Is this a surprise?

Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii

"Don't care much about astronomy"

by

Sasha Issenberg

February 26th, 2009

boston.com

WASHINGTON -- John McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't know as much about economics as he would like, but what's his issue with astronomy?

During a debate last fall, McCain picked out an earmark backed by then-Senator Barack Obama to renovate a planetarium theatre in his state, mocking it as "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"

Today, of the more than 8,000 earmarks in an omnibus bill making its way through Congress, McCain settled his considerable talents of ridicule on another project devoted to the study of space and celestial bodies: an earmark for a program at the Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii, pushed by Senator Daniel Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

"During these very challenging economic times facing all of our citizens, someone needs to explain why we should be funding projects such as $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa and $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii," McCain said in a statement encouraging Obama to veto the bill.

McCain's distaste for zoological scholarship in Iowa predates his apparent skepticism of astronomical study: he last long ridiculed an earmark he described as "$50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa."

Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii

Obama's photo opportunity

Well, at least he was alert enough not to do this...

After pleasantries, the president and Mrs. Obama began to read "The Moon Over Star" by Dianna Hutts Aston, illustrated by Jerry Pinkey. The book is about Neil Armstrong's moon landing. A White House handout noted that "for the young protagonist of this lyrical and hopeful picture book, that landing is something that inspires her to make one giant step toward all of the possibilities that life has to offer." ... When the story was over, the president said, "That's a nice book." Then he asked who wanted to be an astronaut. One student said yes. "What else do people want to be?" he asked. The replies included doctor, football player, and sculptor. One boy wanted to be president. "I think you might make it," the president said.--Christian Science Monitor.

One wonders why this was done.

The Moon Over Star

by

Dianna Hutts Aston

Jerry Pinkney [Illustrator]

ISBN-10: 0803731078
ISBN-13: 978-0803731073

Left-handedness--advantages?

It has been said "Researchers say that left-handed people excel in music, arts, and math; but lack ability in language and speech." Barack Obama is left handed. Will he fit into the generality stated above?

"Ancient Lefties: The History of Obama's Handedness"

by

Heather Whipps

January 29th, 2009

LiveScience

Something sinister is going on, and newly-inaugurated President Obama is behind it.

From the Latin for left, "sinistra," southpaw Obama is another notch for the column of left-handed presidents, now totaling eight — a proportion (out of all 43 men who have been POTUS) that is well above their representation in the total population, which hovers around 10 percent.

(Let's count James A. Garfield as a lefty, although some say he was ambidextrous and others say he was a lefty; many ambis are lefties who learn to do some tasks with their right hands.)

In fact, every president since 1974 with the exception of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush has been left-handed, as is Obama's former Republican opponent Sen. John McCain. Al Gore is too.

Is it just a coincidence, or is there something about being left-handed that can make for a more presidential demeanor?

Some evolutionary advantage, whether overall greater intelligence or language skills, has kept a stable group of lefties for at least the past 200,000 years, said Chris McManus, professor of psychology and medical education at University College London.

Left-handed tools chipped 500,000 years ago

There have been lefties for as long as there have humans, historians agree.

Some of the oldest evidence of left-handedness comes from Kenya, where of a 500,000 year-old cache of 54 stone tools made by one of our pre-human ancestors, six (or about 11 percent) were chipped using the left hand. Similarly, Neanderthals working with meat and stone tools more than 150,000 years ago left marks on their teeth at left and right angles – indicating opposite hand use – in almost perfect proportion with today's 9:1 ratio.

Paleolithic cave paintings from France and Spain also hint that lefties walked among our ancestors about 30,000 years ago. Studying a collection of so-called negative hand drawings on the cave walls – similar to tracing one hand with the other – scientists found that individuals drew their left hand much more frequently than the right.

The laundry list of lefties goes on through history, with records telling us that a number of famous ancient figures probably favored their southpaw as well, from Alexander the Great to Charlemagne, Holy Roman emperor.

Though ancient sample sizes are small and poor estimates of the exact proportion of lefties, the existence of left-handedness is clear even hundreds of thousands of years ago, McManus said.

Left tied to language

Despite its long history, left-handedness is a uniquely human trait. Chimpanzees and gorillas, with whom we share an ancestor and a number of common physical attributes, don't seem to favor one hand over the other.

Instead, left-handedness may have developed along with another characteristic known just to humans – language.

Most people process language in the left side of their brain, the hemisphere that also controls the right side of the body, and have done so presumably since humans started chatting a few hundred thousand years ago. Whichever gene made the left side of our brains responsible for language also played a role in making our right side dominant, experts such as McManus believe.

Though a specific left-handed gene has yet to be found, the trait to choose one hand over the other is likely inherited, agree scientists. Left-handed parents are far more likely to produce left-handed children, and those children appear to begin favoring that hand in the womb, according to a 2004 study on 10-week-old fetuses.

More recent research suggests that, while developing, the two sides of the brain actually "fight" for specialized control of certain functions, such as handedness, with the left side (which controls the right — are you following?) more often coming out on top.

Interestingly, even when the right side wins, the left brain often shares some of the duties, studies have shown. So while right-handed people usually process language exclusively in the left side of their brain, lefties process language mostly in the right but partly on the left as well.

That preferential wiring may make lefties more adept at certain skills required for leadership according to McManus, who wrote about his theories in his book "Right Hand, Left Hand" (Harvard University Press; 2002).

But what about "left-handedness" and the sciences?

That would be an interesting correlation between human activity. Statistics on this would be like what is the depression rate of physicists. And I am not sure what sort of results would be gathered other than curiosity. How bizarre to discover that there is a positive correlation between "left-handed" people and the sciences. Would there be a cultural community of people developed whereby left-handed people only did science. Is such a situation true in all cases? What about those that retired the left hand usage and switched to right-handedness? Or those that are ambidextrous? One would certainly not draw the conclusion that such a situation is categorical for if a right-handed person lost the use of that appendage and was forced to use the left arm that would not necessarily means a sudden interest in science. For me, I was left-handed until six or seven and switched. The world did little to accommodate left-handed children then. Those early days did not prodivde individual desks designed for the left-handed. They were never positioned in seating arrangements that would prevent passing by individuals from bumping into them. Special tools? There are some specialized tools for wood crafts and my left-handed friend has scissors especially designed for her. I don't imagine that there are many industries that are geared especially for left-handed products. Sometimes social stigmas develop in that the function of a society is favoring the majority. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference: Left, right, both. But the correlation between specific brain functions and being left or right-handed is interesting. In the long run such a correlation would be like saying that there is a relationship between scientists and scientists having a fondness for peanut butter or oatmeal. It is interesting though. It may well have something due to the physical structure and activity of the brain.

I seriously doubt that one will find a correlation between "left-handedness" and the sciences and I am not sure of its relevancy. However, there is quite a bit of history involving the dominance of one hand over the other. Through out history the stance and social significance of a dominating hand is interesting for there has been not to long ago a stigma placed on left-handedness and a long, long time ago there was a premium placed on left-handedness. It is interesting to note that all primates except man are ambidextrous, namely orangutans, chimpanzees, and apes will use either hand while man is the only one making a selection. Many very early forms of writing were written left-handed, reading from right to left. And it wasn't until Greek times did things switch the other way. A curious illustration is in early cave paintings where figures were facing right indicating a left-handed artist. Warfare would favor, in situations of one-on-one combat, a right-handed person inflicting wounds/death while the left hand was busy protecting a vital organ--the heart. Mortality among left-handed warriors must have been high and were soon converted or put in charge of logistics or to become scribes. Data for correlations of dominate hands [or eyes or feet] to science oriented people are zip and subject to much speculation. The unlucky to lucky position of hand dominance will probably shift again and again. Interesting to note that Beethoven, Goethe, Michelangelo were left-handed and that I doubt that gender plays any significant role.

From: Total Man: An Evolutionary Theory of Personality, by Stan Gooch:

Early man, certainly agrarian man, could be tolerant of left-handedness or ambidexterity. Even as hunters left-handers would possibly be socially acceptable, However, there would probably tend to be more fatal accidents amongst them in the course of hunting, so that already there would be a tendency for the incidence of left-handedness to reduce in the general population. But under conditions of severe competition or in war two things would happen: (a) “consistently” more left-handers would be killed in battle and therefore gradually ‘bred out’ and (b) left-handers would be “perceived” to be less effective fighters.

Here is what he said about the position of the heart:

Applied to human beings, this proposal receives strong support from two additional considerations: (1) the heart is biased to the left of centre, i.e. in the rearward and hence most protected position when the right hand is in actual use and (2) by reason of the crossing of motor and sensory fibbers to the opposite hemisphere of the cerebrum the dominate hemisphere is therefore "also" to the rearward and in the most protected position when the right hand is in use.

So, it could well be an evolutionary phenomena on a very short scale of evolution. And, other than the combat situation mentioned above there are surly sociological reasons too.

The ambidextrous feature is interesting and I have read some rather unusual hypotheses regarding why there is favoritism of left or right-handedness. It is believed that all humans are born ambidextrous and through sociological favoritism [a cultural posture fostered by popular determinism], human sense of balance [the human body may be off centered favoring a particular stance], brain functions, external physical forces--who knows why. Told ya, some of the above are bizarre. Interesting to note that the majority of animals are ambidextrous though some species [certain primates] may favor the right hand. It probably doesn't matter much to the squirrel gathering fall’s fruit of black walnuts--they can snatch the nut with either paw with alacrity. However, it may well be advantageous for humans to be ambidextrous. Sometimes, certain situations may require a clever non-dominate hand for assistance.

Does all of this make any difference whether one is left-handed, right-handed, ambidextrous--right or left foot dominate or right or left eye dominate? Perhaps a quirk of nature. In any case things can be performed with alacrity and deft skill in any case, granting ambidexterity having the edge.

Here's a quote by Ambrose Bierce:

Ambidextrous, adj.: Able to pick with equal skill a right-hand pocket or a left.

And remember...

It is always convenient to select anomalies and groom data to support any hypothesis or obscure detail of an individual or group. Motivations are numerous: To perpetuate myths, degrade/humiliate, or the scapegoat mentality. It makes no difference if one is talking about left or right-handedness, race, culture, or intelligence for someone or some group will be singled out for ulterior motives. As far as hand dominance is concerned, even though there are some curious historical examples and plausible explanations, the net result is rather insignificant and in the long run assist only those that desire to profit from lefties with specialized products.

Obama?

President-Elect Obama's science team

The primary players of Obama's science team: Steven Chu, John Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco. Will it make a difference?

Remarks of the President-Elect Barack Obama

Science Team Rollout Radio Address

December 17th, 2008

Chicago, Illinois

Over the past few weeks, Vice President-Elect Biden and I have announced some of the leaders who will advise us as we seek to meet America’s twenty-first century challenges, from strengthening our security, to rebuilding our economy, to preserving our planet for our children and grandchildren. Today, I am pleased to announce members of my science and technology team whose work will be critical to these efforts.

Whether it’s the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs—today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.

Right now, in labs, classrooms and companies across America, our leading minds are hard at work chasing the next big idea, on the cusp of breakthroughs that could revolutionize our lives. But history tells us that they cannot do it alone. From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process.

Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.

Dr. John Holdren has agreed to serve as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. John is a professor and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, as well as President and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. A physicist renowned for his work on climate and energy, he’s received numerous honors and awards for his contributions and has been one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change. I look forward to his wise counsel in the years ahead.

John will also serve as a Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—or PCAST—as will Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander. Together, they will work to remake PCAST into a vigorous external advisory council that will shape my thinking on the scientific aspects of my policy priorities.

Dr. Varmus is no stranger to this work. He is not just a path-breaking scientist, having won a Nobel Prize for his research on the causes of cancer—he also served as Director of the National Institutes of Health during the Clinton Administration. I am grateful he has answered the call to serve once again.

Dr. Eric Lander is the Founding Director of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard and was one of the driving forces behind mapping the human genome—one of the greatest scientific achievements in history. I know he will be a powerful voice in my Administration as we seek to find the causes and cures of our most devastating diseases.

Finally, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has accepted my nomination as the Administrator of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is devoted to conserving our marine and coastal resources and monitoring our weather. An internationally known environmental scientist and ecologist and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane has advised the President and Congress on scientific matters, and I am confident she will provide passionate and dedicated leadership at NOAA.

Working with these leaders, we will seek to draw on the power of science to both meet our challenges across the globe and revitalize our economy here at home. And I’ll be speaking more after the New Year about how my Administration will engage leaders in the technology community and harness technology and innovation to create jobs, enhance America’s competitiveness and advance our national priorities.

I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity.

Thank you.

Humorous faux pox

"Science journal in doghouse after Obama and McCain upstaged by young pups"

Latest issue of Nature compares presidential candidates on science, technology - but has unfortunate advert on back cover

September 26th, 2008

Times Online

As weighty reads go, it doesn't get much more serious than the men vying to become the world's leading politician in conversation with the world's leading scientific journal.

And the latest issue of Nature has a front cover of suitable gravitas, evenly split between statesmanlike images of the US presidential contenders.

Pity no one told the advertising department. In an eerie mirror image, the magazine's back cover features two labrador pups, one black, one golden, in uncannily similar poses to Barack Obama, famously the first African American candidate for a major party, and his rival John McCain, looking bronzed by Arizona sun.

The journal swears they were not being deliberately cheeky. "We didn't know until the issue landed on our desks," Nature pleads. "It just goes to show that editorial and advertising aren't working in cahoots."

In which case it must be just the power of suggestion which makes the dog on the left look a little more hopeful, but a little less experienced. And which stirs up a strong desire to tickle John McCain behind the ears.

The journal promises to expore "how John McCain and Barack Obama developed their stances on science; who is advising them on technical issues; and where they might take the country if elected". Plus in-depth insights on the candidates' stances on evolution, stem-cell research and climate change. Nothing about cloning, though. Perhaps that's just as well.

Obama gleans many Nobel laureates' support

I am not sure if this is that significant for it may be a case of supporting the best of the worst. Furthermore, such approbation from the scientists will not sway that many people. The Obama science rhetoric is just that..."rhetoric". He has far too may more important issues, if elected, to address.

"US Nobel laureates: vote Obama"

by

Jon Cartwright

September 26th, 2008

physicsworld.com

On the eve of the first US presidential debate, a host of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences signed an open letter to "urge" the nation to vote for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

Sixty-one US Nobel laureates, including 22 who won the prize for physics, made the stand yesterday after Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, published an 11-page policy document entitled, "Investing in America's future: Barack Obama and Joe Biden's plan for science and innovation". The plan builds on aspects of Obama's science policies that he drafted at the end of last month in response to 14 questions posed by the organization ScienceDebate 2008.

The letter signed by the laureates reads: "The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness."

"We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him."

Phil Anderson, who shared the 1977 Nobel Prize for Physics and who was one of the signatories, told physicsworld.com that voting for Obama in November would be a "no-brainer". Referring to why he would not choose John McCain, the Republican nominee, he added: "There are too many obvious reasons to pick one. Let me name three. 1. Torture; 2. Tax cuts for the rich; 3. A [running mate, Sarah Palin] who believes in the Apocalypse and not in evolution."
Five-point plan

In their plan, Obama and Biden herald a "new era" of scientific innovation that will, in essence:

* Restore integrity to US science policy by employing a presidential assistant who is well-versed in science. This assistant will be announced quickly to "signal the importance of science" and "participate in critical early decisions". Obama also vows to pick those with "unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity" when appointing managers who must consider scientific advice. Moreover, he intends to establish guidelines that will guarantee scientific results "are released in a timely manner and are not distorted by ideological biases".

* Double over 10 years federal spending on basic research to better understanding "from the size of the universe to the nature of subatomic particles". The Democratic candidate criticizes current under-investment in the sciences, promising greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists. But he notes that he will specifically push multidisciplinary research because "the challenges we face, such as the transition to a low-carbon economy, cannot be addressed by researchers from any single discipline".

* Make a commitment to science and education training by boosting numbers of K-12 (primary and secondary) maths and science teachers. Obama will offer a fully refundable, $4000 credit to tempt students into college in return for 100 hours of public service. He also promises to triple graduate research fellowships from the National Science Foundation from 1000 to 3000, while striving to educate other US citizens on science through the media and internet.

* Encourage US innovation to flourish by establishing a permanent tax credit for R&D, increasing patent quality to "reduce uncertainty and wasteful litigation", and improving visa programmes to attract overseas contributors to the technology industry.

* Address the "grand challenges" of the 21st century such as developing clean, affordable energy. The Illinois senator pledges double the current spending on clean energy R&D. In addition, he wants to "restore" the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in supporting technological breakthroughs, in particular areas such as microsystems, nanotechnology and information technology.

Cool with science

Obama beat McCain by more than two weeks to answering the questions posed by ScienceDebate — an organization formed last year that tried, and failed, to persuade the presidential candidates to attend a televised debate on science policy. On Wednesday, Obama again trumped the Republican by being the only candidate to answer 18 science-related questions asked by the journal Nature.

Now the decision to put those all of those answers on a surer footing will make the Democratic hopeful appear to take the opinions of scientists seriously.


Obama responds to science questions

McCain responds to science questions

Finally, a response.

McCain responds to science questions


Obama responds to science questions

"Waiting for Godot"...er, I mean McCain

Roger Ebert

Barack Obama has replied to submitted questions on science by Sciencedebate.com over two weeks ago but McCain has yet to respond and there are just fifty or so days until the election. It would be relevant to read his opinions. I suppose judgement and decision making are not solely based on science issues and one might want to consider what the popular film critic Roger Ebert [Chicago Sun Times] offers for some insight into the presidential candidates' character...like, "What is your favorite film"? You would be surprised.

Read what Roger Ebert wrote...

The candidates' favorite movies


Obama responds to science questions

Obama responds to science questions

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has responded to fourteen questions submitted by Sciencedebate.com. You can bet that the replies were done by committee full of padding, short sightedness, and politically refined. Nevertheless you may read his responses. Presidential candidate John McCain has yet to respond.

Obama's response


Science debates for the 2008 presidential candidates