Science in Politics

With the upcoming election drawing nearer every day, those in the scientific community, like those in most other communities, are asking the question, "How would the candidate benefit me?" Rarely do people any more really care about how the president might help anyone else. If you are in the middle-case and having trouble getting by, you're probably pointing your finger at the upper class, and staunchly demanding that they're a bunch of money suckers causing the middle-class decline. You, as the middle-classer, want things to be better for you and your family, and frankly you don't care about the upper class. If you are in the upper class and have probably lost a huge chunk of cash in the market, you're probably pointing your finger at the barons on Wall St who were able to get out of this mess only richer, you want them behind bars, and you want your money back goddangit. If you are on Wall St, you probably don't care about anyone but yourself. If you are in the lower to no-er class, you want the candidate who is going to put a roof over your head, though with recent credit issues in the market, you'll probably have to get a job and start saving some money first. So, what if you are a scientist?

A forum related to exactly this issue has been up and running: Science Debate 2008. In this site, each candidate has addressed a series of questions, mostly related to the importance of funding science. So who reigns all powerful realm of science? Quite frankly, neither. Each gives a very cookie cutter answer along the likes of "Nurturing technology and innovation is essential for solving the critical problems facing our country: developing alternative fuels, addressing climate change, encouraging commercialization of new technologies, deploying technology to manage cost and enable new jobs, stopping the spiraling expense of health care, and better educating our children and our workforce." Well, yeah! This shouldn't even be a political debate. The problem with the "Science Debate 2008" is that candidate get to put nice looking answers down on paper, without regards to remotely considering following through with them. And moreover, with recent economic-related hurlings, issues in hard core science take a far-back seat.

Scientists spend most of their lives trying to convince people their work is actually making a big difference in the grand scheme of things. And when you look at the big picture, each little piece of the puzzle is necessary. The real issue? The horrible f-word: Funding. Without money, scientists drown in ideas and their inability to make things happen, and things just really never happen. Evidential piece #1 that gross amounts of funding can really get something accomplished: In the 1960s, NASA's annual budget was $6 billion, equivalent to ~$38 billion in todays dollars. That is the kind of money it took to put a man on the moon, but hey, with some really friggin smart guys, and a lot of dough, we did it. If you were to put $38 billion into one branch of research, say, cancer, I guarantee you'll start seeing some amazing results in 10 years (not that there are not currently amazing results). It would be soon be found in the archives just upstream from polio. Seriously. Good experiments and good science require two things: good people and good amounts of money (the former, itself, requires good money, too). We can't just run net-and-lepidopteran experiments and hope to erradicate disease. Not gonna happen.

So who is the best candidate for science? One big Minus that McCain carries (science-wise) is his pledge to freeze domestic discretionary spending for a year. Due to lack of annual agreement-type funding, this extra cash approach, like many other fields, is where science research gets a good chunk of change. It would be safe to assume that the bare minimum amounts of money allocated for science related research would be the most that science would see, government-wise. You would be correct in saying that this type of freeze would help the economy, but scientists aren't economists, so rarely do they try to forcefully proclaim what is good for the economy, just like economists aren't in the lab running DNA-screens. Scientists, like everyone else, care about themselves, too. They want funding, and they want it at the expense of everyone's tax paying dollars, myself included. Believe me, money helps. Check out the Science Debate 2008 website, its as close as you'll get to answer from both sides.

Not so intelligent design...

Tune in ONLINE today at http://www.kruiradio.org/listen to catch the live stream of Only Science at Noon. We'll be chatting about theories of intelligent design, teaching in the classrooms, and all that evolution does and does not have to prove to win out the lot. Place your bets now, folks, while the market is back on the rise...

Dr. Tim

I'd like to thank Dr. Timothy Vogel for coming on the show this last monday. Tim is a 4th year resident in neurosurgery at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and he shared some cool insight on the research he's doing to tackle hydrocephaly (water on the brain). Apparently you want water everywhere in your body, except on the brain.

The live stream is still not functioning, though the folks at KRUI are working hard to figure out a means to let you, the whole world, tune into my show on a weekly basis. More to follow.

Make sure you listen this next week as we talk about violences patterns in young males, particularly the Amish. Who'd a thunk?

In Memoriam

Today, Only Science will be celebrating the life and works of David Foster Wallace, the great American author who recently ended his life, reportedly. If you haven't read any Wallace, I, without reluctance, strongly recommend you pick up any piece of his literature, drop whatever you are doing, and read his literature. You will then realize how actually sad it is that he is longer with us. Wallace was way off the deep end, writing-wise, and if you have read Infinite Jest, you may find an eeriness about its characters and how actually reflective of him they may have been. You'll be remembered, Dave.

Renowned psychology professor to talk about new book

Though each Only Science warrants its heavy hitters in the realm of science, you're not going to want to miss our special guest on Monday, November 3rd: Mark Blumberg, Professor of Psychology at the University of Iowa will be talking about his book "Freaks of Nature," due out in stores on November 11th. Get the preview here: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Blumberg/FreaksofNaturethebook.html but be sure to tune in at Noon, to KRUI 89.7FM on November 3rd, to hear Mark discuss what anomalies in nature can tell us about evolution and development.

ELN

Today's Show

Today's show was great, we were joined by Dr. Stuart Thompson of the Carver Family Center for Macular Degeneration. We talked about everything concerning circadian rhythms, and the importance of the visual system in ensuring these rhythms run smoothly. We managed to touch upon different models of gene therapy and recent scandals in stem cell research. Bad scientist! No! No copying the lab report from your neighbor!

As always, tune in next week at NOON on Monday and keep checking back for who our next guest will be!

ELN

One week postponement....

Blast!

We'll be airing on Monday, Sept. 8th, at Noon. Sorry to all the Only Science enthusiasts who had been waiting for the seasonal debut so impatiently. You'll just have to wait some more.

We've got some awesome guests lined up, so stay tuned....

Cheers,
ELN

Back on the Air!!

All,

The new time for Only Science this semester is Mondays at Noon! Make sure you tune into 89.7FM if you are in the Iowa City area, or check out www.kruiradio.org for a live stream

This upcoming weeks guest is Charles Newsom, Associate Professor of Physics at the University of Iowa. Dr. Newsom's research has involved particle physics at both CERN and Fermi labs. Another specialty area of his happens to be flooding: physics of floods, flood management, hydrology, prevention, (the list goes on, I'm sure). Tune in to hear him comment on how the university may have been able to prevent massive damages, and what we all hope the Army Corps of Engineers can learn from such a disaster.

If you have any questions or comments too, please email me at erikleenylen@gmail.com

Reckless Wishing

Every since I started working in ophthalmology, I've had a growing interest in how the research I perform is actually translated into treatments for patients with visual disabilities. Such growing interest has led me to want to interact with real people with real problems: I've heard countless stories about visual loss, ranging from mild reduction in visual over several decades to no-light-perception over night. But only hearing these stories left a large space between myself and the patients. It's hard to really understand people when you are pinned up in a lab and, well, have no interaction with these people. I was rather recklessly wishing to see a case.

Susan (name changed) is a 51 year old accountant. She spends most of her time looking at small numbers, crunching data, you know, accounting. Several years ago she reported problems with her visual acuity, that is, it became harder and harder for her to see little numbers. Glasses didn't help. It was rather safely assumed at this point in time that she had some type of photoreceptor degeneration (and it clearly was not age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma). By last year, her visual was right around 20/100, which means what you might see at 20 feet appears to be 100 feet away from her.

Yesterday, Susan came into the clinic. Upon testing her visual acuity, her best corrected was 20/500. What you might see at 20 feet appears to be 500 feet away from her. I was given the duty of helping test her visual fields, which means figuring out what she can see in her periphery. After 20 minutes of flashing small lights all around her eye, it occurred to her that this time around, the test was much more difficult. She had already started using a computer monitor to zoom in on texts, and one of the best optometrists around had, earlier that morning, gave her a good amount of information on learning how to use a white cane. Simply put, her vision was plummeting. When I told Susan that I was done testing one eye and that she could relax, the exact opposite happened. A day where I thought I was getting great patient interaction turned into a lady sobbing about how crappy her vision has become. No doctor around to jump in. No Abort button. What do I even say? Do I tell her that everything is going to be OK? Clearly, this is a major life change for Susan. Now you see, now you don't. I can't empathize with her; my vision is good. This being my real first actual patient issue, it's even difficult to sympathize. The easy thing would have been to do nothing. Maybe play drill sergeant and tell her to get over it? Isn't this something that only doctors have to deal with? And how do they deal with it?

I told her about the research that we were doing. I told her that a lab with 35 dedicated employees are working hard every day to figure out what is going on in her eyes. I told her that her vision isn't as bad as she thought.

When the attending physician eventually saw her, he noted that her visual fields were actually the same as before. Her peripheral vision hadn't gone anywhere. Her fine-detail-abilites were getting worse, but her ability to see the world hadn't changed. It turns out that her "vision isn't as bad as she thought" was true. I thought I was stretching the truth a bit, but really I wasn't at all. Yeah, her central vision is slowly deteriorating, but looking on the bright side, she can still other things. After each tissue she went through, she threw them in the trash. Note to self: people that cannot see cannot through things in the trash. Even though her vision isn't getting better by itself, it's not horrible. If there is such a bright side, this is it.

My wish to really see something snuck right up on me. Realization unfolded right before me. Just imagine going blind.

Already I've learned an immense amount about how to deal with such issues. Next time I'll be slightly better equiped for talking about how such problems can really be addressed. About seeing the bright side of things. Let's hope the Susans out there are just as willing to see the bright side without having to really see at all.

Assistance?

Greetings, and apologies for such lazy lack of blogging lately. Don't worry, 'thas all been for a good cause: I just finished writing and illustrating my first children's short story. Being the science person that I am, I haven't a clue who to talk to in terms of trying to get it printed. Any suggestions from anyone would be great, I can be best reached via erikleenylen@gmail.com.

Thanks!