Facts should inform opinion

Opinions are open to debate, but scientific facts emerge from the scientific method after extensive debate between highly trained scientists.  Facebook posts, YouTube videos and editorials claiming the inefficacy of masks in mitigating virus transmission, denying anthropomorphic climate change, blaming vaccines for autism, and purporting adverse health effects of 5G rely on cherry-picked data to confirm biases, give credence to ideologues who are delusional or falsely claim expertise, advance conspiracy theories, and apply willful ignorance to credible evidence.

Reliable sources are non-partisan non-ideological experts in their fields who take pleasure in learning the truth and who publicly change their minds in light of new evidence.  Many career government employees fit the criteria, such as Dr. Fauci, who can be trusted to translate complex science to the public.  Serious journalists and geeky fact checkers, who carefully qualify their statements, can be found working for the major news outlets.  Facebook and Youtube, on the other hand, are populated with quacks, nutjobs and ideologues who spew nonsense that should be ignored.  Media outlets that provide only one political viewpoint are also untrustworthy.

In other words, Fox News argued that everyone knows that Tucker Carlson is not purporting to be reporting facts and his viewers know it.

Nightly programs on Fox News are unreliable.  As reported in the New York Times, a libel case against Fox was dismissed because: In reaching her decision (see tinyurl.com/Y55ecbvq), Judge Vyskocil relied in part on an argument made by Fox News lawyers that the “general tenor” of Mr. Carlson’s program signals to viewers that the host is “engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘nonliteral commentary.’” The judge added: “Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’” about the host’s on-air comments.  In other words, Fox News argued that everyone knows that Tucker Carlson is not purporting to be reporting facts and his viewers know it.  Based on what I have read on these pages, many of you believe these programs and some act on the disinformation, like those who believe the lie that the presidential election was stolen and stormed the Capitol.

Turn to Scientific American magazine for trustworthy coverage of science and technology.  The authors are top scientists and journalists who are specialists in science and writing, and all articles are vetted for accuracy.   Errors in print that later come to light are promptly corrected, and a letters section offers informed exchanges.

Scientific American has published articles on COVID that show the physical structure of the virus, describe how scientific detective work found a bat cave in China where SARS-CoV-2 most likely originated, explain how the disease is transmitted, provide an appreciation for how researchers have learned its impact on the immune response through vast studies of samples collected from critically ill patients, etc.  Compare these nuanced narratives to those who arrogantly dismiss COVID as a hoax.
An article in the January 2021 issue of Scientific American describes how the number of COVID deaths determined from death certificates can be checked against excess deaths over the incredibly constant background death rate.  375,000 excess deaths were reported over the period from the first US COVID death through mid-November 2020 when US death certificates showed 250,000 lost lives due to COVID.  Researchers explain that these additional deaths are attributable to unreported COVID deaths and to preventable deaths from other causes that were untreated or under-treated because of stresses to medical resources during the pandemic.  So directly or indirectly, COVID has resulted in more deaths than reported.  If not COVID, what is the cause of these deaths?

So directly or indirectly, COVID has resulted in more deaths than reported.  If not COVID, what is the cause of these deaths?

Rather than debating the efficacy of masks – it’s been established that they reduce the spread, let’s debate our opinions on acceptable death rates.  Are some lives more valuable than others?  Let’s argue for appropriate levels of research funding.  The fast development of COVID vaccines relied on decades of research funded by the agencies that Trump consistently wanted to cut.  Let’s recognize the complexity of the world.  The choice is not between fighting COVID and saving the economy; the two are intertwined.  Let’s debate the right balance needed to attain the desired outcome and not allow ideology to stand in the way.  Let’s debate how much we should spend now compared with investing in the future to empower our children to deal with their challenges of climate change and future pandemics as our parents invested in us.  Let’s preserve our democracy by making the effort to learn the truth and base policies on facts, not lies.  Let’s accept Biden’s legitimate victory and move forward together.  And let's not fight over the facts, but instead, we would expend our energies on debating how best to implement solutions to the serious existential problems that are just around the corner.

Who should be a coauthor

Over the past two years, I have been leading a collaboration of 4 universities.  We are now writing a bunch of papers and giving talks, so naturally, my graduate students are asking me who should be included as coauthors?.  Almost three decades ago, this same question came up while I worked at Bell Labs as part of a large team.  Since there was pressure to publish, conflict was inevitable when a researcher was dropped from the author list.

One of my collaborators found a document that spelled out reasonable guidelines.  I have not been able to locate my copy -- since it was on paper, I probably lost it --  but here is what I remember.

Collaboration is integral to science, reaping rewards that exceed the sum of individual efforts.  Success thus requires an understanding between collaborators that researchers who do the work can expect to be coauthors.  There are many types of contributions, and all are critical, so it is pointless to argue which are more important.  To  this end, the criteria for coauthorship can be parsed into five broad classes.  Coauthorship requires that the individual contribute substantively to at least three of these five.  The five criteria, in typical chronological order follow:

1.  Having the idea.  All research is initiated by a question and a rough outline of activities that will lead to an answer.  For example, recent data show evidence that the earth is warming.  A stroke of insight leads to the realization that a temperature record is literally frozen in place in polar ice caps that goes way back in time.  The scientist then imagines ways that a core can be extracted and how they will be evaluated to determine a historic temperature profile.

2.  Getting support for the work.  Research requires resources.  An individual like Albert Einstein had deep insights and worked out his ideas at home after work as a patent examiner.  In this case, he supported his own research.  Collecting ice core samples, on the other hand, requires expensive expeditions, specialized equipment, and technical expertise.  A scientist proposing such experiments to a funding agency must succinctly pose the question to be answered, provide a meticulous plan for experimental protocols with well-defined timelines, and estimate the cost of the project, including manpower needs.  Getting funding is a time-consuming activity with low chances of success, so is an important ingredient to research. 

3.  Doing the research.  Once the idea is generated and funding secured for the project, someone has to do the work.  To get credit for doing the research, one must do a substantial chunk of the work and should also contribute both intellect and muscle.  If a technician is given specific instructions, such as turn this knob and write down this number, that doesn't count even if (s)he spends a significant amount of time and effort.  Acting like a machine taking data and being a computer following code is not the creative activity we call research.  On the other hand, interacting with a colleague or advisor who guides the direction of the work warrants co-authorship even if that individual did not work in the lab, analyze data or wrote code.

4.  Writing the paper.  All researchers who have made a contribution to a piece of work will typically provide input to the manuscript.  Writing the paper implies a significant amount of work that includes interpreting the results and tying it all together.  Proofing the manuscript is required of coauthors but correcting typos is not sufficient to count as writing the paper.  Adding an overall wrapping to the work that ties it together is part of the creative process.

5.  Understanding the paper.  This is less of an activity and more the result of being involved in the day-to-day work in generating results and writing the paper.  Each coauthor should have a good enough grasp of the science to be able to explain the work to other scientists.  There are always exceptions, especially when doing  interdisciplinary work.  A chemist may need to muster loads of creative juices to figure out how to make a compound that a Physicist measures to get the result.  It is unreasonable to require the physicist to understand synthetic chemistry and the chemist should not be required to understand relativistic quantum mechanics.  If the chemist writes a strictly synthesis paper, the physicist need not be a coauthor unless the reason for making the material is integral to the argument for making the material.  Similarly, the chemist need not be included as a coauthor in a series of physics papers that use the chemist's material.  However, if the chemist makes a material with the specific requirements for the physics experiment, that counts as creative input, and the chemist should be included as a coauthor provided he or she has contributed to two other categories.

These guidelines are not meant to be applied as absolute rules.  Nor should they be used as an excuse to cut off a potential coauthor.    Rather, they should be the starting point for discussions.  There are undoubtedly many exceptions for a diversity of reasons, so treat each of these thoughtfully.  When in doubt, err on the side of including your collaborators as coauthors.  It never hurts to add a coauthor to a paper.  However, it is unethical to add undeserving authors.

There are many reasons for not adding coauthors.  Years ago it was common practice to add the name of a highly-respected colleague to paper to give it added credibility.  As a result, high-profile publications now ask who did what in the reported research.  Clearly, it is unethical to make deals with collaborators to add my name to your papers in expectations of reciprocation.

Then there are the fuzzy areas.  For example, it often happens that a researcher worked on a project side-by-side with team mates, but his or her part didn't pan out.  If this person is involved in writing the paper and has a firm grasp of the results, then he or she should be a coauthor.

I am sure that you can think of many exceptions and gray areas.  Treat them thoughtfully and you will have good collaborators for a lifetime.  Let me know what you think.

Cherry Pickers Deny Global Warming

Global warming deniers are like a broken record, repeating the same old climate change myths.  It is always possible to find supposed counterexamples to any well-established and impeccably-tested scientific theory such as evolution, the big bang theory, the germ theory of disease, etc. by cherry picking the data.  This despicable practice is forbidden by the scientific community, and those who practice it are censured and shunned.  Unfortunately, cherry picking is the favorite tool of politicians, lobbyists, and purveyors of ideology, who use it unashamedly with impunity.

Take the claim that global warming has stalled.  A plot of the mean global land-ocean temperature shows that the 2013 temperature is indeed below the 1998 value.  However, such variations are well within the expected range of statistical fluctuations.  Taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the dataset leads to the erroneous conclusion that warming has stopped.  The long-term trend is clear and agreement between the data and computer models (within computational and measurement uncertainties, of course) increases our confidence in the results.

What about the claim that scientists are changing terminology in an effort to hide the perception that global warming has stopped?  To be precise, the earth is experiencing global heating.  It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, which warms the atmosphere, land and oceans.  Manifestations of heating include temperature increase, evaporation of water, melting of ice, volatility, and changes in climate patterns.  Deniers see a conspiracy in what they believe is an intentional obfuscation on the part of scientists.  The fact that the media uses different words or has changed its terminology is irrelevant to the underlying facts.  The terms  global warming and climate change have been used by scientists for decades, and it has always been understood that these are consequences of heating.

Deniers like to downplay the scientific consensus.  According to several studies that analyze the vast literature on climate change, more than 97% of active climate scientists conclude that the data supports anthropogenic climate change.  The most meticulous study of this sort assembled a list of researchers who are both active climate scientists (judged by numbers of publications in refereed journals), and who have been signatories of public statements that either support or denounce anthropogenic climate change.  This study confirms the 97% figure.  Global warming deniers point to one specific report that suffers from a documented flaw in its methodology as evidence that the 97% number is incorrect.  They ignore all the other studies that confirm the sentiments of 97% of the climate researchers who concur that global warming is real.

Deniers call for productive discussions on climate change.  These are already taking place. Vigorous debate is common at scientific conferences, new and updated studies are inundating the journals with data, and interpretations of the data are continually being fine-tuned.  Scientists are not zombies who tow the party line.  Only after years of debate is a scientific consensus reached; and even then, scientists doggedly try to find holes in the evidence.  In contrast, the climate change denying machine cherry picks the data in a deliberate effort to cast doubt and plant misinformation in the popular press.

Demanding 100% certainty before taking action on global warming is a stalling tactic.  Prudence demands that steps be taken in proportion to the degree of confidence in the information.  Public debate should focus on finding the most economical ways with the greatest impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The scientists who have the deepest and broadest understanding of the literature have reached a consensus based on the preponderance of evidence.  We are fools for not heeding their warnings.

A note on global warming

Larry Kirkland wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the Moscow Pullman Daily News on October 22.  The gist of his  piece is that the media is only reporting the politically correct view of anthropogenic climate change when in reality, climate change is a hoax.  I wrote the following response to his editorial, only to find that Jeff Hicke had already provided a suitable response.  Since my piece addresses specific points brought up in the original editorial, I thought it would be useful to post it here.

I agree with Larry Kirkland's statement In His View  that truth is essential to making informed decisions. However, he provides no evidence to support his claim that the mainstream media is providing false information.  I suggest that he call upon the original sources rather than relying on the spin doctors with whom he agrees.

Kirkland ridicules the change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change," implying some sort of conspiracy by scientists and the media.  For the record, Prof. Wally Broecker is generally credited with coining the phrase "global warming," which came from his 1975 Science paper, "Climate change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" Though the title leads with "Climate Change," "global warming" resonated with the media and the public. To be precise, we should use the term global heating: the trapping of solar energy by a thickening blanket of CO2, to which humans are contributing in large measure.  Heating can (1) lead to processes such as melting, which are not associated with a temperature increase; (2) perturb delicate steady state cycles to make them chaotic; and (3) result in temperature increase.  All three consequences of heating are being observed according to predictions.

Kirkland states that "...the globe quit warming some 18 years ago."  This is false. Figure 1 plots the global land-ocean temperature index from data I downloaded from NASA's website.  The index was lower in 2013  than it was in 1998, but this is within statistical uncertainties as can be seen from the scatter in the data.  Selecting the two data points that support your conclusion and ignoring the rest is a dishonest practice called cherry picking.  The globe is indeed warming and the truth is out there if you care to dig more deeply.

Kirkland criticizes studies that show 97 percent of scientists believe in global warming, claiming that this was proven false in 2013.  The 2010 paper by Anderegg et al, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, assembled a list of climate researchers whose opinion on anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is known based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multi-signatory statements.  Of those scientists who were deemed to be active climate researchers based on publications and citations, they found  "97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researcher."  Several other studies since then show similar results.  A separate study by John Cook, which reported similar percentages, was criticized by Forbes contributor James Taylor.  Even if Cook's methods were flawed, this does not invalidate the 97% figure determined from scientific studies such as those by Anderegg, as Kirkland would lead us to believe.

Kirkland states that "None of the complex computer models of the Earth's climate have been able to accurately predict historical and current climate patterns." It is true that the models are not perfectly accurate, but they do predict the correct trends. Even the lower end of the predicted range is cause for concern.

If Kirkland wants honest science reporting, he should read Scientific American, an excellent magazine that reports on significant breakthroughs and gives in-depth reviews of important cutting-edge research area.  Articles are written by writers -- most having a science degree; and, by researchers -- a large fraction having Noble prizes.  A thoughtful Letters section provides a forum for further debate.  What you describe as the PC view happens to be the consensus view of scientists.

It is a simple matter for an internet savvy individual to cherry pick data, misrepresent climate scientists, and yes, even find some true mistakes in data and methodology in scientific papers.  After the dust settles, the preponderance of evidence convincingly supports the claim that the climate is changing due to human activity, and the consequences need our attention. Rather than debating whether climate change is real, which has been established with a high degree of certainty, we should be using the best available evidence to come up with a risk/cost/benefit analysis, and shift the debate to what actions should be taken and in what proportions.  Requiring 100% certainty is an excuse for inaction that we cannot afford.  Let's move forward and debate the real issues.

The Insider - honesty and integrity

My life has been in a state of frenzy for the last couple of weeks, with commitments that far exceed my available time. As usual, the quality of my productivity suffers, as one can tell from the paucity of posts and the deterioration in the quality of my writing. Last night, I made a conscious decision to relax by watching The Insider, a movie that got me thinking about many topics that I will touch on today.

This 1999 film chronicles the whistle-blower Jeffrey Wigand, a former VP of research at the tobacco giant Brown & Williamson. Dr. Wigand was fired for being vocal to his management about his concerns related to the presence of carcinogens in cigarettes. His severance package was contingent on him honoring a confidentially agreement. Such agreements protect intellectual property, but Brown & Williamson used it to prevent Wigand from disclosing shady corporate practices.

At the time, tobacco industry executives were fully aware of the presence of certain carcinogens in cigarettes, but the industry was reluctant to remove them because of their effect on a cigarette's flavor. In testimony before congress, the CEOs of the seven largest tobacco companies claimed that they did not believe that nicotine was an addictive drug. Internally, however, these same executives specifically instructed the the scientists to develop means to enhance the addictive effects of nicotine. In his testimony, Wigand made it clear that it was common knowledge in the industry that "a cigarette is a scientifically designed drug delivery device that is intentionally engineered to deliver nicotine to the brain in seconds."

It took a great deal of courage for Dr. Wigand to expose the facts. To discredit him, the tobacco companies orchestrated a smear campaign attacking his integrity. Other tactics included death threats as well as financial blackmail. Before testifying in a suit filed in Mississippi against the tobacco industry, his tobacco-friendly home state of Kentucky issued a gag order preventing him from testifying. He risked incarceration when returning to Kentucky by ignoring the order. This ordeal cost him his marriage.

It was clear that the tobacco companies' behavior was despicable. Motivated by profit, they formulated methods to optimize the delivery of nicotine to addict users into a life-threatening habit. This brings to mind allegations that the oil companies are using similar tactics to discredit global warming research.

The stakes of global climate change are much higher. If the oil companies are discrediting serious research in public forums for the deliberate purpose of gaining political advantage at the expense of the environment, then the decision makers should be held legally culpable for their actions.

The Insider left me with a great respect for professional journalists, who are doggedly determined to expose the truth. I am concerned that this type of professionalism is being lost as news organizations pander to readers and viewers who are more interested in entertainment than information - consumers who would rather have support for their ideology rather than the truth.

Journalistic market pressures have resulted in news outlets that cater to ideology. Fox News is a glowing example of ideology taken to the extreme. John Stewart of the Daily Show does a great job of exposing the gross lies championed by Fox. Fox News takes video clips out of context, make statements without evidence and uses repetition to give the sensation of truth, and fires up viewers into misplaced anger. This irresponsible behavior borders on the criminal.

Some cases in point:

1. Repeating over and over again that President Obama was foreign born even when his birth certificate was available to the public.

2. Glenn Beck asking why the other networks did not show the videos of Israeli servicemen being beaten as they boarded the Turkish flotillas. (John Stewart showed date-stamped videos of several other networks that were showing the videos at the same time or prior to Fox.)

3. According to Mediamatters.com, "Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal -- the second-largest shareholder of Fox News’ parent company News Corp. -- has deep funding ties to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the “principal planner” of the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan." It is interesting that Fox News associates Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf with terrorist groups, but fails to mention his ties with their #2 stockholder. Ironically, following the logic presented on Fox News, Fox News is directly contributing to terrorists.

4. Fox News showed a short video clip of President Obama stating that he was enacting the biggest tax increase ever on everyone. John Stewart played the full clip which stated that if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, this would result in the largest tax increase ever on everyone. Obama was justifying his decision not to allow the tax cuts to expire.

The list goes on.

In conclusion, corporations and the news media should be held to the highest standards of honesty and integrity, which are the pillars of truth. Executives of companies who lie to increase profit at the expense of humanity should be held legally liable as should members of the media who intentionally distort the truth to increase ratings. If we as a nation make the wrong decisions, let them be made solely on the basis of the facts.