On 26 March, 2010, the South Korean corvette Cheonan was torpedoed and sunk, with a loss of 46 crewmembers. Any time a ship goes down, a sailor can feel it - the inevitability of loss. But that isn't what this story is about.
A North Korean-manufactured torpedo has been implicated in the sinking of the Cheonan with what appears to be incontrovertible evidence. Strong diplomatic and economic measures, as well as military exercises at the very least, are looming ahead. Tensions on the Korean peninsula are rising. The role of China has yet to be defined. The motives of North Korean leaders are murkier than ever. They have denied everything.
The incident is reminiscent of the James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies, where an evil media mogul sinks a British warship and arranges blame onto China - provoking measures leading towards war. It's only slightly easier to believe that the torpedo came from a Elliot Carver's stealth submarine than that it came from Mars. A North Korean torpedo was found amidst the wreckage. And it is very likely that classified intelligence data makes an even stronger case for a North Korean submarine.
And so: either the submarine commander is rogue, a faction within the North Korean military command ordered the attack, or the orders came from the Pyongyang regime. If Pyongyang ordered the attack, what is to gain by a complete denial in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? A rogue sub commander would be an easy face-saving out for the regime - with requisite (show) trial, an official apology, talk of reparations, a renewed ceasefire agreement. But so far, no word from Pyongyang on such a break in the chain of command. And so - the orders may have come from higher.
Why would an economy on the verge of utter collapse risk war? How have high elements within the North Korean command, perhaps Kim Jong-il himself, come to the conclusion that the survival of their regime depends on the victimization of its populace? That a propaganda victory, with North Korea appearing the victim of unprovoked and unjustified retaliation, is worth risking a wider war on the Korean peninsula?
If the US and/or South Korea retaliate with limited strikes, and North Korean responds with a "limited" artillery bombardment of Seoul, the number of casualties, economic damage, and sheer terror will be shocking. Retaliation will target the North Korean regime directly. Starving refugees will begin streaming towards China. And deep in the bunkers north of the DMZ, their seals broken, chemical weapons will be readied for deployment; nuclear weapons will be put on standby; divisions driven to cross the border.
Go to Defcon 3. Will the UN-US-ROK goal be that of the Iraq war: "unconditional surrender", "regime change", "decapitation"? At what point will cooler heads prevail? At what point will one side unilaterally declare a ceasefire?
All eyes turn to China. China is the only power that can feasibly prevent escalating tensions and eventually, the risk of devastating open warfare in Korea. The PRC is not stupid; they will - they must - pressure North Korea to stand down. Only China can re-imagine North Korea, and rebuild it in its own image. It is time. Of course, the regime in China will demand a price, possibly in trade negotiations, possibly in geostrategics (vis-a-vis Taiwan or regions of interest in Central Asia), possibly in asking for silence on certain matters of internal unrest. Maybe this was the plan all along.
But who are we (ie, the US) to protest too loudly? Our relationship is symbiotic. China just helped to re-finance our entire banking system via purchasing US Government debt. The iPads are designed in Silicon Valley; they are made in Guangdong; they are bought in Los Angeles. Hopefully, an open door will be enough to avert conventional-chemical-nuclear disaster.
11.12.09
Real Clear Science: ClimateGate
Cathy Young, in an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics.com, makes a very good point that socially-motivated rhetorical extremism by both the environmental and anti-global warming movements has overshadowed any reasoned input actual climate scientists might have on the subject. She wonders why scientists who back measures to mitigate global climate change haven't distanced themselves from more fanatical, politically-motivated members of the "environmentalist" camp. Should science be "above such motives"? I would argue that even if they "should", they cannot.
The popular conception of science as an impassionate, reasoned search for universal truth is simply false. Nobody succeeds in science without being able to "sell" their research as valid, important, and worth paying attention to. Most scientists, like me, consider ourselves lucky to be doing science - we get to think for a living, explore places unknown to human knowledge, and be the first to see things never before seen. It is difficult, stressful work, however. It takes resolve, intense study, and the ability to watch your labors be credited to and exploited by those above you in a very real scientific hierarchy.
Science is a hierarchical feudal system, much like any business, government agency, or social organization. To rise in the hierarchy, besides a reasonable measure of brains and a good pedigree (top researchers who will endorse your work), you also must possess the ability to network, to succeed at all costs, and understand collaboration and quid pro quo. Research has to be funded; careers are at stake; and there is a strong, though not absolute, current of conformity enforced by the leaders in a scientific field. Thus, few scientists can afford to be "above politics". Indeed, the hierarchy selects for well-spoken, intelligent scientists that can win in the political arena. Public, media, and government conception of scientific issues is often key to getting funds allocated to a particular field of research or technology development. The public, the media, major technology corporations, venture capitalists, and government (which funds the vast majority of science), rely on these leaders to interpret the science for them, and tell them what is important, and why it should be funded.
The reality is that the practice of science is mostly inference, conjecture, argument, and consensus. Any reasoned scientific analysis is in a sense a piece of propaganda, albeit based on some reasonable consensus among scientists about how the universe works. Outlandish results and technologies are given brief airtime, but they have to be backed up by data that other scientists can follow. Critically, other scientists have to come to the same conclusions or else one's place in the heirarchy is forfeit. Funding will not be renewed, tenures will be lost, careers will end. Pseudo-science is rigorously vetted. Remember what happened to the inventors of "cold fusion" and the scientists who claimed to clone human embryos from stem cells for the first time?
She also wonders how the the non-scientist public can judge whether the allegations around "climategate" are true. I would argue again that out of context, the details of any scientist's grant-writing, email conversations, internal progress reports, and draft publications are fragmentary non-evidence if not interpreted by the scientist himself or herself. This is the stuff neither the media, public, nor even peer reviewers, funding agencies, or scientific competitors in the field, are ever supposed to see. Perhaps half the meaning of the contents of the "climategate" files are contained inside the climate researchers' brains. However, for someone who has a fanciful vision of how science is actually done, the existence of so much "conjecture" and human "motive" in internal politics of peer review, consensus, and funding must be quite a shock. I apologize for science - you weren't supposed to see the man behind the curtain.
Cathy Young is correct, unfortunately, that public understanding of science seems dismal. But this need not be. If people can understand political election campaigns, the economics of the bailout, or how the wild card system in the NFL actually works, the "scientific method" should not be mysterious. It is simple: 1. Observe, 2. Hypothesize, 3. Test, 4. Discuss implications.
1. It takes an observation: sea ice is melting.
2. Posits a reason for it: the appearance of higher average air and sea temperatures and altered current patterns in the Artic and Antarctic.
3. Examines whether the hypothesis is consistent, supported, testable, or backed up, by further observational or experimental data: laboratory experiments show greenhouse gases trap heat; air temperature is dependent on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; sea currents and temperatures have changed over decades; ice thickness and distribution have consistently decreased over decades in a pattern; average permafrost thickness has declined in the Arctic; human activity has released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; etc.
4. And uses the results to support or refute current theory: melting sea ice signals global climate change as follows: melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is caused by recent increased global temperatures and variations in sea currents, which are likely caused by human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere changing atmospheric trapping of heat.
Am I a believer in global climate change? Based on the research so far, yes. Is that my professional scientific opinion? Yes. Have I analyzed all of the data myself? No, but I trust that my fellow scientists are doing science just like we're doing it at my institution, and that internally, politics and all, it works the same way. Could it all be wrong? Of course. But one last thing: inference based off incomplete data, the gut feeling, means a lot for the progress of scientific research. It guides you in what to study and how to study it. My gut feeling has about a 95% success rate. And it tells me this: polar bears are eating each other. That's just not normal for a large boreal predator. In three decades, all of the debate about whether global climate change was happening by 2010 or not will be laughable. It's inevitable - build a beachfront timeshare in Newfoundland now, because it's going to be a balmy vacation destination by 2042.
Original Article by Cathy Young at RealClearPolitics.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20091210/cm_rcp/when_science_becomes_a_casualty_of_politics
The popular conception of science as an impassionate, reasoned search for universal truth is simply false. Nobody succeeds in science without being able to "sell" their research as valid, important, and worth paying attention to. Most scientists, like me, consider ourselves lucky to be doing science - we get to think for a living, explore places unknown to human knowledge, and be the first to see things never before seen. It is difficult, stressful work, however. It takes resolve, intense study, and the ability to watch your labors be credited to and exploited by those above you in a very real scientific hierarchy.
Science is a hierarchical feudal system, much like any business, government agency, or social organization. To rise in the hierarchy, besides a reasonable measure of brains and a good pedigree (top researchers who will endorse your work), you also must possess the ability to network, to succeed at all costs, and understand collaboration and quid pro quo. Research has to be funded; careers are at stake; and there is a strong, though not absolute, current of conformity enforced by the leaders in a scientific field. Thus, few scientists can afford to be "above politics". Indeed, the hierarchy selects for well-spoken, intelligent scientists that can win in the political arena. Public, media, and government conception of scientific issues is often key to getting funds allocated to a particular field of research or technology development. The public, the media, major technology corporations, venture capitalists, and government (which funds the vast majority of science), rely on these leaders to interpret the science for them, and tell them what is important, and why it should be funded.
The reality is that the practice of science is mostly inference, conjecture, argument, and consensus. Any reasoned scientific analysis is in a sense a piece of propaganda, albeit based on some reasonable consensus among scientists about how the universe works. Outlandish results and technologies are given brief airtime, but they have to be backed up by data that other scientists can follow. Critically, other scientists have to come to the same conclusions or else one's place in the heirarchy is forfeit. Funding will not be renewed, tenures will be lost, careers will end. Pseudo-science is rigorously vetted. Remember what happened to the inventors of "cold fusion" and the scientists who claimed to clone human embryos from stem cells for the first time?
She also wonders how the the non-scientist public can judge whether the allegations around "climategate" are true. I would argue again that out of context, the details of any scientist's grant-writing, email conversations, internal progress reports, and draft publications are fragmentary non-evidence if not interpreted by the scientist himself or herself. This is the stuff neither the media, public, nor even peer reviewers, funding agencies, or scientific competitors in the field, are ever supposed to see. Perhaps half the meaning of the contents of the "climategate" files are contained inside the climate researchers' brains. However, for someone who has a fanciful vision of how science is actually done, the existence of so much "conjecture" and human "motive" in internal politics of peer review, consensus, and funding must be quite a shock. I apologize for science - you weren't supposed to see the man behind the curtain.
Cathy Young is correct, unfortunately, that public understanding of science seems dismal. But this need not be. If people can understand political election campaigns, the economics of the bailout, or how the wild card system in the NFL actually works, the "scientific method" should not be mysterious. It is simple: 1. Observe, 2. Hypothesize, 3. Test, 4. Discuss implications.
1. It takes an observation: sea ice is melting.
2. Posits a reason for it: the appearance of higher average air and sea temperatures and altered current patterns in the Artic and Antarctic.
3. Examines whether the hypothesis is consistent, supported, testable, or backed up, by further observational or experimental data: laboratory experiments show greenhouse gases trap heat; air temperature is dependent on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; sea currents and temperatures have changed over decades; ice thickness and distribution have consistently decreased over decades in a pattern; average permafrost thickness has declined in the Arctic; human activity has released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; etc.
4. And uses the results to support or refute current theory: melting sea ice signals global climate change as follows: melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is caused by recent increased global temperatures and variations in sea currents, which are likely caused by human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere changing atmospheric trapping of heat.
Am I a believer in global climate change? Based on the research so far, yes. Is that my professional scientific opinion? Yes. Have I analyzed all of the data myself? No, but I trust that my fellow scientists are doing science just like we're doing it at my institution, and that internally, politics and all, it works the same way. Could it all be wrong? Of course. But one last thing: inference based off incomplete data, the gut feeling, means a lot for the progress of scientific research. It guides you in what to study and how to study it. My gut feeling has about a 95% success rate. And it tells me this: polar bears are eating each other. That's just not normal for a large boreal predator. In three decades, all of the debate about whether global climate change was happening by 2010 or not will be laughable. It's inevitable - build a beachfront timeshare in Newfoundland now, because it's going to be a balmy vacation destination by 2042.
Original Article by Cathy Young at RealClearPolitics.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20091210/cm_rcp/when_science_becomes_a_casualty_of_politics
6.12.07
A Much Anticipated HIV/AIDS Vaccine Trial Fails
The buzzword describing the failure of the recent much-lauded STEP HIV-1 vaccine clinical trial is "disappointing". I would add "but not surprising". Unfortunately, when we really think about the fundamental unknowns in the host-pathogen relationship between HIV and humans, perhaps there is little reason to expect that our current understanding of how HIV interacts with the human immune system would lend itself to engineering an efficacious vaccine. After all, what are the true correlates of immunity against HIV? Which of the many branches of the immune response is capable in humans of actually preventing infection by a challenging HIV virus? How is such an immune response triggered? Perhaps lentiviruses, or retroviruses in general, are capable of immune evasion on a vast, evolutionary scale .. which might be why our genomes are littered with silenced retroviral sequences, why primates have evolved specific anti-retroviral defenses intrinsic to the cell (like APOBEC proteins and TSG101), and why HIV long-term non-progressors tend to block HIV at the entry step. HIV might even mimic HERV to some extent, and be seen as 'self' by the immune system.So what can we do today? I think that unfortunately, we have to move into a realm of phase I clinical trials that tests specific hypotheses about mounting an effective immune response to HIV with a robust outcome of "Yes" or "No" rather than with the aim of pushing a marginal vaccine candidate into larger phase II and III trials without really understanding the basis for efficacy in pre-clinical and phase I trials. This is the way good science can be done. It's not satisfying if one has the disease today, but perhaps we have no choice.In the meantime, a vastly expanded effort to distribute anti-retroviral drugs and prevention, with a real "Marshall Plan" for building health care delivery systems in the worst-hit regions of the world, is the stop-gap solution.For more about the HIV vaccinology, see the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. It was World AIDS Day on 1 December: President Bush has called for another $30 billion for AIDS relief, and that is a good thing.
19.11.07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
