Skeptical about Abstinence-Only Sexual Education

In a finding that will utterly fail to shock anyone who has ever been a normal teenager,

Sex education programs that encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but also teach them how to reduce their chances of getting pregnant or a sexually transmitted disease cut risky sexual behavior, increase condom use and lower the chances of getting the AIDS virus and other infections.

Of course, the findings were condemned by advocates of abstinence programs, which is not surprising, because it has long been the suspicion that the advocates of abstinence-only sexual education are more concerned with trying to scare teens into not having sex rather than to actually reduce their level of risky sexual behavior.  Some abstinence-only advocates may genuinely believe that not encouraging/teaching those teens who have sex to do it safely will decrease risky sexual behavior, but the suspicion is that many of them are pushing the abstinence-only education program because it conforms to their moral beliefs that teens having sex is bad.

Of course, it will come to no surprise to just about anyone who has ever been a teenager that being told not to do something by a teacher is not necessarily going to be very successful in achieving its aims, especially when that means ignoring hormones are that are raging throughout the body.  And while there may be some evidence   that abstinence-only education delays sexual intercourse (which is presumably good because older teens are less likely to engage in riskier sexual behavior?) there is no good evidence, according to this review (by the Center for Disease Control’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services), that abstinence-only education reduces teenagers’ risky sexual behaviors.  Comprehensive sex education that discourages sex while educating students about how to have safe sex both delays sex and increases safe sex practices.

Of course, if my suspicion that abstinence-only advocates are driven by religious and/or moral agendas rather than by real concerns about increasing the sexual health of teens is true, then the abstinence-only proponents likely will not care what evidence-based evaluations reveal and will continue advocating it no matter how thoroughly it is debunked. 

Source:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/07/MNFV1AG9UI.DTL&type=education

John Stewart Takes on H1N1

The more I watch the Daily Show, a supposedly satirical parody of “real” news, the more I realize how far “real” news, especially the cable-variety, has fallen. 

[Apologies to those who live outside the US]

The Swine Flu Vaccine Swindle

The opponents of vaccines are out if full force campaigning against the H1N1 vaccine, and like usual, their scare tactics consist primarily of patently erroneous claims, combined with absurd hyperbole and twisted “reasoning.”

One popular claim is that the vaccines have not been adequately tested; they have not gone through the normal FDA review process.  A bit of research shows this to be a false claim.  The seasonal flu vaccine is already approved and extensively tested, as per FDA requirements.  When the FDA approved the seasonal flu vaccine, they also approved a method for changing the particular strains of influenza virus annually, without having to go through the approval process required for a new drug; in fact, without this sort of approval, the influenza vaccine would be useless, because the strains need to be changed every year, but it takes a number of years to get FDA approval for a new drug.

The FDA reviewed the H1N1 vaccine, and found that the vaccine itself was already approved under the original seasonal flu shot approval, as it consisted of a simple strain-change.  Despite claims by anti-vaccine scaremongers, the distinction between the seasonal flu shot and the H1N1 vaccine is no different than the distinction between the 2009 seasonal flu shot and the 2008 seasonal flu shot.  These are just different strains, and the H1N1 vaccine, in addition to all the tests required for FDA approval that were already conducted to approve the seasonal influenza vaccine, has, and is continuing to undergo safety tests.

What does make H1N1 different than the seasonal flu is that this is an apparently novel mutation that developed in a species other than humans, thus there is less immunity developed, and therefore it tends to be more virulent than other influenza strains.  This seems especially true among younger people who contract the virus, while healthy older people seem to be fairly immune.

Another point of contention is the use of adjuvants.  Adjuvants are chemicals that stimulate an immune response, which improves the efficacy of a vaccine, requiring a smaller dose.  Adjuvants have widely been used in vaccines in  the European Union for years, and there is no scientifically-supported reason to believe that they are unsafe; however, they have been the focus of a number of anti-vaccine diatribes.  On the internet, it is common to find claims that the H1N1 vaccine contains the adjuvant squalene, which is dangerous.  This claim is untrue on both counts.  Squalene has been approved for use in Europe for years, and the FDA-approved version of the H1N1 vaccine for mass distribution does not contain squalene. 

A final claim is that the H1N1 vaccine contains the preservative thimerosal, which has been linked to autism and other claimed medical maladies.   Large scale studies have repeatedly disproved the hypothesis that thimerosal is correlated with autism; however celebrities (rarely with any medical credentials) like Jenny McCarthy keep popularizing this false claim.  Thimerosal, at the tiny level used in vaccines, is safe.  Furthermore, only the multi-dose versions of the H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal.  Americans can obtain a thimerosal-free vaccine by using the per-packaged syringe or nasal mist form, although they should not have to worry about doing so.

The media is also responsible for conflagrating fear, both about the H1N1 virus and the H1N1 vaccine, because fear sells.  The bottom line is that the H1N1 is likely to sicken an individual, probably worse than the regular flu, but not likely to kill them.  Nonetheless, indicators seem to show that H1N1 is an unusually virulent strain, especially among certain high-risk groups such as the young and pregnant women.  As of this writing, the pediatric death toll is around the triple digit mark. 

The risk of dying from H1N1  is small but real; the risk of being sickened is extremely high, and the risk from the vaccine is negligible.  Everyone who cares about the health and well-being of themselves, their friends, and their family, should be vaccinated, and encourage the same of their loved-ones.  Just keep in mind that with the shortage of supplies, those who are in lower-risk groups should wait until there are enough supplies of the vaccine for those at greatest risk. 

REFERENCES (FURTHER READING):

[1]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/vaccine_safety_qa.htm

[2]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/thimerosal_qa.htm

[3]http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/public/vaccination_qa_pub.htm

[4]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boosting-vaccine-power

[5]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pandemic-payoff

[6]http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/25/h1n1-a-national-emergency/

Court Bans Ave Maria

 

A federal appeals court today banned the Jackson High School woodwind ensemble from playing Ave Maria, a religious piece of music by Schubert based on a traditional Catholic prayer.  The court ruled that the district superintendent did not violate students’ first amendment rights by restricting graduation music to secular works.

While it is unclear whether the superintendent made the right decision (there certainly is a place in our school system for religiously derived music so long as the intent of the selection of the music is not to promote religion, and a piece of classical music devoid of English lyrics in this case was probably not violating the establishment clause), it is clear that the court ruled correctly.  School administrators must deal with the often-ambiguous border separating the protection of students’ right to free expression and their right to not be indoctrinated by government promotion of religion.  In a graduation ceremony where a very small number of musical pieces may be played, there is nothing wrong with ensuring that the repertoire remain secular.  The only potential worry is that administrators may take this too far and try to ban high school bands from playing selections with religious antecedents altogether.

Sources:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BAVK19K5EK.DTL&tsp=1

Missouri School Still Stuck in Precambrian Era

 

Shirts worn by the Smith-Cotton High School Band were confiscated by the school administrators because they portrayed the evolution of brass instruments.  Some parents were upset that the t-shirts made reference to evolution and complained, and rather than defend the creative license of their students, the school administrators demanded that the t-shirts be confiscated.   What makes this story more ridiculous is  that the school administration justified their decision by claiming that the shirts violated the establishment clause of the first amendment, because they promoted evolution, which they proclaimed as a religious belief.

If the high school is unable to distinguish between school-promotion of religion and a t-shirt that makes a vague reference to the evolution of man (which is science and not religion, for the record) then it has a serious problem with understanding and implementing academic and constitutional standards inherent in running a public school.  Any admissions official at a university who is looking over the transcript of an applicant from this Missouri high school has to give serious consideration as to exactly how to weigh an “A” in a biology class from a school district which cannot distinguish between  promoting religion and vaguely referencing evolution.  In case any readers from the Smith-Cotton High School administration are reading this,  science is not a religion, and evolution has served as the keystone of biology for well over a century. 

High school marching band can’t wear evolutionary T-shirts,; Tonya Fennel; The Sedalia Democrat; 29AUG2009.

Image Credit: Hal Smith/ Sedalia Democrat

The Apollo Program: The Best Special Effects Hollywood Could Buy?

 

On July 20th, 1969, man first set foot on the moon.  For many in lab-coats, it represented a triumph for science; for others, humankind’s conquering of the heavens; and for the more nationalistic Americans, a major victory for the United States over the Soviets in the cosmic sport known as the space race. 

The first mention I ever heard of the conspiracy theories that held that the Apollo Eleven astronauts did not actually land on the moon was in 2001, with the airing of the Fox television show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon.  Since the airing of that “documentary” (but never before it), I have encountered a number of people who genuinely believe that the Apollo Eleven moon-landings were faked.  It is a pretty telling reminder of how mass media exposure of fringe ideas can help popularize them, especially when conspiracy theorists’ claims are not counterpoised by the responses of representative experts. 

The conspiracy theories predate the 2001 Fox program, of course.   A 1999 Gallup poll found that six percent of Americans believed  that the Apollo moon landings were faked, not astonishingly high numbers when compared to the percentages who believe that Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy or deny evolution, although perhaps twenty five percent of Britons believe the moon landings were faked.  [1]

A quick Google search finds this Apollo Hoax website at the top of the results, with promises of a, huge update to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the moon landings, which, of the 40th anniversary of the moon landings, do not exist.  This website (like so many conspiracy theory treatises) does not actually put forward a cogent alternative explanation, but rather presents a laundry list of claimed inconsistencies with NASA’s version of the Apollo Eleven mission.  I am not going to bother going into detail with debunking this, as many others have already done so (some links appear at the end of this posting). 

The best, simplest, and most consistent explanation (like with so many other conspiracy theories), is the “official” one.   The Soviets successfully launched a satellite into orbit in 1957.  In 1961, they safely launched, and retrieved a man from Earth orbit.  While landing people on the moon was a much more complicated procedure, with a lot more variables, requirements, and chances for disaster, the basic  level of scientific competence and technology was not particularly different, although it did require much more complicated calculations and the technology was more complicated, it was not, on a basic level, more technology or scientifically advanced.  What it did require was more careful planning, a more complicated technological system, and a lot more money. 

One day, tourists may routinely visit the location of the first moon landings, but it may be a long time before men walk on the moon again.  Currently, NASA has no concrete plans to ever return.  Until then, we will have to be satisfied with unmanned probes, like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that recently snapped these pictures of the Apollo mission sites. 

Courtesy NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

Sources:

[1]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Apollo11MoonLanding/story?id=8104410&page=1

Links:

Bad Astronomy does a good job reviewing the Fox program mentioned above: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Another good debunking of popular myths by National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-11-hoax-pictures/

Lessons of the ‘Fake Moon Flight’ Myth
JAMES OBERG
Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2003, pp 23, 30 http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html

If Man Landed on the Moon Today

It's a shame how accurate this is.




In honor of Walter Cronkite, this is how it happened 40 years ago.

United States, Korean Government Sites Under Cyber Attack

(By North Korea?)

The predecessor to the internet was created with the intention of decentralizing critical US communication infrastructure, so that, in the case of a nuclear war or other significant disaster that may collapse traditional communication methods, the United States military and government would continue to be able to communicate.

While the United States government is still a major user of the internet, the US economy is now completely reliant on it.  While the nature of the internet is such where it would be difficult to completely collapse, a well-executed attack could slow down sections of it into near uselessness.

This is called a denial of service attack, which is generally launched against specific websites, in order to flood them with so much traffic that they are unable to function normally and either crash or slow to a crawl. 

In an attack linked with the one in South Korea, 14 major Web sites in the United States — including those of the White House, the State Department and the New York Stock Exchange — came under similar attacks, according to anti-cyberterrorism police officers in Seoul.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/technology/09cyber.html?ref=global-home

The US military is struggling to restructure their mission to include not just defending the United States from air, land, and sea attacks, but also to buttress and secure our cyber-“borders”.

The reality is disheartening.  We live in a world that is increasingly reliant on technology, technology that is grounded in sometimes classic, sometimes nascent scientific principles.  Unfortunately, our increasing reliance on technology (and the science behind it) is not correlated with an increasing understanding of those principles  among the general public.  This is a dangerous trend. 

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time ... when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstitions and darkness. (Sagan, 1995, p. 25)

Further Reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?scp=1&sq=military%20internet%20cyberattack&st=cse 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02goldsmith.html?scp=7&sq=military%20internet%20cyberattack&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/us/politics/13cyber.html?scp=10&sq=military%20internet%20cyberattack&st=cse

References:

Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world : science as a candle in the dark (1st ed.). New York: Random House.

Why We Need Science Writers

 

Science and technology are essential to almost every aspect of modern society, yet technology, and the scientific principles on which it operates, might as well be magic to a large portion of the population. Science articles can be just an essential contributor to understand of the modern world as understanding developing stories in Washington or the Middle East; yet, science reporting frequently is effected by journalists with minimal background in the fields on which they are reporting, and with no editorial review by experts, much less an accomplished science journalist or editor.

Given how essential good science reporting is, combined with how ignorant most of the population is with regard to scientific facts (including otherwise educated people, like journalists), it is a travesty that major news sources leave science reporting in the hands of journalists that are neither competent to report on the subject nor to explain complicated scientific discoveries, in context with the current body of scientific knowledge, to the general public.

Take this recent example from Fox News's website.

Red giant stars are thought to have short, complicated and violent lifespans. Lasting at most a few million years, they quickly burn out their hydrogen fuel and then switch to helium, carbon and other elements in a series of partial collapses, refuelings and restarts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525695,00.html [accessed: 07JULY2009]

Red giants are a phase of stellar evolution after the star has moved off the main sequence (id est, exhausted the hydrogen in its core). This article almost implies that Betelgeuse was always a red giant and that it was a red giant before it "burn[t] out [its] hydrogen fuel." Furthermore, the elements that a giant will "burn" depends on its mass. While larger stars may burn "carbon and other elements," less massive stars like the sun will not. While this may seem a minor point of contention with the Fox article, anyone familiar with the evolution of stars would have rewritten this in a more accurate and less confusing manner and given a proper explanation of what a red giant is. Perhaps something such as:

Betelgeuse long ago left the main sequence, or normal hydrogen burning phase of its (existence), and began the giant phase of its existence, which, in the case of a less massive star such as the sun will result in a white dwarf, and in the case of a more massive star such as Betelgeuse, will result in a core-collapse supernova, which is a spectacular explosion which occurs at the end of the fusion life of a large star, leaving either a neutron star or a black hole.