The other big bang?

The theory about space rocks wiping out Ice Age species just got another boost: It turns out the first human inhabitants may have also been hit. Rare "nano-sized diamonds" that form under extremely hot fires are evidence that space rocks hit the North American continent about 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately, some pygmy mammoth (a smaller version of the woolly mammoth) and a group called the Clovis people happened to be in the line of fire. The galactic slam, plus "overhunting and climate change," created what one researcher called a "perfect storm" that wiped out the Ice Age population. The findings swelled searches on Yahoo! for the prehistoric "clovis people," so named because of artifacts first found in Clovis, New Mexico. For more on the mastodon hunters and the first Americans, check out this 2007 LiveScience article.

A sad but true story (sorry, Lilly) about the state of our nation. How can we lead the world when we don't have a clue how it works? jg

Survey Shows Gap Between Scientists and the Public

By CORNELIA DEAN, of the New York Times

When it comes to climate change, the teaching of evolution and the state of the nation’s research enterprise, there is a large gap between what scientists think and the views of ordinary Americans, a new survey has found.

On the whole, scientists believe American research leads the world. But only 17 percent of the public agrees, and the proportion who name scientific advances as among the United States’ most important achievements has fallen to 27 percent from nearly 50 percent in 1999, the survey found.

And while almost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming, general public is far less sure.

Almost a third of ordinary Americans say human beings have existed in their current form since the beginning of time, a view held by only 2 percent of the scientists. Only about half of the public agrees that people are behind climate change, and 11 percent does not believe there is any warming at all.

According to the survey, about a third of Americans think there is lively scientific debate on both topics; in fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and there is little doubt that human activity is altering the chemistry of the atmosphere in ways that threaten global climate.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific organization, involved about 2,000 members of the public and 2,500 scientists drawn from the rolls of the science advancement association, which includes teachers, administrators and others involved in science as well as researchers.

The survey, made public Thursday, is available at people-press.org.

It found that at least two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers in high regard, but the feeling is hardly mutual.

The report said 85 percent of science association members surveyed said public ignorance of science was a major problem. And by large margins they deride as only “fair” or “poor” the coverage of science by newspapers and television.

Only 3 percent of the scientists said they “often” spoke to reporters.

In a telephone news conference announcing the survey, Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the science association, said scientists must find new ways to engage with the public.

“One cannot just exhort ‘we all agree you should agree with us,’ ” Mr. Leshner said. “It’s a much more interactive process that’s involved. It’s time consuming and can be tedious. But it’s very important.”

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media

For the full report (.pdf), click here

For the Topline Questionnaire, click here

From The Onion

Pet Owner Not Bothering To Neuter Loser Cat

CORAL SPRINGS, FL—Mike Oakland, 29, told reporters Monday he is not about to pay $100 to have his 5-month-old cat, Mowgli, neutered, because he has no expectations that the dull, paunchy tabby will ever get laid.

Mowgli

"For all he's going to use those balls, he might as well keep them," said Oakland, adding that he'd bet anyone any amount of money that the striped kitten will die a virgin. "He never leaves the house, and I've seen how the neighbor cat looks at him. Completely platonic." When reached for comment, a spokesperson from the Florida Humane Society reiterated that it's important to have all pets spayed or neutered, even ugly lame-o's who probably couldn't score in a roomful of calicos in heat.

by Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish

When Palin Quoted Cronkite

She did, of course, remove the context:

Playboy: Implicit in the Administration's attempts to force the networks to "balance" the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

Cronkite: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

Playboy: What's the distinction between those two terms?

Cronkite: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

Final rules out for government stem cell research

By LAURAN NEERGAARD – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government issued final rules Monday expanding taxpayer-funded research using embryonic stem cells, easing scientists' fears that some of the oldest batches might not qualify and promising a master list of all that do.

President Barack Obama lifted previous restrictions on the field in March, but left it to the National Institutes of Health to decide just what stem cell research was ethically appropriate: Only science that uses cells culled from leftover fertility clinic embryos — ones that otherwise would be thrown away — the agency made clear in draft guidelines.

But the final rules issued Monday settle a big question: Would new ethics requirements disqualify many of the stem cells created over the past decade, even the few funded under the Bush administration's tight limits?

The NIH came up with a compromise, saying it deems those old stem cell lines eligible for government research dollars if scientists can prove they met the spirit of the new ethics standards. Further, NIH will create a registry of qualified stem cells so scientists don't have to second-guess if they're applying to use the right ones.

"We think this is a reasonable compromise to achieve the president's goal of both advancing science while maintaining rigorous ethical standards," acting NIH Director Raynard Kington said Monday. "We believe that judgment is necessary."

He wouldn't speculate on how many old stem cells ultimately would qualify, but scientists welcomed the change.

"I expect that most existing lines will be found to have been ethically derived," said Dr. Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan Center for Stem Cell Biology. "This will eventually make hundreds of new stem cell lines available for use."

The issue: Trying to harness embryonic stem cells — master cells that can morph into any cell of the body — to one day create better treatments, maybe even cures, for ailments ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's to spinal cord injury.

Culling those stem cells destroys a days-old embryo, something many strongly oppose on moral grounds. Once created, those cells can propagate indefinitely in lab dishes.

The Bush administration had limited taxpayer-funded research to a small number of stem cell batches, or lines, already in existence as of August 2001. This spring, Obama lifted that restriction, potentially widening the field — there now may be as many as 700 stem cell lines around the world — but letting NIH set its boundaries.

Federal law forbids using taxpayer money to create or destroy an embryo. At issue here are rules for working with cells that initially were created using private money.

NIH sifted through 49,000 comments from the public in finalizing the rules, which take effect Tuesday. The draft changed little: Stem cells created solely for research in whatever manner, including cloning, won't qualify.

Any newly made stem cells must come with documentation that the woman or couple who donated the original embryo gave full informed consent. For example, they must have been told of other options for leftover embryos, such as donating to another infertile woman, and the donation must have been voluntary.

That kind of documentation may not exist for stem cell lines created years ago, Kington said, but "some and perhaps many of those lines might be eligible" on a case-by-case evaluation.

From the awesome Bad Astronomy Blog

Arizona is 6000 years old?

Ian O’Neill at Astroengine posted this stunning bit of video featuring Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen.

It’s not that she says the Earth is 6000 years old — twice, just to make sure — that floors me. It’s the casual way she said it, as if she said "I had a cup of coffee today." From her manner, it’s clear that not only does she believe this complete and utter nonsense, but this is a simple fact woven into her mind just like the Sun is bright or chocolate is tasty.

To her, the Earth being 6000 years old just is.

Now, to be fair, this video is without context, and so we can’t be absolutely sure she’s a creationist. But it sure as heck sounds that way, and given her voting record it fits right in.

The irony, of course — and there’s always irony when creationism is involved — is that she’s talking about uranium mining, and it’s through the radioactive decay of uranium that we know the Earth is billions of years old. And she also praises technological achievements!

AIIIIiiiiieeee!

So while you soak that up I leave you, of course, with this: