TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| US grapples with bedbugs, misuse of pesticides By MATT LEINGANG 2010-08-31T03:40:34ZCOLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A resurgence of bedbugs across the U.S. has homeowners and apartment dwellers taking desperate measures to eradicate the tenacious bloodsuckers, with some relying on dangerous outdoor pesticides and fly-by-night exterminators.... hosted.ap.org |
David Willetts ducks questions about the future of science funding At the British Science Festival in Birmingham yesterday, science minister David Willetts answered questions about cuts in science funding. Alok Jha was not impressedDavid Willetts is an engaging, intelligent and likeable man. He knows his onions on the economy, says most of the right things about scientific research and, for the most part, has been welcomed by scientists and campaigners as science minister in the new coalition government. Vince Cable, Willetts' senior as secretary of state for business, seems equally enamoured by science. There can be little doubt that either man underestimates the importance of investing in research, even in a time of fiscal austerity, and both see the value in creating knowledge.Which therefore makes some of the things that these informed men have been saying this past week all the more worrying. Vince Cable started the gaffes last week with a misinformed statement about the "45% of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard" in the UK. David Willetts didn't help yesterday when he point-blank refused to correct that error, a statement that has got so much of the UK's science community up in arms. Willetts gave a speech last night at the British Science Festival where he outlined some of the things he's done or is about to do for British science. He launched a consultation on the principles of scientific advice in government, said we needed better public engagement on important science issues (and stopped the GM dialogue instituted by the previous government and which Willetts said was not working), and lauded a new website on climate change, launched by government chief scientist John Beddington.Before the speech, Willetts came to see the press and was asked, among other things, about the looming cuts in science funding and also whether public money should be used to fund homeopathic treatments. His answers weren't convincing. In the vein of several others who have decided to let loose their notes so that readers can make their own minds up about stories, I've reproduced below a transcript of around 12 minutes of the Willetts press conference that took place in Birmingham yesterday. Perhaps Willetts does believe the same things as all those scientists out there who have decided to make a noise about public funding of research. And maybe he only sounded vague or dismissive because, behind the scenes, he is locked in a delicate political game with Treasury officials. Perhaps he can't say too much that is supportive in public lest he reveal his hand too early and spoil his chances of getting scientists a decent settlement from the comprehensive spending review in October.I leave it to anyone who is interested to help me decode whether or not the stuff he said was the full-throated defence of scientific principles you might expect from the man charged with championing evidence-based policy and scientific research in government.Q: Will Vince Cable or you assure scientists after the 45% gaffe that the information being supplied to Treasury was not up to par and assure them that the mistake will be rectified? And is there still time for scientists to still lobby you and make their case even louder than they perhaps have before?Britain clearly has fantastic strengths in science and we have a large amount of scientific research of very high quality indeed. Vince and I are both committed to Britain's science base. We have inherited a fiscal crisis where Britain has borrowing running at a level higher than any G20 country and, secondly, no long-term expenditure plans. The previous government didn't do a long-term planning exercise and we all know why they didn't because they knew they were going to have to confront some very tough questions. All of us in government understand that, alongside the need for austerity, it's absolutely essential that we deliver economic growth and it's clear that universities and the science base are fundamental for economic growth. There is a shared endeavour between BIS [Department for Business, Innovation and Skills], Treasury and Number 10 at agreeing a science budget that focuses on excellent research and helps to deliver the government's objectives on growth. The kind of work that's being done by the Royal Society on the scientific century, the kind of academic assessments of the importance of publicly-funded research, like some of the Jonathan Haskell stuff showing very high returns specifically to research funded by the research councils. There is some good, solid empirical evidence, which we're happy to share with all parts of the government machine. Are you going to acknowledge the 45% error? Is there time for scientists to still make their case - for example there's an idea that they might march on Downing Street, is that a waste of time?What Vince was trying to do was levelling with the scientific community that we have to recognise that there will be some reductions in public spending. He was, with typical honesty, trying to level with people about that and it was the right thing to do. The scientific community are making their case very vigorously but my view is that this is, especially for scientists, the best arguments are rigorously empirical and are based on very tight evidence. The beady-eyed sceptics on science expenditure are much more likely to be persuaded by hard, robust empirical evidence than by anything else and that's the best way by which we should conduct this debate. I'm aware of the evidence but, equally, all government departments have to make savings and we're not exempt and we're absolutely doing our best to ensure that we deliver the savings that are necessary in a way that then focuses the budget on excellence in science.You still haven't answered my question. The 45% figure is not empirically correct at all. Is there any point in scientists marching on Downing Street? Is it too late for them to make any difference? I think that people across government understand how the research rankings work. There's the RAE, now REF, the rankings for QR, there's how the research councils allocate grants, there's more widely the Times Higher league table overall where scientific activity plays a big role in the university rankings. We can see if you look at all those bits of evidence that we've got excellent scientific research. The public expenditure decisions will be announced on the 20th of October and it is a joint endeavour. I don't think it's helpful to see different departments at loggerheads. There's a shared agreement on the importance of focusing on excellence and the importance of science contributing to growth but anybody who's got robust empirical evidence, everybody is still open to that. No final decisions on exact allocations have yet been made.1The NHS spends something like £29m on homeopathy and yet there's no scientific evidence that it works. John Beddington has also said there's very little evidence for it, so why is that scientific advice not getting through to government?John does speak up for the scientific evidence robustly. As chief scientist I very much believe in that part of his role. The health service is partly patient-driven. It's what patients are expecting and seeking from their doctors. There is a very understandable argument that, when there is very strong patient demand for this, the NHS has to do something in response.What about [if the public wanted] witch doctors?The argument is that there is a specific and wide-ranging public appetite for homeopathy, which the NHS needs to respond to. It is a matter for individual primary care groups of GPs to decide what they think they should best spend their public money on for their patients. That's where the decision will lie in the future? John Beddington has made his views as a scientist clear2. Government scientists do have a view on homeopathy and he has expressed that view. As we know from other contexts, ultimately decisions are based on other considerations as well. For the NHS, there is the argument that it has to be patient responsive. And there is substantial patient demand for this particular treatment. That is what the NHS can, if they wish, respond to. It is ultimately a decision for doctors themselves on the treatments they choose to prescribe. That goes against the idea of evidence-based medicine and the whole point of NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence], for example. One of the ideas for the future is that there will be greater power and responsibility with groups of GPs in our decentralised model. NICE will, of course, continue to offer advice but ultimately GPs will have scope for responding to what their patients are demanding. You have to balance that argument about patient demand alongside what I well-recognise as the scientific evidence.They will have the ability to prescribe things like homeopathy even if they do not meet any NICE requirements3. If GPs do detect very strong patient demand, they will be able to respond to that. Under our new role, there will be greater scope for GPs to respond to patient demand.GPs will be the purchasers on behalf of patients. They will be the patients' friend and agent through the system.Notes:^1. Willets could so easily have addressed Vince Cable's "45%" gaffe and killed it. Instead, his obfuscation will give no comfort to scientists and campaigners concerned that the discussions between BIS and Treasury on science funding are not being based on a wholly accurate picture of the UK's research base.^2. Willetts is right - John Beddington very clearly stated that he thought the evidence base for homeopathy "remains highly questionable." In its Evidence Check report on homeopathy, the House of Commons science select committee said: "When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it. Since the NHS Constitution explicitly gives people the right to expect that decisions on the funding of drugs and treatments are made "following a proper consideration of the evidence", patients may reasonably form the view that homeopathy is an evidence-based treatment."Why has NICE not yet evaluated the evidence for homeopathy? Quite understandably, it has limited resources and greater priorities with a long queue of real pharmaceuticals to evaluate.^ 3. When a treatment is approved by NICE, NHS trusts are obliged to provide it to their patients. If a drug is not approved, GPs can still request it for their patients and it is at the discretion of the NHS trust. Willets' position is no radical shift in this policy but it will be interesting to see if the role and status of NICE is altered in any coming changes to health policy by the coalition government. Willets was unable to give any more information but, if you wanted to be strictly fair, health policy is not within his ministerial portfolio. Science policyHigher educationResearchResearch fundingHomeopathyNHSVince CableDavid WillettsEducation policyBritish Science Festival 2010British Science FestivalAlok Jhaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
UK Centre for Intelligent Design claims it will focus on science, not religion The newly opened Centre for Intelligent Design aims to start a debate in the UK that's not about religion but about evidenceIn 2006 Elanor Taylor wrote that it was time for the UK to wage war on intelligent design, saying that while it and creationism used to be regarded like line dancing and SUVs – "peculiarly American phenomena" – they were now taking root in British life. The last few years have led to more debate about creationism and intelligent design, especially their classroom presence, due in part to Darwin's bicentenary celebrations and the continued, sometimes acrimonious, discussion about the relationship between science and religion. Creationism in this country has its cheerleaders in museums, schools and zoos, but what of intelligent design? In Glasgow, a new institution hopes to fill that gap.The Centre for Intelligent Design features a video introduction from Dr Alastair Noble, who has argued that ID should not be excluded from the study of origins. He says, among other things, that he is part of a network of people who are "dissatisfied with the pervading Darwinian explanation of origins and are attracted to the much more credible position of intelligent design" and criticise the "strident strain of science" that says the only acceptable explanations are those depending on "physical and materialistic processes".The small print of the website says the centre's activity "is organised under a charitable trust governed by the laws of Guernsey, Channel Islands". The centre receives funding from individuals and organisations who support its aims, according to the website, and its launch has earned plaudits from the Discovery Institute which says the centre returns ID to its roots: "Some of the best known pioneers of modern science did their work in Britain and Europe in the conviction that they were exploring a universe that really was designed."In a telephone interview, Noble denies that the centre is a British branch of Discovery: "We are friends with Discovery and we talk to them, but we are not formally linked. We would be interested in developing links with Europe. We don't get money from America – it is funded from Britain. We don't have huge amounts of money. We will have a series of projects and will raise funds as and when needed."According to Noble, what separates the Centre for Intelligent Design from other bodies engaged in the evolution argument is its emphasis on science: "There are various organisations that debate the faith issue around origins, but what we will be trying to do is open a debate around the scientific issue. ID is consistently misrepresented as a religious position. The debate about ID is quite difficult to elevate to a civilised conversation. It's not about religion, it's about evidence."The network of people supporting the centre's activities numbers between 50 and 100. Among them is its president Professor Norman Nevin, emeritus professor of medical genetics, Queens University, Belfast, and its vice-president Dr David Galloway, who is also vice president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow. In its FAQs, the site lists the UK scientists "who are brave enough to make their support for intelligent design public. There are many more who are not willing to risk their careers by making their objections to evolution known."Blogger and anti-Creationist campaigner Naon Tiotami notes that the support of "prominent academics" suggests "they may stand a fighting chance at being taken seriously by the media, something that Truth in Science hasn't accomplished," before adding: "All we can do at the moment is hope that this new project crash-lands before it even properly gets its feet off the ground."Next month the centre hosts Professor Mike Behe on a national lecture tour.I asked Michael Reiss professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London what he thought about the Centre for Intelligent Design. He replied: "In a free society it is important that organisations that do not accept the scientific theory of evolution are allowed to exist and to proclaim their message. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by creationists and those who advocate intelligent design (ID) are invalid."In a school setting this means that while teachers of science are perfectly at liberty to address creationist and ID issues, should they so wish, students must not be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over whether the Earth is very old (about 4.6 billion years old) or whether all species descend from very simple common ancestors."For now, the Centre for Intelligent Design is nothing more than a website and an office. What it achieves will depend on how much appetite there is in the UK for intelligent design and what resistance is mounted to its message.EvolutionBiologyControversies in scienceCreationismReligionRiazat Buttguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Genevieve the lonely giraffe finally finds love A bachelor giraffe in a Bristol zoo has found love after a four-year search for a suitable mate. bbc.co.uk |
Vital Signs: Screening: Side Effects From Endoscopic Procedures A new study reports that 1 in 100 patients experience complications serious enough to send them to the emergency room — a much higher rate than expected. feeds.nytimes.com |