestrial Origin
Life evolved here on earth a few billion years ago. I find this to be the most reasonable explanation for the existence of life on earth. It starts with a single molecule that is capable of replication. That is it takes other molecules from its environment and makes a copy of itself. We know this can happen. It's going on right now inside your cells and in the cells of all living things on earth. Once in a while. One of these replicating molecules makes a mistake in the copying process. The resulting molecule is slightly different and so has different properties. Most of the time these mistakes occur. The resulting molecule is useless and unable to replicate. But every now and then. One of these changes results in a molecule that replicates itself faster. This molecule now has an advantage over the others and so it makes more copies of its self and BAM!!!!
Evolution has arrived.
The new research has to do with the reactions that created that first replicator. As I said, it was previously thought that these took place in warm water. A warmer environment means more energy means quicker reactions. However the study found that the reactions taking place in the cold water started out slowly. But they kept on going, caught up to and passed the warm water reactions that had stalled. If this new idea turns out to be true. It could have some really neat implications. The best of which is that there is a lot of ice in our solar system. Mars has subsurface ice. Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, is completely covered in ice and planet scientists believe it has a liquid ocean underneath. If life can get going in cold and icy conditions. Then it increases the chances that we may be able to find life on another world right in our own back yard.
Now that would be something truly mind blowing.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Human Powered flight!
Check this out. Human-Powered Ornithopter Becomes First Ever to Achieve Sustained Flight.
How freaking awesome! I want one. It's like a Flintstones car. But for the sky!
I don't have anything to say about this. I just thought it was way kool.
Also. As a follow up to yesterdays post.
Get your ass into gear Aussie. No more dead babies.
How freaking awesome! I want one. It's like a Flintstones car. But for the sky!
I don't have anything to say about this. I just thought it was way kool.
Also. As a follow up to yesterdays post.
Get your ass into gear Aussie. No more dead babies.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Should Vaccination be compulsory for children?
With the growing anti vaccination movement now leading to real out breaks of vaccine preventable illness and actual deaths in some parts of the world. It seems right to pose the question. Should vaccination be made compulsory for children?
I think that the answer is a resounding yes. Vaccination is the best protection that we have against terrible and debilitating infectious diseases. If vaccination rates are allowed to fall below herd immunity levels. There will be outbreaks and people will die. There have been several deaths of infants from pertussis in Australia and California this year. These deaths occurred in babies too young to be vaccinated against the disease and in areas where vaccination rates are low. It can be stated with some confidence that these deaths were preventable.
Vaccine Safety
Are Vaccines safe? Yes. Like all medical interventions there is not, and can never be, a 100% guarantee of safety. There are some people that will suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And in extremely rare cases this may be an injury that persists for life. But these cases are the down side of what has otherwise been one of the greatest medical interventions ever devised. There is no evidence for the harm that is claimed by many in the anti-vax lobby. I have covered vaccination before in a post related to the Immunization Awareness Society. In that post I did a brief summary of the claims for harm from vaccines and what the evidence actually shows. Since that post a new study by the CDC has put more weight behind the idea that there is no link between vaccines and negative neurological outcomes.
With vaccination, as with all medical intervention, there is a risk vs. benefit. The benefit of vaccines is clear and cannot be denied (Tho some will try). And although the risk is real. It is so small in comparison that the use of vaccines is really a no-brainer.
Vaccine Efficacy
Are vaccines effective? Yes. In the 20th century alone it is estimated that smallpox killed between 300 and 500 million people! Once again. Between 300 and 500 million. So why does no one die of smallpox these days? Because it was eradicated by vaccination. Polio has been driven out of the industrialized world. And yet it still remains a threat to millions in part because of resistance to vaccination in the developing world. These communities refuse vaccination for a variety of reasons. Including; Bad information, mistrust, superstition, religion, and more. Then there are other diseases that we haven't yet managed to eradicate but have made a significant dent in. Pertussis, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Tetanus to name just a few.
The counter to this that I am most familiar with is that infectious diseases were on the decline before vaccination was introduced. And that it is our improved living conditions and nutrition that has lead to better health and fewer deaths. I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't hold weight. Any study of the data will find that the introduction of vaccines correlates with massive drops in both infection and death rates form the ailment concerned. Improving conditions of living and diet have of course led to improved health. But the idea that a person can fight off any disease if they are healthy enough is wrong and a dangerous piece of misinformation.
Herd Immunity
Some people will counter the call that vaccination should be compulsory by saying that a vaccinated child is protected and so not vaccinating is only putting the unvaccinated child at risk. This is incorrect. Vaccination is not 100% effective. Not everyone that receives the vaccine will develop immunity. And there are some individuals that cannot be vaccinated. This can be because they have a known allergy to one of the components. Or they may be Immunocompromised due to an illness, genetic defect or treatment they are undergoing. Or they are just old and sick. Vaccination has to be given at a certain age. Children that have not yet received the vaccination are vulnerable.
This group relies on the rest of the population to be vaccinated in order to maintain herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough of the population is vaccinated and sufficiently dispersed that the individuals susceptible to the infection are protected. This is because it is very difficult to sustain a breakout of an infection if the large part of the population are immune. In areas where herd immunity is being lost. Parts of the US, Britain and Australia. Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are occurring and children are dying.
Conclusion
There are laws that protect children from the actions of their parents. Children are not allowed to be neglected, beaten or abused. In my mind. Not vaccinating ones child is the same as failing to get them adequate medical attention when they are ill. And the decision not to vaccinate a child affects not just that one child. But any vulnerable person that child may come into contact with. Vaccination should be a requirement for sending children into daycare, Kindergarten, Playcentre or School. If a child can be vaccinated. They should be. No exceptions.
I think that the answer is a resounding yes. Vaccination is the best protection that we have against terrible and debilitating infectious diseases. If vaccination rates are allowed to fall below herd immunity levels. There will be outbreaks and people will die. There have been several deaths of infants from pertussis in Australia and California this year. These deaths occurred in babies too young to be vaccinated against the disease and in areas where vaccination rates are low. It can be stated with some confidence that these deaths were preventable.
Vaccine Safety
Are Vaccines safe? Yes. Like all medical interventions there is not, and can never be, a 100% guarantee of safety. There are some people that will suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And in extremely rare cases this may be an injury that persists for life. But these cases are the down side of what has otherwise been one of the greatest medical interventions ever devised. There is no evidence for the harm that is claimed by many in the anti-vax lobby. I have covered vaccination before in a post related to the Immunization Awareness Society. In that post I did a brief summary of the claims for harm from vaccines and what the evidence actually shows. Since that post a new study by the CDC has put more weight behind the idea that there is no link between vaccines and negative neurological outcomes.
With vaccination, as with all medical intervention, there is a risk vs. benefit. The benefit of vaccines is clear and cannot be denied (Tho some will try). And although the risk is real. It is so small in comparison that the use of vaccines is really a no-brainer.
Vaccine Efficacy
Are vaccines effective? Yes. In the 20th century alone it is estimated that smallpox killed between 300 and 500 million people! Once again. Between 300 and 500 million. So why does no one die of smallpox these days? Because it was eradicated by vaccination. Polio has been driven out of the industrialized world. And yet it still remains a threat to millions in part because of resistance to vaccination in the developing world. These communities refuse vaccination for a variety of reasons. Including; Bad information, mistrust, superstition, religion, and more. Then there are other diseases that we haven't yet managed to eradicate but have made a significant dent in. Pertussis, Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Tetanus to name just a few.
The counter to this that I am most familiar with is that infectious diseases were on the decline before vaccination was introduced. And that it is our improved living conditions and nutrition that has lead to better health and fewer deaths. I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't hold weight. Any study of the data will find that the introduction of vaccines correlates with massive drops in both infection and death rates form the ailment concerned. Improving conditions of living and diet have of course led to improved health. But the idea that a person can fight off any disease if they are healthy enough is wrong and a dangerous piece of misinformation.
Herd Immunity
Some people will counter the call that vaccination should be compulsory by saying that a vaccinated child is protected and so not vaccinating is only putting the unvaccinated child at risk. This is incorrect. Vaccination is not 100% effective. Not everyone that receives the vaccine will develop immunity. And there are some individuals that cannot be vaccinated. This can be because they have a known allergy to one of the components. Or they may be Immunocompromised due to an illness, genetic defect or treatment they are undergoing. Or they are just old and sick. Vaccination has to be given at a certain age. Children that have not yet received the vaccination are vulnerable.
This group relies on the rest of the population to be vaccinated in order to maintain herd immunity. Herd immunity occurs when enough of the population is vaccinated and sufficiently dispersed that the individuals susceptible to the infection are protected. This is because it is very difficult to sustain a breakout of an infection if the large part of the population are immune. In areas where herd immunity is being lost. Parts of the US, Britain and Australia. Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are occurring and children are dying.
Conclusion
There are laws that protect children from the actions of their parents. Children are not allowed to be neglected, beaten or abused. In my mind. Not vaccinating ones child is the same as failing to get them adequate medical attention when they are ill. And the decision not to vaccinate a child affects not just that one child. But any vulnerable person that child may come into contact with. Vaccination should be a requirement for sending children into daycare, Kindergarten, Playcentre or School. If a child can be vaccinated. They should be. No exceptions.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why Intelligent Design is not Science
For anyone not familiar with Intelligent Design (ID). It is basically the idea that things in nature are so complicated that they must have been designed and cannot have evolved. ID makes a poor attempt to distance it's self from the more religious focused Creationism by leaving the identity of the designer a mystery. The ID movement is heavily embedded in the Christian right and mainly in America. There have been actual attempts to get ID into the classroom as science in some states of the US. In 2005 there was a land mark case in which Judge Jones threw the ID proponents out saying, in a nutshell, that ID is not science and has no place in a science classroom. And he was 100% right. ID is not science. Here's why.
1) ID makes no predictions.
In order for a theory to be considered and accepted as science. It must make predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified. ID can not, and doesn't, make predictions. When your hypothesis is that some supernatural entity designed all of the life that we see. Then there are no predictions that can follow from this. By definition of the supernatural, it is out side of the natural world and thus unknowable by humans. This is completely contrary to the fundamental ideas of science. Science can only operate in the natural world because it is required to make predictions. Once a supernatural element is introduced into the mix the hypothesis ceases to be science.
2) ID conducts no experiments.
This is related to the previous point. A scientific theory must be able to propose and conduct experiments and/or observations that could potentially falsify the theory. ID fails this test so completely that it should become blindingly obvious at this point that it in not science. The answer to any question that ID can propose it the designer made it that way. This leads to the outcome that ID can never be falsified and so never be proven wrong. Every legitimate scientific theory must have the potential to be proven false. In fact. It is only once a particular theory is tested over and over and proven to be correct that it is accepted.
3) The evidence for ID can be adequately explained by better theories.
When ID proponents argue for their position they almost always take the position as follows. X cannot be explained by evolution. Therefore evolution is wrong and life is intelligently designed. This is not a valid line of logic and not the way science is done. So far in the history of the movement. All the so called evidence for ID is adequately explained by evolution. And the ID proponents also miss one of the most vital ideas in science when they resort to this line of logic. If we don't know something right now or don't have an explanation for some particular thing. That's ok. There is no need to make the massive and highly improbable leap to an intelligent designer. If science knew everything it would be boring and some what redundant. The point of science is to find out what we don't know and try to explain and understand it. If you allow the supernatural into the fold as an explanation. Then the whole endeavor of investigation ends then and there.
Science is a good thing. The last 200 years of science have provided us with all the wonders of modern society that we enjoy today. If we want to continue to make progress we have to make sure that science is kept free form the sort of rubbish that the ID crowd brings. Simply dressing ID up in the trappings of science does not make it so.
1) ID makes no predictions.
In order for a theory to be considered and accepted as science. It must make predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified. ID can not, and doesn't, make predictions. When your hypothesis is that some supernatural entity designed all of the life that we see. Then there are no predictions that can follow from this. By definition of the supernatural, it is out side of the natural world and thus unknowable by humans. This is completely contrary to the fundamental ideas of science. Science can only operate in the natural world because it is required to make predictions. Once a supernatural element is introduced into the mix the hypothesis ceases to be science.
2) ID conducts no experiments.
This is related to the previous point. A scientific theory must be able to propose and conduct experiments and/or observations that could potentially falsify the theory. ID fails this test so completely that it should become blindingly obvious at this point that it in not science. The answer to any question that ID can propose it the designer made it that way. This leads to the outcome that ID can never be falsified and so never be proven wrong. Every legitimate scientific theory must have the potential to be proven false. In fact. It is only once a particular theory is tested over and over and proven to be correct that it is accepted.
3) The evidence for ID can be adequately explained by better theories.
When ID proponents argue for their position they almost always take the position as follows. X cannot be explained by evolution. Therefore evolution is wrong and life is intelligently designed. This is not a valid line of logic and not the way science is done. So far in the history of the movement. All the so called evidence for ID is adequately explained by evolution. And the ID proponents also miss one of the most vital ideas in science when they resort to this line of logic. If we don't know something right now or don't have an explanation for some particular thing. That's ok. There is no need to make the massive and highly improbable leap to an intelligent designer. If science knew everything it would be boring and some what redundant. The point of science is to find out what we don't know and try to explain and understand it. If you allow the supernatural into the fold as an explanation. Then the whole endeavor of investigation ends then and there.
Science is a good thing. The last 200 years of science have provided us with all the wonders of modern society that we enjoy today. If we want to continue to make progress we have to make sure that science is kept free form the sort of rubbish that the ID crowd brings. Simply dressing ID up in the trappings of science does not make it so.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
More Evidence for the Safety of Vaccines.
A recent study published in the latest issue of Pediatrics shows no association between vaccinations and Autism. Just another that adds to the growing mountain of evidence that vaccines do not cause Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This is only a single observational study. And is by no means perfect. But it puts more weight down on the side of the safety of vaccines. And is yet more evidence against the claims that Thimerosal has any association with ASD.
Of course this isn't going to sway those hardcore believers that have too much invested in the link. They will simply dismiss the study as bad or lump it in as part of the conspiracy. This really is one of those topics that is really frustrating to learn about. The whole modern anti-vax movement is really the product of a few people. Just a few individuals, with bad science, broken ideas and greed on their minds. And now it is costing the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of children. The evidence is firmly down on the side of vaccine efficacy and safety.
For a good summary of this topic.
Science Based Medicine on Vaccines and Autism
This is only a single observational study. And is by no means perfect. But it puts more weight down on the side of the safety of vaccines. And is yet more evidence against the claims that Thimerosal has any association with ASD.
Of course this isn't going to sway those hardcore believers that have too much invested in the link. They will simply dismiss the study as bad or lump it in as part of the conspiracy. This really is one of those topics that is really frustrating to learn about. The whole modern anti-vax movement is really the product of a few people. Just a few individuals, with bad science, broken ideas and greed on their minds. And now it is costing the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of children. The evidence is firmly down on the side of vaccine efficacy and safety.
For a good summary of this topic.
Science Based Medicine on Vaccines and Autism
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Blog ads
Since my blog is doing well and I'm having heaps of fun writing it. I've decided to add ads using Google ads. My understanding of how this works is that it reads the page and tries to target the ads based upon what's there. Now I see this leading to some crappy stuff happening. Such as advertising for Homeopathy appearing on an entry where I'm trashing Homeopathy. This does cause me some concern.
However. When I think about it. Hopefully very few people who read my blog will be after such services. And those that click through may be doing so just to go see how stupid they are or something similar.
Also. I'm pretty sure that it costs the owner of the ad for each impression (when it shows up on the page) and each click through. Also, I think I get paid for the same.
This leads to the happy situation where the ads for crap appear on my page It costs them money, makes me money. But no one seeing the ads actually goes and buys anything from them.
So perhaps it will work out well.
However. When I think about it. Hopefully very few people who read my blog will be after such services. And those that click through may be doing so just to go see how stupid they are or something similar.
Also. I'm pretty sure that it costs the owner of the ad for each impression (when it shows up on the page) and each click through. Also, I think I get paid for the same.
This leads to the happy situation where the ads for crap appear on my page It costs them money, makes me money. But no one seeing the ads actually goes and buys anything from them.
So perhaps it will work out well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)