 |
| Somewhat blurry as I tried to zoom too much |
Gah. Get back home and find out that
Michele Scarponi was put six feet under by an inattentive van driver while riding his bike near his home in Italy a day after the Tour de Alps. One of the nicest guys in the pro peloton.
As far as the March? It was well attended and from the show of hands, a lot of scientists were there. One would hope that science was detached from partisanship but given that the pols who attended and spoke were Democrats, its hard to escape the idea that the politicization of science will be with us for a while. Indeed, Mayor Gonzales started out on the right foot bringing attention to all the scientific organizations near and dear to Santa Fe, but then went off on a monologue on how we should all vote for the
sugar tax. My wife reminded me that this was an excellent opportunity for a stump speech. I suppose...
Certainly there is plenty to be said about
overindulgence in sugar, corn syrup, and the like. There are plenty of papers out there on
Type II diabetes and
its drivers, which include some things we can't control (genetics) and some we can (diet and exercise). An excellent use of the rally in discussing the question of why we want to influence people's dietary habits would have been to discuss the nutritional science behind the hazards of eating too much junk food and drink laced with processed sugar. I think we should have left the politics to speak for itself. How to influence people, whether by carrots or sticks or appealing to enlightened self-interest (or a combination) is a policy decision and often a messy one. I would prefer to do it with continuing education rather than a blunt
instrument like another sin tax but if the public is paying for health
care, the public has an interest in healthier people. But that is not a science problem.
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty:
some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” R. Feynman
 |
| A few people got it. Hint. |
The purpose of an event like this should be to make connections with the general public to show how science helps solve problems and identifies the way the world works from the standpoint of the scientific method. It is not a guarantee of always finding answers to problems, i.e. TV science, or of finding answers without significant uncertainties (see Judith Curry's "
uncertainty monster" essays) but of using the scientific method to try to understand problems as well as we can. Without some care, rallies turn into advocacy for positions on public policy rather than discussions of the way that science illustrates the reasons we need to address problems and make policy decisions. That's where it becomes partisan.
Todd Ringler said it better than I can in his speech at the March in Santa Fe:
"...As
climate scientists our job is to provide — to the best of our ability —
a clear description of how the Earth will change with increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases. Now I kind of thought that we had an
understanding between climate scientists and policy makers. We study
the problem, we build theories, we gather observations, we produce
projections — you know, we do what scientists do. Then, policy makers —
our politicians — would act on this information to craft legislation in
the best interest of all of us. Scientists and politicians — hand in
hand — each serving society in their own way..." --Dr. Todd Ringler
More from Todd here, if you are a science geek.
Oh, and I did see some people who bicycled to the rally but it was too crowded to get a picture. We parked by the house in Casa Solana and got there via shoe leather express.
