Freedom and limits

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, January 13, 2010

Maybe gay marriages are, as stated by that arbiter of morals, catholic bishop Onésimo Cepeda, "a stupidity" (Milenio Diario, December 23). But if it is so, it's a stupidity homosexuals, as any other citizen, have a right to commit.

And maybe, as stated by journalist Carlos Marín (Milenio Diario, January 8), this guy Esteban Arce "has the right to express his homophobia"… but to do so in public, as main host to a popular TV show and "leader of opinion" (this shows the current sad cultural level of the average Mexican TV watcher) is wrong, because it violates other people's rights.

Yes, free speech (from which free press is derived) is vital in every true democracy. But it's not more important than other rights. It has, necessarily, limits: teaching people how to commit suicide or to make Molotov bombs, or to promote the use of drugs, violence, killing black people… or to discriminate is not allowed. If a TV host's expressed the opinion that blacks or indians are inferior, he or she would commit the same mistake and would deserve to be criticized. First of all, because it's false, but also because it's discriminatory.

Esteban Arce misinforms his audience: he expresses as true opinions contrary to current scientific knowledge, which shows that homosexual behavior is natural (it is clearly shown by Luis González de Alba in his column from last Sunday; Milenio Diario, January 10), and "normal", in the sense that it is not "sick", and that children raised by same-sex couples are also normal (i.e. not. "sick").

Why should we prefer criteria based on scientific knowledge to criteria based on religious dogma? Among other things, because they are verifiable, and have been verified: they work. Besides, they can be corrected if errors are found, in sharp contrast to the church's "truths". That's why the Mexican Constitution (third article) makes it mandatory that education be based "in the results of scientific progress", and demands that teaching be kept "completely separated from any religious doctrine".

What is sought is not to give "privileges" to certain minorities, but to guarantee that all and every citizen has the same rights. And for good reasons. The church can tear its garments on it, but religious freedom also has its limits (also, for good reasons, in this case historical ones): it cannot interfere in politics, since the Constitution prohibits it (article 130). The government obligation is to secure the rights of everyone, and to maintain the required separation of church and state. People will need to keep a watchful eye to make sure this happens.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Science and politics

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, december 23, 2009

Unlike the simplified models of theory, reality is a complex tangle, a web whose conforming elements are connected to one another in complex and multiple ways.

Science is the discipline that helps understand such connections. It produces models that, even though ideal, are reliable, and therefore help us to make appropriate decisions. Politics, on the other hand, is the art of taking advantage of these connections, or building the ones that are lacking, to make that things happen in a society ("the art of the possible", chancellor von Bismarck is said to have called it).

Scientific knowledge is often the impulse and basis for constructing political action. But it is not enough: political ability is needed to make the web strong enough.

Sometimes this can be achieved, sometimes not. In Copenhagen it was not, even though there is solid scientific data and consensus about what to do. The forces opposing the agreement -the economical costs of reconverting the industries of powerful countries; the unavoidable political costs linked to them– prevented it from happening.

On the other hand, in Mexico city, political ability, supported on modern knowledge about human beings and their sexuality, allowed homosexual marriage to be approved, and without the unfair lock –and implicit homophobic argument– that did not allow adoption!

But science and politics are processes: they never stop. Sooner or later, the policies necessary to fight climate change will have to be agreed upon. Unless, of course, we discover something new: an unexpected piece of good news that would also have to be based in science.

In matters of human, sexual and reproductive rights, the advances, though slow, are not stopping. Autopsies were prohibited, by religious reasons, for centuries, until the Renaissance. Blacks and women, considered as inferiors, could not vote until the middle of last century. In vitro fertilisation caused a hot debate, also because of religious prejudice; the fact that the expression "test-tube baby" sounds obsolete nowadays is proof that societies advance and assimilate changes that are beneficial for them.

Until recently, homosexuality was legally punished. Today, the full equality of couples, sexual orientation notwhitstanding, is recognized in the law. In the near future, other items are pending: the right to abortion, euthanasia, research with stem cells. And furthermore, a proposal for "animal rights" for the great apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimps).

In a secular state, decisions must be based in reliable knowledge, and taken to widen, not to suppress, the rights of everybody. Science helps politics build new links so that the necessary changes in the complex social web can be built and sustained. Congratulations…! and Merry Christmas.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Abortion and fallacies

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, december 2nd, 2009

The decriminalization of abortion (or its penalization, in this poor country that, as it takes a step forward, always takes another backwards) is not a scientific issue, but a social and political one.

And also an ethical problem, of course… just like all social and political issues. But unlike what happened in the middle ages, when it was believed that the only valid ethical criteria were those dictated by religion, today, in the 21^st century, we have scientific knowledge as a very important guide to norm the decisions we take as a society.

That's why fallacies such as "life begins at conception" cannot be allowed to pass for arguments when used by political parties, such as PRI, PAN, even PRD, and of course, the catholic hierarchy, have been doing in Mexico, in order to approve laws that will limit women's right to decide over their body, thus violating their human rights.

To refute this is so easy that its embarrassing: life does not begin at conception, because the sperm and ovum, the cells whose union gives origin to the zygote or fertilized egg (which is presented by these people as "potentially" human), are already alive before conception. If we take life as an absolute value, we should consider night ejaculations and menstruation as instances of assassination… "potentially".

A nice try to avoid this objection is to define that which starts with fertilization as human life. Again, false: sperm and ovule are as human as a zygote. The one thing that characterizes a zygote or an embryo as "human" during its first developmental stages is its genetic information… which is also present in the cells that give origin to it. (And even so, if the church wanted to argue that the essence of the human being reduces to its genes, they'd be getting into a conceptual mess worse than the one they started with!.)

A human being does not suddenly appear: it develops. Before the 12th week, it does not have a nerve system that can support functions such as perception and consciousness, without which we cannot speak of a "person". (For the same reason, someone with irreversible brain damage is not considered "alive" anymore, although its heart and lungs may be still functioning.)

As stated yesterday by Roberto Blancarte in Milenio Diario, what the religious hierarchy is achieving, with the complicity of political parties, is to "confessionalize politics, weaken secular State, and introduce catholic norms in legislation and public policies". It is evident: the criminalization of abortion is unjust and dishonest. Science and human rights give us enough arguments to oppose it. Otherwise, the price will still be paid by our women, and our society as a whole.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Climategate!

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, november 9th, 2009

The scandal was very well timed: one month before the United Nations climate change conference took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, some hackers, probably Russian, broke into the servers of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, in England. They extracted one thousand e-mail messages and two thousand assorted documents, that were then published over the internet.

The objective? To "prove" that climate change experts manipulate data, hide information, ridicule and insult their adversaries –climate change denialists that oppose the fact that global warming is real, or consider it as natural phenomenon, not caused by human activity– and prevent them from publishing their arguments.

And it's true: some documents seem to show evidence of these kind of manipulations. The issue is being investigated to determine if there has been bad scientific practice. If it's confirmed, it will be punished. Also, published data is being verified, to ensure it's reliable.

But it's very probable that we're dealing with a discredit campaign to weaken the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations, the scientific community and the governments which, right now, are discussing in Copenhagen the urgency of taking measures to diminish the greenhouse effect emissions to attenuate, as much as possible, the damage global warming is already causing.

Sadly, for people who are not specialists, the exhibition of the dirty laundry of scientists in action can be scandalous. In contrast with the pure and untainted –but false- image of science as an infallible method to discover absolute truths, to see researchers as human beings, who commit mistakes and have envies and political interests is a good way to challenge the results of their investigations. But they forget that the reliability of such results it is not given by the personality of individual scientific people, but by a very hard to manipulate collective, international and public quality control process.

It is easy to discredit something by inventing conspiracy theories and exhibiting isolated and out-of-context data. But, independently of the very high economical and political costs of modifying our industry, to play the fool before climate change is an inadmissible risk.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Scientific intolerance

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, november 4th, 2009

A month ago I criticized the fraud commited by people who promise to cure to almost any disease by using a machine called SCIO (against, of course, of a good amount of cash).

As always when pseudoscience and charlatans are attacked, I received some congratulatory e-mails, and some other (not many, luckily) that accused me of being dogmatic, intolerant and of disqualifying "other" forms or rationality "that deserve the same respect as the scientific worldview".

It's common to accuse science, and the people who practice it, promote it or communicate it, of being intolerant. But we must remember that science seeks only to study nature, in order to produce reliable knowledge that allows us to understand it and maybe predict it. When referring to the intolerance of science, normally what is questioned is its refusal to recognize practices such as astrology, the study of paranormal phenomena, miracle therapies based on principles "that go beyond science" or conspiracy theories, as scientific.

This exclusion is due in part to the fact that the methods of these disciplines ar not rigorous enough, or their data do not look reliable (in case they are not straightforward fakery). Sometimes, what is not acceptable are their study objects, since science studies only natural phenomena, not supernatural ones.

In science, for a statement to be accepted, it has to go through a complex process of peer review that involves the verification of data and methods, and the discussion of results. The reasons why scientists accept a affirmation have to do with its logical coherence, its plausibility within the existent scientific frame of knowledge, the reproducibility of experiments in which its based, and other reasons (among which some dose of politics and ideology are not excluded).

However, nothing makes a scientist happier than to discover that something that was known turns out to be incorrect. To find mistakes and inconsistencies in scientific theories forces researchers to find even better explanations. This is the force that pushes science forward.

But, for the process to work, it has to be subject to a highly rigorous quality control. The first duty of a scientist is not to delude himself. Science has an unavoidable commitment with reality. If, sometimes this sounds like intolerance, that's not a problem of the scientific method, but of the disciplines that try to pass as scientific... when they are not.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Inmegen: ¿good or bad news?

By Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, September 9th, 2009

On August 26 mexican newspaper MILENIO Diario reported that the Federal budget for 2010 will feature a 47% cut to the National Institute of Genomic Medicine (Inmegen). 120 million pesos less (from 252 in 2009 to 132 in 2010).

The natural reaction would be anger, sadness or resignation in view of another example of the lack or value our government assigns to scientific research. Inmegen would be an isolated step in the right direction, and this cut is a worrying symptom against which we should protest. This is what Gerardo Jiménez, the Institute's head, did when he declared that the decision "puts several projects of scientific research related to the study of chronic and degenerative diseases at risk".

But there's another side of the coin. Inmegen has been questioned from several fronts. The most serious one is about corruption in the construction of their building, started in 2006 and today still unfinished and abandoned. Several damages to the Federal Treasure were identified, worth 33 million pesos, as well as overexpenses for 78 million (111 million in total). Its administrative director was fined with almost 3 million and incapacitated for 10 years by the recently disappeared Public Function Ministry (the architect responsible of the building was also incapacitated, for 15 years).

And the science being done at Inmegen also has its own problems. Their relatively modest study of "the Mexican genome" was artificially blown up to turn it, according to Mexican president Felipe Calderón, into "our entrance into XXI century medicine". The still distant benefits of genomic medicine have been exaggerated wildly. Its capacity for sequencing (reading) genomes, under-used during the influenza epidemic, has now been exceeded by the National University (UNAM), which –even with its ever-present limitations and its budget problems– has just inaugurated superior installations. And its reductionist approach, patent in talk of "Mexican" or "sonoran" (from the mexican state of Sonora) genomes, is biologically and even ethically questionable.

The traditional image of Mexicans is one of lazyness: a guy with a big "sombrero" and a sarape sleeping against a cactus. I think our real problem is one of perseverance: when necessary, we are able to start taking actions to solve our problems.

But sadly, we do not follow up. We build the road but don't give it maintenance. We created a Federal Elections Institute, but we didn't protect it so it wouldn't fall apart and loose all credibility. We created the Inmegen, but we don't guarantee it an appropriate building, personnel nor budget, and we don't ensure that budget is spent honestly.

What a waste.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe her

Scientific pyramids

by Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, March 18, 2009

In view of Bernard Madoff's financial fraud scandal (not really a "pyramid", because it did'nt have levels; it was a "Ponzi scheme", since Maddoff was in direct contact with all his victims) one could ask wheter similar cases happen in science.

In his classic book The demon haunted world, astronomer and science writer Carl Sagan explains that "science requires the free interchange of ideas; its values are opposed to secrecy."

Values that, he adds, that it shares with democracy.

Such a system is necessarily based on trust. And where there's trust, there can be fraud. Last Thursday, in this same space, mi friend Horacio Salazar talked about how a single dishonest scientist can place at risk a whole area of science (in this case, algiology, the study of pain, where it was discovered that at least 21 research articles by Scott Reuben, a renowned  anesthesiologist, contained fake data).

Although science has some quality control mechanisms, such as the peer review process all articles undergo before being published, it's impossible to check every minute detail. And since the evaluation and salary system for researchers demands as many articles as possible ("publish o perish"), the temptation —and the opportunity— for frauds is always at hand.

On the same Thursday, scholar Wietse de Vries, from Puebla's Autonomous University reflects in Milenio Campus supplement about the similarity between the "academic publication industry", based on trust, with a Ponzi scheme (named after Charles Ponzi, the Italian immigrant that discovered how easy it was make frauds thanks to the trust of his fellow citizens and the rules of the financial system, which allows people to get rich not with money, but with the promise of money, as explained by Carlos Mota also on Thursday on Milenio.

Researchers, de Vries explains, write articles which are evaluated by their colleagues (and vice versa); then these colleagues quote, in their own articles, the articles they've reviewed. The system rewards publications and quotes: the more there are, the more benefit for everyone involved.

I'm not sure whether de Vries's analogy is well founded, but it wouldn't do any harm for scientists to  review —they're already doing it— their evaluation and fraud control systems.

(Figure: taken from PhD Comics, Jorge Cham's great comic strip about graduate student life)

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!