20 April 2008

Exploratory research is fabulous.

Knowledge gained through experiment is magnificent.

Expertise qua excellence is brilliant.

The problem arises when one study is conducted and based upon that, the end all, be all, final word of what has been studied is declared in the name of 'research expertise'. There is expertise and then there is nascence - and never should the two ever be confused. Unfortunately, our 'experts' are taking too many liberties in declaring their incipient research the final product.

Forget reckless, this is lethal.

I have stated this before but it is worth reiterating again:

Seldom are we given second chances. When it comes to potential risk of life, one chance is all we have. The sacrifice is too precious in the name of declaratory pride and unqualified expertise.

Cases in point:

1) In a struggle between public relations and complete scientific objectivity surrounding the impending use of the Large Hadron Collider this summer at the European Center for Nuclear Research outside of Geneva, 'experts' argue there is "too much hype and not enough candor on the part of scientists about the promises and perils" of their planned LHC experiments (Dennis Overbye, "Gauging a Collider's Odds of Creating a Black Hole," The New York Times, 15 April 2008). According to Nobel Peace Prize winning nuclear physicist Francesco Calogero, there is a "tendency among his colleagues to promulgate a 'leave it to the experts' attitude" in which they " 'seem to be more concerned with the public relations impact of what they...say and write, than in making sure that the facts are presented with complete scientific objectivity.' "

2) Along the same lines of the stark unknown is the case of WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) speculated to be the "hypothetical elemantary particles left over from the Big Bang" that are also supposedly "immune to most forces of nature and so can pass through us and the Earth like ghosts" (Dennis Overbye, "Physicists Renew Claim, in New Experiment, of Detecting Dark Matter Particles," The New York Times, 17 April 2008). Surrounding this issue of WIMPs and DAMA, there are many camps arguing conflicting findings and conclusions - altogether signifying they are all still nothing more than absolutely clueless.

3) In the space of a single article, The New York Times reporter Kenneth Chang exposes how the same experiment is yielding opposite results. Rather than tests of global warming, a team of scientists concentrated on the effects of ocean acidification on coral reefs, and found that ocean acidification resulting in carbonic acid destroys coral skeletons and its critical coccolithosphores ("single-cell, carbonate-encased algae that area major link in the ocean food chain") while a second team concluded the exact opposite - that the coccolithosphores actually grow bigger from the carbonic acid - and have been growing at a rate of 40% over the past 220 years (Kenneth Chang, "Study Sees an Advantage for Algae Species in Changing Oceans," The New York Times, 18 April 2008).

The reason for the discrepancy?

Apparently, the first team did not take into consideration the twin effects of calcification and photosynthesis, as the second team did. The second experiment was tested to emulate more closely real ocean conditions.

The conclusion to be deduced from this?

Think people, think because our dedicated 'thinkers' are certainly failing to do so.

The 'scientists' - our 'experts' - are still clueless. They have no right to presume the penultimate authoritative voice of expertise when they are still in their nascent stages of research and experimentation - and are still honing their experimental methodologies.

4) In a recent report on VBLOC therapy (vagal blocking for weight loss), Stanford researchers are participating in this national study in which "a device inserted just beneath the skin emits electronic impulses that confuse signals sent on the vagal nerves from the brain to the stomach" (Erin Allday, "Stanford in study on new weight-loss therapy," San Francisco Chronicle, 16 April 2008). According to the Stanford lead researcher Dr. John Morton, " 'It starts in the brain, and works down to the stomach.' "

Ahem, attention to the phrase: "confuse signals sent on the vagal nerves from the brain..." - how about brain damage? nerve damage?

Confusing - euphemism for damaging - signals?!?

How about the long-term damage here? Excuse me, possible long-term confusion?

Think people, think.

You only have one life, one body, one chance...messing with the brain, the nerves, what's next?

The fear, the dread, the horror...