Public service announcement
Mar. 3rd, 2005 11:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livDNA sequencing is not magic.
Thankyou.
This comment prompted by a combination of:
– an otherwise good novel in which the simple fact of sequencing the human genome, described in mystical terms, is enough to propel the world into an SF future.
– a death penalty debate where it is suggested that now we have DNA evidence, we can execute people in good conscience.
– general frustration with scientific illiteracy.
I shall now return to my regularly scheduled thesis writing (in which sequencing DNA does not magically solve any problems, and in many cases does not in fact give any useful information about biology.)
Thankyou.
This comment prompted by a combination of:
– an otherwise good novel in which the simple fact of sequencing the human genome, described in mystical terms, is enough to propel the world into an SF future.
– a death penalty debate where it is suggested that now we have DNA evidence, we can execute people in good conscience.
– general frustration with scientific illiteracy.
I shall now return to my regularly scheduled thesis writing (in which sequencing DNA does not magically solve any problems, and in many cases does not in fact give any useful information about biology.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:19 pm (UTC)Fair pedantry. Fingerprinting seems to me like a specialized kind of sequencing, in that ultimately the sequence is what determines what the fingerprint looks like, but I agree it's not sequencing at the level of finding out the exact order of DNA bases.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:14 pm (UTC):)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:38 pm (UTC)That's crap, and you don't have to have 21st century biological training to know that it's crap. Aldous Huxley didn't rely on this kind of specious mystical nonsense when he wrote Brave New World in the 1930s. Charles Darwin knew that there's no such thing as higher and lower organisms. And we've known for centuries that humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of nature, that the same laws of physics and chemistry apply to humans as to everything else. (You could argue that this wasn't proved conclusively until the early twentieth century, but still long before 1979.)
Optimism about how much function you could learn from sequence is excusable for the period; many scientists back then thought that sequencing the human genome would give us more information directly than actually turned out to be the case. But it's still not magic.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 12:29 pm (UTC)Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 01:13 pm (UTC)Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 01:35 pm (UTC)You know, I actually have something of a problem with scientific illiterates existing. Not that everyone should be an expert outside their field, but I'm talking about a basic level of literacy here. A literacy that would allow people not to be duped by unscrupulous marketing or even less scrupulous politicians, for example. When a large proportion of the population believes the MMR vaccine causes autism, you have real practical problems, not just people annoying me by being ignorant.
As for pontification, I'm almost equally annoyed by people who don't pontificate, but go round saying, I'm really dumb when it comes to science lol, as if that was something to be proud of. If there were fewer people taking that attitude, the pontificating people wouldn't be able to get away with bullshit.
The border between science and magic is a tricky one. I think eliding technology and magic is basically fine. I don't mind SF where the plot needs FTL and a universal translator, so ok, let's postulate that the tech exists never mind we can't explain it. I also don't think people in day to day life really have a pressing need to know what keeps an aeroplane in the air.
But when science is presented as magic, in the sense that only initiates can understand it, that's where you have a problem because it kills critical thinking. It lets advertisers get away with "Scientists say our product is best" and let that go unchallenged. It lets politicians say "Scientists say our repressive new laws will make society better".
In fiction, the problem I have is a very specific one. I don't mind that The Gameplayers of Zan doesn't really explain the technology underlying its imaginary society. That's fair enough; it's not that kind of novel. What I object to is the idea that humans are somehow outside the scope of ordinary science. It's basically special creation under a different guise. And when that kind of faith-based approach starts to interfere in your empirical understanding of physical reality, there's a problem. I don't see how you can have good medicine under that mindset, for a start. And it's unlikely you're going to get good social policy, if you believe that humans are magic and can't be studied in a scientific way.
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 02:16 pm (UTC)Yes, but they are to be pitied rather than reviled (in most cases). At the moment I'd rather see historical than scientific training as mandatory anyway.
As for pontification, I'm almost equally annoyed by people who don't pontificate, but go round saying, I'm really dumb when it comes to science lol, as if that was something to be proud of.
I'd say they're worse in many ways. Ignorance is never something to be proud of.
It lets advertisers get away with "Scientists say our product is best" and let that go unchallenged.
Can you say "releases bubbles of oxygen under the skin"? (A fine example of market-research driven advertising...)
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 03:05 pm (UTC)I didn't say anything about reviling scientific illiterates, I said I had a problem with their existing. And I would obviously rather they ceased to be illiterate than that they ceased, as individuals, to exist, that's pretty much a given.
I'd rather see historical than scientific training as mandatory
If by 'historical training' you mean knowledge of a lot of factual information about things that happened in the past, it's possibly marginally less useless than 'scientific education' which consists of a list of facts about technology and the way the world works. If you mean training in critical analysis of history and politics, I would pretty much call that a subset of scientific training, actually, because good history is essentially a science.
Ignorance is never something to be proud of.
It shouldn't be, but it's amazing how many people are proud of ignorance of science and maths in a way they wouldn't be with other fields. (I can't remember who it was that said that knowledge of Newton's laws of motion should be as much a given as knowledge of who wrote Hamlet, but I agree with that person.)
Can you say "releases bubbles of oxygen under the skin"?
I would like to live in a world where that was not a successful marketing strategy. And if that seems a silly thing to care about, I actually believe that such a world would not have Bush as the most powerful world leader, would not have rates of HIV infection approaching 50% in some African countries, and would have an ecosystem in a much better state than ours.
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 03:17 pm (UTC)Almost certainly C.P. Snow.
Other than that, the only minor disagreement I have with your post is as to the nature of history- but I'll take that up some other time.
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-04 10:26 pm (UTC)And I'd be interested in your views on the nature of history.
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 02:42 pm (UTC)Not to mention the converse, where the public has a backlash against science and we get advertisers saying products are based on wholesome natural solutions, not science. <grinds teeth>
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 02:52 pm (UTC)I agree that that is annoying. And it's a factor of general scientific illiteracy, because someone with a basic grounding in science would have a better understanding what 'natural' means.
But it's not a factor of conflating science with magic, which is the point that started this sub-thread. Or maybe it is, I don't know, if you think science is basically magic, you maybe just feel like you're picking between two different magics, the magic of science and the magic of 'naturalness'. And in the magical realm there is room for holding unjustifiable faith that one type of magic is inherently superior to another.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 03:24 pm (UTC)Cake is a made up drug. Made up out of chemicals.
Or maybe it is, I don't know, if you think science is basically magic, you maybe just feel like you're picking between two different magics, the magic of science and the magic of 'naturalness'
I think that's how many think. I know that a number of creationists certainly think that way.
And in the magical realm there is room for holding unjustifiable faith that one type of magic is inherently superior to another.
No there isn't- it's just that the understanding of the word "justifiable" is somewhat different.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 06:20 pm (UTC)Cake is made out of flour and eggs and hopefully chocolate. What are you talking about? ;)
Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 06:57 pm (UTC)There's a related discussion (http://www.livejournal.com/users/elise/154856.html) in
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 07:28 pm (UTC)Re: Hear, Hear!
Date: 2005-03-03 07:03 pm (UTC)We're working on it. I don't want anyone leaving my classroom as a target for scientific duplicity.
"Science will remain compulsory at KS4 and every young person will have a new statutory entitlement to science study leading to two GCSEs, and we expect that, as now, at least 80% of students will continue to take at least two science GCSEs . . . We have worked with the science community to develop a new programme of study for science at KS4 to be taught in schools from September 2006. The revised programme of study has a core which focuses on scientific literacy." [1]
Re pride in scientific ignorance, I think it's a while before we'll get that to die out. It's the same with maths. Sometimes a ditzy-blonde reaction (she says as a card-carrying ditzy blonde), the group that worries me more is the humanities lot who think science is too technical and geeky.
Science as gnosticism - the science community needs more Feynmans. It's too easy to think that we can't explain things in simple terms, to hide behind jargon and symbols. It's academic sloppiness, no better than some of the pseudo-sociology that uses long sentences to conceal lack-of-content.
[1] See notes on the new GCSE syllabus (http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/homepage/notes_news/february_05/14-19.php), under "Strengthening GCSEs"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 07:35 pm (UTC)I love you very much for being a science teacher (and caring about something beyond exam results). Thank you so much for doing that.
Science as gnosticism
Mm, nice way of phrasing it. In a way it is more analogous to gnosticism than magic, because it's all about knowledge, and knowledge which is hidden from anyone not initiated. Whereas magic is at least sometimes thought of as a talent that some people have naturally.
It's too easy to think that we can't explain things in simple terms, to hide behind jargon and symbols. It's academic sloppiness
I couldn't agree more. I think it's also a bit of a vicious circle because scientists are allowed to get away with jargon by people who expect not to be able to understand what they're talking about.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 07:44 pm (UTC)*curtsies and blushes* Thank you. To defend the exam-based approach, 5Cs at GCSE are actually rewarded more in society than skills like scientific literacy. So if education is preparing pupils for the 'entry requirements' of further study or membership of society, there's some excuse. (Yes, I can see the flaw there.)
Science as gnosticism - Mm, nice way of phrasing it.
My favourite example of this is differentiation and other basic calculus. The first few rules are no more difficult than Yr 7/8 stuff, yet it's often portrayed as a membership card for A-Level mathematics, the highest-of-the-high when you're starting sixth form. (I wouldn't mind if the average A-Level student understood the concepts/proof, but they don't.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 10:36 pm (UTC)I don't actually have huge issues with teaching to the exams; I just think there should be fewer exams in the first place. Pretty much the key skill I learned at school was how to optimize exam results with minimum effort and ability. That skill has done me loads of good, it got me into Oxford which I loved, and it got me a job getting paid to do stuff I find both fascinating and enjoyable. I suspect that not all secondary pupils actually want to get into Oxford and become academic researchers though.
My point is that as the system is, I have admiration for any teacher who has the energy and dedication to look beyond exam results. Which is not by any means a condemnation of teachers who are just doing their best in a very imperfect system.
5Cs at GCSE are actually rewarded more in society than skills like scientific literacy.
See, this is the problem. Not the fact that teachers recognize that the situation exists, but that society operates like this in the first place. I don't really know what can be done about that, and it's certainly a valid approach to try to give kids the best defenses they can have.
My favourite example of this is differentiation and other basic calculus. The first few rules are no more difficult than Yr 7/8 stuff, yet it's often portrayed as a membership card for A-Level mathematics,
You're quite right about that. Calculus has the potential to get very hard, but then so does number theory and nobody would balk at teaching young kids how to count. When I was at school I thought that knowing calculus and the subjunctive in French would give me the keys to the universe, which is a very strange impression for me to have taken from my GCSE education!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 01:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 11:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 12:45 pm (UTC)In all kinds of sciences we get this; non-experts simplifying things in movies/novels to an extent in which it doesn't make sense (And becomes annoying to the people who know). I see it a lot in computers, for one thing; my friend the other way was grumbling about a movie (The Core) that just goes against every bit of science and yet claims to be science fiction (He's a geophysicist).
I totally understand your frustration. :P
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-04 10:39 pm (UTC)Those of my friends who are seriously into the genre get very offended at the abbreviation 'sci-fi'. I don't understand entirely why this is, it's some kind of snobbism that doesn't mean a great deal to me. But I've been yelled at so many times for saying 'sci-fi' that I've dropped the habit.
I totally understand your frustration. :P
Thank you, this is always a nice response to have to a ranty LJ post!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-05 02:18 am (UTC)it's good to be reminded that there are lots of people out there, probably most people, who just aren't as fluffy as me. hmm. that's probably given anyone who doesnt know me (ie everyone except you) a rather odd impression. insert suitable adjective instead. something about being an lame liberal. but it's late and i'm for bed. and you wonder why i usually email you....
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-05 10:27 am (UTC)I'm not sure I would characterize you as fluffy; you are one of the most clear-thinking and sharp liberals I know. But sometimes liberal automatically goes with fluffy, at least in the minds of non-liberals.
And as for no-one knowing you, there are at least three people other than me in this thread who have met you, and
Not of course that you're under any obligation to make friends with any of the cool people that hang around here. If you want to lurk and send me email when you have something to say, that works too; another advantage of the medium is that nobody will find you rude for not interacting much either.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-07 07:17 pm (UTC)i think i _must_ be fluffy. there are probably better words for it, but you know what i mean - i just cant imagine i would ever support anyone being killed in the name of justice, no matter who.
btw it is NOT a false modesty when i say that i think you are unduly influenced by what you remember of me as a young girl. i dont think i've grown up particularly sharp and clear-thinking. really.
i just saw bat's 10 things... list. i want one. can you think of anything cos i cant!