Settled Science

Science is the means by which we attempt to understand our universe. It is attractive to think in terms of black and white “settled” science, where grand truths are discovered and understood and embraced, unchanging forever. But reality is always a bit more complex, and a bit more messy, than we know.

For instance, we are often told that “the skin absorbs vitamin D through direct sunlight.” This conjures up a vision of swarms of vitamin D particles emanating from the sun which are then absorbed into our skin upon impact.

In reality, the sun emanates nothing but photons, some of which in the UVB wavelength (270-300 nm) interact with cholesterol molecules in the skin to create vitamin D. A more thorough understanding reveals that we must both synthesize cholesterol in the body and be exposed to unfiltered ultraviolet B sunlight (with no sunscreen or glass to block it) in order to manufacture vitamin D.

Scientific reality is always more complicated than the common understanding. And settled science is often found to be resting on quicksand. Here are a few examples:

• For centuries, the geocentric model of the universe was believed to be settled science and was tightly embraced by the Catholic Church. According to this theory, the Earth is the center of the universe and all other objects (the Sun, other planets, and stars) revolve around it. The theory had no serious challenge until 1534 when Copernicus published his hypothesis that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. But it was not until 1610 that Galileo Galilei used the newly invented optical telescope to prove the theory. (Galileo was convicted by the Roman Inquisition for his trouble and spent the rest of his life under house arrest).

• More contemporarily, the British medical journal Lancet recently retracted a 1998 study that had associated certain vaccines with autism. Many concerned parents and consumer groups waged a 10-year campaign against vaccines based on this study, but aren't expected to be mollified that it was found invalid.

• Functional MRI brain scans had become wildly popular among neuroscientists as a means to relate human emotions to physical areas of the brain. Many experiments were performed to determine which parts of the brain were involved with pain, love, joy, and other emotions. That was until a recent study that duplicated the results... with a salmon. A dead salmon. So much settled science out the window.

• The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was recently forced to retract its Nobel Prize winning claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It was determined that the “science” behind that claim was a magazine article written by an advocacy group.

These are only a few of many cases of settled science becoming very unsettled. It seems that we, the poor, ignorant general public, should believe with reservation, keep an open mind, and maintain a healthy skepticism of things scientific. Especially when they are wrapped in an aura of religious fervor.

Foundering on the Shoals of Massachusetts

It is difficult to overstate the significance of Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election of January 19th. He will take a U.S. Senate seat that has been continuously held by Democrats since John F. Kennedy defeated Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. in November of 1952. If Martha Coakley had won that seat, it would have shortly been eligible to retire and collect Social Security.

It has been extremely entertaining this past week watching liberal politicians and pundits struggle to explain their catastrophe. The voters were sexist. No, they were racist. And angry, or maybe fearful, but certainly stupid. What a flattering view the Democrats have of the electorate.

Perhaps it wasn’t the voters, but the candidate, who only portrayed himself as a political outsider. His 30-plus years of Army National Guard service was a red herring that did not truly inform his insight on terrorism. His semi-nude modeling, in 1982 while a college student, was a clear disqualifier of which the voters were clearly (and stupidly) unconcerned.

OK, maybe not the candidate, but the competition. Coakley ran a weak campaign. If she had not won the primary, a stronger candidate (e.g., Representative Michael Capuano) would have assuredly prevailed against Brown.

Democrats consumed a post-election poll sponsored by Moveon.org and concluded that the election was a stinging repudiation of George W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of the Obama agenda. So, not a catastrophe at all, they convinced themselves, but a sign that they had not hewn far enough to the left, and the voters had simply voiced their disapproval thereof.

Barack Obama took that message to heart and, in his interminable State of the Union address, reaffirmed his focus on growing government, taking over the health care system, imposing a massive energy tax, and picked very public fights with Wall Street and the Supreme Court – all intended, of course, to stimulate the creation of private sector jobs.

It is as if the ship of state, with Admiral Obama at the helm, is clawing off a lee shore, rife with crippling shoals and dangerous rocks. The wind and seas are brutal, and suddenly a flare ascends from this Massachusetts shoreline. It is Scott Brown, crying “Tack to starboard, tack now! You are in terrible danger of foundering!” But Obama, in his willful hubris, instead tacks to port.

We can only hope that the November elections will send a clear, unambiguous, unmistakable message that we must take that starboard tack – and that it happens before our hull is pierced and torn. That would be the true catastrophe.


On a Lee Shore
Winslow Homer – 1900
(Note – this image is in the public domain as the creator has been deceased for over 70 years)

Why are Republicans working to make us less safe?

Our local political columnist, spurred by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s quasi-successful Christmas day terrorist attack on Northwest flight 253, relates how Republicans are working hard to make us less safe. “(Democrats)… point out that Republicans have blocked the appointment of the head of the Transportation Security Administration and fought against funding for screening machines at airports.” This theme is reverberating throughout the fever swamps of partisan liberal blogs (Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, etc.).

It is true that Republicans are opposed to the confirmation of Obama’s choice for TSA director, Erroll Southers. This is because Mr. Southers may not continue the current prohibition of TSA collective bargaining. Republicans fear that if TSA employees were to “work to rule”, we would be less able to respond quickly to changing terrorist tactics, hence making us less safe. Republican concern of this eventuality is warranted. On October 20, 2008, candidate Obama wrote to John Gage, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, with the following commitment: “If I am elected President, I will work to ensure that TSOs (Transportation Security Officers) have collective bargaining rights…” This, coupled with Mr. Southers' refusal to answer the collective bargaining question has raised alarms.

The charge that Republicans “fought against funding for screening machines” is misleading and borders on prevarication. How many Republicans -- all of them? A majority? Why are they fighting screening machines? The questions raised here beg for answers, but you will never see them in the liberal blogs or media.

The 110th congress passed H.R.1, “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007(1)” by a bi-partisan majority on July 27, 2007. A majority of Republican senators (36) voted for the bill, and a small minority (8), against. The bill consists of 183 sections, only one of which relates to airport screening machines (section 1601). The Republicans who voted against the bill did not object to section 1601, but that the overall bill allocated funds based on political calculus (e.g., pork) rather than risk. They also did not feel that the mandate to inspect 100% of incoming ship cargo was feasible, and that it would disrupt the then-present practice of inspecting high-risk cargo, thereby making us less safe.

Now, you may well disagree with the Republicans’ reasoning. But is it possible that, in their best judgment, they are trying to make us more safe, not less so?

(1) This bill was known in the Senate version as Improving America's Security Act of 2007.

Crime and punishment (or lack thereof)

On August 22, 2009, James Zupkofska, 45, a corrections officer in Norfolk County, was struck and killed while jogging. Proximate cause of death? The rather odd Massachusetts practice of criminalizing behavior without actually inconveniencing citizens with enforcement.

Case in point – “Lawmakers’ bills target drunken, reckless drivers,” Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 9/28/09 – in which new laws are described that “increase fines and criminal penalties for motorists who violate the right of way,” resulting in the injury or death of pedestrians or bicyclists.

It is odd that, when there is a problem with speeding, the response is to lower the speed limit. If they keep exceeding 30 mph, then let’s make it 25. Then 20. How about 12 ½? Boy, that sure slowed ‘em down! All it cost was to change the signs.

Or when littering becomes a problem, just increase fines to $1,000, then $5,000! Yes, the streets are much cleaner now.

The disconnect here is that Massachusetts politicians (state and local) just don’t get the relationship between crime and deterrence. Here, serious traffic charges are rarely levied unless an accident has occurred – after the fact and much too late. You can criminalize until the cows come home, but unless there is a cost to be paid for bad behavior, that behavior won’t change.

Instead of posturing and passing feel-good legislation, here’s a recipe for truly making a difference. Let’s fund state and local police departments to actually stop and ticket motorists for bad behavior – such as weaving, tailgating, and red-light running, prior to an accident.

That might have actually kept Mr. Zupkofska alive.

A reflection on 9/11

Block Island, RI - Southeast Lighthouse

Located in the greater Boston metroplex, our local newspaper elected not to feature 9/11 on 9/11, in spite of Boston being the locus of two of the 9/11 flights (American 11 and United 175).

Some front page recognition of 9/11 was clearly called for. It is fresh in our memory – I witnessed the second aircraft (United flight 175) strike the South Tower on live TV – inducing a sick feeling in my stomach that I will never forget. Later coverage chronicled the dreadful sight of people jumping to their demise rather than burn to death, their bodies making terrible thumps as they struck canopies, cars, and other objects on the ground. This is seared into my memory. 

My own journey home from San Francisco, delayed for six days because of the shutdown of the entire American air transit system, pales in comparison to those of the victims. A senior vice president of my firm, David Beamer, drove nearly non-stop across the entire country in two days to join and comfort his family following the death of his son, Todd, on United flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Todd, of “let’s roll!” fame. And David, his father, of calm comfort to his colleagues and family. Such courage.

The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people. And the manner in which they died is more horrifying than the deaths of those who perished in the only other significant attack on American territory – Pearl Harbor. Yes, indeed, 9/11 must be remembered for many, many years to come. 

Because of the local Boston impact, there are many in my community who are suffering life-long trauma. I have many times departed from or arrived at Logan airport gate B32 since the event, and have always paused to whisper a prayer for all of those lost souls. 

On nearby Block Island, Rhode Island, there are two memorials to 9/11 victims. On the grounds of the Southeast Lighthouse near Mohegan Bluffs is a granite bench seat engraved with the name of Catherine Carmen Gorayeb, a much-loved daughter, friend, and mother, who had the unfortunate audacity to report to work at the World Trade Centers on a crisp, blue, beautiful Tuesday morning. And at the North Lighthouse, more memorial 9/11 benches, one engraved "To the memory of those who perished on September 11, 2001. We will never forget." Indeed. Those Rhode Island out-islanders take 9/11 seriously. 

My newspaper suggested that it couldn’t find a fresh story line. Here’s one for them… in spite of the import of 9/11, the current administration has banned the use of the term “war on terror,” and President Obama was unable to attend the ceremony in New York City this year (although he was able to journey twice to the same city in the following week for speeches and meetings).

There's your story.

Cause for optimism

There has been an abundance of pessimism lately; some might say a surfeit. An insightful article in the 9/19/09 Wall Street journal (“From Bear to Bull,” James Grant) argues that the coming recovery will arrive much sooner and be much more robust than the current economic consensus.

Grant does not claim to be prescient, but based on data from the past 120 years, observes that the deeper the down cycle, the quicker and steeper the recovery. He also notes that there are many variables at work, none the least from government intrusion, so the precise timing and form of the recovery cannot be known. Then how best to position and prepare for the upturn? Grant quotes Henry Singleton, former CEO of Teledyne: “…we’re subjected to a tremendous number of outside influences and the vast majority of them cannot be predicted. So my idea is to stay flexible.”

Having a well defined, thoroughly understood set of goals and objectives is the critical success factor, be it for individual investors or corporations. When opportunities instantaneously arise which are congruent with your objectives, you must immediately embrace them. For the corporation, that means empowering the members of the organization to do so, from engineering to accounting to sales.

All this is reminiscent of Maneuver Warfare, wildly successful and deeply embraced by the United States Marine Corps. Maneuver warfare posits that in the chaotic ebb and flow of battle, you must recognize opportunities and capitalize on them more quickly than the enemy. To outthink them is much more important than to outgun them. One way to understand this is in terms of USAF Colonel John Boyd who proposed the OODA loop – Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.. The OODA loop determines the time it takes an individual or entity to respond to an event, and to the quicker goes the spoils.

One consequence of this is that rigid bureaucratic organizations tend to be much slower in processing OODA loops than organizations having distributed intelligence and authority. Hence the Marine Corps concept of the “Strategic Corporal,” in which a fire team or squad leader, cognizant of his commanders' intent, can instantaneously exploit openings or weaknesses displayed by the enemy, and do so in support of the command's objectives.

For corporations, this implies that smaller, more agile firms with empowered employees stand to be more successful in the coming chaotic recovery. Large, ponderous firms, or worse, government entities, are almost guaranteed to lag behind. For individual investors, it will pay to search out those agile firms.

Risky Business

Chilling. After all we’ve been through (and it’s not over yet), a well-known mortgage originator on a Boston-area talk radio station is shilling such: “Low credit? No credit? No problem! We can get you an FHA loan! No income verification!”

Imagine the black sheep in your family. Nice guy. He’s family, so you love him. But you’d never lend him a buck that you expected repaid – he’s not the responsible type. Everyone knows someone like that. Would you give him a $300,000 mortgage with no income verification? No? Well, Uncle Sam will.

Thank you Barney. The mindset that foreclosure risk should be underwritten by the taxpayers is a staple of liberal, progressive philosophy. It got us where we are, and it’s difficult to believe that we haven’t yet learned our lesson.