Friday, December 21, 2007
The journal Science announced in today's issue that "Human Genetic
Variation" is the Breakthrough of the Year. It's been seven years since
we learned how we differ from other species. With faster and cheaper
sequencing technology, we're learning how we differ from one another.
In an editorial in Science, Donald Kennedy picked continued denial of
climate change by the Bush Administration, as the "Breakdown" of the
year. He cited the congressional testimony of Julie Gerberding, head of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on the health effects of climate
warming - it was blacked out by the White House Science Office.
Nobody - scientists insist on speaking for themselves. It sounds like a
prescription for chaos - but the openness of science is its strength. The
Administration should try it. At times, however, science needs a single
voice. Like right now - a Baptist minister who calls for creationism is
in the lead to become the Republican nominee for President, followed
closely by a Mormon. Who can speak for science? There is rumored to be a
Science Advisor in the White House, but you might as well try to find an
ivory-billed woodpecker. The AAAS is the largest general scientific
society in the world. Its president, David Baltimore, is great but he's
only President for one year - we need some continuity. The most important
voice for science in America today may be the Editor of Science. Donald
Kennedy is retiring, but AAAS announced today that Bruce Alberts is the
new editor-in-chief. We are fortunate to have such people. What's New
nominates Bruce Alberts to be the spokesperson for science.
While Science was choosing its breakthrough of the year, the journal
Nature was naming Rajendra Pachauri, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize on
behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as the "Newsmaker
of the Year." What a curious recognition. I admire Pachauri and
appreciate the important and difficult task he undertook, but
why "newsmaker"? That could fit a mass murderer.
It has reached the replacement level of 2. According a story in today's
Washington Post by Rob Stein, "It is unique among industrialized
counties." "It's a milestone," according to Stephanie Ventura of the
National Center for Health Statistics. "A noteworthy event," said John
Bogaarts of the Population Council. Our social systems were predicated on
growth, they argue, we can't afford not to grow. Nonsense, the zero-
population-growth nations are the most liberated and prosperous on the
planet. Besides, population generates air pollution, and global warming
isn't going to be cheap either. For half a century, "the pill" has given
us the technological means to control population. This happened quietly
with no trace of the repressive government policies that libertarians
believed would be necessary to constrain population growth.
|
