NOW REPORTING FROM BALTIMORE. An eclectic, iconoclastic, independent, private, non-commercial blog begun in 2010 in support of the federal Meaningful Use REC initiative, and Health IT and Heathcare improvement more broadly. Moving now toward important broader STEM and societal/ethics topics. Formerly known as "The REC Blog." Best viewed with Safari, FireFox, or Chrome.
NOTES, the Adobe Flash plugin is no longer supported. Comments are moderated, thanks to trolls.
A call for interested, knowledgeable interviewees.
We’re making an NIH-funded podcast on a very important topic! Maybe we want to interview you! Tiffany Doherty
We are creating a podcast about science culture! Specifically, it is a podcast that will be accompanied by educational modules (all NIH funded) addressing how the “culture of science” plays into the “reproducibility crisis”.
We are focusing on the “why” behind the “how”. Meaning rather than focusing on p-hacking/image duplication/fabricated data, we’re focusing on what drives people to p-hack/duplicate images/fabricate data. We want to examine, among other things, the incentive systems put into place by universities, granting agencies, & publishers, and how that contributes to poor research.
A (non-exhaustive) list of things we plan to cover:
How quantity over quality is rewarded in hiring, tenure/promotion, funding, publishing
Media coverage (fame factor and how the media doesn’t report on null results)
Conflicts of interest (professional, ideological, financial)
Poor oversight/mentoring (including how that can trickle down scientific “generations”)
Authority structure
Particularly in terms of those last two: We want to talk to people who have felt pressure from mentors (likely during grad school or postdoc) to conduct inappropriate analyses and/or other data/publication related tasks for the sake of publishing specific and/or significant results. We want to hear from you whether you felt comfortable doing what was asked of you or not, whether you complied or did not. There is no judgement, only the wish to talk about an issue that is difficult to quantify precisely because we do not talk about it. We can take measures to anonymize you if you prefer.
If you have stuff to say about any of the above, we want to hear from you!!! You can e-mail Tiffany at tsdohert@iu.edu or DM her on Twitter @DrTiff_
We’ll likely conduct a pre-interview over the phone (less than 20 minutes) to make sure we’ll have plenty of relevant and interesting things to discuss, and if we all feel like it’s a go, we’ll get you scheduled for an interview. We’ll come to you and work around your schedule. The interview itself would be around an hour, and it’s not live, so we can edit anything. Very low pressure. We want this to be as easy on you as possible.
In addition, if you have further topics related to this angle that you think we should consider, we want to hear about it! And if you know someone who would be awesome but not likely to see this, we want to hear about them, too!
I spoke with Dr. Doherty today to encourage this initiative. All that good science stuff. Been riffing on it a lot of late. "Define 'science,'" "Why trust science?"
I first came to Medicare analytics 26 years ago in 1993, signing on with what was then called the Nevada Peer Review (shortly thereafter re-branded as the HealthInsight Medicare QIO). QIO's, "Quality Improvement Organizations," were mostly state-level non-profits contracted by the then-"HCFA" (Health Care Financing Administration / CMMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). It would be my first of three tenures with them.
The new "QIO's" were intended to evolve past the Peer Reviews' traditional "beat cop" review / sanction function into progressive QI facilitators. The results were a mixed bag.
In addition to my duties as our Novell LAN administrator, I ground up tons of mostly UB-82 statewide hospital encounter quarterly claims data, using SAS and Stata platforms, resulting in periodic summary tabular, graphics, and narrative reports like this one (pdf).
A quarter century later, we're still fussing over stuff like "hospital readmission rates." I'm not sure that the widespread penetration of EHR's and HIE's has made all that much of a difference.
"Who knew health care could be so complicated?" - President Donald Trump
Executive Summary Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army
Current conversations about climate change and its impacts are often rancorous and politically charged. As an organization that is, by law, non-partisan, the Department of Defense (DoD) is precariously unprepared for the national security implications of climate change-induced global security challenges. This study examines the implications of climate change for the United States Army. This includes national security challenges associated with or worsened by climate change, and organizational challenges arising from climate change-related issues in the domestic environment. Given that, the study’s starting point is the implications of climate change for the U.S. Army, and the Army is therefore the focus of the analysis and recommendations. That said, much of the analysis involves DoD and other elements of the government, and most of the Army-specific recommendations have parallels that apply to other military services.
The study itself did not involve original research on the nature or magnitude of climate change. The analysis assumes, based on the preponderance of evidence available, that significant changes in climate have already occurred, likely to worsen in the years ahead. The study did not look to ascribe causation to climate change (man-made or natural), as causation is distinct from effects and not pertinent to the approximately 50-year horizon considered for the study. The study does, however, assume that human behavior can mitigate both the size and consequences of negative impacts that result from climate change…
Conclusion
The implications of significant, global, regional and local change produced by a general warming of the Earth’s climate are far too extensive to be addressed by this study. Therefore, the guiding principle of this study was to explore diverse areas of importance for the Army that are or will be likely affected by climate change and to develop reasonable, useful recommendations in connection with those areas. A larger and perhaps even more urgent lesson from this study is the importance of developing regular administrative and institutional structures and processes that allow the Army and the DoD to detect, evaluate, respond and regularly review the implications of systemic risk relevant to the Army’s missions and preparedness. Large scale threats like cli- mate change and mass migrations are systemic risks, with emergent features not captured by the simple summation of threat-by-threat-by-threat assessments. The Army must find governance mechanisms that generate greater flexibility, without risk of compromise to the integrity of the force, to deal with the various significant stresses on the Army inherent to a warming climate. These stresses are occurring for military and civilian institutions alike against the backdrop of exponential changes in technology, human population, resource consumption, urbanization, sea level rise, etc.
It is useful to remind ourselves regularly of the capacity of human beings to persist in stupid beliefs in the face of significant, contradictory evidence. Mitigation of new large-scale stresses requires a commitment to learning, systematically, about what is happening…
Her new book is the best place evah to safely hide a $100 bill from Donald Trump.
A FEW OTHER RECENT RELEVANT TITLES ON THIS SCIENCE RIFF
I have lots more on "science per se," but this is enough for now.
Prior posts going to this topical thread: Define "expert." Define "evidence." Define "science."
One general pick I continue to have: the word "evidence." In Naomi's new book the word shows up more than 200 times. Not one definition. In The Scientific Attitude you get nearly 500 hits. Not one definition. And so on. We unreflectively assume we're all on the same page. Curious--unhelpfully so, given that so much of legal, scientific, and policy disagreement centers around wrangling over what counts as "evidence," no?
Notwithstanding that pedantic little gripe, I encourage you to buy and carefully read the compelling Why Trust Science?
If ["the Fourth Industrial Revolution"] strikes you as the sort of futurist buzzspeak you’d expect to hear at a rich guy conference or printed on a consultant’s slide deck, well, that’s because it is. The Fourth Industrial Revolution was the title of a 2016 book by Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, and was a theme this year at the group’s annual summit in Davos, Switzerland, which brings together the world’s jet set each winter to hob knob and listen drowsily to panel discussions before hitting very expensive private parties.
Many economists would tell you that we have lived through three industrial revolutions. The first started with the steam engine, the second was brought about by advances like electricity, and the third saw the rise of computing. Schwab says we’re at the start of a fourth, which he describes as “a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.” Think artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, self-driving cars, 3D printing, biotech, cybernetics, and such. At Davos, Schwab wanted attendees to contemplate not just how these new innovations could usher in brilliant new advances for business and humanity, but also the danger that they would lead to greater inequality…
"Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Artificially-intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us and it’s happening at exponential speed.
Previous industrial revolutions liberated humankind from animal power, made mass production possible and brought digital capabilities to billions of people. This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, however, fundamentally different. It is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human."
Naomi is awesome, but sometimes I wish some of these other Serious Futurist Thinkers would get their nomenclatures straight.
In the nineteenth century, steam-powered printing and the telegraph, abundant coal, and locomotives on national rail systems meshed in a common general-purpose technology platform to manage, power, and move society, giving rise to the First Industrial Revolution. In the twentieth century, centralized electricity, the telephone, radio and television, cheap oil, and internal combustion vehicles on national road systems converged to create an infrastructure for the Second Industrial Revolution.
Now, we are in the midst of a Third Industrial Revolution. The digitalized Communication Internet is converging with a digitized Renewable Energy Internet, powered by solar and wind electricity, and a digitized Mobility and Logistics Internet of autonomous electric and fuel-cell vehicles, powered by green energy, atop an Internet of Things (IoT) platform, embedded in the commercial, residential, and industrial building stock, that will transform society and the economy in the twenty-first century. Sensors are being attached to every device, appliance, machine, and contrivance, connecting every “thing” with every human being in a digital neural network that extends across the entire global economy. Already, billions of sensors are attached to resource flows, warehouses, road systems, factory production lines, the electricity transmission grid, offices, homes, stores, and vehicles, continually monitoring their status and performance and feeding Big Data back to the emerging Communication Internet, Renewable Energy Internet, and Mobility and Logistics Internet. By 2030, there could be trillions of sensors connecting the human and natural environment in a global distributed intelligent network.
Connecting everything and everyone via the Internet of Things offers enormous economic benefits. In this expanded digital economy, individuals, families, and enterprises will be able to connect in their homes and workplaces to the IoT and access Big Data flowing across the World Wide Web that affects their supply chains, production and services, and every aspect of their social lives. They can then mine that Big Data with their own analytics and create their own algorithms and apps to increase their aggregate efficiency and productivity, reduce their carbon footprint, and lower the marginal cost of producing, distributing, and consuming goods and services and recycling waste, making their businesses and homes greener and more efficient in an emerging postcarbon global economy. (Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service after fixed costs have been absorbed.)…
Rifkin, Jeremy (2019-09-09T23:58:59). The Green New Deal. St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
"Third?" Fourth?" Whatever.
Yeah, and that thought always takes me back to Frase's "Quadrant IV."
The Trump "Administration" and their entrenched extractive economy status quo incumbent sectors have made absolutely no secret of their belligerent ad hominem opposition to anything they characterize as "socialism." Just in case you've not been paying attention.
“An apparent preference for ignorance is not unique to healthcare. Policies across governments at all levels are put in place without plans to to find out if they work or how to unwind them if they don’t, or how to build on them if they do.” —Aaron Carroll, MD
That quote comes at 05:39 in the video below.
Very nice segment. Kudos.
Ahhh... there's that pesky word "evidence" again. What rationally ("scientifically") counts as "evidence?"
On January 14,2019, the President signed H.R. 4174, theFoundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (pdf) of 2018, which became PublicLaw115-435. The bill passed the House, as amended, on November 15, 2017. The Senate then passed the bill with additional amendments by unanimous consent on December 19, 2018.
(6)Evidence.-The term "evidence" means information produced as a result of statistical activities conducted for a statistical purpose.
There you go, the official federal definition of "evidence" (as it pertains to "policymaking/legislating" anyway). See any potential problems there?
Further down:
(10) Statistical activities.—The term “statistical activities”— (A) means the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of data for the purpose of describing or making estimates concerning the whole, or relevant groups or components within, the economy, society, or the natural environment; and (B) includes the development of methods or resources that support those activities, such as measurement methods, models, statistical classifications, or sampling frames. (11) Statistical agency or unit.— The term “statistical agency or unit” means an agency or organizational unit of the executive branch whose activities are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing, or analysis of information for statistical purposes, as designated by the Director under section 3562. (12) Statistical purpose.—The term “statistical purpose”— (A) means the description, estimation, or analysis of the characteristics of groups, without identifying the individuals or organizations that comprise such groups; and (B) includes the development, implementation, or maintenance of methods, technical or administrative procedures, or information resources that support the purposes described in subparagraph (A)...
All well and good, as far as it goes. Ironic that the utterly anti-science klepto-kakistocrat U.S. President currrently in office signed it into law. Problematic as well, given that he simply, routinely ignores empirical and logical evidence or advice he doesn't like. Doing credible policy science does not come on the cheap. If an administration summarily blows off politically inconvenient research findings, all we do is end up wasting more money.
"Why Trust Science?" author Dr. Naomi Oreskes notes that many people don't disbelieve science per se; they (selectively) reject its frequently disruptive policy implications--i.e., they opt for fallacious inertial "motivated reasoning." As my old IHC healthcare QI mentor Dr. Brent James liked to quip, "the only person who enjoys change is a baby with a wet diaper."
ERRATUM: A CURRENT READ
Speaking of "quant" stuff:
...In this collection, we present some of the mathematical gems from the pages of Scientific American since the turn of the millennium. We start with a collection of articles about some of the most important purely mathematical results of the past few decades, the frontiers of the field. In Section 2, we explore the body mathematic: the way mathematical modeling is helping scientists understand biology. Section 3 is about mathematics in service of physics. The two fields have been closely entwined for millennia, and their coevolution continues today. Section 4 is about the role of mathematics in the way human beings relate to each other: politics, art, and of course trying to keep or steal secrets. Though mathematics has created ever-more-powerful tools for modeling the world and computing with precision, we must also reckon with its limitations. In Section 5, we bring you one article from the deep vaults, a 1956 exploration of Kurt Gödel’s groundbreaking incompleteness theorems. He showed that there are questions mathematics will never answer, no matter what axioms we choose and how deeply we commit ourselves to studying them. Since then, mathematicians have continued to probe the limitations of the discipline, seeking to define the very boundaries of what humans can know. [Kindle Locations 55-64].
My version of a Cliff's Notes refresher, I guess.
OFF-TOPIC: A SAD NOTE
We've now been in Baltimore for 6 months. Elijah's (obviously gerrymandered) district bordered, among otther locations, the east side of York Road, a few blocks from our location in the Homeland District just west of York. I knew he'd been ill, but was not aware just how severely. RIP, Sir. Our condolences to his family and friends.
___
…A key threat to concerted action is climate skepticism, coupled with a drastic shift in the intensity of emotional responses related to climate issues. When challenging a person's position on an issue means challenging a central tenet of their identity, facts can be perceived as attacks and are easily deflected. Klein maintains, however, that enhancing communication and tying climate change to other concerns, including the economy and social justice, will help mitigate these threats.
Amid increasing tension between climate advocates and those disavowing climate change, a shift in values is occurring. Today's activists understand that to change environmental policy requires confronting the values of “rampant greed and individualism” that led to the economic crisis. Social change, Klein contends, begins with radically altering how we relate to each other (and to nature), accepting our collective responsibility to future generations, and respecting the interconnection of all life.
Economic theorist Jeremy Rifkin, whose work has inspired climate legislation in China and in various countries in the European Union (E.U.), is well positioned to advocate for this new political vision. In The Green New Deal, Rifkin confronts skepticism about the feasibility of making a transition of the scale required by countering that we are already making these changes in many global regions. It is time, he argues, for the United States to join the E.U. and China as leaders toward a zero-carbon economy…
Rifkin highlights another potential tipping point, arguing that emerging renewable energies are driving humanity to the “collapse of the fossil fuel civilization.” He cites a 2018 study (2) that concluded that a “carbon bubble”—in which fossil fuel prices will be reduced to compete with renewable prices—would lead to economic and environmental damage if not deflated early. He believes that we can avoid this with rapid decarbonization.
In the second part of the book, Rifkin describes his vision for a Green New Deal in detail, highlighting lessons learned from climate policies in the E.U. and in China…
Founder and president, Foundation on Economic Trends; former advisory board member, EarthSave International; national council member, Farm Animal Reform MovementJeremy Rifkin, the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET), is the intellectual guru of the neo-Luddites, especially as their anti-technology principles apply to food. He is the author of 16 books, most of them littered with errors and false predictions. A professional scaremonger who has been called “the most hated man in science” byTIME magazine, Rifkin nonetheless has a wide following and genuine influence on public policy debates.National Journalmagazine named Rifkin one of the 150 people in the U.S. that have the most influence in shaping federal government policy for his “skillfully manipulated legal and bureaucratic procedures to slow the pace of biotechnology.”
Rifkin’s international campaigns against beef consumption and genetically enhanced crops are motivated by his anti-technology philosophy. Rifkin disparages efficiency, promotes “empathy” with nature, and thinks human beings were better off in less advanced centuries. Always prone to exaggeration, Rifkin wrote in his bookBeyond Beefthat giving up steaks and burgers “is a revolutionary act” that heralds “a new chapter in the unfolding of human consciousness.”
Hmmm... Below, his book tagline:
While I am persuaded of the exigent global anthropocene problem we face, "fossil fuel civilization collapse" nine years from now knocks my bullshit detectors a notch. I'm not sure he has the Sheet to assert that credibly (in fairness, critics could look at myheterodox late-bloomer CV [pdf] and offer up a similar gripe).
Wikipedia:
[Rifkin] was president of the graduating class of 1967 at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Economics at theWharton Schoolof Finance and Commerce. Rifkin was also the recipient of the University of Pennsylvania's General Alumni Association's Award of Merit 1967.He had an epiphany when one day in 1967 he walked past a group of students protesting theVietnam Warand picketing the administration building and was amazed to see, as he recalls, that "my frat friends were beating the living daylights out of them. I got very upset." He organized a freedom-of-speech rally the next day. From then on, Rifkin quickly became an active member of thepeace movement. He attended theFletcher School of Law and DiplomacyatTufts University(MA, International Affairs, 1968) where he continued anti-war activities...
Dunno. Just have some concerns at this point. Mulling buying his book for study and evaluation. Some of the "free preview" stuff is intriguing.
Rifkin on YouTube:
UPDATE: GENETIC SCIENCE, MEET POLICY "SCIENCE"
Opening on Netflix today. Trailer below.
The documentary series UNNATURAL SELECTION explores new developments in the science of gene-editing that defy evolution and raise moral, social and environmental impact questions about where we, as a society, draw the line.
I'm now a Netflix subscriber. I will watch all of this ASAP. Wonder what Mr. Rifkin would have to say about this topic. From STATnews:
Mankind’s ability to edit the fabric of human life has led to scientific upheaval, global debate, and at least one international incident. Now, it’s coming to Netflix.
“Unnatural Selection,” a four-part docuseries debuting Friday, dissects the stories, science, and ethics behind genome editing, following academics, biohackers, and patients as they move through a brave new world made possible by technologies like CRISPR…
"Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does [sic] the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change..."
What the hell is "Prager University?" Something about the name rang a bell..."Prager...?
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective.
Stay tuned. I have brief bit of SMH/MEGO history with this Dennis Prager guy.
From Google search:
Prager Universityis not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.
Sorta like "Trump University?" I don't know about California, but in New York, Trump came to expensively learn that you can't market a jive grifter op non-university as a "university." (But, I will certainly inquire about it with CA authorities.)
Lawyers for Prager University, a nonprofit headed by radio host Dennis Prager that produces conservative videos, appeared before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday to argue that Google violated the company's right to free speech by restricting a portion of its content on YouTube. PragerU's argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the protections provided by the First Amendment and an effort to expand those protections beyond their original scope...
Lordy, mercy.
Backstory on Me and Mr. "DP." Quite a number of years back when I was living in Las Vegas I was listening to his wingnut screed A.M. radio show one day (I do this stuff episodically to keep up). He made some egregiously asinine assertion burr that got under my saddle, so I looked up his website and emailed him my reaction (I've long since forgotten the topic). It was not defamatory or scatological, but it was otherwise unequivocal and to the point.
He responded by derisively reading my email aloud on his show, replete with my full name, location, and exact email address. "Doxxed" me, in the parlance.
I henceforth referred to him in emails and on social media as "Denise." Yeah, I know; not my finest moments either.
Whatever.
Kids are now terrified of dying from climate change — and it's a myth being pushed by adults.
LOL, spend some time rooting around the PragerU.com website. Scroll down to the bottom of the homepage. You find this:
2.5 BILLION "views" and counting? Right.
Oh, and just beneath that:
PRAGER UNIVERSITY IS NOT AN ACCREDITED ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND DOES NOT OFFER CERTIFICATIONS OR DIPLOMAS. BUT IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE FREE TO LEARN.
Video view counts represent the accumulative views from both YouTube and Facebook
Is this a great country or what? I love the "free" thing. PragerU is a hustle, pure and simple.
Continuing my coverage of Dr. Naomi Oreskes' new book.
I was on my way to the pet store yesterday to pick up a new collar for Ranger. Naomi Oreskes was on NPR'sScience Friday discussing her new book and her forceful, eloquent defense of science broadly.
Despite widely reportedattacks on science, the vast majority ofAmericans continue to trust scientists, according to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center. Many listeners of Science Friday might take it as a given that we should trust science, but is that trust well-founded? Naomi Oreskes, history of science professor at Harvard University, argues that we should. In hernew book,Why Trust Science?, she explains how science works and what makes it trustworthy. (Hint: it’s not thescientific method.)
A geologist turned historian of science, Naomi Oreskes is the world’s preeminent chronicler of climate denial and disinformation, primarily thanks to 2010’sMerchants of Doubt, which she co-wrote with Erik Conway. A couple of years later, they collaborated on a work of climate fiction,The Collapse of Western Civilization, and the following year, Oreskes wrote the introduction to the American edition of Pope Francis’s climate encyclical. Her new book,Why Trust Science?,draws on the Tanner lectures she delivered at Princeton University, and was inspired, she says, by all the people who came up to her after lectures to ask how it was she knew whatever it was she was claiming to know. We spoke in early September about how much consensus it takes before we can take action on something like climate change, why people can’t properly process the science we do know, and whether we need to give up on GDP growth to properly address climate change...
Let me return you to the September Science Magazine review that alerted me to the book (it's not paywalled). Excellent brief Kirkus Review here as well.
Also, her recent talk at the London School of Economics.
My only pick with this video is that she wasn't wearing a lapel mic, so the handful of times she wandered from the lectern, some of her talk was unclear.
Note my permanent upper right-hand links column links.
I am also a member of AAAS and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Links lower down in that column as well.
Of particular revelance to this topic thread, the Aines' work on "Championing Science."
We're gonna need a concerted effort to bring the Oreskes message to the non- college educated lay demographic--knowing full well there will be entrenched unreflective Deniers among them. We don't need to get 'em all onboard. Think tipping point net consensus margin.
