Bush has said already that he will veto any bill supporting stem cell research. He is unwavering in his conviction that throwing the embryos into the trash is a much better course, one that respects the dignity of life, than using the embryo for research that eventually would save millions. In the meantime, stem cells seem already to be able to cure type 1 (infantile) diabetes:

Researchers have demonstrated for the first time that the progression of Type 1 diabetes can be halted — and possibly reversed — by a stem cell transplant that preserves the body’s diminishing ability to make insulin, according to a study published today.

The experimental therapy eliminated the need for insulin injections for months or even years in 14 of 15 patients who were recently diagnosed with the disease. One subject, a 30-year-old male, hasn’t taken insulin since his stem cell transplant more than three years ago, according to the study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

The study suggests a new avenue for treating the intractable disease, in which the immune system destroys insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. Without insulin, patients can’t metabolize sugar and run the risk of developing nerve damage, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure and blindness.

Patients with Type 1 diabetes typically compensate by monitoring their blood sugar levels every few hours and injecting themselves with insulin as many as five times a day.

After the stem cell treatment, “patients are absolutely medication-free — they’re off insulin,” said Dr. Richard Burt, chief of the division of immunotherapy at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago and senior author of the study.

The strategy is similar to an approach that has shown some success in treating other immune system disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and multiple sclerosis.

“We all realize that without addressing the problem at the level of the immune system, we’ll never really beat Type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Francisco Prieto, who treats diabetics in his Elk Grove, Calif. practice and wasn’t involved in the study. “This is very encouraging work.”

Burt and his colleagues cautioned that they don’t yet know whether the fix is permanent and, if it is not, how long it will last. One of the subjects was insulin-free for one year but then relapsed after a respiratory viral infection, said lead author Dr. Julio Voltarelli, associate professor of medicine at Ribeirão Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

The researchers also cautioned that the process is not without risk because patients are vulnerable to infection during part of the therapy. Burt’s research group at Northwestern has performed 170 stem cell transplants to treat a variety of immune system disorders and two patients have died from the treatment.

There’s more at the link.

UPDATE: Thanks to Catherine Morgan’s comment (and her blog—see it for more info):

You’ll recall that in Rumsfeld’s Defense Department there was a plan to set up a military misinformation unit to create and place “news” stories for propaganda purposes. This was ostensibly to be directed only at foreign press, but the uproar was such that the office was either dismantled or renamed. In any event, that chicken is also coming home to roost:

Congressional Democrats later this month will revisit the combat death of pro football player Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch in a hearing intended to hold the Bush administration accountable for misinformation about military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Both high-profile stories tapped Americans’ sense of patriotism early in the war - Tillman’s death as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan in 2004 and the rescue of Pfc. Lynch of West Virginia in Iraq in 2003 - but the initial accounts from the Department of Defense differed substantially from what later facts proved to be the truth.

Tillman, who left the Arizona Cardinals to sign up for the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks, was killed by friendly fire, not enemy fire. And the circumstances of Lynch’s capture and rescue were quite different from the heroic cast hyped for her by the military at the outset.

Lynch is expected to testify April 24 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose chairman is Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. So are Tillman family members, who’ve criticized the administration’s handling of information surrounding his death. Defense Department officials also will be asked to appear.

The committee said in a statement that the hearing will examine “the sources and motivations for the accounts and whether the appropriate administration officials have been held accountable.”

Robert Duval, a political science professor at West Virginia University, said he considers the Tillman and Lynch debacles symptomatic of “the sort of public relations accidents that happen in the fog of war.” At the same time, Duval said, “the administration has been guilty of trying to promote its case on the war through the media, and they have overstepped their bounds on numerous occasions.”

“Part of me wants to describe it as a political fishing expedition,” Duval said of Waxman’s hearing. “But if there is prima facie evidence that the administration had used the Tillman and Jessica Lynch stories to manipulate opinion for the war, then he should pursue it.”

More at the link.

Justice is served. More at the link.

In a landmark settlement reached by Public Justice on behalf of scores of people arrested in 1999 while peacefully protesting the World Trade Organization, the City of Seattle has agreed to seal and expunge the records of what a jury earlier determined to be their unconstitutional arrests by Seattle police.

In addition, the settlement mandates that the City improve police training in order to prevent unconstitutional mass arrests in the future. Finally, the City will pay $1 million to compensate the protesters for the violation of their constitutional rights and the costs of bringing the lawsuit.

Following an 11-day trial in January, a civil court jury found the City liable for violating the protesters’ Fourth Amendment rights. The verdict in Hankin v. City of Seattle and settlement followed seven years of litigation and determined work by the Public Justice legal team.

“It’s a shame when justice is delayed any length of time, especially seven years,” said lead plaintiff Kenneth Hankin, a Boeing fuel systems engineer. “The verdict and this settlement not only vindicate the rights of the people who peacefully and lawfully protested in 1999, but will help ensure that future dissent is treated as intended in a free society.”

The class action lawsuit, filed in 2000, arose from the events of December 1, 1999, when police corralled and arrested approximately 175 people who were peacefully protesting the WTO in downtown Seattle’s Westlake Park. The City had invited and encouraged the WTO to hold its ministerial conference in Seattle. By the time the conference began in late November, tens of thousands of individuals and organizations with a range of concerns from globalization and labor to endangered species and human rights converged on the city to protest WTO policies.

After one day of widespread but largely peaceful protest, Seattle’s mayor declared a swath of the downtown business core off-limits to all but certain citizens in what many observers saw as an exaggerated response to isolated disturbances by some individuals. Although the order did not specifically prohibit protests within the area, city officials and Seattle police called it a “no protest zone.” Hundreds of peaceful protesters were then arrested.

All charges against those arrested in the “zone” were later dropped, but not before many of the demonstrators were held in jail for up to four days — until the WTO conference had ended. No police officers were ever reprimanded or disciplined by the City.

Read the rest of this entry »

I finished The Day Before Midnight, which was excellent. It was set in the Reagan-Gorbochev era, which is when it was written. I started Time to Hunt, but discovered that it also had the character who appears in Point of Impact. A quick look through other of his library books reveal the character in those. So here’s another author whose work is best read in order:

* 1980 The Master Sniper
* 1982 The Second Saladin
* 1985 Target (film novelization)
* 1985 The Spanish Gambit (reissued as Tapestry of Spies)
* 1989 The Day Before Midnight
* 1993 Point of Impact
* 1994 Dirty White Boys
* 1996 Black Light
* 1998 Time to Hunt
* 2000 Hot Springs
* 2001 Pale Horse Coming
* 2003 Havana
* 2007 The 47th Samurai

Good stuff for you thriller fans.

One of my occasional readers will skip any story that calls the Washington Post’s reportage into question. She probably should skip this one:

Ah, we remember it well. The EFPs which COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE IN IRAN. Much like the anthrax which COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN MADE IN IRAQ

Front page NYT story, 2/20/07:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

Except, you know, not.

Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.

Burrrp burrp! Does not compute! Does not compute! Washington Post version of the story, as captured by Google News “1 hour ago.”

That paragraph is now missing from that WaPo version of the story. But you do have this:

The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.

One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants.

Greenwald flashback has more about Michael Gordon

A good thing to have in ready reference for discussion with fundamentalists trying to legislate some variant of the Christian religion in the US (more links at the linked site). Article 11 is worthy of note:

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,JOEL BARLOW.

Kevin Drum explains it well:

Consider a case with the following facts:

The state of Wisconsin is evaluating bids for travel agencies. Under the scoring system used by the evaluation committee, the two top candidates are Adelman and Omega. Adelman scores 1026.6 and Omega scores 1027.3 out of 1200. That’s a difference of .06%. However, Adelman is an in-state company, and one member of the committee, a civil servant named Georgia Thompson, says something along the lines of “our bosses won’t like it if we choose Omega.” Since Adelman is in-state, and also the low bidder, and the scores were essentially tied, why not choose Adelman?

That’s it. That’s all that happened. Now, suppose you’re the U.S. Attorney for Wisconsin and someone brings this case to your attention. What would you do?

1. Sigh, say you’ll look into it, and then get back to your real work.
2. Assign someone to investigate. They report back that Thompson gained nothing from this, so whatever else it may be, it’s not a violation of federal law. Return to your real work.
3. Think to yourself, “Hmmm. Governor Jim Doyle is a Democrat, and he’s up for reelection. If we could manufacture a case making it look like Thompson was trying to pay off one of Doyle’s campaign contributors, that would be pretty sweet.” Then assign a prosecutor to the case and take it to trial.

This being the Bush Justice Department at work, do I have to tell you which one is the right answer? Not only did Steven Biskupic take this absurdly insubstantial case to trial and win a conviction of Thompson for violating federal law, he even persuaded the Republican judge in the case to toss Thompson in jail immediately instead of letting her remain free pending appeal. This is very unusual. (Do you think Scooter Libby will be hauled off to prison immedidately after his sentencing?)

But then another unusual thing happened. A few days ago an appellate court heard the case and was plainly appalled that Thompson had apparently been railroaded by evidence that it called “beyond thin.” The court unanimously overturned Thompson’s conviction within minutes of hearing oral arguments and set her free. This only happens if the court is convinced not merely that the government is unlikely to win the appeal, but that the government literally had no case to begin with.

So why was this case ever brought in the first place? Do you have to ask?

POSTSCRIPT: Watching Those We Chose has been following this case for the past few days. Links here and here provide some background. Audio of the appellate hearing is here. Their latest post is here, with the good news that Thompson will probably be back to her old job within a few days. The post also includes some speculation about just how this case got so far in the first place.

I messed up the Roman numeral in the earlier post (now fixed), and in the tradition of the Bush Administration will take full responsibility and say it wasn’t my fault: sometimes in typing on the Internet a key will echo and provide an unwanted duplicate.

If you are ever stumped by a Roman numeral, try this converter.

The VA Hospital system is a worthwhile model to ponder as we look at the possibility of national healthcare. Those who have actually investigated the VA operation are uniformly impressed. Here’s the latest story, which begins:

Divya Shroff, a staff physician at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Northwest Washington, stops what she’s doing to answer her phone: It’s a doctor down the hall who needs help with a man struggling to breathe.

She calls up the patient’s medical record on the computer at her desk and scrolls through lab reports, doctors’ notes, X-rays and EKGs, thinking out loud with the medical resident, who is at the man’s bedside.

Strep pneumo in the blood. Chest film looks like he’s accumulating fluid. Supposed to get a chest tube. Hard to wake up. No new meds that would be sedating him. Looks like he needs the ICU.

Over the next 10 minutes, Shroff visits the patient’s room and the ICU, and in both places summons his medical record on other computers while she talks with a half-dozen people about what needs to be done. She spends no time looking for the patient’s chart, riffling through paper or decoding handwriting. Nor does she ask anyone to take her word for things. She just lets the evidence — all of it right there for everyone to see — make the case that the patient needs to be moved as soon as possible.

It turns out to be the right decision. Soon after he gets to the ICU, he stops breathing. Doctors resuscitate him and put him on a ventilator.

Did the electronic medical record save this 71-year-old man? It’s impossible to say.

But this much is clear: Never again will a VA patient’s chart be an excuse for things not happening efficiently. Never again will information that is lost, hard to read or impossible to move from one place to another be a factor in the complicated calculus of what makes good medical care — and, on occasion, saves lives.

The electronic medical record is the most important single development helping to usher in the Era of No Excuses in modern medicine. It is an age in which clinical decision-making, physician performance and patient outcomes are increasingly transparent; patient safety is mechanized; and the once-secret medical chart is sometimes open to contributions from the patients themselves.

Electronic medical records make confusing and physically unwieldy masses of data instantly available, portable and searchable — altogether more useful than when the information was stored on paper. Computer-accessible records have the potential to save the cost-strangled American medical system billions of dollars in waste, repetition and error. They may also prove to be essential tools of research, allowing scientists to examine patterns of medical practice, drug use, complication rates and health outcomes.

Since 1999, the VA’s 155 hospitals, 881 clinics, 135 nursing homes and 45 rehabilitation centers have been linked by a universal medical records network. It allows any authorized person to look at 5.3 million patients’ records — everything from a nurse’s note written during a hospital stay, to the result of a blood test drawn at a clinic visit, to the moving-picture film of a coronary angiogram done in a cardiology lab.

Even though President Bush has set a goal of 2014 for when most Americans should have their medical information stored electronically, the Department of Veterans Affairs is today one of the few health systems — and by far the largest — that is virtually paperless.

Glenn Greenwald has a very good exegesis of this situation today.

Alarmist though false claims from the war-seeking Bush administration is what viewers heard mindlessly passed down — continuously and with virtually no dissent — from our nation’s “journalists.” Kamiya is absolutely right that it was “one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media.” And he’s also right that this collapse is so well-documented that it ought to be beyond dispute.

But many — quite possibly most — national journalists disagree with Kamiya (it would be an interesting and valuable exercise to survey them). As a result, nothing has really changed, and is unlikely to change any time soon. The first step to real change is recognition of a real problem, and journalists in general do not believe there is one.

Please read the whole column. And his previous column (also today), which includes:

All of this is precisely why it has been so frustrating to watch our national media scoff dismissively at this scandal. If journalists are not interested in allegations that federal prosecutions are being politically manipulated by the White House and DOJ — with a desire to suppress votes for partisan reasons as one of the motives — then what executive wrongdoing would they ever find worthy of attention?

Like most of our elite opinion-makers, the most important priority for Fred Hiatt [Editor of Washington Post] is to demonstrate his superior insight and sober, excruciatingly restrained judgment. So he writes this Editorial as though these are all new revelations and without acknowledging that he made the exact opposite claims just two weeks ago. But better late than never.

Now it’s the very, very esteemed Fred Hiatt and the Post Editorial Page — rather than merely the loudmouth partisan dirty blogging masses — recognizing that the U.S. attorneys scandal involves accusations of very serious wrongdoing, along with substantial evidence to support those accusations. And even Hiatt now recognizes that Rove and even the President are quite near the center of it all.

The bad news is that it doesn’t do anything. The good news is that, since it’s expensive, it’s good not to have to buy it. From the Harvard Medical School Newsletter:

Q: For several months, I’ve been taking a glucosamine-chondroitin supplement, but I still get painful flare-ups. Do these supplements really work? What else can I do to ease the pain?

A: Until recently, glucosamine supplements (with or without chondroitin sulfate) held great promise as a treatment for the more than 20 million Americans affected by osteoarthritis, a chronic disorder characterized by the breakdown of cartilage in the joints and painful bone-on-bone friction. Both glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are biochemicals that occur naturally in the body and are involved in the growth, repair, and maintenance of cartilage. Early research suggested that these compounds might slow cartilage deterioration and relieve osteoarthritis symptoms, including pain, stiffness, and reduced function. Since habitual use of traditional pain relievers — acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — carries the risk of serious side effects, the public embraced these supplements as a safe long-term option.

Osteoarthritis of the knee

Osteoarthritis is characterized by the breakdown of cartilage, a protective tissue that covers the ends of bones. In the knee, the cartilage covering the condyles (the knobs at the lower end of the thigh bone) degrades, which can result in the femur and tibia rubbing against each other.

Some studies of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate have shown benefits, but these were small and, in some cases, sponsored by groups with a financial interest in the supplements. To settle the question, the National Institutes of Health sponsored the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT), a large, randomized controlled trial of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate supplements in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. The average age of participants was 59, and 64% were women. All had mild to moderate or severe knee pain and x-ray evidence of osteoarthritis. For six months, participants were assigned to groups that variously took glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine and chondroitin together, celecoxib (Celebrex), or a placebo. Symptoms were monitored every four to eight weeks.

Read the rest of this entry »

From the Harvard Medical School Newsletter:

Pain relievers at a glance
	Brand names	Comment
acetaminophen	Tylenol	Not an NSAID; doesn’t cause stomach problems like NSAIDs; common ingredient in headache and cold medicines; large amounts cause liver damage.
NSAIDs
Aspirin	Many brand names	Technically an NSAID, but its anticlotting properties make it unique; alternatives and bleeding risk at high doses means it’s not used as much as a pain reliever now.
diclofenac	Cataflam, Voltaren	Used in drops to reduce swelling after eye surgery. As oral drug, may have highest risk of cardiovascular side effects of older NSAIDs.
ibuprofen	Advil, Motrin, Nuprin	Favored because it acts quickly without staying in the body too long, so per dose it has a lower risk of causing stomach and kidney problems.
indomethacin	Indocin	Available as a suppository — valuable when you have nausea as well as pain; headache and dizziness side effects have made it less popular.
naproxen	Aleve, Naprosyn	Longer acting than ibuprofen; may have fewer cardiovascular side effects than other NSAIDs.
piroxicam	Feldene	Very long acting (24 hours), which doctors concerned with NSAID side effects see as a major drawback.
sulindac	Clinoril	Some findings suggest it’s easier on the kidneys, but others raise doubts.
COX-2 inhibitors
celecoxib	Celebrex	Low doses (200 mg per day or less) may pose less cardiovascular risk than other COX-2 inhibitors.
meloxicam	Mobic	Replaced celecoxib and rofecoxib in some countries (for example, Australia); pharmacologically in a gray area between traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors; less risky than Vioxx; relatively few studies of its risks.
rofecoxib	Vioxx	Pulled off the market in 2004. Associated with kidney and heart risks.

1. Tylenol can cause liver damage. The active ingredient in Tylenol is acetaminophen. Acetaminophen overdoses, half of them unintentional, are now the leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States. Four grams per day (about 12 regular-strength Tylenol tablets) is considered the safe upper limit, but that might be too much for some. Large doses are the main risk, but there are reports of people developing liver problems after taking small to moderate amounts of acetaminophen for long periods of time.

Warning: People who drink alcohol regularly or have a less than healthy liver are more vulnerable to acetaminophen’s toxic effects, so the safety threshold for them is lower. Exactly how much lower is difficult to say, but some experts say that to be on the safe side, heavy drinkers shouldn’t take more than 2 grams daily.

Acetaminophen is an ingredient in many over-the-counter cold and headache medications; for example, Extra Strength Excedrin contains 250 mg. Prescription pain relievers like Percocet and Vicodin also contain acetaminophen. Some people may be taking more of the drug than they realize because of these “hidden sources.”

The danger here needs to be kept in perspective. Millions of Americans take acetaminophen every year, yet the cases of overdoses causing acute liver failure number in the hundreds, and a large percentage of those are suicide attempts. Over all, it’s a remarkably safe drug.

2. If it’s about NSAIDs, it doesn’t apply to acetaminophen. Most of the pain relievers that we’re familiar with, like ibuprofen, naproxen, and some that aren’t so familiar, like diclofenac (Cataflam, Voltaren), are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). As the name implies, they quell pain by quieting inflammation. Acetaminophen, however, is not an NSAID. It is not anti-inflammatory and relieves pain in other ways.

Read the rest of this entry »

We had designed it knowing what we now know about sampling theory and experimental design? Richard Dawkins speculates:

Trial by jury must be one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had. Its devisers can hardly be blamed. They lived before the principles of statistical sampling and experimental design had been worked out. They weren’t scientists. Let me explain using an analogy. And if, at the end, somebody objects to my argument on the grounds that humans aren’t herring gulls, I’ll have failed to get my point across.

Adult herring gulls have a bright yellow bill with a conspicuous red spot near the tip. Their babies peck at the red spot, which induces the parents to regurgitate food for them. Niko Tinbergen, Nobel-Prizewinning zoologist and my old maestro at Oxford, offered naive young chicks a range of cardboard dummy gull heads varying in bill and spot colour, and shape. For each colour, shape or combination, Tinbergen measured the preferences of the baby chicks by counting their pecks in a standard time. The idea was to discover whether naive gull chicks are born with a built-in preference for long yellow things with red spots. If so, this would suggest that genes equip the young birds with detailed prior knowledge of the world in which they are about to hatch – a world in which food comes out of adult herring gull beaks.

Never mind the reason for the research, and never mind the conclusions. Consider, instead, the methods you must use, and the pitfalls you must avoid, if you want to get a correct result in any such experiment. These turn out to be general principles which apply to human juries as strongly as to gull chicks.

Read the rest of this entry »

A sometime blog reader recently sent an email about a very interesting article:

So when Halamka’s laptop running Windows XP interrupted several presentations with inopportune antivirus and application updates, he decided his next big initiative would be to determine which desktop operating system—Windows XP, Apple’s OS X or Linux—is the most secure, most reliable and easiest to use in a corporate environment.

For three months, Halamka ditched his Windows laptop. He replaced it first with a MacBook running OS X. Then he spent a month using a Lenovo ThinkPad X41 running a dual-boot configuration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation and Red Hat Fedora Core. Finally, he took up a Dell D420 subnotebook running Microsoft’s Windows XP. After evaluating all three to determine which worked best for him, he plans to begin testing his preferred setup with users, most of whose desktops currently run Windows.

Halamka judged the three operating systems according to a variety of criteria including their performance, user interfaces and enterprise management capabilities, such as the ability to configure applications, easily organize file systems, and establish granular security control. We followed Halamka’s progress, and now we have his conclusions. We’ve also ask three other experts to take a look at Halamka’s findings and add their own insights.

The guy doing the judging is interesting:

John Halamka has a penchant for experiments with new technologies. In 2004, the now 44-year-old CIO of the Harvard Medical School and CareGroup, which runs the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who is also a practicing emergency room physician, was one of the first people to have an RFID chip containing a link to his medical records implanted in his body (it’s near his right triceps.) Next April, he and Harvard geneticist George Church will become the first humans to have their DNA sequenced and their full genetic makeup posted on the Web.

Read the article.

“You listen to what I say.” That’s it:

President Bush on Tuesday invited Democrats to discuss their standoff over a war-spending bill, but he made clear he would not change his position opposing troop withdrawals. The White House bluntly said the meeting would not be a negotiation.

“It’s time for them to get the job done, so I’m inviting congressional leaders from both parties both political parties to meet with me at the White House next week,” Bush said in a speech to an American Legion audience in Fairfax, Va.

“At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk,” Bush said. “We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground. I’m hopeful we’ll see some results soon from the Congress.”

Democratic leaders said they’re ready to sit down and talk with Bush. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Bush must agree to “take a seat at the table of negotiation, of compromise, of direction change.”

“Iraqi leaders are not willing to take the political risk of governing their own country. That must change,” Reid said. “That’s what Congress is demanding. That is what the American people, by a large majority, demand. And the president should be leading us in that direction, not threatening to veto funding for our troops unless we rubber stamp his flawed plan.”

In essence, Bush invited the Democratic leaders of Congress to come hear the stance he has offered for weeks.

He again accused them of shirking their responsibilities.

“We’re at war,” Bush said. “It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed.”

…Earlier Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino announced Bush’s intention to invite Democrats to talk. Her description immediately raised questions about exactly what the point was.

When a reporter said it sounded like an invitation for Democrats to agree with Bush, Perino said, “Well, hopefully so.”

Bush has promised to veto any bill that calls for timetables to pull troops out of Iraq.

Perino said Democrats could benefit by accepting Bush’s invitation. “Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal,” she said.

Watched Babel. It was somewhat of a chore, though clearly no expense was spared in doing on-location shooting, and the cinematographer showed his chops, along with the composer. Still, I have to admit that—for me—it was tedious and pointless. YMMV.

Slept quite a long time, I suspect because breathing was difficult. As we move more into spring, my Honeywell 17400 air cleaner will swing into action again. Minor allergies lead to swollen nasal passages, and I end up tired after sleep. But technology helps.

Used Musgo Real shaving cream (Italian), along with the Simpsons Key Hole 3 Best Badger brush. Good lather, and the Merkur Classic 1904, which could easily be a favorite razor, whipped through it in no time. Alum  bar and Musgo Real aftershave (naturally). What a pleasant little ritual.

Then I brewed one cup/mug of coffee—running the grinder for 5 seconds produces one coffee measure (= 2 Tbsp) of ground coffee, I find. Groats are simmering, life is good.