Arizona

This afternoon I went to hear ASU Prof. Robert Balling, former head of ASU’s Office of Climatology and current head of the Geographic Information Systems program, talk about climate change in a talk that was advertised as “Global Warming Became Climate Change: And the Story Continues,” though I didn’t notice if he had a title slide for his presentation. He began his talk by saying that in 1957, measurements of CO2 began to be made at Mauna Loa (by Charles David Keeling), which established that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere, largely because of human activity–from fossil fuel emissions. It’s approaching 390 parts per million (ppm). Last weekend, the “A” on A Mountain near the university was painted green by a bunch of people wearing shirts that say “350” on them, because they want atmospheric CO2 to be stabilized at 350 ppm, which was the level in 1990, which is the benchmark year for the Kyoto Protocol. But this isn’t remotely feasible, he said, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Even the most optimistic scenario in the IPCC Report has atmospheric carbon continuing to rise until 2100, hitting about 600 ppm. If we reduced emissions to 0, the best case would end up with stabilization at around 450 ppm. Our lifetime will see increasing CO2 levels, no matter what we do. (In other words, the Kyoto benchmark sets a standard for emissions levels to return to, not for a level of atmospheric carbon to return to.) If you look at the earth’s history on a longer scale, atmospheric carbon has been much higher in the past–it was at about 2500 ppm during the dinosaurs. During the last 600,000 years, however, it has been much lower, and fell below 200 ppm in the last glacial period. This, Balling said, shows what he would identify as a dangerous level of CO2–falling below 160 ppm, which causes plants to die. There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 that have an effect, such as methane and NO2, that humans are producing, he said. At this point, he said the greenhouse effect is real–CO2 doubling causes warming–and this has been known for 120 years and “nobody is denying that." There are climate models, which he said he has great respect for–it’s basic physics plus fantastic computing and applied math. Climate modelers, he said, are their own worst critics. Problems for climate models include clouds, water vapor, rain, and the ocean, but lots of things are modeled correctly and the results are generally pretty good. Clouds, he said, are the biggest area of debate. The IPCC models say that clouds amplify warming, but satellite-based measurements suggest that clouds dampen (but don’t eliminate) warming. Thus, he concluded, IPCC may be predicting more warming than will actually occur. He next discussed empirical support for warming, and pointed out that the official plot of global temperatures has no error bars, and the numbers reported come from sensors that don’t cover the entire world. How you come up with a global average can be done in different ways, and the different methods produce different results. You can take grid cells, average by latitudinal bands, get two hemispheric averages, and average them together. You can just average all of the data we have. He said that Roger Pielke Sr. questions the use of average temperatures and suggests looking at afternoon high temperatures. Looking at the older end of the chart, he asked, “where were the sensors in 1900? Why no error bars?" He asked, “Is the earth warming,” and said “right now the earth is not warming. I expect it to keep going up, but over the last decade there’s been essentially none.” He pointed to a recent article in Science magazine, “What happened to global warming?” Many are writing about this, he said, and there could be “1001 different things including sun and oceanic processes.” (I don’t believe this is correct unless you measure from 1998, which was an El Nino year. Most of the top 10 warmest years in history are post-1998.) “Scientists are questioning the data,” he said, showing photos from Anthony Watts’ blog of poorly situated weather stations. “The albedo of the shelter in my backyard has changed as it has decayed,” and caused it to report warmer temperatures. He said that people are having a field day taking photos of poor official sites. (What Balling didn’t say is that what’s important in the data is not absolute temperature but the temperature trends, and the good sites and bad sites both show the same trends.) He pointed out that there are corrections to the temperature based on time of measurement, urban heat islands, instruments used, etc. If you look at the raw data for the U.S. from 1979-2000, you see 0.25 degrees Celsius of warming. Sonde data shows 0.24 degrees, MSU’s measurements show 0.28, IPCC shows 0.28, and FILNET shows 0.33. He suggested that these corrections on the official data may be inflating the temperature (again, see my previous comment on trends vs. absolute temperature). Sky Harbor Airport produces the official temperature results for Phoenix, maximizing urban heat island effect. Many of the city records are from the worst sites, and he suggests looking at rural temperatures might give a different result. Another factor is stratospheric turbidity from volcanic eruptions, and he showed a plot of orbital temperatures from satellites vs. stratospheric turbidity. He said that volcanism accounts for about 30% of the trend variability. The big player in the game, he said, is the sun. Solar irradiance measures showed a significant decline in solar output in 1980, but earth temperature continued upward–he said he mentioned this because he thought it would be used as an objection. In response, he said that “the sun doesn’t increase or decrease output over the entire spectrum and there are interactions with stratospheric clouds.” He said that there are astrophysicists who argue that this is the major cause of global warming. In the Q&A, he said that there’s one group that thinks cosmic ray flux is the major factor in global temperature because it stimulates cloud formation, while another group says that cosmic ray flux is little more than a trivial effect. He also said that this debate takes place in journals that “I find very difficult to read." There are other confounding variables like El Nino and La Nina, but he said there has “definitely been warming over the last three decades with a discernable human contribution." He put up a graph of the Vostok Reconstruction of temperature based on ice core data, on a chart labeled from -10 to +4 degree temperature changes in Celsius, which were mostly in the negative direction, and said we’ve seen periodic rapid changes up and down without any human contribution. He talked about the IPCC “hockey stick” graph from 2001, which led to a huge debate about the possibility of bad statistical methods that guaranteed the hockey stick shape. He observed that 1000 years ago it was as warm or warmer than today, the Medieval Warming Period, which was missing from the “hockeystick” graph. There was also a “Little Ice Age,” also missing from the graph. He said the IPCC has backed away from the hockey stick and its most recent report includes clear Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age periods in its graphs. He showed a photo of a microwave sounding unit for temperature measurement, and the polar satellite record from 1978 to present, which showed a big peak in 1998 from El Nino. He said he wrote his book saying that there was no warming in 1992, when it was true. After 1998, the temperature came back down quickly, and, he said, the satellite record, like the Science article, hasn’t seen warming. He then corrected himself to say, “well, some warming, but not consistent with the IPCC models." He said there has been high latitude warming, and the difference between winter and summer warming has supported the numeric models. “But a problem has evolved, which is the most powerful argument of the skeptics.” The models predict that there should be warming at the surface, which increases at higher altitude as you go up into the atmosphere. “There should be very strong warming in the middle of the atmosphere, but it’s not in the data.” This is the main anti-global warming argument of Joanne Nova’s “The Skeptics Handbook” that has been distributed to churches throughout the U.S. by the Heartland Institute (an organization supported by the oil industry that has sometimes gotten into trouble due to its carelessness). At this point, Balling started asking various questions and answering them by quoting from the IPCC reports: More hurricanes? The IPCC doesn’t say this. He cited the 1990, 1996, 2001 (executive summary, p. 5), and 2007 (p. 6) reports, all of which say that there’s no indication or no clear trend of increase or decrease of frequency or intensity of hurricanes or tropical cyclones as a result of warming. The southwestern United States may become drier? Here, he answered affirmatively, pointing out that an ASU professor has an article that just came out in Science on this topic. Atmospheric circulation is decreasing, and soil moisture measures show the southwest is becoming drier. On this, he said, there’s “evidence everywhere,” and the Colorado River basin in particular is being hit hard. And this is consistent with IPCC predictions. He cited Roy Spencer to say that “extraordinary prediction require extraordinary evidence.” (This actually comes from Carl Sagan, who said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” in Cosmos.) Frequency of tornadoes? It’s down, not up, and IPCC 2007 p. 308 says there is no evidence to draw general conclusions. Ice caps are melting? Balling said Arctic yes, Antarctic, no. He cited the IPCC 2007 p. 6 regarding Antarctic sea ice extent indicating a lack of warming, and p. 13 that it’s too cold for widespread surface melting. He contrasted this with a slide of a homeless penguin used to argue for action on global warming. The Arctic ice cap “has its problems,” he said, and its extent has declined though has “rebounded a bit” recently. (In the Q&A, he said that half of the loss in the last six years has been recovered.) He said that experts in sea ice extent identify relative temperature, ocean currents, and wind as more important than temperature–“it’s not a thermometer of the planet.” In the past, northern sea ice has dropped as southern sea ice has increased, with the overall global extent of sea ice relatively unchanged. In the Q&A, he made it clear that he wasn’t saying that temperature wasn’t a factor, but that global temperature is definitely not a factor and temperature is less important than the other factors he identified. Sea levels changing? He said there’s no doubt about this, but the important question is whether the rise is accelerating. He cited Church et al. J. Climate 2004, p. 2624 for a claim of “no detectible secular increase” in rate of sea level rise, but noted that another article this week says that there is. IPCC 2007, p. 5 says that it is unclear if increasing is a longer-term trend. The average has been 1.8 mm/year, but with variable rates of change. IPCC 2007, p. 9 says that 125,000 years ago sea levels were likely 4-6m higher than in the 20th century, due to retreat of polar ice. He said that ice melting on Kilimanjaro has been a “poster child” for global warming, but that this sharp decline “started its retreat over 100 years ago,” at the end of the Little Ice Age (1600-1850), and is related to deforestation and ocean patterns in the Indian Ocean rather than global warming. It’s not in an area where significant warming is expected by climate models, and local temperatures don’t show it. He then talked about a few factors that cause temperature forcing in a negative direction (i.e., cooling)–SO2, which makes clouds last longer, increased dust, and ozone thinning. He said that his entry into the IPCC was his work at the U.S./Mexico border where he found that overgrazed land on the Mexican side caused warming, and it was much cooler on the U.S. side of the border. The dust, however, had a global cooling effect. The 2001 IPCC report lists global radiative forcings in the negative direction: stratospheric ozone, sulfate, biomass burning, and mineral aerosols. In the positive direction include CO2 and solar irradiance. The 2007 report adds many more, including contrails from aircraft. A chart from the report lists the level of scientific understanding for each factor, and he observed that it’s “low” for solar irradiance. He cited a quote from James Hansen (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. p. 12,753, 1998) saying that we can’t predict the long term, and said he agrees. He observed that the Pew Foundation poll for Sep. 30-Oct. 4 asked Americans if they think there is evidence of global warming being caused by humans and only 36% said yes–he said he’s one of those 36%. He concluded by observing that if you look at the difference between doing nothing at all, or stabilizing at 1990 levels in 1990, that only produces changes of a few hundredths of a degree of temperature in 2050–so no matter what we do, “we won’t live long enough to see any difference." In the Q&A session, Prof. Billie Turner said that “our academy is about to issue a statement that we are 97% sure that we will not be at a 1-degree Celsius increase but a 2-degree Celsius increase by 2050” (or about double what Balling’s final slide showed). He objected that Balling’s talk began with the “lunatic green fringe” and contrasted it with the IPCC, which he said would be like him beginning a talk with Dick Cheney’s views before giving his own. He said this may be an effective format, but it “gives a slant on the problem that isn’t real in the expert community.” Turner also pointed out that on the subject of mitigation, if you are going to make a calculation in economic terms you have to use a discount rate. The Stern Review used a high discount rate, and concluded that it is worth spending a lot of money now on mitigation; William Nordhaus and Partha Dasgupta, on the other hand, used a low discount rate and concluded that it’s not worth spending money on now. Balling said that he gets email from “lefties” that ask him to “please keep criticizing” because “this [global warming] is just an excuse to keep the developing world from catching up.” In conversation with a small group afterward, Balling made it clear that he thinks people shouldn’t be listening to Limbaugh and Hannity on climate change, and in answer to my question about what sources the educated layman should read and rely upon, he answered unequivocally “the IPCC,” at least the scientific portions authored by scientists. He had some criticisms for the way that the technical summaries are negotiated by politicians, however, and said that S. Fred Singer has made hay out of comparing the summaries to the actual science sections and pointing out contradictions. He also said that Richard Lindzen at MIT, who he said may be the best climate scientist around, thinks the whole IPCC process is flawed, and that John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, thinks the IPCC process should allow an “alternative views” statement by qualified scientists who disagree. In a very brief discussion afterward [I had] with the climate modeling grad student in my climate change class, he [the student] said that the biggest weakness of the talk was that Balling didn’t talk about ocean temperatures, being measured by the Argo project of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. These measures had shown some recent cooling (but a long-term warming trend), but after discovering an error, Joshua Willis found that warming has continued. Balling supports the science, but he still leans to minimizing the negative effects, and uses some apparently bad arguments to do so. His position clearly advocates a “wait and see” approach, and argues that we needn’t be in a hurry to mitigate since nothing we do will have any effect in our lifetimes–but it could have an enormous effect on what is required for mitigation and adaptation for future generations. ...

ASU’s State Press columnist Catherine Smith authored an op-ed piece promoting last night’s appearance of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. This was at least her second such op-ed; a prior one was published on September 17. My letter to the editor, below, didn’t get published, but another critic’s letter did get published. Here’s mine: Catherine Smith quotes Ravi Zacharias as stating that "irreligion and atheism have killed infinitely more than all religious wars of any kind cumulatively put together." This statement not only demonstrates Zacharias' innumeracy, it shows that he continues to make the mistake of attributing killing in the name of political ideologies like Stalinism and communism to atheism. I agree that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed more than religious wars, but it wasn't their atheism that caused that killing. Those killed by religious wars, the Inquisition, and witch trials, however, were killed in the name of religion. Out of fairness, there were no doubt political issues involved in many wars over religion as well, but if you take claims of religiously motivated killing at face value, the death tolls for those killed in the name of religion far exceed the death tolls for those killed in the name of irreligion. Zacharias has a history of attacking atheism with misrepresentations in his books, as documented in Jeff Lowder's "An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism" and Doug Krueger's "That Colossal Wreck," both of which may be found on the Internet as part of the Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/). I first heard of Zacharias back around 1991, when I sat behind someone on an airplane flight who was reading his book (reviewed by Krueger, linked above), A Shattered Visage. The parts I read were truly awful, about the quality of M. Scott Huse arguments against evolution (a step below Kent Hovind and Ken Ham). I didn't bother to attend, but would be interested in hearing any reports of how it went. UPDATE (November 24, 2017): Steve Baughman has published an exposure of Zacharias' claims to have credentials he does not possess, and to have had academic appointments that did not exist. UPDATE (September 26, 2020): Ravi Zacharias died of cancer earlier this year, but not before being caught in an online relationship scandal. UPDATE (February 11, 2021): Ravi Zacharias International Ministries has publicly released a report on an investigation into abuse charges against Ravi Zacharias, and it found a significant pattern of predatory sexual abuse and a rape allegation. The woman googled “Ravi Zacharias sex scandal” and found the blog RaviWatch, run by Steve Baughman, an atheist who had been tracking and reporting on Zacharias’s “fishy claims” since 2015. Baughman blogged on Zacharias’s false statements about academic credentials, the sexting allegations, and the subsequent lawsuit. When the woman read about what happened to Lori Anne Thompson, she recognized what had happened to that woman was what had happened to her. ...

The following is a letter to the editor of Arizona State University’s State Press that the paper didn’t print. It was written in response to an editorial by Will Munsil, son of Len Munsil, who was editor of the State Press when I was an undergraduate in the 1980s. Len Munsil is an extremely conservative Republican, failed Republican candidate for Governor in 2006, and founder of the Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona’s version of the American Family Affiliation. His daughter, Leigh Munsil, is the State Press’s current editor-in-chief. When Munsil Sr. edited the school paper, he sometimes refused to print my letters to the editor for shaky reasons. The letter below was written in response to Will Munsil’s “Putting the Bible back in public schools," which was published on October 14. I disagree with Will Munsil’s assertion that the Bible is the foundation of American political thought. On the contrary, the American form of government was rooted in the work of enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. The U.S. Constitution’s form of government has more resemblance to Caribbean pirate codes than to the Ten Commandments. That said, however, I agree with Munsil that knowledge of the Bible is worthwhile and should be taught in public schools for the purpose of cultural literacy, so long as it is done without endorsing Christianity or Judaism. The Bible Literacy Project’s curriculum might be one way to do it. One way not to do it is to use the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools’ curriculum–it takes a sectarian perspective, is full of errors, and has failed legal challenges in Texas and Florida for being unconstitutional.I suspect this letter wasn’t excluded by reason of content, but because they had already printed a couple of letters critical of Will Munsil’s op-ed by the time I submitted this on October 16. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I’m an atheist, which makes the extent of my agreement with Munsil more interesting. Of course, my view is contrary to Munsil’s in that I think Bible literacy is likely to decrease, rather than increase, religious belief. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the NCBCPS curriculum is the one that Will Munsil had in mind. I should point out that I think it should probably be taught as part of a world religions class that covers more than just Christianity–kids should not only get information about the Bible that they won’t get in Sunday School, they should be informed about other religions, as well as the fact that history has been full of doubters of religion, as documented in Jennifer Michael Hecht’s excellent Doubt: A History. You can find out more about the NCBCPS curriculum that failed legal challenge in Texas here. Munsil cited Stephen Prothero, whose op-ed piece, “We live in a land of biblical idiots,” I wrote about at the Secular Web in early 2007. ...

Richard Carrier will be speaking to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix on Sunday, November 8 at around 10 a.m.–it will likely be packed, so showing up for breakfast or just to get a seat at 9 a.m. is advised. Richard will be speaking about Christianity and science, ancient and modern, and you can get a bit more information about his talk at his blog.

Yesterday afternoon I attended a Personalized Medicine research forum at ASU’s Biodesign Institute, sponsored by ASU’s Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs (OVPREA) and hosted by Dr. Joshua LaBaer of ASU’s Virginia G. Piper Center for Personalized Diagnostics. The forum’s speakers covered both the promise and problems and issues raised by the developing field of personalized medicine, which involves the use of molecular and genetic information in medical diagnosis and treatment. A few highlights: Introduction (Dr. LaBaer) Dr. LaBaer pointed out that these new diagnostics cost a great deal of money to develop, but they have the potential for cost savings, for instance, if they can be used to identify forms of disease that will not benefit from very expensive treatments. He gave the example of Genomic Health, which has developed a test for early stage breast cancer to determine if women will or won’t benefit from adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy to prevent recurrence). A test that costs even a few thousand dollars to perform is something insurers will be willing to pay for if it has the potential of saving tens of thousands of dollars of expense on chemotherapy that will not provide any benefits. On the other hand, the mere promise of early detection of susceptibility for disease has the potential for overtreatment and an increase in healthcare expenses. This problem was discussed by a number of speakers, with particular bad potential consequences in the legal realm. Personalized Diagnostics (Dr. LaBaer) Dr. LaBaer talked briefly about his own lab’s work in biomarker discovery and cell-based studies. In biomarker discovery, his lab is working in functional proteomics, using cloned copies of genes to produce proteins and building tests that allow examination of thousands of proteins at a time. His lab, formerly at Harvard and now at ASU, has 10,000 copies of human genes and 50,000 copies of genes from other animals, which are made available to other researchers. (There’s more information at the DNASU website.) The goal of biomarker discovery is to greatly improve the ability to find markers of human health using the human immune system, by identifying antigens that are markers for disease. The immune system generates antibodies not just in response to infectious disease, but against other proteins when we have cancer. Tumor antigens get into the bloodstream, though they may only appear in 10-15% of those who have the disease. Rather than testing one protein at a time, as is done with ELISA assays, LaBaer’s lab is building protein microarrays with thousands of proteins, tested at once with blood serum. Unlike old array technology that purifies proteins and puts them into spots on arrays, where the proteins may degrade and lose function, their method involves printing the DNA that encodes the gene on the arrays, then capturing proteins in situ on the array at the time the experimental test is performed. LaBaer’s lab’s cell-based work involves tryng to identify how proteins behave in cells when they are altered, in order to find out which pathways contribute to consequences such as drug resistance in women with breast cancer, as occurs with Tamoxifen. If you can find the genes that make cancer cells resistant, you can then knock them out and cause those cells to die. They tested 500 human kinases (5/7 of the total) and found 30 enzymes that consistently make the cancer cells resistant. Women with a high level of those enzymes who take Tamoxifen have quicker relapses of cancer. Complex Adaptive Systems Initiative (George Poste) George Poste, former director of ASU’s Biodesign Institute and former Chief Scientist and Technology Officer at SmithKline Beecham, talked about the need to replace thinking about costs in the healthcare debate with thinking about value. The value proposition of personalized medicine is early detection, rational therapeutics where treatment is made based on the right subtype of disease being treated, and integrative care management where there’s better monitoring of the efficacy of treatments. He said that the first benefits will come from targeted therapy and this will then overlap with individualized therapy, as we learn how our genome affects such things as drug interactions. He was critical of companies like 23andme, which he called “celebrity spit” companies, which do little more than give people a needless sense of anxiety about predispositions to disease that they currently can do nothing about except eat right and exercise. Poste also had criticisms for physicians, pointing out that it takes 15-20 years for new innovations to become routinely adopted, and many physicians don’t use treatment algorithms at all. Oncologists, he said, make money from distributing treatments empirically (that is, figuring out whether it’s effective by using the treatment on the entire population with the disease) rather than screening first, even where tests exist to determine who the treatment is likely to work on. He said that $604 million/year in health care costs could be saved by the use of a single colon cancer screening test, and not proceeding with treatment where it isn’t going to work. Today, where 12-40% of people are aided by treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars, 60-88% of that spending is being wasted. With the aging population, he said that Humana will in the next several years see all profits disappear, spent on expensive treatments of people who don’t respond to them. Pharmaceutical companies are beginning to do diagnostic test development alongside drug development now, and insurers will push for these tests to be done. Poste suggested that we will see the emergence of “no cure, no pay” systems, and noted that Johnson & Johnson has a drug that has been introduced for use in the UK under the condition that the company will reimburse the national health care system for every case in which it is used but doesn’t work. Merck’s Januvia drug for type II diabetes similarly offers some kind of discount based on performance. Poste pointed out another area for potential cost savings, related to drug safety. With some 3.1 billion prescriptions made per year, there are 1.5-3 million people hospitalized from drug interactions, 100,000 deaths, and $30 billion in healthcare costs, though he noted this latter figure includes caregiver error and patient noncompliance. He bemoaned the “delusion of zero risk propagated by lawyers, legislatures, and the media,” and pointed out that the FDA is in a no-win situation. (This is a topic that’s been recently covered in two of my classes, my core program seminar and my law, science, and technology class with Prof. Gary Marchant. If the FDA allows unsafe drugs to be sold, then it comes under fire for not requiring sufficient evidence of safety. If, on the other hand, it delays the sale of effective drugs, it comes under fire for causing preventable deaths. The latter occurred during the 1980s with AIDS activists protesting against being denied treatments, described in books such as Randy Shilts’ And the Band Played On and Steven Epstein’s Impure Science. This led to PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, under which drug companies started funding FDA drug reviewer positions through application fees to help speed approval. That has been blamed for cases of the former, with the weight-loss drugs Pondimin and Redux being approved despite evidence that they caused heart problems. That story is told in the PBS Frontline episode “Dangerous Prescription” from November 2003.) Poste pointed out that there have been 450,000 papers published which have claimed to find disease biomarkers, of which the FDA has approved only five. But he didn’t blame the FDA for delay in this case, because this consists of a mass of bad studies which he characterized as “wasteful small studies” with insufficient statistical power. In the Q&A session, he argued that NIH needs to start dictating clear and strong standards for disease research, and that it has abrogated its role in doing good science. He said that “not a single national cancer study with sufficient statistical power” has been done in the last 20 years; instead research is fragmented across academic silos. He called for “go[ing] beyond R01 grant mentality” and building the large, expensive studies with 2,500 cases and 2,500 controls that need to be done. He also raised challenges about the “very complex statistical analysis required” in order to do “multiplex tests” of the sort Dr. LaBaer is trying to develop. And he pointed out the challenge that personalized medicine presents for clinicians, in that “only about six medical schools have embraced molecular medicine and engineering-based medicine.” Those that don’t use these new techniques as they become available, he said, “will open themselves up to malpractice suits." Science and Policy (David Guston) David Guston, co-director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO) and director of ASU’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) spoke about “cognate challenges in social science” and how CNS has been trying to develop a notion of “anticipatory governance of emerging technology” and devising ways to build such a capacity into university research labs as well as broader society, to allow making policy decisions in advance of the emergence of the technology in society at large. He described three capacities of anticipatory governance–foresight, public engagement, and integration, and described how these have been used at ASU. Foresight: Rather than looking at future consequences as a linear extrapolation, CNS has used scenario development and a process of structured discussions based on those scenarios with scientists, potential users, and other potential stakeholders, about social and technical events that may be subsequent consequences of the scenarios. This method has been tested with Stephen Johnston’s “Doc-in-a-Box” project at ASU’s Center for Innovations in Medicine, which Guston said led to some changes in the conceptualization of the technology. Public Engagement: The “scope and inclusion of public values is important for success,” Guston said, and gave as an example the “national citizens technology forum” that CNS conducted in six locations to look at speculative scenarios about nanotechnology used for human enhancement. These were essentially very large focus groups whose participants engaged in “informed deliberation” over the course of a weekend, after having read a 61-page background document and spending the prior month engaging in Internet-based interaction. Integration: Guston described the “embedding of social scientists in science and engineering labs,” to develop productive relationships that help lab scientists identify broader implications of their work while it’s still in the lab rather than after it’s introduced to the general public. Guston suggested that there might be other ways of implementing “anticipatory governance” in the form of legislative requirements or standards and priorities set by program officers at funding organizations, but that the lab setting is “the best point of leverage at a university” and can set an example for others to follow. Clinical Perspective (Larry Miller) Larry Miller, Research Director at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, spoke about the healthcare provider’s approach to personalized medicine. He said that Mayo is committed to individualized care, and that now that we are beginning to understand the power of human variation, these new developments have “to be transformational for providers or they won’t survive.” He suggested that the future of medicine will move from reactive and probabilistic to more deterministic selection of treatments based on diagnoses. He emphasized the need for education for doctors, and pointed out that “standards of care will become outmoded,” which is “disruptive to law and [insurance] coverage.” He said that Mayo sees a big challenge of complexity, where what was one disease (breast cancer) is now at least ten different subdiseases. Doctors need to make their treatment decisions on the detail, to predict how the disease will behave, and choose the best drugs possible based on safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Miller pointed out that this requires interdisciplinary work, and said that Mayo in Arizona has a huge advantage with its relationship with ASU, where so much of this work is going on. While Mayo has scientific expertise in a number of areas, these new technologies draw on expertise from beyond medicine, in particular informatics and computational resources needed to build an effective decision support system that will become essential for doctors to use in a clinical setting. He talked about Mayo’s program for individualized medicine, which involves not just incorporating new developments in diagnostics and therapeutics, but in regenerative medicine for repair, renewal, and regeneration of deficits. Mayo has had electronic medical records for the last 15 years, on 6 million people, but these are kept in multiple incompatible systems and were not built with research in mind. They hope to improve their systems so that it can be used in an iterative process to learn more about the efficacy of therapies, and so therapies can be combined with “companion diagnostics for monitoring progression, recurrences, and response to therapy." Like Poste, he raised objections to the companies that market gene sequencing directly to individuals, which just “scare people inappropriately,” but identified learning about disease predispositions as an important part of these developing technologies. We need to develop methods of risk analysis that can help people correctly understand what these predispositions mean. He sees the future as having three waves–the first wave will be the new diagnostics, the second wave improvements in clinical practice and therapy, and the third wave embedding the new technology into the healthcare system, with significant changes to policy and education. Health Informatics (Diana Petitti) Diana Petitti, former CDC epidemiologist and former director of research for Kaiser Permanente, where she built a 20-year longitudinal data repository for its 35 million members, spoke about the importance of health informatics. (She is now a professor in ASU’s Department of Biomedical Informatics.) Dr. Petitti raised concerns about how in the United States we are “loathe to deny anyone anything” in terms of medical treatments, but in fact “we do deny lots of people lots of things.” She worried that personalized medicine has the potential to lead to greater maldistributions of healthcare, with the “haves” getting more and better treatment and the “have nots” getting less and worse treatment, unless we plan carefully. She advocated evidence-based medicine and assessing value of treatments to be deployed to the general population. Dr. Petitti brought up as an example the fact that oral contraceptives result in a 2x-10x increase in the likelihood of a venous thrombotic event, and that the Factor V Leiden gene is predictive of susceptibility to that consequence, but no screening is done for it. Why not? Because the test only predicts 5% of those who will have the event, it’s a very expensive test, and we don’t have good alternatives for oral contraceptives. These kinds of issues, she suggested, will recur with multiplex diagnostics. She explicitly worried that “we have dramatically oversold preventive medicine” and doesn’t think it’s likely that savings from prevention will allow coverage for more extensive treatment. She advocated that everyone in the field see the film “Gattaca," and stated that ASU provides “unique opportunities to train people to think about these issues” using “quantitative reasoning and probabilistic thought.” She concluded by saying that we need to “work towards rational delivery of healthcare that optimizes public health." Law (Gary Marchant) Prof. Gary Marchant of the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at ASU, who has a Ph.D. in genetics and is the executive director of ASU’s Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Innovation (formerly Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology), spoke about legal issues. First he listed the many programs available at ASU in the area, beginning with the genetics and law program that has been here for 10 years and was the reason he first came to ASU. Others include a new personalized medicine and law program at the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation, a planned center on ethical and policy issues regarding personalized medicine in conjunction with the Biodesign Institute, CSPO, TGEN, Mayo, etc., and research clusters at the law school on breast cancer, warfarin, and personalized medicine. He also gave a plug for an upcoming conference March 8-9, 2010 at the Arizona Biltmore sponsored by AAAS and Mayo, which also has a great deal of corporate support. Prof. Marchant indicated that liability is the biggest issue regarding personalized medicine, and he sees doctors as “sitting ducks,” facing huge risks. If a doctor prescribes a treatment without doing a corresponding new diagnostic test, and that has complications, he can be sued. If he does the diagnostic test, it shows a very low likelihood of a disease recurrence, and advises against the treatment, and then the patient ends up being one of the rare people who has the recurrence, the doctor can be sued. The doctor is really in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. The insurers and pharmaceutical companies are at less risk, since they have already developed enormous resources for dealing with the lawsuits that are a regular part of their existence. In a short discussion after the forum, I asked Prof. Marchant if doctors would be liable if they performed a diagnostic test, found that it showed a low likelihood of recurrence or benefit for a treatment, and then recommended the treatment anyway, knowing the insurance company would refuse to pay for it–would that shift the liability to the insurance company? He thought it might, though it would be unethical for a doctor to recommend treatment that he didn’t actually think was necessary, and there’s still the potential for liability if the insurance company pays for the treatment and the treatment itself produces complications. It seems that this problem really needs a legislative or regulatory fix of some sort, so that doctors have some limitation of liability in cases where they have made a recommendation that everyone would agree was the right course of action but a low-probability negative consequence occurs anyway. Prof. Marchant observed that the liability issues are particularly problematic in states like Arizona, where each side in the suit is limited to a single expert witness. He said there is “no clear guidance or defense for doctors,” and the use of clinical guidelines in a defense has not been effective in court, in part because doctors don’t use them. Q&A A few additional points of interest from the Q&A sessions (some of which has already been combined into the above summaries): Dr. LaBaer pointed out that most markers for diseases don’t seem to have any role in the cause of the disease, such as CA25 and ovarian cancer. So his lab is looking not just for biomarkers, but for those that will affect clinical decisions. 4 out of 5 positive results in a mammography for breast cancer are actually cases where there is nothing wrong and the woman will not end up getting breast cancer, but some procedure ends up being undergone, with no value. So he wants to find a companion test that can tell which are the 4 that don’t need further treatment. George Poste pointed out that baby boomers are going to bankrupt the system as they reach the end of their lives, and about 70% of the $2.3 trillion in healthcare spending is spent in the last 2-3 years of life, with many treatments costing $60K-$100K per treatment cycle on drugs that add 2-3 weeks of life. The UK’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence has been making what are, in effect, rationing decisions by turning down all of the new cancer drugs that have come along because they have such great cost and such minimal benefit. He asked, “how much money could you save with a 90% accurate test of who’s going to die no matter what you do?" Prof. Marchant said more about legal issues involving specimen repositories, including a case at ASU. The developer of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, William Catalona, had a specimen repository with 30,000 tissue samples at Washington University, that he wished to take with him to Northwestern University when he took a new position there. He began asking patients for permission to move the samples, and 6,000 gave permission. But Washington University sued him, claiming that the samples were property of the university. Patients pointed out that their consent agreement gave them the right to withdraw their samples from future research and they had only consented to research on prostate cancer, but federal judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled in favor of the university and that patients had no property rights in their tissue. This ruling has reduced incentives for patients to consent to give specimens for research. A current lawsuit against ASU by the Havasupai Indian tribe involves blood samples that were given for a study of diabetes by researchers who are no longer at ASU. They wanted to take the samples with them, and samples had also been given to other researchers for use in studies of schizophrenia and the historical origins of the tribe, even though informed consent was apparently only given for the diabetes research. Although this case was originally dismissed, it was recently reinstated. Other cases involve patent protection of genetic information. About 25% of the human genome is patented, including Myriad Genetics’ patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are predictive of breast cancer and can only legally be tested for by Myriad. This case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the issue of whether human genes can be patented. The courts so far have ruled that a gene in isolation outside of the human body is patentable, even though (in my opinion) this seems at odds with the requirement that patents be limited to inventions, not discoveries. There has already been a legislative limitation of patent protection for surgical procedures for the clinical context, so that doctors can’t be sued for patent infringement for performing a surgery that saves someone’s life; it’s possible that a similar limitation will be applied on gene patents in a clinical context, if they don’t get overturned completely by the courts. These gene patents create a further problem for the multiplex tests, since they inevitably include many patented genes. Prof. Marchant observed that someone from Affymetrix spoke at an ASU seminar and stood up and said they were building their GeneChip DNA microarrays for testing for the presence of thousands of genes, and were ignoring gene patents. They were subsequently sued. Dr. LaBaer stated that his lab is doing the same thing with cloned genes–they’re cloning everything and giving them away, without regard to patents. The session was videotaped and will be made available to the public online. I will add a link to this posting when it becomes available. If you’ve read this far, you may also be interested in my summary of Dr. Fintan Steele’s talk at this year’s The Amazing Meeting 7, titled “Personalized Medicine or Personalized Mysticism?", in my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference that took place just prior to TAM7, and in my short summary of Dr. Martin Pera’s talk on regenerative medicine and embryonic stem cells at the Atheist Alliance International convention that took place earlier this month. ...

The 18th episode of the ApostAZ podcast is available: Episode 018 Atheism and Free Twizzering in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Mark 19? Criticism and analysis. http://arizonacor.org Intro- Immortal Technique- Freedom of Speech from Revolutionary Vol 2. Outro- Greydon Square ‘Dream’ from the Compton Effect.

Thanks to a tip from Tony Barnhart, I learned this morning of a talk at ASU today relevant to my last post (“Imitation, isolation, and independence”) by UCLA neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni. Although I wasn’t able to stay for the Q&A session, I did get to hear his entire presentation, titled “Imitation and Sociality: The Role of Neural Mirroring.” His talk covered the following points (from his initial agenda slide): Imitation in human behaviorPotential neural precursors in primatesNeural mechanisms of human imitationNeural circuitry for imitation and languageImitation and empathyDr. Iacoboni was introduced by new ASU prof. Art Glenberg, who started right off by pointing out that the existence of mirror neurons is itself controversial, and some “don’t think there’s much of interest proved about mirror neuron systems.” Dr. Iacoboni thanked Prof. Glenberg for beginning with the “elephant in the room,” and said that the question has never been raised about the existence of mirror neurons in monkeys, and suggested that some people don’t want there to be homologous systems in humans, e.g., for the sake of human exceptionalism or denial of evolution. (Has your blood pressure gone up yet, Tony?) Imitation in human behavior He started by briefly discussing the role of imitation in human behavior, citing Andrew Meltzoff’s 1977 article in Science (“Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates," (PDF) 198:75-78), noting that Meltzoff is probably the only guy to publish a photograph of himself sticking out his tongue in Science. Imitation, the copying of the behavior of another, is pervasive by humans. People copy body positions and movements, and such imitation promotes liking. (As an aside, he said that he has been interviewed by Glamour (July 2003) about his work, and can have a second career as a consultant to Internet dating services if mirror neurons turn out not to exist.) Imitation facilitates communication and conversation, and people tend to even synchronize the way they talk. (I know I’ve heard multiple stories of people whose accents have been changed by being around people with different accents.) Potential neural precursors in primates Mirror neurons were first discovered in macaque monkeys, in the ventral premotor cortex. It was found that neurons in this area fired when monkeys engaged in grasping behavior, and also fired to a lesser extent when those monkeys observed other monkeys engaged in grasping behavior. (Here, Iacoboni cited Gallese et al., Brain, 1996.) Neural mechanisms of human imitation Iacoboni said that the term “mirror” may be good for marketing, but may also be misleading. Mirror neurons are defined physiologically rather than anatomically, by behavior rather than location in the brain. They have motor properties, and are specialized for actions, including sensory attributes of actions, but not mere peceptions. They are not simply “monkey-see, monkey-do” cells–while 1/3 tend to fire for very specific actions, 2/3 fire for other sorts of complementary actions. Mirror neurons have abstract codings for hidden actions, action sounds, and intentions, not just specific actions. Mirror neurons that fire in response to a grasping action of picking up a laser pointer would also fire if the details of the action were obscured by a screen. The sound of tearing paper can fire mirror neurons that fire when observing paper being ripped. And if there are variant actions that achieve the same purpose, such as bringing food to the mouth, the same mirror neurons can fire. Mirror neurons learn and have some degree of plasticity. Iacoboni’s model predicts that observing an action should have the lowest level of activation for mirror neurons, performing a motor task should have a medium level, and imitation–both seeing and doing an action–should have the strongest level of activation. And that is what his research has found. At UCLA, they’ve done parallel work with monkeys and humans, and identified apparently homologous brain regions between the two. The specific region where mirror neurons were first discovered, the F5 region, appears to be homologous to the BA44 region of the human brain. The “BA” stands for Brodmann Area, a part of Broca’s area associated with language–those with lesions to that area have Broca’s aphasia, which reduces language fluency and makes speech slow and difficult. This raises the question of whether the mirroring is effectively covert verbalization in humans. Experiments with transcranium magnetic stimulation (TMS), where a magnetic copper coil placed against the head creates an electrical flow in the brain, interfering with the underlying electrical activity in the brain–essentially adding noise and causing disruption–have enabled a way to demonstrate causation where functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) could only show correlation. Iacoboni called this a shift “from brain mapping to brain zapping.” If you zap an area and cause a deficit in a particular behavior or function, you show the causal involvement of that area in the production of that behavior. Doing experiments with TMS of Broca’s area vs. a control site, using an imitation task and a control task, show the essential role of Broca’s area in imitation. (Here, Iacoboni cited Heiser, et al., Eur. J. of Neuroscience, 2003.) Iacoboni showed a diagram that he labeled the “core imitation circuit” which involved three locations of the brain–the superior temporal surface (STS), which manages visual input to the system via a visual or pictorial description of an action, which then feeds to the parietal mirror neuron system (MNS), which has the motor details of an action, which then feeds to the frontal MNS, which deals with the goal or intention of an action. (There were two-way arrows between STS and parietal MNS, and between parietal MNS and frontal MNS.) Neural circuitry for imitation and language Iacoboni said that an old theory of speech perception which had been abandoned has now been brought back by mirror neurons. That theory is the motor neuron theory, which says that to perceive speech sounds, you simulate the generation of the same speech. Speech perception involves speech simulation. In experiments that compared brain activation of speaking and listening, he suggested that he found evidence to support this. (This must be complicated by the fact that when you speak, you hear yourself. He cited Meister, et al., Current Biology, 2007.) He discussed hemispheres of the brain and action sounds, where the right and left motor cortexes were subjected to TMS stimulation. I didn’t quite get the details of this, but apparently a response was stronger for the left hemisphere, which is dominant for language. (He cited Azir-Zadeh et al., Eur. J. of Neuroscience, 2004.) He also referred to research of somatotopic maps, indicating that even when you read sentences about hand and foot actions (as opposed to seeing them), you get activation of the motor neurons for those areas. He then spoke about how meaning is encoded in the brain, distinguishing a symbolic approach to “embodied semantics,” favoring the latter view. In the embodied view, the meanings of words are grounded in sensorimotor experience and meaning is given by associations with sensorimotor activation. He described an experiment in how mirror neurons code intentions, where subjects were shown short videos. There were first contexts, such as a set of cookies, a teapot, gnutella, etc., set up as though someone was going to have a snack; contrasted with this was the same items, with just cookie crumbs, and empty cup, and so forth, as though someone had already had a snack. There were contrasting actions–a hand grasping the edge of a cup (as though putting it down or picking it up to serve someone else), vs. a hand grasping the handle of a cup, for the action of drinking. And then there were intention conditions, with each combination of actions embedded in a context. The result was to find a difference in activation between the intention settings, as well as between action and intention; with the act of drinking generating more activation in the inferior frontal gyrus. (Here he cited Iacoboni, PLoS Biology, 2005, “Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system.") He next showed a diagram of MNS interactions, showing imitative learning and social mirroring (or empathy, or “emotional contagion”). Imitative learning involves the MNS interacting with the pre-motor cortex, while social mirroring involves the MNS interacting with the insula and the limbic system. Imitation and empathy He spoke about “the chameleon effect”–some people are more imitative than others, and a tendency to imitate is correlated with a tendency to be more empathetic. He showed two photographs of President Jimmy Carter and his chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, at two different times at the same event; in both cases the chief of staff was in the same physical position as Carter, standing next to or slightly behind him. When feeling what others feel, the mirror neurons simulate facial expressions, which then feed through the insula to the limbic system, where you feel the emotion. He referred to research on imitating and observing facial expressions proposing a neural model of empathy in humans (Carr et al., PNAS, 2003). We are “wired for empathy,” he said, and notes that he used to quote a French phenomenologist on this point, but since that’s not popular among U.S. philosophers he needed to find a champion of the analytic school of philosophy. He offered two quotes from Ludwig Wittgenstein, one which began “We see emotions. We do not see facial contortions and make the inference that he is feeling joy, grief, boredom. We describe a face immediately as sad, radiant, bored, even when we are unable to give any other description of the features.” (From Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2, p. 100.) The other began “‘I see that the child wants to touch the dog but doesn’t dare.’ How can I see that? - Is this description of what is seen on the same level as a description of moving shapes and colors? Is an interpretation in question?Well, remember that you may also mimic a human being who would like to touch something, but doesn’t dare. And what you mimic is after all a piece of behaviour.” (From Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1, p. 177.) He then spoke of experiments with facial expression photos shown to kids and asked to imitate them, where they used fMRI and compared to measures of social competence, number of play dates, number of friends, etc., and found a high correlation between mirror neuron activation and social competence. (He cited Pfeifer et al., NeuroImage, 2008.) This then led to the issue of autism, which he described with a slide heading titled, “Broken mirrors in autism?” He spoke of observation/imitation tasks with two groups of kids, those with autism spectrum disorder and a control set, which yielded differential activity in motor neurons. (He cited Dapretto et al., Nature Neuroscience, 2006.) After a quote from Eric Hoffer (“When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other”), he spoke about human single-neuron recordings done with depth electrode readings on epilepsy patients undergoing very invasive methods to identify the focal points of seizures for surgery to remove or destroy minimal amounts of brain tissue to stop the seizures. They have studied about 10 patients per year over the last three years, using modified depth electrodes that each have 9 microwires, extending from them into the brain, one ground, and eight which each record for a single cell. On these patients they’ve done experiments with observation and execution of a grasping task, and with observation and imitation of facial expressions. They’ve taken records from the temporal lobe, amygdala, hippocampus, and other parts of the brain, and found that about 8% of cells measured have mirroring properties. He then described some differences between human and monkey mirror neurons, the key one of which is that in some cases where mirror neurons show an increase in firings from an execution or imitation, a decrease is seen when observing. For monkeys, by contrast, the activations always go up for both observation and execution. He suggested that this may be due to a human differentiation between self and other. Humans have cases where there are excitatory effects, inhibitory effects, and opposite effects between observation and execution. There are mirror responses in humans in areas where they are not found in monkeys, the results appear to be more flexible, and there can be more prolonged responses, perhaps due to greater complexity (e.g., the language and meaning aspect?). He ended by saying he was proud to say that his work falls within the tradition and support of Darwinian evolution–that his book, Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect with Others (I think you should always be skeptical of any book with a subtitle that starts with the words “The New Science of …”), argues that mirror neurons have been selected (naturally) to facilitate social interactions. He asserted that this solves the problem of other minds, and provokes a major revision of long-standing beliefs–that we need to change the idea that we’ve evolved for self-preservation, and instead we’re “wired for involvement and care.” He concluded that he is a believer in the importance of neuroscience to society, and that rather than being isolated in an ivory tower, scientists have a responsibility to go to society and communicate their work. (And his book is written for a popular audience.) ...

Today I attended a lecture at ASU by Washington Post writer Joel Garreau, author of Edge Cities and Radical Evolution, about the future of cities. What follows is a rough sketch of his talk based on my notes. He began by saying that he’s interested in culture and values, and isn’t a “gear-head” about the emerging technologies that he’s written about (“GRIN” technologies–genetics, robotics, information systems, and nanotechnology). He currently studies cities–how they are shaped by technology, and how cities shape us. He started with a slide of an old Spanish map of the New World, which was mostly accurate, except for an oversized Florida and drawing California as an island. Why was California shown as an island? Because explorers in the Seattle area saw a body of water that went very far to the south, and explorers in the Baja California area saw a body of water that went very far to the north, and they just connected the dots. That error took 100 years to correct. Spanish explorers would land in Monterey Bay and carry boats inland, expecting to hit water, and they always commented that the Indians in the area seemed to be friendly. Garreau suggested that they were actually laughing at them for pointlessly carrying boats inland. When the explorers would fail to hit another body of water, they would report back that the map was wrong, only to be told that they must not have been where they thought they were. It finally took a decree from the King of Spain to change the map. His next slide was of the Los Angeles area, pointing out what he called “edge cities,” which he called “the biggest change in 150 years of how we build cities.” “Edge cities” are major and new urban centers around old big cities. They have a large amount of office and retail space, lots of jobs, and didn’t exist 30-40 years ago. They are popping up everywhere there is major growth. The area around John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, is an edge city–it has 5 million square feet of office space (more than Memphis), 600,000 square feet of retail space. It’s not a suburb, or sub-anything. It’s not a bedroom community. It has the features of office parks and all traditional city functions. The edge cities in New Jersey in the greater New York area have more jobs than Manhattan. Phoenix was one of the earliest places to recognize that it was going to have more than one city center–we have major centers downtown, uptown/Central Avenure, Camelback/Biltmore, South Mountain, and Tempe (among others), and these were recognized as centers that would exist by city planners a couple of decades ago. Paris has La Defense as an edge city, as well as Marne-la-Vallee, where EuroDisney is. When superior locations for growth are first found, the rich people move in first, and tend to go uphill, upwind, and upriver, byt Marne-la-Vallee was a poor area that was planned to be an edge city by selecting it as the location for EuroDisney, and it succeeded. Boston edge cities include the Burlington Mall area, MIT area, downtown, Quincy/Braintree, and Framingham area. One major factor that has changed cities are the available modes of transportation. Chicago was formed as a rail town, based around inter- and intra-urban rail. Detroit was formed as an automobile town. The last industrial age downtown built in North America was Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1914. In 1915, the one millionth Model T Ford came off the assembly line, and ended the old downtowns. The old industrial downtowns were from the 1840s to 1914, and existed because of the necessity of collecting raw materials in one place and having thousands of people there to work on those materials. Prior to those downtowns, cities were places like Jefferson’s Charlottesville, Washington’s Alexandria, and Lincoln’s Philadelphia. Most people earned a living from the land, and lived outside of cities. The automobile suddenly made places outside the old industrial cities far more valuable, like Long Island. Until 1955, the southwestern-most Major League Baseball team was in St. Louis, because movement by train placed constraints on scheduling. The Cardinals were thus the team rooted for by everyone further south and west. Once airplanes came into the picture, baseball could spread, and other cities could become major cities–Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, Houston. Garreau asked, if Chicago were leveled, what would you rebuild first–O’Hare, or downtown. O’Hare is more critical today. But the changes caused by automobiles and airplanes is nothing compared to the networked computer, which is making changes more significant and more rapidly than the automobile. He showed a photograph of a Kresge’s in the Capitol Hill area of D.C., explaining that it was a discount 5 & dime store, the K in K-Mart. He said Kresge’s is dead, and K-Mart is dying, but do you think the building is still there, and if so, what is it? The first guess–Starbuck’s–was almost correct. It is a coffee shop. He argued that Kresge’s and K-Mart has been killed by Wal-Mart, which is really an IT company that happens to sell sneakers. He claimed that when you buy a pair of sneakers at Wal-Mart, a process kicks off at check out that starts to make a replacement pair in Malaysia within 24 hours. So why are coffee shops popular, and why do people pay $4 for coffee? Is it the free wireless? He argued that it is a social thing, only marginally about the coffee and the wifi. The main factor around the physical environment is that the rare stuff we can’t digitize, like face-to-face contact, has much higher relative value than it did before. Bill Mitchell of the MIT Media Lab, and former head of the architecture department, has catalogued 87 forms of real estate in cities, all being transformed by information technology. One form is super markets. Garreau asked, if you could get hamburger and toilet paper delivered to your home for free, why would you get in your car to go get groceries? To buy produce or meat, was the answer suggested by the audience. He then showed a photo of a Freshfields, a modern farmer’s market, and showed a photo of booths with tables inside it–it’s also a place to sit and socialize. Another type of building is a prison. He suggested that we don’t need as many prisons if we use GPS anklets or bracelets for nonviolent offenses. He then argued that Moore’s Law will continue to hold for the forseeable future, and we’ve already seen 32 doublings in processors since 1959. The only thing comparable is railroad capacity doubling, which saw 14.5 doublings before leveling out due to requirements of coal, steel, and land, and being superseded by the automobile. The IT limits are the laws of physics, the marketplace, human ingenuity, and our culture and values, and he argued that only our culture and values set real limits for the forseeable future. (In a class yesterday, one of my professors said that a physics professor speaking at ASU last year said that we’ve reached the physical limits for silicon chips, and won’t see any more doublings, but a subsequent new development has already refuted him with a four-times improvement due to nanotechnology–presumably this.) Sequencing the human genome was thought nuts, impossible, and/or would cost a fortune, but was done in 2000 at a fraction of the expected cost, far sooner than anyone expected, thanks to Moore’s Law. Garreau suggested that ten years from now, anything you can put in a lab for $1 million will be something you can put in your home for $1,000; anything you can get now for $1,000 will be “pocket lint.” He used USB memory fobs as an example of today’s “pocket lint." He showed a photo of students at CMU in a computer lab, and asked, “Is there a future for physical university campuses?” He gave a yes, on the grounds that this is where you “meet your first spouse and friends for a lifetime”–the social aspects. Distance learning has been around for a very long time (Benjamin Franklin did learning-by-mail), but it’s always a second choice. Shopping malls, he said, are turning into entertainment spaces. He cited his friend Jaron Lanier (a virtual reality pioneer), who suggests that the first thing to disappear will be escalators, replaced by rides–so when you go up by ferris wheel and come down by water slide, think of Lanier. He observed that if you go to a mall at 10 a.m., you’ll see the senior mall walkers, and if you go in the afternoon, you’ll see “drug dealing rugrats.” (He didn’t note, but I thought of how Arizona Mills Mall in Tempe has turned one space into an indoor miniature golf course.) Office space–is there any future to it? Again, he argued for the social aspect, and maintained that the accidental casual face-to-face contact is impossible to digitize, yet he finds the random conversation at the printer jam (the modern equivalent of the water cooler) to be his most productive time of day. To this, Prof. Brad Allenby objected that there is casual contact in World of Warcraft and Second Life, and we shouldn’t assume that such things can’t be digitizable. Another audience member suggested that because human beings need touch, we need real physical contact. (But that assumes the impossibility of tactile telepresence.) Yet another pointed out that movie theater attendance is up, even though you can watch online or at home cheaper. Garreau said, supposed you decide face-to-face matters, but only need it two days a week–how would that affect where you live? If you only needed it 3 days a month, then where might you live? He said some cities will live, if they are good for face-to-face contact. Others will die, if they aren’t. We’re headed to a profound shift of what is urban/urbane, and cities like Santa Fe are the future. It has 63,000 people, opera, restaurants, second-hand boot stores. The top fastest-growing metro areas are smaller cities that are like villages with face-to-face spaces and are somewhat dispersed. The top ones are Wenatchee, WA, Provo-Orem, UT, Grand Junction, CO, Gulfport-Biloxi, MS, and Myrtle Beach, SC. The top states for real estate price appreciation are Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Other example cities in this model include the Adams-Morgan area of D.C., Tempe, AZ, and Marrakesh. He then briefly turned to other technologies. He said that Craig Venter says that by the end of this year he will have an organism that “eats CO2 and poops gasoline.” (And his company has just received $600 million in funding from ExxonMobil.) Nanotech may build membranes that purify water. These things will impact where cities become feasible. “Is Darfur the next garden spot?" He then referred to a book by Leo Marx of MIT, titled The Machine in the Garden. He argued that in the industrial age, we suffered a split–we had to come into the cities and leave nature behind. Now we’re trying to put what we like about cities into a garden. In the final Q&A, he said he has a hidden assumption that we will continue moving forward and not go back to pre-industrial society; he said “no petroleum engineers think we’re running out of oil, only cheap oil." He said that we’re seeing a new explosion of religious fervor, and included environmentalism in that, saying that it has its own saints and heretics. He thinks human beings are “hardwired to have faith–even Russia made Marxism into faith,” but said that he’s “a hardcore rationalist” even though “rationalism doesn’t seem to be emotionally satisfying.” He said, following Popper, that “science can’t tell you what is true, only what is false, but it can changes minds without killing people.” (I disagree with his statement that science can’t tell you what is true–theories that keep passing tests do at least approximate truth.) An audience member commented that virtual environments can convey mental and physical aspects, but not emotional and spiritual. Garreau agreed, but I think both (and a few other questioners) were making an unwarranted assumption that virtual environments will not be able to reach a point of being indistinguishable (or very nearly so) from real environments, and thus allowing effective conveyance of body language, subtle gestures, and so forth, perfectly adequate for transmitting emotional information. (As for spiritual properties, I think they’re in need of demonstration before we worry about them–and given claims that have been made about them, it’s surprising that the questioner thought physical proximity was a limitation.) In a conversation with Prof. Allenby afterward, he also pointed out that we may be better able to make judgments of trust in a virtual environment because we are more alert to the possibility of a partial presentation of a personality and to intentional distortions. There are also some types of cues that are more accurately picked up audibly, while visual information can overwhelm those cues. Prof. Allenby also noted that major technological changes may turn what we now think of as fundamental truths into contingencies, and that may include some aspects of what we call human nature. Garreau ended by observing that past predictions of what the future will be like have usually been wrong, becasue things are more complex and more expensive then we think–and then we get blindsided by innovations like the iPhone. ...

Pierre Stromberg has an entertaining tale of his visit to a performance by former radio broadcaster, self-proclaimed cult expert, and exorcist Bob Larson at his new Paranormal Amerika blog. Larson suffered a significant blow to his career as a result of criticisms from his fellow Coloradoan Ken Smith’s “Bob Larson Fan Club." Further damage came from exposure at the hands of Cornerstone magazine, which published carefully investigated exposures of deception, misuse of funds, fabricated biographical events, and so forth. Others exposed by Cornerstone included alleged former Satanist turned Christian comedian Mike Warnke and claimed Satanic ritual abuse victim “Lauren Stratford,” author of Satan’s Underground. Larson is, unfortunately, now based here in the Phoenix area, with his “Spiritual Freedom Church of Phoenix” at 9096 E. Bahia Drive in Scottsdale, though for some reason it has a mailing address of a post office box in Denver. ...

This blog is entering its fifth year today, and the content will be shifting a bit now that I am returning to school. Today was my first day of new graduate student orientation before classes begin next week; I’m a Ph.D. student in Arizona State University’s Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology program, which is beginning its second year. This is an interdisciplinary program within the Graduate College and allied with the School of Life Sciences, so today’s orientation was with new graduate students from other programs in SoLS. SoLS has 250 graduate students in 11 programs, of which 49 are entering this semester. (I chatted a bit with a couple of new graduate students in neuroscience.) There seems to be a wealth of supporting organizations and structures to SoLS programs to assist in getting funding, doing research, participating in education and public outreach, and dealing with administrivia. I’ll be delving into as much of it as I can, and periodically reporting on items of particular interest here. From today’s orientation, a few items that are part of SoLS education and public outreach are worthy of note. ASU has an “Ask-a-Biologist” program online, which you can also follow via Twitter. That program is intended for students in grades K-12, and is projected to hit a million visitors this year. There’s also the Science Studio Podcasts for adult education. And the International Institute for Species Exploration website. There’s also a program run by SoLS graduate students called Graduate Partners in Science Education, where graduate student volunteers work with underprivileged and at-risk junior high school students on field biology research projects. My current aim in the HSDST program is to build upon my past graduate experience in philosophy and cognitive science, my career in Internet services and information security, my interest in skeptical inquiry and critical thinking, and my interest in law to explore the concepts of trust and reputation as they pertain to online and digital media. At the moment, I’m signed up for a seminar on “Law, Science, and Technology,” a seminar on “Human and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,” the HSDST Core Seminar and Colloquium, and a course with one of my favorite undergraduate philosophy professors on Advanced Logic (that’s my “just for fun” class). Tomorrow’s a reception for all of the new graduate students at ASU’s Tempe campus, and later in the week I have some training on fire and lab safety–and next week, it’s back to class. ...