Blog: Articles filed under science

In 1633, Galileo was found “vehemently suspect” of heresy. His heretical opinion: holding and defending the belief that the Copernican, heliocentric model of the solar system was true in contravention to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Galileo was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life and forced to recant, verbally and in writing, any belief in the Copernican model. His book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was banned. All because the Copernican model contradicts Biblical scripture. Well, mostly that. The conflict between Galileo and the Church was as much political as scientific or religious. Galileo had made some powerful enemies, people who also opposed Pope Urban VIII, accusing him of being too soft on heretics. So Galileo was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Nearly five centuries later, the entire affair is one of the most stark examples of the conflict between science and religion.

It was an unfortunate conflict, an unnecessary conflict. Whether science and religion are irreconciliable or incompatible is a much larger debate than I can discuss here, but in this case the conflict seems minor. Galileo was not a villain attempting to derail the Church; he was a good Catholic, earnest in his belief that the pursuit of truth through empirical study and mathematics was a form of devotion to God and appreciation for God’s handiwork. The Copernican view may have seemed threatening at the time, but only a century elapsed before the Church removed most pro-Copernican books from its list of banned texts. What happened to Galileo did not have to happen, but it did, a conjunction of personalities and politics clashing to form the zeitgeist of 17th-century Italian science and culture. It is a sad episode in history, for both science and religion, and now we try to move forward.

Or not. Watching today’s session of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology reminded me of Galileo’s trial. There was something eerily familiar about watching the committee grill Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada who resigned over how the media represented StatsCan’s role in this matter; Ivan Fellegi, former Chief Statistican for Statistics Canada; Don McLeish, president of the Statistical Society of Canada; and many other experts. In both situations, you have an institution in power ignoring facts in the name of political and ideological expediency. While Sheikh et al. aren’t quite being forced to recant, there is a comparable intensity and pressure coming from some of the committee members (mostly from the Conservative MPs, but not completely).

It was disturbing to watch David Anderson try to force Sheikh and Fellegi to comment on the content of long-form census questions. As these two tried to make clear, Statistics Canada is not responsible for choosing the questions, only for administering the census. If the government is concerned about the privacy implications for the long-form census questions, maybe it should do something about the questions.

Sheikh, Fellegi, and the other statisticans all agreed that a voluntary census would be biased. The notable exception seemed to be David Tanny, a mathematics professor from York University, who mentioned that the mandatory census has its problems (negative bias associated with the “mandatory” part). That may be true—but it does not make the voluntary census any more accurate a priori. So that’s why the compromise favoured by many of the committee’s witnesses, including Don McLeish, makes sense: do both. Run the mandatory long-form census and a voluntary replacement, then compare the data sets to see if this alternative is viable. The statisticians are doubtful, but that’s what statistics is all about: gather and then report.

Somewhat topically, statistics are what the Conservatives need but do not have. Where are the studies that show this is the best alternative, if an alternative is truly what they desire? Where are the statistics that show Canadians are outraged over the invasion of privacy signified by the mandatory long-form census? The Privacy Commissioner doesn’t have them. Where are the statistics showing that Canadians live in constant fear of incarceration should they fail to complete the long-form census? It is one thing for the Conservatives to propose changing the census—which could be improved, most likely—but it is another thing entirely to make unilateral changes to the census, at practically the last minute prior to the 2011 census, without any research to support the changes.

The government’s arguments for these changes are ultimately inconsistent. After Sheikh’s resignation belied any implication that Statistics Canada recommended the change, the government has fallen back to its original argument: the mandatory long-form census is invasive to Canadians‘ privacy. Additionally, the threat of incarceration for failing to fill out the long-form census is unreasonable. Since there are viable alternatives to a mandatory census, we should make the long-form census voluntary to address these concerns.

As mentioned above, the claim that the census invades Canadians’ private lives is dubious. Even if it does, Canadians do not seem to be very vocal about it. Furthermore, the census provides valuable data well worth the inconvenience of telling the government how many bedrooms one has in one’s house—this is the same government, remember, that asks how much money you make and then takes a cut. But I don’t see the Conservatives abolishing income tax. Some of the alternatives to a long-form census, such as the citizen registries used in Scandinavian countries, are far more intrusive. Fellegi stressed to the committee that the census data is collected anonymously, that the danger of it somehow being identified with the individual who submitted it is insignificantly low. Hence, there is a difference between being intrusive and being dangerous when it comes to privacy concerns.

So what about the assertion that incarceration is an overreaction to non-compliance? I actually agree. I think most people would agree. As an aside, it’s worth mentioning that no one has been jailed for refusing to fill out a long-form census. Fellegi mentioned this during his testimony. Yet the Conservatives insist on creating a false dichotomy around the issue of enforcement: either, they insist, we keep the mandatory long-form census and throw people in jail, or we make the long-form census voluntary. There is, apparently, no middle ground, no alternative.

Since when have jail time or a fine (the other option) been the only punishments for breaking the law? Surely there are methods of enforcing a mandatory long-form census that are more reasonable. It’s not my job to suggest enforcement methods—and it is certainly not the job of Statistics Canada or statisticians, despite attempts by David Anderson to get Fellegi and Sheikh to do just that. No, once again, the onus is on the Conservative government to develop a solution. Too bad they neither want to admit it or address the problem. Rather than a good round of antibiotic, which a more robust form of enforcement would be, the government has just decided to amputate the infected limb.

Privacy and enforcement aside, there are good alternatives to a long-form census, right? Yes and no. Yes, alternatives exist. Other countries use some of them. Some of them have more privacy concerns, but ultimately the major issue comes to one of statistical accuracy and integrity. What works for one country may not work for another, and without proper studies on implementing a change in Canada, we cannot just appropriate a foreign model. That would be irresponsible.

Irresponsible is exactly what the Conservative government is being, and it makes me angry. As a mathematician and as a Canadian citizen, I am saddened and disturbed by the government’s disregard for the opinions of its civil servants and its experts. This is a rejection of science in favour of a political agenda—and agenda that is far from consistent, as I have demonstrated above. The census provides essential data on life in Canada and its population. It is not only a source of that data, but it is the benchmark against which other surveys—including Statistics Canada’s voluntary surveys—are measured. So many groups rely on census data: the government, notably, as well as business groups, religious groups, special interest groups … the list goes on almost ad infinitum. And here we have the Conservative government blatantly ignoring opposition, forging ahead with an ill-conceived notion that they are crusading against violations of privacy.

Yet it moves.

Have you ever looked at someone who is walking down the street listening to an MP3 player and said, “Gee, I wonder if that person is listening to a rap song about physics!”¹

Because that’s what I spent most of Monday and yesterday doing. Seriously.

Today marks the first circulation of particle beams through the Large Hadron Collider. This is the largest particle accelerator ever built—27 km in circumference! Soon scientists will begin high-speed particle collisions, and thousands of scientists from around the world will analyze the results of these experiments to help us better comprehend the universe.

I love physics. It interests me almost as much as math does. I‘m also one of those people who believe that science, especially physics, doesn’t need to be inaccessible to laypeople. While you may not be able to grasp the more esoteric mathematics behind the theories, it is possible to distill it down to the most basic points. Katherine McAlpine managed to do just that with her Large Hadron Rap. If you want to know what the LHC does, but you just don’t get all those explanations on Wikipedia or other news sites, watch this:

Yes, it’s a rap video about physics!! There’s also an MP3 available for download (so I can listen to it elsewhere). I think it does a remarkable job at explaining the LHC—the diagrams in the video assist the lyrics, especially for those of us who don’t speak rap. The video reminds me of the music videos at the end of Bill Nye: The Science Guy episodes. Oh, those were the days….

Those of you who just came for the video can go now; anyone who’s going to stay for some science babble may continue reading.

The LHC is a remarkable achievement because it will give scientists a glimpse at subatomic reactions with the fidelity we’ve never had before. It’s like HDTV for physics, only not only can we see better, but we can actually create more types of collisions.

What’s the big deal about particle accelerators anyway? I mean, it’s a couple of protons zipping around so quickly that they’ve completed a circuit faster than your brain can tell your eyes to blink. But by smashing protons into each other, and observing the results—i.e., what sort of particles and energy gets emitted—we can verify theories about how the universe works.

Particle physics and particle accelerators do have real-world applications. These scientists aren’t just spending billions of dollars because they are bored. Thanks to nuclear reactors, we have the ability to treat (alas, not cure) cancer. One form of cancer treatment requires radioisotopes, and the nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ontario produces eighty-five per cent of the world’s supply of medical isotopes (primarily Cobalt-60, I believe). We live in a society where we have the ability to split the atom not just to destroy, but to create substances to save lives. Science is wonderful.

Particle accelerators have medical applications too. The LHC is kind of large for that purpose, but its smaller, more linear cousins (called “linear accelerators”, unsurprisingly) are an alternative form of therapy for cancer. Rather than creating the isotopes in a nuclear reactor and then storing and transporting them, the particle accelerator collides ions during the treatment, emitting the radiation that kills the tumour. Since storing radioactive isotopes is rather dangerous and expensive, producing radiation only as needed is safer and more efficient.

CERN has slightly larger aspirations for the LHC. Scientists are hoping to test numerous theories, as explained in the Large Hadron rap. We want to know where all the antimatter went; we’re trying to figure out what exactly composes dark matter; and failing all else, the LHC will at least help us verify or disprove the Standard Model of physics. All of this is built upon the work of those who came before, and the results of these experiments will in turn contribute to improvements in science and society in the future.

• [ 1 ] If the answer is yes, and you haven’t heard of the Large Hadron Rap, then you may be a closet physicist. Don’t worry, there’s support groups for those now.

Lauren, her mom, her friend Briana, and I went to Cincinnati today to see BODIES… The Exhibition. It was fantastic. The human body is just so wonderfully complex and amazing. It’s almost enough to make me believe in Intelligent Design.

The exhibit went through each of the body’s systems and structures. Since it used real preserved bodies, everything was realistic and amazingly detailed. I find the digestive system the most gross, the reproductive system the coolest, and the brain the most interesting. The digestive system reminds me of how we are, at some level, still just apes. We ingest meat and plants, turn them into paste, suck the nutrients out of them, and then eject them from our body. The process is disgusting at one level, although just like with everything else in the body, it is also amazing: so many complicated organs, tissues, and cells working together to make sure that we get the energy we need to survive. The reproductive system, with its dichotomous division of labour, is really cool. For women, the entire experience of carrying a life inside oneself must be astounding. For males, well … every sperm is sacred!

I find the brain the most interesting organ because of the mysteries inherent in its function. Scientists have divined so much about the brain’s operation, but so much more remains unknown. It is closely linked to who we are as individuals. Our brain stores our memories, regulates the rest of our body—the most minute chemical change alters how we perceive the world and how we act. At one level, we are a series of electrons zipping about chemical pathways in our brain.

I seem to have lost my train of thought, so I think I’ll stop now.

Many people, especially religious pundits who want to knock “cold, logical science” down a few notches, claim that science is as faith-based as religion. I would tend to agree. Those who disagree argue that science relies on painstaking experimental method and proof to back up its theories—which is true, but only to a certain extent. When it comes to the things that science just can’t determine (or at least hasn’t determined yet), we depend utterly on faith.

A specific example of why scientists are illogical, however, is evident: the afterlife (or lack thereof). When you die, if any of the major religions are correct, you proceed to some sort of afterlife. If you‘re an atheist, you believe (mmm, sounds faith-based) that there is no afterlife. Or at least, there’s no afterlife with God in it.

But here’s the clincher: if a “God” does exist, then you are screwed—at least according to those religions again, since the non-believer infidels usually enjoy a fate such as being “consigned to suffer the flames of Hell for all eternity”. Nicer religions stick them in limbo or some such dimension like that. What it comes down to is: believers prosper, non-believers don‘t.

So, logically, doesn’t it make more sense to believe in God? Hedge your bets. If God doesn’t exist, like you initially thought, but you’ve pretended God exists all your life, then you lose nothing. You don’t exist anymore, so you won’t be around to figure that out. On the other hand, if God does exist, you lose nothing, because you’ve spent your life believing in God. Win-win.

I realize that this oversimplifies it. You do have a good probability of choosing the wrong religion in particular; I‘m not saying that this is a no-risk prospect. I also realize that this is not an original idea (I believe that I first heard it from Pascal, but his mind was warped by others anyway).

So those scientists who are atheists claim that they don’t believe in God because there’s no proof God exists—it’s not logical to believe in something without proof, eh? There’s some religious scientists too, who think science and religion can co-exist peacefully, and I tend to agree with them. It is not a one or the other type of argument, and I wish that polarized extremists would stop attempting to reduce it down to such.

Life just isn’t that simple. Deal with it.

Pluto is not a planet anymore.

Get over it.

It’s still orbitting the sun; it is a “dwarf planet”, and it is not going to go away any time soon. So unless you happen to be an astronomer whose doctorate depends upon a study of Pluto’s planetary characteristics—does it really matter? Honestly, we spend way too much time talking about semantics—it’s maddening! Did everyone turn into lawyers overnight?

So if you’re upset over all this nonsense about demoting Pluto, don’t be; it hasn’t really been demoted. It’s a “dwarf planet”, and thus is still important. It’s just been recategorised.

We now have 8 major planets and a heretofore yet undetermined number of dwarf planets. Don’t like it? Tough. The Earth is still going to orbit the Sun (shocking, yes, I know) and your bills are still going to arrive, you’ll still have to pay them too.

Deal with it.

The short answer: yes and no. (You can tell when science and politics mix.)

The long answer. Heck, I don’t want to bother explaining it. If I did, would I really be writing it in a blog? Wikipedia sums it up nicely, as does this Washington Post article. Pluto is in trouble, but not of losing its planetary status—not quite.

You see, the problem with Pluto is that it’s puny. It’s the runt of the litter; it’s the planet that other, bigger, manlier planets bully in the solar schoolyard during celestial recess. And this size has recently become an issue as more and more planet-like objects are being discovered orbiting that star out there we call the Sun, which hundreds of years ago some guy named Copernicus tried to convince everyone all the planets orbit.

You know, if we had stuck with geocentrism, this probably wouldn’t be much of a problem, now would it? Alas, heliocentrism is a cold and unforgiving solar model.

So basically, the International Astronomical Union has to finally decide if Pluto is a planet or not? Unfortunately, no. It isn’t that simple. Because we’ve never really had a good idea of the definition of a planet anyway. As we built bigger and better telescopes and started discovering things farther away, we sort of just picked and chose what would be a planet or not. Back in those days, the solar system didn’t seem so crowded.

What the IAU is doing (finally) is promising us an “official” definition of a planet. (but then divide the planets up into categories). More on that later in September.

Nevertheless, it leaves us with the issue still on the table. How will society react to this redraw of the universe? Under the new proposed definition, Pluto is still technically a planet (I say “technically” because if it weren‘t, Disney would sue the IAC ), but we will add some new ones to the list (I’m not sure if they’re going to be “minor” planets or full-fledged members of the club, although I doubt the latter). All I know is, I’ll be out of school (or at least science class) before anyone publishes a textbook that has to cover the issue.

And if someone asks me how many planets there are, I’ll simply say, “Hundreds, man, a whole bunch orbiting hundreds of different stars in the galaxy.” And if some smart-alec goes on to goad me into telling them how many planets in the solar system we’ve got, well … have you seen how long my blog entry is?

Some scientists are working on artificially grown meat, which would be “test-tube meat” rather than from dead animals. It’s an interesting concept, and one with many ramifications. They claim it would have lower fat content. Plus it would eliminate the need for 40 billion smelly animals that are kept in poor farming conditions, and solve that tiny problem of world hunger.

What about vegetarians, eh? If you’re a vegetarian, why? Obviously if you don’t eat meat for a physiological reason or such, you would not eat this meat. But if it is just because you think that eating meat is wrong (since we’re killing animals), would you eat this artificial meat (no animals were harmed during the making of this product).

Oh, and the universe runs on toast. Thank you.