Why Ron Paul scares the crap out of me

You know, in some ways, I can't help but like Ron Paul. Sure, he attracts followers that range from neo-nazis to ecoterrorists, but he has a blimp. That's awesome. He seems like a genuinely nice fella, and it's refreshing to see a politician voicing strong opinions these days.

But he doesn't worry me because he wants to deport foreigners or return to the gold standard or even because he exhibits borderline "new world order" paranoia. No, I'm afraid of Ron Paul because he is apparently a quack of the highest caliber. Orac over at Scienceblogs has a great post that you might like to read if you want oodles and oodles of additional information about this.

In a nutshell, what Paul wants to do is remove the few teeth the FDA has remaining. Think the FDA is bad at keeping food safe? Think that too many blatantly hazardous drugs and supplements are released into the market? Wait until Paul get a hold of it!

He's big with the health crackpots, too. Mike Adams, who runs a site called newstarget.com says this about Ron Paul:

Only Ron Paul believes in genuine health freedom. He's the creator of the Health Freedom Protection Act, a bill that would reestablish Free Speech provisions for makers of superfoods, herbs, nutritional supplements and other natural remedies. Under the HFPA, those individuals would be able to state scientifically-validated facts about the health benefits of their products right on the bottle! Today, the FDA doesn't allow that. All truthful statements about nutritional supplements are presently censored! (It's a way to protect Big Pharma and keep the American people ignorant about how plant-based medicines can prevent and even cure degenerative disease.)

So, you know how supplements that claim to be good for diseases have a disclaimer on them? Something to the extent of "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA?" That's a result of a piece of legislation called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which defanged the agency quite a bit, allowing these folks to sell "supplements" with drug-like behavior without FDA oversight as long as they carefully massage their claims so that it isn't directly stated that it will "treat, cure, or prevent" any disease. But, restricting the claims impedes free speech, apparently. If Jim's Snake Oil wants to claim that their urine-and-vinegar concoction regrows hair, improves virility, and cures cancer, well, that's their right, right?

Keep in mind that to people like Mike Adams, "scientifically validated" means that there existed in some journal somewhere at some time one article indicating any form of benefit. This includes, of course, journals well-known for publishing poorly-designed and questionable studies.

This is doubly concerning to me, because for Christmas I was given a book called Lee's Priceless Recipes, a turn of the century book that contains a fascinating collection of formulae for everything from brass polish to artificial honey. This includes a number of patent medicines, the "supplements" of that day. and it's full of ointments, linaments, and potions that are chock full of lead oxide, lead acetate, mercury chloride, arsenic, and various other unsavories.

For a modern version of this, one only needs to look at "black salve," which I would not recommend searching for, unless you want to have your morning spoiled with images of horrible, disfiguring scars. Black salve is an extract of bloodroot, a plant that produces a compound called sanguinarine, which is aggressively toxic towards mammalian cells. The salve is sold as a treatment for "moles", which really means skin cancer. It was originally used in an interesting type of microsurgery in which bloodroot extract would sit on a skin tumor overnight, and then the tumor and the surrounding skin would be removed, giving it an impressive veneer of scientific legitimacy. Nowadays, black salve, applied at home, can result in some horror-movie disfigurement. Yet the FDA lacks the power to keep these salves off the market because they're supplements, sold as mole treatments.

So there it is. While I like Ron Paul's charming kookiness and originality, I just can't support a candidate that wants to take the government agency responsible for keeping people from feeding me diseased cow brains and insuring that my headache medicine won't dissolve my intestines, and kick it in the groin.

Oh, and there's the evolution thing, too. That's also a problem.

A holiday visit from old Dr. Nick

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the lab
Not a stir bar was stirring, the flasks dirty and drab;

The glassware was strewn without care by the sink,
In hopes that someone else would clean them, I think;

The grad students were nestled all snug in their coats,
While portions of white powders sat in weighing boats;
And I at my computer, wishing I weren't at work,
Had just settled down for a reaction I couldn't shirk,
When behind me nearby there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the chair to see what was the matter.
Away to the hood I flew like a flash,
Grabbed my goggles and threw up the sash.
Spilled drying agent that glistened like snow
Reflected the greenish light of the fluorescent glow,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a red-coated man, in a red fuzzy hat,
With a little filtration, over by the large sink,
Isolating my product before I could blink.
More rapid than eagles the spectra he ran,
And he locked, and shimmed, and identified it by name;
"Now, azides! now, alkynes! now, arenes and vinyls!
On, ketones! on halides! on, amines, biphenyls!
To the top of the graph! to the top of the scale!
Now crystallize! crystallize! crystallize all!"

As insoluble chunks that before the stirring bar fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, break, or at least try,
So up to the counter-top the coursers he flew,
Laying down a fist full of spectra, and my product too.

And giving a nod, up the air handler he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, as he took off with a jerk,
"Merry Christmas to all, now get back to work!"

Sciencedebate 2008

This is (potentially) good news for this next election cycle.

A group of sciencebloggers has proposed that the public call for a presidential debate, specifically on the issue of science and technology. You can visit their website here.

We have noticed that science and technology lie at the center of a very large number of the policy issues facing our nation and the world - issues that profoundly affect our national and economic security as science and technology continue to transform our lives. No matter one's political stripe, these issues pose important pragmatic policy challenges.

We believe these scientific and technological policy challenges can bring out the best in the entrepreneurial American spirit. America can be a leader in finding cures for our worst diseases, inventing the best alternative energy sources, and graduating the most scientifically literate children in the world - or we can concede these economic and humanitarian benefits to other countries.

I think this is a fantastic idea. Somehow, politicians seem to weasel out of these sorts of questions every time they're asked, crying "But I'm not a scientist! Science is hard!" or trying to divert the topic to something fluffier. The public and the media don't let it go when candidates pull that crap with questions about the economy, defense, or civil rights.

Well, the media used to not let it go.

But you don't need to be a scientist to understand, for instance, that "intelligent design" creationism is disguised religion. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that burning coal releases mercury, and that's a bad thing. You don't need to be a scientist to understand why soaking livestock in antibiotics is a bad thing. I, along with many other people, don't want to have another president elected that isn't a proud member of the reality-based community.

Even though I think this is a fantastic idea (and I am supporting it), I'm not terribly optimistic about the chances of actually getting front-running candidates to participate, for a few reasons.

First, I don't think that many of the candidates would be to thrilled to speak about issues that would limit their opportunities to waffle uselessly. They'll be asked questions about issues on which there is a substantial amount of data, by people who are very familiar with the issues at hand. Clinton's and Romney are out because they'd have to take a firm position on an issue with a right and wrong answer. Giuliani is out because questions regarding NSF funding, open access publishing, stem cell research, and evolution can't be spun into answers about 9-11 or New York City. The topic necessarily takes the spotlight off the issues politicians love because they tug the heartstrings and provoke the atavistic us-vs-them reflex that forcibly disables the rational part of a voter's brain. How will Huckabee make people think he's better than Obama if "moral fiber" just doesn't come up?

Second, half of the candidates clearly don't think their key constituencies are with the whole "science" thing. This definitely includes the anti-evolution handraisers Tom "throw 'em back" Tancredo and Mike "OMG GAY AIDS" Huckabee.

Though it could just as well be to the advantage of some candidates. If they want to show people that no evidence, however concrete, can puncture their little personal reality, what a better way to do it than by throwing an audience of scientists the bird?

Third, the primaries are all happening ridiculously early. I doubt that we'll be able to coax anyone into showing up, as they'll all be too busy pretending that Iowa is important. Come on, they're all busy! The front-runners have more important issues to address, like whether or not Jesus and Satan were brothers!

Plus, science says that the whole corn-as-a-fuel thing is a crock of... uh... corn. Can anyone tell me where that might be a problem? Hint: it's the only state I've mentioned so far.

And finally, I'm just not optimistic enough to believe that the concerned science-literate segment of the population is sizable enough to (strategically) matter to the candidates. With the evangelical vote up in the air, it's more important to make public appearances at church than it is to ask "is our children learning [science]?"

For my own sake, I hope I'm wrong.

My Desk

This post is primarily for Elisabeth, but its lessons apply to all. Einstein once said "If a cluttered desk signs a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?"

So don't feel bad about working in a cluttered environment, or even for not tidying up, because...

... it could be worse.

Can you trust your doctor?

CNN has posted a video segment called Medicine and Morality on their site that is quite disturbing. The video starts out in an interview with a woman whose doctor lectured her about having sex after denying her a prescription for birth control. Now, one would hope that this woman had some sort of condition that would cause her body to react poorly to the medication, but no. Turns out the doctor was just a hardcore Catholic, and he didn't believe in birth control. This issue has come up in the media before, mostly in the form of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions. Some of them have been easily resolved, but many are truly awful and humiliating.

On one hand, I could almost see the validity of the arguments coming from the camp of the pharmacists slash doctors. They don't want to be put in a position that they think will damn them to hell, and it's their right to not to cooperate, right? Right?

No, I don't think so.

Let's pretend that I work in a bookstore for a moment. A customer comes up to the counter and plops down a stack of Harry Potter books. As a good Christian, I cannot in good conscience assist in the distribution of this moral filth. I lecture the customer on the Bible, and inform them that I won't check them out because of my beliefs. But the customer really wants those books, and we're the only store in a four-hour drive. She calls my manager to complain. I would expect my ass to be canned faster than you can say "incompetent." If I was an atheist blocking the sale of bibles, or a nutcase who didn't like cookbooks, I'd expect the same treatment - either prompt dismissal or a transfer to a different job where I could consistently fulfill my duties without problems.

A pharmacist is not special or privileged. A pharmacist has a job to do, which is to take the prescription slip and fill it out according to the doctor's instructions. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist.