Science Intelligence and Cultural and Ideological Identities: I don't believe that not because I don't know science but it's just not me.

"I don't get them. How can they still think that climate change is not real? Almost every scientists believe it is real and there are a great deal of evidences showing that it is real. Are they dumb or something??"

This is probably something that you've thought before. Not only climate change, there are several other topics that make you ask those questions; evolution, GMO, vaccine, you name it. I had been struggling trying to understand people as well until I read an article about science-communication-measurement problem by Dan M. Kahan.

In "Climate-Science Communication and  Measurement Problem," Kahan aims to figure out what cause problem in science-communication measurement. He first discusses evolutionary theory case and then apply the understanding to climate change case.


He conducted a survey, called "ordinary science intelligence," which assesses how good people are at mathematical and scientific reasoning and at questioning their own beliefs, asking 2,000 respondents scientific questions or rate statements related to climate change. Then he analyzed the results based on their ideological identities: Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat. 
























What seem problematic for researchers is that, in some question, Liberal Democrat could do far more better than Conservative Republican people (top right). Does that mean one is smarter, one is dumber? 

What Kahan found is that people who believe in climate change or biological evolution are not smarter than those who don't. But what polarizes people is their unconsciously attempt to protect their cultural and ideological identities. 

Many Conservative Republicans didn't believe that "climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions" not because they don't know enough climate change science, but because it is not what people in their groups believe. Conservative Republicans don't believe that climate change is the consequence of human activities. Therefore, the questions or statements that refer to human-caused global warming sound threatening for them. So they just said, "nope, I don't believe it."

To avoid controversial survey results and to measure science intelligence more accurately, researchers will need to be more considering in developing survey questions or statements. They need to understand their respondents' beliefs, identities, cultures, etc. and avoid using words that possibly threaten people's beliefs or identities. Researchers need to disentangle people's identities and political ideology from what they just plain know.

Science Engagement in International Arena

This is an interesting excerpt from  "Carnegie Group at Twenty-Five: Diplomacy and Science at a High Level" by Paul Dufour. 

Science has traditionally been engaged with the international arena in five ways:

1. As linkages between and among scientists - largely informal in nature, this "invisible college" as some have called it, is still a highly networked global enterprise, now expanded to many regions within the developing world.
2. As an organized activity via the discussions between specialized agencies such as the United Nations, Health Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others... where science is truly on tap to help address policy at a larger scale. Indeed, UNESCO's program of fostering mutual understanding through science, education, and culture was lunched on the premise that "war begins in the minds of men."
3. As a strategy for diplomatic-trade contacts among countries - building political bridges when it is difficult to do so through the usual channels. A classic example is the creation of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis during the Cold War. Of course, research exchanges can also be channeled more negatively, such as the scientific espionage that took place around the atomic bomb project during World War II.
4. As an input to solving global problems-be it humanitarian aid or capacity building or both. The establishment of Canada's International Development Research Centre in 1970 was a unique experiment in this vein. Its board was then composed of members from both the developing and developed world, and regional offices were located in selected developing locales to ensure attention to local needs and culture.
5. As a way to link national pride with growing international economic prowess. Countries such as China, Brazil, and India have used a major buildup of their knowledge assets to increase their global standing. For example, in his 1960 report to the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, the Canadian diplomat L. Dana Wilgress made the following prediction about China: 

 China also is on the threshold of great achievements in science. They are putting into force a beautifully phased programme which commences with those now attending the secondary schools. These will be followed through by an expansion of the institutions for teaching science and technology until China is producing more scientists and engineers than Russia. In twenty-five years from now such a programme is bound to show results. They are likely to make China a first-class economic power. 

 Science & Diplomacy, March 2016

Does Karma Principle Encourage Corruption?

Does karma principle encourage corruption?

It is supposed to be the opposite, isn't it?

      Karma is a belief held by several religions such as Buddhism and Hindu. Karma is a spiritual cause-and-effect principle suggesting that every intended act leads to a consequence for the actor. If you intentionally does good things, the action will bring you happiness, success, or any form of good consequences. In contrast, if you intentionally does bad things, bad karma will come back and haunt you.

***

      I am a Buddhist who tries to understand things scientifically.  (Surely, this is not a paradox statement). I believe in karma principle. Consequences from Karma can be in any form. A form of the consequences is the feelings people have after doing something. For instance, you give away some food to a homeless; the feeling you have when you see the homeless guy enjoying eating the food you gave is a consequence of good karma. On the other hand, you hurt or kill someone, legal punishment can be considered as the consequence of bad karma.

***

     Karma principle functions as a mean to control society. Karma could help prevent some acts or activities that are unreachable by public surveillance and legal controls. People who believe in karma tend to abstain from wrong doing to avoid bad karma even though no one can see what they are doing.

      To me, there seemed to be no problem with having the principle as part of our society, until I faced a dilemma a few years ago. I have witnessed misconducts by a government official. I was concerned and felt I have to do something to stop the evil affairs. However, I realized that I did not have enough power to stop or intervene what I was witnessing. One thing I could do, I thought, was to report the misconducts to someone who had authority and responsibility to take care of the issue. 

source: Forbes

      I talked to a couple people who should be concerned about the misconducts and take an action. What I heard back from all of them was:

"I understand how you feel and what you are trying to do. But please stop. It is risky for you. Sooner or later, karma take care of it."

***

Seriously???

      Why? There is a government official doing something wrong, why do we have to wait for karma to function? 

      What are laws and regulations create for?


      At the end of the day I found myself not being able to do anything because of several reasons. Everybody around me told me to keep my mouth shut. 

      There are many questions running through my head and I cannot find the answers from them. It seems like that is how my country and its governance system works. In some societies, karma has became an excuse for not taking any action when it is needed, especially the actions that could make them in trouble. 

***

      Why leave everything to karma while we already have the power to do things, to correct things. I still believe in karma and see the benefit of the principle. But some people are using it in a very very wrong way. This can hurt the whole society or country, like what is happening right now. People expect karma will take care of its part, but they cannot forget that we also have our own part to take care of as well. 

      Hello karma, where are you? Please do something, please don't just let the corruption running deep into my society like this. 

Real-Time Scientific Data Sharing on Zika Virus Leading to Future Practice

A group of scientists at University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, led by Professor Dave O’s Connor started their study on Zika virus and its effects on fetus development using pregnant monkeys in their study. The scientists injected Zika in pregnant monkeys on Feb. 15, 2016 and provide real-time detailed reports of the progress of the study on their website. People who are interested can follow the progress of the study now; they do not need to wait until the study is over and go through the prolonging peer review and publication processes. 

 According to his interviews, O’Connor realized that there are moral and ethical issues involved with the study, but the data from the study is urgently needed. The study is inevitable. He felt “sad and heartbroken” to see what would happen with the unborn baby monkeys. However, this is the only way we have to help pregnant women in the countries affected by zika.

Besides the moral and ethical issues, information disclosure is another concern of the study. Data from the study such as the infected monkey’s ultrasounds, blood test, etc. is posted right away on their website. Obviously, this real time data sharing is not a usual norm for biology. 

Why we need open data 

The most important reason to release the data from the study right away is that there are a great number of people suffering from Zika and scientists from around the world are urgently seeking the information on the Zika virus. The open data will promote collaboration among scientists and researchers who are working on the virus. Other scientists can contact O’Connor to give opinions and suggestions which may help the scientists at Wisconsin find out the solution sooner. 

Furthermore, the World Health Organization has noted, researchers who study public health emergencies have a “fundamental moral obligation to share preliminary results once they are adequately quality controlled.” 

Image credit : http://www.nature.com/

Following concerns 

Real-time research data sharing can be greatly beneficial for scientific community, but not all scientists are happy with the new movement. For instance, a group of researchers complained after New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) researchers used their preliminary data in another research study and did not adequately give them credit.

Moreover, many researchers are worried that if their research data is publicized, the chances of getting their works published in peer-reviewed journals will be smaller. Without having adequate publication, they will not get tenure and grants. 

The concerns are not the end of the open data practice in biology, but the beginning of the development. It would be great if we can find a way to utilize research results sooner while researchers are still rewarded for their hard works. One example of the effort, Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology (ASAPbio) is a meeting in Washington D.C. that aims to accelerate the pace of research in biology by removing barriers to the use of preprints. 

I am certain that we will see a lot of changes related to scientific data sharing. There will be lot of controversies as well. Hopefully, we will find a solution that can benefit public and other related parties. 

Getting Ready for Startups. Some Suggestions for Developing Countries

 
I have heard the word, "Startup", for  years. Of course, it is not a new concept in the US. However, I'm  hearing this word more often nowadays, especially, in some Asian countries. I am not wondering why. There are a number of successful Startups in the US. Startup businesses have become a significant driver for US economy.  People around the world know Uber, AirBnb, Instagram, etc. The businesses are changing market environment and people lifestyle. There is no doubt that Startup can help countries boost their economy. The question is... Is everybody ready for Startup? 

There are several factors that make Startups in the US so successful. People in the US have accesses to education, talents, funds, technical supports, etc. These critical infrastructures were not built in a day; the US has been building and developing these infrastructures for decades. I am looking at Thailand, a developing country in Asia. Startups have gained the attention of people from diverse sectors. Both government and private sectors are talking about Startups. They are trying to make Thailand a Startup hub in Southeast Asia. In my opinion, there are many things they need to prepare in order to be ready to achieve the goal.

• First of all, they need to understand the nature of Startup. Startups are not million-dollar businesses, not newborn businesses, and not the businesses founded by young people. The most important characteristic of Startup is the potential to create changes. Startups are the businesses that are changing how people think, trade, eat, have fun, and so on. Therefore, Startups' products or services based on innovation in one way or another. Startups' is offering solutions for unsolved problems. Startup is discovering consumers' new behaviors. The key components to create a Startup are creativity, differentiation, and trial and error. 
• Second, they need to prepare the infrastructure needed to start and foster Startups. The infrastructures are: 
• The right education system: The right education system should encourage students to be creative, to be different, to be dare to be wrong. The mentality will open the door for innovation. 
• Access to funding: Funding should also focuses on the potential of the ideas of the products or services. Besides traditional qualifications, funding agencies should be able to distinguish the business ideas that can be developed to Startup and give them opportunities. There should be more diverse funding sources such as crowdfunding like Kickstarter.com. 

• Copyright and patent systems: People in the country should have the right understanding of and respect copyright and patent systems. Government should be in charge of finding more effective ways to protect intellectual property. 
• Appropriate law and policy making: Many technologies cannot be commercialized because they are not supported by current laws and policies. Updating laws and policy is taking too long and cannot catch up with the speed of technological development. 
• Technological Infrastructures: They need to have high-speed internet that can handle consumer needs, internet security that can protect online activities, accountable Cloud, reliable transportation systems, and so on. 

These are just a few, but critical if they want to promote Startup.