What do  you see?

I see the moon, some clouds, a tree, and an over-exposed light post in the foreground.

The Calgary Herald wants to know if you’re as pareidolia-susceptible as their reader L. Wolanski and see Jesus in the clouds.

Nevermind how angry this story about the supermoon will make Phil Plait, if anything the face in the clouds (which I didn’t even see at first), reminds me not so much of a mythical Jewish carpenter as a different famous face.

I’m continually amazed at the religious pandering that the Calgary Herald will succumb to.

Created by: PublicHealthDegree.com

Either case will be better then what we have now, obviously, but in either case we’re still stuck with these schmucks in our chamber of “sober second thought.”

Some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s newly-appointed senators are emerging as global-warming skeptics in the wake of aggressive government positions to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, slam environmentalists and downplay potential damage caused by Canadian oil and gas exploration.

“I felt like it is kind of an insult to be a denier for a long time,” said Sen. Bert Brown, last month at a parliamentary committee studying energy policies. “It feels pretty good this morning.”

…

“I have to admit that what I read tells me that there is not a consensus among scientists,” [Senator Nancy] Greene Raine, another senator appointed by Harper, told the committee when it heard from Environment Minister Peter Kent, earlier last fall. “There are many different points of view and different kinds of research happening out there. One of the things that I am starting to see now is quite a few studies showing that we may be heading into a period of global cooling, which would maybe be a lot more problematic for Canada than global warming. Our country is on the cool side.”

Imagine for a second that a progressive government gets in to the House of Commons and passes the Jack Layton Climate Change Accountability Act. Once again, we’ll have to suffer through this ineffectual body blocking the legislation that could actually put some science-based targets on our emissions.

The only thing that may save our country is Harper’s own Senate-reform legislation that may force these senators to resign after 9 years.

Of course, then we may run into the situation where the senators realize the law has no teeth without a constitutional amendment and they refuse to step aside.

I don’t have much else to add. Basically we’re screwed.

He argues that one of the keys to the success of the Conservatives is that they have identified and sold their brand as “small government and individual liberty.” He rightly notes that their actions often contradict their own brand, but in marketing beliefs matter more than reality (this is why people still equate fiscally conservative with fiscally responsible).

He goes on to note that the only brand the Liberals have been holding onto is “the party that governs.” This worked fine when the Liberals were in power, or even in Official Opposition, since they were the natural alternative. Now, as a third-place party, though, the Liberals continue to look arrogant and like they stand for nothing.

He finishes by arguing that the Liberals should adopt a core theme of being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the NDP. Gardner otherwise ignores the NDP in this piece, so it’s up to us to come up with what their key message is, perhaps “progress through cooperation” or more cheekily “The party that Jack built.” Going through the NDP’s preamble leaves it a bit ambiguous what the key message should be.

And here’s where the first chip in Gardner’s article appears.

While the idea of branding is pushed hard by marketing execs and gurus, it remains unclear if the evidence actually supports the notion that having a solid brand will improve your sales or whether the converse is the case.

In Hard Facts…, the evidence-based management book I recently reviewed, the authors are quite sceptical of claims that establishing a concrete strategy will lead to organizational success. Instead, they declare it a dangerous half-truth, noting that while strategy is important, leadership and effective implementation is often far more critical.

This point can be demonstrated in the Liberals where Bob Rae’s (interim) leadership has generally been seen as quite successful so far in revitalizing the party, including recent spikes in poll numbers.

Gardner somewhat acknowledges this point near the end of his article when he says

But it takes more than grassroots gab sessions to cultivate an identity and craft it into a brand. It takes calculated leadership of the sort that Stephen Harper deployed to make “small government and individual liberty” the Conservative standard.

I generally like Gardner’s work, and while there is some to like in this piece, it comes off as a weak argument to me, since he failed to really bring in any evidence for his assertion. He cites one example of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives as where effective messaging has worked, but with so many confounding variables (fundraising ability, willingness to smear and lie, increasing the vitriol, never-ending campaigning, centralizing all messaging, etc.) it’s a really weak case. If anything, the Conservative example shows us that strong leaders are more important than simple messages, perhaps the Liberals should keep looking for their next messiah leader (i.e. someone who can communicate).

As a graduate student I had access to term loans from the library so I took the book out knowing that at some point I’d get through it. The book is due back this week, so naturally I rushed through and finished reading it just before I have to send it back. So here’s my review.

The book was written in 2006 and is Pfeffer and Sutton’s attempt to apply the techniques of evidence-based medicine to managerial practices. Pfeffer is a professor of organizational behaviour in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford and Sutton is Professor of Management Science & Engineering in the Stanford Engineering School.

Browse any bookstore’s business section and you’ll find more gurus and magic solutions than even the health and self-help sections. This book attempts to lay out the basics of the scientific method for the business world: Hypothesize, observe, and evaluate. They argue that decisions need to be made by considering the best data possible and that all projects need to be designed to collect useful data to evaluate their success and failure.

The middle section, and the bulk of the book, is dedicated to debunking some common half-truths in the business world. They then offer some sound, evidence-based advice on each topic.

Specifically, they cover whether work and the rest of life should be treated as fundamentally different; they ask whether the best organizations have the best people; they analyse the effectiveness of financial incentives; they look at whether a focus on strategy will help or hinder an organization; they ask whether organizations need to constantly change; and finally they question the role of great leaders in the success of organizations. These are all called dangerous half-truths because while there is some evidence to support each assertion, there is also much that gets overlooked by reducing complex management decisions to catchphrases like “change or die.”

For example, in the Strategy is Destiny? chapter, they note that organizations do need to know where they’re going, but spending too much time on developing a strategy has caused many companies to ignore the implementation of that strategy. Similarly, in Change or Die? they point out that all change is risky, and those risks are often underestimated by those championing change, while on the other hand to stagnate in any industry is potentially even more risky.

The entire book will be familiar ground for those in the skeptics movement, but what’s nice is that this pushes into an area often ignored by skeptics – even within our own organizations. We like to talk about the need to base medical decisions on hard facts and reason, but that advice is no less true when it comes to making business decisions. So while most of the book may come off as common sense, following the evidence is notoriously difficult for our species.

Finally, I will note that many skeptics argue for science-based rather than evidence-based medicine. This distinction is meant to identify the need to include logic and reasoning in the decision making process. Pfeffer and Sutton acknowledge the need for more than just raw data, especially when no data is available. In such cases, they argue that an idea should be questioned skeptically before adopting, especially the hidden assumptions of an idea. They also seem hesitant to use the phrase science-based to avoid confusion with the subject of scientific management.

For more on evidence-based management, check out their website.

It was to my surprise then that one of the first emails I read this morning was a reply from John Horgan. He actually responded to me before I posted this letter!

Anyways, his response displays honesty and a respect for democracy. I think the skeptics can feel safe with the BC NDP for now.

Good morning Ian, thanks for the e-mail.

I have been monitoring the smart meter program since it was announced in 2007.  I have significant concerns about the cost of the initiative and the absence of an independent assessment of the benefits or possible impacts of the technology.  In addition, I do not believe time of use metering will have much impact on conservation.  Our water based system is not as sensitive to hourly price spikes as thermal based utilities.  Our conservation activities should be focused on reducing overall consumption, not just peak times as the smart meters plan proposes.

I am not a physician nor a physicist. I have received over 5000 e-mails from people that profess an intolerance to wireless radiation.  I have no concern about impacts to my health, but they most certainly do.  I was asked to table a petition as is my right and responsibility as a Member of the Legislature and that is what I did last Thursday -  15,528 signatures.

Evidence will always guide my personal activity. I do not fear monger. If you have issues with the StopSmartmeters website, I suggest you contact them.

Regards

John Horgan

I almost want them to succeed in getting enough signatures so that we can really put this to a vote and we can have a clear demonstration of how intelligent our province really is. Although, I’m not quite willing to risk it against the ability of a vocal minority of quacks to sway a large number of people.

What’s more disappointing than the attempt to get a petition going is NDP energy critic and past leadership candidate John Horgan’s position

Meanwhile, NDP energy critic John Horgan plans to present another petition against smart meters, called Occupy Smart Meters, in the legislature. Horgan did not respond to Straight messages by deadline.

The Straight also notes that BC Hydro’s smart meter program spokesperson didn’t respond to calls by deadline, which makes me wonder how quickly they pushed this story through. Regardless, Horgan and the NDP’s position (further elucidated on Horgan’s website) may be one of criticizing the costs and heavy-handed implementation rather than unfounded technophobia.

I sent the following to Horgan and BC NDP leader Adrian Dix just to be sure:

Dear John Horgan,
On your website you posted an article about the BC NDP's opposition to BC Hydro's Smart Meter Program [1] and on the Georgia Straight's website on November 24th you are mentioned as planning to present a petition in the legislature on behalf of a group called "Occupy Smart Meters" [2,3].
While I personally am not informed enough to know whether Smart Meters will provide the promised benefits touted by BC Hydro and the BC Liberal government, I am very wary of groups that making spurious claims about the deleterious effects of the wireless radiation emitted by these meters. Specifically, the StopSmartMeters.ca website makes the following claims [4]:

(3) No Health Protection

In May 2011, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) such as that emitted from a smart meter was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Class 2b carcinogen. This places everyday levels of EMR exposure in the same category as lead, dioxins and DDT. The IARC is a research wing of the World Health Organization.

BC Hydro’s assertion that the microwave radiation emitted by smart meters is well below the level set out in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, is both deceptive and dangerous to public health. It allows for levels of exposure many thousands of times higher than what independent and peer-reviewed medical research dating back 35 years has clearly shown to be harmful. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) causes quantifiable and significant disruption and damage to human biological systems as well as all other animals, insects and plants. Furthermore, up to 5% of the population is officially recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as suffering from Electro Hypersensitivity (EHS), a condition that can make people very sick or debilitated. Almost ALL of us are affected by this radiation. We just don’t realize it yet.

While their website fails to reference a single one of any of these extraordinary claims, most have been thoroughly debunked. Specifically:

1. The list of IARC Group 2B carcinogens also contains coffee and pickles [4] and the contrast with lead and DDT is dishonest scare mongering. While research is ongoing, what exists either discounts links between EMF and cancer or are methodologically weak [5]. No mechanism has been proposed to account for how EMF could cause cancer, which is reason enough to be skeptical of those claiming such effects.
2. Without reference to their 35 year old research, their claim that Health Canada's current recommendations are invalid is spurious at best and hypocritically deceptive at worst.
3. They provide no evidence or links to studies that EMR causes damage at the power, wavelength, or energy present in smart meters or other wireless technologies. The World Health Organization concluded in 2005: "The limited number of published studies addressing the risk of EMF to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems show little or no evidence of a significant environmental impact." [6]
4. Electrohypersensitivity is not a recognized medical condition and is soundly discredited by independent blinded studies. The fact they refer to the Canadian Human Rights Commission rather than any medical organization already makes their claim suspect. On EHS, the World Health Organization states: "The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." [7]

My concern, Mr. Horgan, is that you and the BC NDP might be abandoning policy based on real scientific evidence in favour of pseudo-scientific fear-mongering. Can you please let me know if you and the BC NDP are still a party that aims to use evidence to guide public policy?

 

Ian Bushfield
YND Representative, Vancouver Point Grey NDP Constituency Association
President, BC Humanist Association http://bchumanist.ca
MSc. Physics Student at SFU

References:
[1] http://www.johnhorgan.ca/news/news-releases/delay-smart-meter-program-until-full-review-bc-utilities-commission-says-official
[2] http://www.straight.com/article-546641/vancouver/activists-set-sights-smart-meters
[3] https://cstorg.wufoo.com/forms/q7x3s5/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens
[5] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/
[6] http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/envimpactemf_infosheet.pdf
[7] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/

Related to the entire theme though is a recent Dan Gardner article on leadership in isolation. In it he discusses recent studies that have found that we make poorer decisions the more power we get.

The concept can be understood in Darwinian terms. Ideas, like organisms, compete for their environment. A bad idea with a lot of competition will die off, while it may have a better chance if not exposed to variation. I’m not talking about memetics, since we actively select out good ideas when we can contrast them with bad ones.

If a leader is surrounded by yes-men and women who agree with him or her, the landscape of ideas generated will be very small. Meanwhile, when people are able to disagree without fear of punishment, more ideas can thrive and compete.

This is why, regardless of one’s own aptitudes and skills, power corrupts. Everyone is susceptible to it.

Being good skeptics, we need to identify and be aware of issues like this when we design our organizational structures. The root causes of the ongoing CFI Canada debacle are a lack of trust, transparency, and accountability. Without an open exchange of ideas, corruption and acrimony spread.

Such drama isn’t the exclusive purview of CFI and it’s corporate structure. Humanist Canada was embroiled in a strikingly similar controversy a year ago when their board split over the actions of their executive director. HAC seems to be getting back on track, potentially a testament of the ability of the membership to throw the board out and elect a new slate.

I don’t know the perfect solution to these types of divisions. I think there needs to be clear lines of accountability, and a means of dealing with divisions in boards that doesn’t make every issue so personal. I’m wide open to any and all ideas, and I’m definitely willing to try anything to ensure the stability and longevity of the BC Humanists for years to come.

Rick Mercer’s viral rant on teen suicides (see below) has been viewed nearly half a million times in a mere week.

This morning on the radio, Mercer discussed the video with local indie rock station The Peak, and admitted he was overwhelmed with the unexpected – and positive – response.

He was also asked about what more we should be doing. Mercer is a comedian and actor and tells The Peak that he was lucky enough not to be bullied in school. He suggests that student’s need to stand up against bullying, even if they aren’t directly involved – something he failed at in schools.

He also suggests that some people have told him that Zero Tolerance policies have been effective in their schools.

Zero tolerance policies are an interesting case. In general progressives oppose heavy-handed retributive justice and argue that these punishments fail as a deterrent for future crimes. But when it comes to disadvantaged children in schools – ethnic minorities, the disabled, GLBTQQ, the poor, etc. – we are sometimes sympathetic to the same arguments that we need to come down hard on the bullies to deter future harassment.

Zero tolerance is typically proposed to signal a school or a district’s attitude that certain actions are intolerable. If a student violates the rules, there is no appeal and the student immediately receives a maximal punishment, often suspensions or expulsion. It has been used for everything from bullying, weapons, and drugs, to cell phone usage.

While bullying and violence in school are certainly inexcusable, it is always necessary to test the claims and arguments of a policy against reality. For zero tolerance, one review from Indiana University concludes in the title that there is zero evidence [pdf].

Despite the controversies that it has created in school districts throughout the country, zero tolerance continues to be a widely used response to school disruption and violence. This paper explores the history, philosophy, and effectiveness of zero tolerance school disciplinary strategies. Growing out of Reagan-Bush era drug enforcement policy, zero tolerance discipline attempts to send a message by punishing both major and minor incidents severely. Analysis of a representative range of zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions suggests that controversial applications of the policy are not idiosyncratic, but may be inherent in zero tolerance philosophy. There is as yet little evidence that the strategies typically associated with zero tolerance contribute to improved student behavior or overall school safety. Research on the effectiveness of school security measures is extremely sparse, while data on suspension and expulsion raise serious concerns about both the equity and effectiveness of school exclusion as an educational intervention. Community reaction has led some districts to adopt alternatives to zero tolerance, stressing a graduated system matching offenses and consequences, and preventive strategies, including bullying prevention, early identification, and improved classroom management. Building a research base on these alternatives is critical, in order to assist schools in developing more effective, less intrusive methods for school discipline. [emphasis added]

A 2008 review [pdf] from the American Psychological Association concludes the same, also arguing that there are better approaches than zero-tolerance.

Although there can be no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to ensure the safety of learning environments, controversy has arisen about the use of zero tolerance policies and procedures to achieve those aims. In response to that controversy, and to assess the extent to which current practice benefits students and schools, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate the evidence and to make appropriate recommendations regarding zero tolerance policies and practices. An extensive review of the literature found that, despite a 20-year history of implementation, there are surprisingly few data that could directly test the assumptions of a zero tolerance approach to school discipline, and the data that are available tend to contradict those assumptions. Moreover, zero tolerance policies may negatively affect the relationship of education with juvenile justice and appear to conflict to some degree with current best knowledge concerning adolescent development. To address the needs of schools for discipline that can maintain school safety while maximizing student opportunity to learn, the report offers recommendations for both reforming zero tolerance where its implementation is necessary and for alternative practice to replace zero tolerance where a more appropriate approach is indicated. [emphasis mine]

The second report is definitely worth a read. It points out that zero tolerance policies can threaten minorities and the persons with disabilities with unreasonable punishments due to existing stereotypes and misunderstandings. It also presents evidence contradicting most intuitive assumptions about zero tolerance. It concludes with good advice for all policy-makers.

Under an evidence-based paradigm, it is incumbent upon both researchers and practitioners proposing new educational and psychological interventions to demonstrate, through a rigorous research design, the beneficial effects or positive outcomes of those practices. In the same way, we would argue that the critical lens of evidence-based evaluation should be turned on existing policy, to ensure that current practices are truly of benefit to the students and schools who are the recipients of those procedures. This is
especially true when, as is the case with zero tolerance, the procedure is controversial and poses some degree of risk (e.g., lost educational opportunity for those removed from school).

I believe the same fears that act on conservatives who support mandatory minimum sentencing and the federal government’s tough dumb on crime legislation act on parents and educators who worry about the most vulnerable members of our society. It is natural to want to seek retribution against those who would endanger our children. But just like organic foods, natural isn’t necessarily better and is often more costly.

The key message is that in our zest to create strong anti-bullying policies, we must ensure they are effective. To implement ineffective policy is to simply waste money. We must be mindful of our emotions: using them to inform our goals without clouding our reason. Let’s stick with the evidence.

Cell phones are safe

This first story adds to the growing list of evidence demonstrating the safety of wireless technology. Further study is always worthwhile, but at this point I think we can conclude that there is little to worry about from our handheld cellphones. Over one-third of a million people were involved in this study.

The biggest study ever to examine the possible connection between cellphones and cancer found no evidence of any link, suggesting that billions of people who are rarely more than a few centimetres from their phones have no special health concerns.

…

In the latest research, published online Thursday in the journal BMJ, researchers updated a previous study examining 358,403 cellphone users aged 30 and over in Denmark from 1990 to 2007. They found cellphone users did not have a higher cancer risk compared with those without cellphones.

The best bit comes right at the end of the article.

"There are a lot more worrying things in the world than mobile phones," [Researcher Hazel Nunn] said.

Steve Jobs, skeptic

The next story discusses a new biography of Steve Jobs.

A new biography portrays Steve Jobs as a skeptic all his life — giving up religion because he was troubled by starving children, calling executives who took over Apple "corrupt" and delaying cancer surgery in favour of cleansings and herbal medicine.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. To me he sounds more like a cynic.

What we find is a picture of Steve Jobs who decided upon the name Apple while on a pure-fruit diet, refused science-based treatments for his cancer, and one who was disgusted at religion.

The book says Jobs gave up Christianity at age 13 when he saw starving children on the cover of Life magazine. He asked whether his Sunday school pastor knew what would happen to them.

Jobs never went back to church, though he did study Zen Buddhism later.

I’ve previously admitted my own lack of admiration for Jobs, and this picture does little to improve my opinion of the man.

The international fight over mercury

Finally, a skeptical battle in recent years has been over unfounded fears that the preservative thiomersal in vaccines is toxic. This fear has driven many parents to opt their children out of critical vaccines, in some cases causing outbreaks of whooping cough or measles.

The key contention is that thiomersal is derived from mercury, a known toxin. While the additive is completely safe, some parents still falsely believe that it can cause autism. Knowing the potential health and environmental dangers of mercury, the United Nations is now considering banning on the substance.

The danger here is that without the preservative, vaccines will have very short shelf-lives. This means that many poorer nations without the facilities to produce vaccines will face steep costs making vaccines available to their population.

Let’s hope that a deal can be worked out to balance the need to protect the environment with the need for a safe supply of vaccines around the world.