Partially Ordered Thoughts

I’m not ready to declare my blog off hiatus yet (that will come this summer when I start preparing for my first term teaching in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln as a Research Assistant Professor). However, Tuesday night’s Talk Science@BL event at the British Library was rather thought-provoking for me, and I wanted to share some thoughts.

The event was entitled From Lab Bench to Front Bench: Opportunities for scientists?. (For American readers unfamiliar with the British political system, the “front bench” in the House of Commons is where the government ministers sit.) The moderator was Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE). The three panelists were Mark Henderson, Head of Communications at the Wellcome Trust and former science editor of The Times of London; Dr Alice Jones, Lecturer (Assistant Professor in American-ese) in psychology at Goldsmiths University and a recent participant in the Royal Society’s program that pairs scientists and Members of Parliament (MPs); and Dr Chris Tyler, Executive Director of the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge. (Chris was a late substitute for Dr Julian Huppert, a former research biochemist who now serves in the House of Commons as Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge. He was absent so he could vote against his own coalition government’s NHS-destroying legislation. Kudos to him for that!)

One of the most striking things to me as an American about the discussion at the event was that we didn’t have to waste time talking about anti-science politicians. Yes, the UK has a handful of them, but nothing like the large faction of the Republican party in the US that seems to dominate discussion all too often. While British politicians and civil servants might not always understand what science is or how it’s done, they do seem to respect scientists as being the people who do understand. In the US, unfortunately, there are still too many politicians who can’t distinguish between the scientific use of the word “theory” and its use in everyday language. That said, there’s still significant work to be done here to ensure appropriate levels of funding for science and to ensure that policy decisions are made with good scientific advice.

In his closing remarks, Mark made an interesting suggestion about how the scientific community could work to increase the stature of science amongst politicians and civil servants. He pointed out how over the past couple of decades, gay rights organizations in the UK had made so much progress through grass-roots lobbying that now it’s nearly impossible to be elected to Parliament without having at least a minimally enlightened view on gay rights. As an example of how far things have come, the previous government implemented civil partnerships, which are directly equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples, without any real issues. The current coalition is moving forward with plans to authorize civil marriage for all couples in the near future, and other than a few back bench Tory MPs, there’s no real opposition amongst those who will vote on the legislation. That doesn’t mean that religious leaders aren’t making nonsensical statements (including trying to “call a halt to what you might call progress” on national radio and comparing authorizing marriage equality to legalizing slavery), but they’re clearly a fringe here in contrast to the US. Mark suggested that if scientists engage in grass-roots lobbying efforts by meeting with their MPs and building relationships with the civil servants who develop and implement policy, some years down the road science will have established a place in political discourse where politicians and civil servants see it as inappropriate to make decisions without consulting the evidence provided by science. Mark was very careful to say that he didn’t want to make too close of a connection between gay rights and science advocacy, since one comes down to fundamental human rights and the other is “only” good decision making. However, I think that the analogy is a lot closer than he wanted to let on, at least when thinking about the US. For Republicans, two key litmus tests are being neutral at best (and usually regressive) on gay rights and holding some rather anti-science views. For instance, Senator Lindsay Graham spoke at the LSE last year on US energy policy and climate change, and while it was very clear that while he is one of the most enlightened Republicans on the matter of climate change, he still spoke of things like “polar bear politics” and stripping the EPA of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

One of the night’s recurring themes was how important it is for scientists to be engaged in the discussions early in the process, rather than reacting after a decision has been made. Here it’s important to draw a distinction between politics and policy, as civil servants are often willing to reverse course in light of new evidence. On the other hand, once a politician has taken a public stance, they fear being branded like John Kerry (Mark’s exact example) as a flip-flopper if they change their mind. This part of the panel discussion led me to a question, and fortunately I was able to ask it. There’s been a recent issue with mathematics funding in the UK, as the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (the UK equivalent of the the part of the NSF that covers engineering and physical sciences including mathematics) decided to restrict funding for fellowships (postdoctoral and sabbatical) in mathematics to the areas of statistics and applied probability from July 2011 onward. (Burt Totaro in Cambridge has a great summary of everything related to this debacle.) This has been a spectacular failure for mathematics in the UK. A number of prominent mathematicians (including four Fields Medalists) and non-mathematician scientists, most Fellows of the Royal Society and several with letters like OBE after their names, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing concern over this policy decision after it had been announced by EPSRC. It appears that this has only further entrenched those responsible for the policy decision. My question was rather simple: After this spectacular and very public failure to change government policy, how do we convince leading mathematicians (or other scientists) to continue to lobby and promote science to politicians and civil servants?

Mark’s response to my question might not have been as specific as I’d hoped, but I think the suggestion has a good amount of merit, at least for this side of the Atlantic. In recent years, there was a big debate in the UK over various forms of embryonic research, including research that would combine human and animal DNA in the same cell. (I certainly remember the hullabaloo in the US over banning human-animal hybrids and how it was unsurprisingly predominantly anti-science and poorly informed.) In the UK, leading scientists were involved in the policy making process from early stages, and they continued to be consulted and speak up as legislation progressed. (Even as the same Scottish cardinal mentioned earlier for comparing marriage equality to legalizing slavery was denouncing “Frankenstein scientists”.) The final product was legislation that respected ethical concerns but didn’t hinder scientific progress. Science had informed the political and policy process throughout, and the end product was positive. Mark’s suggestion was to take this as a case study of when things have worked and share it (and similar stories) with those who’ve only ever experienced failed efforts to lobby because of late involvement. I’m not sure that such examples will be enough for the rank and file mathematicians, but maybe they’ll be enough to get a few prominent people to engage earlier on. The American Mathematical Society recently tried a grass-roots effort to help maintain a certain funding level for the NSF, but it again seemed like it might have been too late in the process.

Another distinction that the panel drew is an area where I think the US has a lot of room for improvement. The panelists really wanted us to keep in mind that science and policy based on or informed by science are different things. In the UK, most politicians and civil servants understand that scientific evidence shows that the climate is changing and that this change is caused by human beings. However, they can still disagree over what the right policies are to combat climate change (Kyoto protocols, cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc.). In the US, unfortunately, politicians seem incapable of disentangling evidence and policy. Republican politicians, in particular, tend not to argue against climate change policies they dislike by explaining why they feel the policy is wrong but instead by attacking the scientific evidence (something they’re universally blatantly unqualified to do), thereby suggesting that no policy or legislation is required. On the other side, I have to say that I don’t think the Democrats do a great job of making an argument for why a policy proposal is the right thing to do. That might be a side effect of the other side attacking the science instead of the policy, of course. Unfortunately, since it’s not really an issue in the UK, there wasn’t really any discussion of how we might elevate the level of discourse to making arguments about policy instead of attacking science, and I haven’t come up with any great ideas in that regard either. (I should include here that in last year’s LSE event, Senator Graham was much more willing to accept scientific evidence on climate change than his colleagues and tried to put forward policies he felt could pass that might make a difference. Unfortunately, he’s quite exceptional in this regard.)

I’ve left my notes at home, so I’m sure I’ve omitted a few things. However, these were my key takeaway ideas. I know I left the event feeling more inspired to be engaged with the political process as a member of the mathematical community (at least once I return to the US in the summer). I definitely will want to know more about the AMS presence in Washington and hopefully can encourage my colleagues to be more engaged as well. Despite the differences in politics between the US and the UK, I left the event believing cultivating relationships with politicians and policy makers at the state and federal levels can make a difference. If we can make those in positions of power take the time to stop and reflect on what the evidence is saying, we’ve made a good step in the right direction.

Despite having lived in Atlanta for 2.75 years, I still religiously read The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead (at least on line). In fact, I don’t even read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution except when there’s a story that I want to seek out. On Friday The Forum ran as their cover story an article about two young men who plan to attend the Fargo South High School prom tonight. Normally, prom is not a newsworthy topic. Sure, there are fluff pieces in the style sections every year about what’s in and what’s out fashion-wise, but this warranted front-page coverage as it wasn’t fashion that was out in this article, it was the two young men who were the subject of the article. See, these guys are gay and a couple and wanted to attend prom together. In fact, they wanted to participate in the grand march like all their friends. (I should note one of the students is a FSHS student and the other is completing his education through the state’s Division of Independent Study, which provided me two top-notch courses while in high school.) South’s principal took a pretty enlightened view on the whole thing and said that they could do as they wanted, and to the best of any of the local schools’ knowledge, these young men are the first gay male couple to attend a local prom together. Frankly, the school’s reaction amazes me considering my home state; however, it also makes me very happy, as it shows that there is hope after all. I was very impressed with the guys’ willingness to put up with whatever the community will throw at them by being so open about it. In high school, I never would have fathomed the idea of attending prom with another guy. Of course, it’s not like I had a boyfriend to take, but even so, I don’t think it ever would have entered my mind, even if I’d grown up in a city like Fargo instead of Halliday. Seven years out of high school and 5.5 years since I first came out, I have no problems with the thought of holding hands with a boyfriend in public (in a couple days I’ll actually have time to think about finding a boyfriend… that would be nice), but back then, anything that bold would have seemed insane.

Anyway, I figured that the article would probably get a follow-up on Sunday talking about how the boys had a good time at prom and that their friends were all very accepting and so on and so forth but that would be the end of it. My, was I wrong. Today, they ran a follow-up about the public fallout. Some in the community have just commented that they didn’t feel it was front-page news. Frankly, I would have agreed with that assessment if it weren’t for all the other public reaction, which shows that it really does need to be on the cover in order to help bring North Dakota out of the dark ages. The people who started calling into talk radio and writing comments on In-Forum’s discussion page were just brilliant. One woman called Scott Hennen’s Hot Talk radio show and said that one of the guys was her daughter’s gymnastics coach and she didn’t want to have to explain to her daughter why her coach was on the cover of the newspaper holding hands with another boy, and there were similar comments posted online about how people didn’t want to have to explain to children at the grand march why there were two boys walking together. What sort of vacuum are these people raising their kids in? For heavens sakes, gay people are everywhere, in all walks of life, and all over this friggin’ country. I think that at home looking at the newspaper would be a much better time to have this conversation than while walking in the mall or grocery store and seeing two men holding hands. Hennen even said that he was “shielding” his kids from the newspaper because of the story. Then there were the comments about how people didn’t want to have their noses rubbed in these guys’ sexual orientation. Um, excuse me, how often do you rub your heterosexuality in my face? Yeah, pretty much all the time. I guess the positive tone of the article and how accepting the school seemed about the whole thing just got my hopes up too much that times were changing. There are a lot of positive comments on the In-Forum discussion, but far too many talk about the boys as deviants and ask questions about if the next thing will be to allow pedophiles to attend prom. I love how people always seem to think that homosexuals are automatically pedophiles or just a step away. I like men, not children. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males, for goodness sake.

I probably never should have read all the comments people posted or listened to Hennen’s discussions with the mother of one of the boys and the editor of The Forum, as it would have kept my blood pressure down. However, the whole situation has made it abundantly clear that my home state still has a long way to go toward being accepting of my sexual orientation. I guess I’ll just have to hope that Jakob and Steven have a great time at the prom and that tomorrow’s paper doesn’t have to tell a tale of how they felt so uncomfortable they had to leave early. If the youth are at least becoming more enlightened, there can be hope for the future.

Oh my. I’m not a big fan of all the battling that’s going on over judicial nominees in the senate. Part of me feels that the Senate shouldn’t prevent these nominees from getting voted on, but part of me feels that they probably shouldn’t be on the court, and as long as party-line votes keep taking place, no one will think for themselves on such things in the Senate. A good point can be made that while the Republicans didn’t actually filibuster President Clinton’s judicial nominees, they used their majority power to hold up a large number of them in the Judiciary Committee. Perhaps the minority is entitled to do the same on the floor.

Regardless, MoveOn PAC’s Save the Republic ad, which I just saw on CNN, is ridiculous.

I’ve been ignoring all like two of you out there who read this, but I think it’s time to get back to posting here. Tomorrow I start the third week of the semester. It’s amazing how fast the first two went by. Of course, the first one flew by even faster since Amy was here visiting, so I played tour guide. It was a lot of fun. We did the usual tourist things (CNN, Centennial Olympic Park, World of Coca-Cola) in addition to viewing the city at night from the top of the Westin Peachtree Center (the western hemisphere’s tallest hotel), visiting the Martin Luther King, Jr., historic site, and attending a special MLK concert by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra.

Classes seem to be going well so far this semester. I’m only taking three, and I enjoy all of them. I have three straight hours of classes Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, but they go pretty quickly, strangely enough. Activities are also picking up: Senate, Honor Advisory Council, etc. I substituted on the Mandatory Student Fee Advisory Committee during the first week of classes. We recommended raising fees $50 per semester for next academic year. This might seem steep, but half of it will go to increase the technology fee, which hasn’t gone up in something like nine years. I’m sure everyone understands how important a technology fee is to the Georgia Institute of Technology. I’m helping gather and disseminate information related to an impending astronomical increase in health insurance premiums for my fellow graudate students. (We’re talking about a 47% increase, unless we break things out by age, in which case premiums remain the same except for those students 30 years old and older, who would see their premiums more than quadruple.) I feel like I’m becoming part of the campus community and making a difference, and it feels good!

Today I took on another issue—North Dakota House Bill 1364: A bill relating to English pronunciation requirements for individuals instructing students. It’s a misguided attempt by some simple-minded state legislators to micromanage how the state’s 11 public colleges and universities deal with non-native speakers of English in their classrooms. These legislators seem to think that usurping the power of the State Board of Higher Education, the University System Chancellor, campus presidents, and campus provosts/vice presidents for academic affairs is a good strategy for dealing with constituent complaints regarding professors. Read the bill for yourself… it’s the most insanely absurd piece of rubbish that I’ve seen yet. What makes me very sad is that only one of the five sponsors of this piece of trash are from small-town North Dakota. Two are from Fargo, one from Grand Forks, and one from Bismarck. I would think that they would be enlightened enough to undertand that students have more appropriate recourse than getting the highest levels of state government involved with a very local issue. Of course, the sponsor from Bismarck is the representative dubbed Miss D. Meaner by The Forum‘s editorial cartoonist today for her adamant opposition to the repeal of North Dakota’s antiquated cohabitation law. (In her defense, she seems very nice and well-intentioned and responded to my initial email very quickly, but she just didn’t seem to understand that this is not a legislative issue.) I have to thank The Forum‘s capitol correspondent Janell Cole for pointing out HB 1364 in today’s column on legislation that seems to keep resurfacing year after year. If it weren’t for her, I probably would have had a much more productive (although not nearly as interesting or exhillerating) Sunday If anyone’s interested in reading my comments that were sent to the House Education Committee, drop me a note. (If you don’t know my email address, post a comment here.)