I’m on my way to New Orleans for the annual meeting of the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). It’s my first time attending this meeting and my first trip to a scientific conference in probably more than a year (even if it’s the fourth conference in about six weeks). I’ll be co-presenting with a colleague from the EPA on “Perspectives of Human Health and Wildlife Systems That Color Strategies for Integrating Humans with the Remainder of the Social-Ecological Landscape.” The session is devoted to decision making that integrates social and ecological knowledge. Our work stems from a project begun two years ago when we began wondering how knowledge about emerging contaminants might be worked into the decision-making process in an environmental-policy setting. This presentation offers us our first opportunity to think about the project, what we’ve done so far, and where we might go from here. Continue Reading »

Many, along with Francis Collins, director of the NIH, suggest that we’ll be seeing $1,000 genomes within the next five years. In such a world, how do we plan for this future?

The AAAS, at their meeting on personalized medicine at the end of last month, clearly aimed to address this question. On the agenda were talks about comparative effectiveness research (CER), biomarkers and clinical care, and health IT and personalized medicine. Continue Reading »

Bisphenol A (BPA) is dangerous to human health.  

Or is it? This is the question that circles through debates as an increasing number of people (scientists and non-scientists alike) discuss chemical effects. What exactly is in the air and in our water supplies? Are harmful chemical mixtures present in our products, or aren’t they? BPA has been largely publicized as an example, though these days few are arguing the absence of the chemical in consumer products. Instead, the argument focuses mainly on exposure levels. I read a New York Times op-ed about BPA levels discovered in canned food, such as particular brands of soup and juice. In addition, another recent article points to BPA traces found in products specifically labeled “BPA-free.”  Continue Reading »

While watching the World Series a few weeks ago, I noticed a few players—notably New York Yankees’ pitchers A. J. Burnett and Joba Chamberlain and Philadelphia Phillies players Cliff Lee and Ryan Howard—wearing bulky, metallic necklaces. With a bit of research I found that these are titanium necklaces made by Phiten, who claims the products “work with your body’s energy system, helping to regulate and balance the flow of energy throughout your body.” There is no explanation as to exactly how titanium necklaces may do that or why regulating and balancing the flow of energy may help your shoulder pain. In fact there is little science behind this claim, despite the vague “science-speak” press about the titanium products; a number of physicians and scientists have countered the claim by noting that the only effect taking place with these necklaces is the placebo effect. Continue Reading »

Recently the Internet has lit up with these delightful videos of Carl Sagan auto-tuned into song. While this is a lighthearted Web site dedicated to using music to teach science, it did get me thinking about the state of science on television in America. Statistically Americans are watching more television than ever. According to Nielsen the average American watches over 153 hours of television a month. That’s over 6 whole days spent in front of the television, and that figure doesn’t even include any programming watched online. We have more channels than ever before, including several dedicated specifically to science, yet I can’t think of a single program to rival Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, which premiered almost 20 years ago and is still the most widely watched PBS special in the world. Both Bill Nye and Mr. Wizard are off the air, and if you turn on the Discovery Channel, you’re more likely to see loggers or fishermen than academics. So my question is, where are all the scientists?

Continue Reading »

The European Commission recently published a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). It identifies the six most important technologies required to meet climate-change and energy-supply goals, providing detailed road maps with specific targets for the year 2020 and more general outlines for 2050. Importantly, it also links to their regulatory plan and positions at the upcoming major climate-change conference. A couple of quotes from Commission’s Communication, which accompanied the report, are insightful. ”Markets and energy companies acting on their own are unlikely to be able to deliver the needed technological breakthroughs within a sufficiently short time span to meet the EU’s energy and climate policy goals.” That is, you can’t depend on markets alone when time is important. Locked-in investments and vested interests lead to slow change. Also, “[the plan] sets our vision of a Europe with world leadership in a diverse portfolio of clean, efficient and low-carbon energy technologies.” The EU positions the investments as an opportunity, not a burden. Continue Reading »