An Ethics Vote for Shawn Carlson

Editor,

I was absolutely astounded and flabbergasted by the letters sent to Shawn by the student requesting "help" with his science fair project (Forrest M. Mims III, Shawn Carlson on Scientific Ethics, The Citizen Scientist, 23 December2005). Shawn's answers were clear and to the point, but apparently not comprehended by this person.

With regard to the letter writers teachers, sadly, I can say I have had a similar experience with one of my child's teachers, who encouraged him to "fill up the notebook" with fake observations and data. My discussion with the teacher had no noticeable effect, as the teacher pointed out that since the students were not doing "real" research, accurate data did not matter!

When I think back to my own elementary, junior high and high school projects, I realize what supportive, honest teachers I had. My high school biology teacher had a greater role in developing my scientific ethics than many of my college professors, and after 30 years plus out of high school, I still keep in touch with this teacher, and share my joys, sorrows and successes with him.

What has gone so deeply wrong ??

Dr. Wayne Wilson
SAS member

Another Vote for Shawn

Editor,

Cheers for Shawn and his e-responses to the student who requested his help for a Science Fair project. (TCS, 23 December 2005.)

If the student's teacher actually suggested the student fake data, school authorities (if possible) should be made aware of the situation. At the very least, that teacher should be put on an unpaid leave of absence and some letter of condemnation placed in his/her personnel file.

Or, am I being too unrealistic in today's culture? Is our scientific society becoming morally fogbound too? Have we no anchors to which to cling for moral guidance? Is society in general so accustomed to lying, and being lied to, that such matters as data fabrication seem inconsequential, not only to the rising generation but to their elders as well?

Richard Haynes

Shawn Carlson on a Higher Standard

Forrest,

Regarding your editorial about the student who asked me to use fake data in a science project data, it is important for SAS members and others to know that teaching ethics is a foundational part of LABRats. If they don't get it in school any longer, they are surely going to get it from us.

I think that we're in deep trouble as a country. The last generation of teachers were taught ethics in schools, but many of them abandoned the teaching of ethics when then became instructors, because the fashion of the day (60's - 80's) was that moral lessons should be taught in the home, and school education should be value neutral. The problem is that in the home, lots of folks are quite dishonest when they interact with each other. A parent decides they don't want their child to have something, so they get rid of it and make up a story to cover the truth because they don't want to upset the child. The problem is, if this is the only grounding family members get in ethics, they will apply the same standard to all other things in their life, including scientific inquiry. We didn't get the data we wanted so we make something up to satisfy the science fair judges.

Children need to learn that there is a higher standard that leads to a rewarding future. If they don't learn it in the home or in the school, just where are they going to learn it?

Shawn Carlson
Executive Director of SAS and LABRats

Support for Bird Flu-Solar Ultraviolet Hypothesis

Editor,

I want to congratulate and encourage you for your ideas re. UV-B blockage contributing to atmospheric spread of the Avian influenza virus (Forrest M. Mims III, Does Sunlight Regulate Avian Influenza (Bird Flu)?, The Citizen Scientist, 23 December 2005). Having just finished John M. Barry's "The Great Influenza," his story of the 1918 'flu pandemic (in which I lost a great-aunt), I'm more than ever aware that such a pandemic can easily occur once again.

Ideas and data such as yours need to be taken most seriously by everyone involved in environmental and public health and by the "top" science journals as well. It would be much more than unfortunate if the world suffers such an outbreak again, due in part by lack of attention by those who should now be alert and active.

Best regards,

Richard Haynes

More Support for Bird Flu-Solar Ultraviolet Hypothesis

Editor

I have long thought (speculated) that the reason we have so many more colds, flu etc. in the winter is because of the reduction of sunlight (UV) and its prophylactic effect during this part of the year. Conventional explanations basically say that we have more colds because we spend more time indoors and are therefore exposed to more people. No doubt being indoors adds to our vulnerability to airborne diseases, but I suspect that a decrease in sunlight has a much greater impact. I think that you have added scientific credibility to this hypothesis.

Johan Benson

Kudos for The Citizen Scientist

Editor,

Kudos for a super magazine. More needs to be done in this country about science unless we want to outsource our research to China. Maybe Wal-Mart will start selling inexpensive patents.

Alfred Kausel

Can Citizen Scientists do Science and will Scientists Listen?

Editor,

In the article "Citizen Science Comes of Age"  you say that Shawn and George Musser have different opinions on the ability for citizen scientists to contribute to research. I suspect that both are right because they have different definitions on what it is to contribute.

It is one thing to gather data and make it available or help a scientist with field work. It is quite another to come up with some original research and generate something that either pushes the limits of our knowledge or fills in a hole.  This is the really hard part. You have to either stumble upon an idea, study the subject to find the limits of knowledge or be told by someone who knows the limits or holes.

I continue to be impressed by you and your daughter's ability to come with such ideas. But I really do think that amateurs like that are rare.

I also expect that getting the attention of professional scientists is a big problem, and I have mentioned some of the following in the past. I really had my eyes opened to the attitudes of some professional scientists when I went on an Earthwatch expedition to help some scientists study the after effects on plant life of the Mount St. Helens eruption.

One of the things that we were doing was setting up seed traps to find out what airborne seeds were available to start growing in the barren areas. The seed traps consisted of a wood frame supporting a piece of cheesecloth. The cheesecloth was coated with a mixture of grease and gasoline. The volunteers had to coat the cheese cloth and set up the frames in the collection areas. They had surgical rubber gloves to protect your their hands from the grease and gasoline while applying the mixture to the cloth. The gloves would turn to goo after only a few minutes of work, so I suggested that they use some neoprene gloves as neoprene is resistant to gasoline.

The scientists immediately asked me how I knew neoprene was resistant to gasoline. The question was asked in a manner that implied that I needed to supply some academic credentials to support my claim or they would not believe me. This question dumbfounded me for a bit, and I finally replied that I was an engineer.  The next time we went to town I bought some neoprene gloves so we could apply the grease in relative safety. I then suggested they use STP oil treatment instead of the grease gasoline mixture as it would be safer and more effective than the grease. I even bought a can of STP and demonstrated its stickiness. The scientists never took up my suggestion for the STP, probably because it would have messed up their data with way more seeds trapped on the STP-coated traps.

So anyway here were some scientists who were using volunteer amateurs for help and would not accept suggestion from the amateurs.

Jim Hannon

David Glass Suggests that Ricin Killed the Bulgarian Diplomat

While reading Richard Haynes's article "The Blister Beetle and Cantharidin" in the 23 December 2005 issue of The Citizen Scientist, I noted that he mentioned the "Bulgarian Diplomat" incident, and attributed it to Cantharidin poisoning. However, most sources attribute the source of this poisoning to ricin, another biologically derived poison. One such reference is here (although Wikipedia almost certainly isn't the most authoritative reference):

David W. Glass

Richard Haynes replies below. I agree with you about Wikipedia, which should be used with caution. Editor.

Richard Haynes Replies to David Glass

Editor,

Mr. David Glass raises a very good point and one I debated with myself while writing the article.

The “Bulgarian Diplomat” case we both refer to was the highly publicized 1970s assassination of Georgi Ivanov Markov, novelist, playwright and a vocal Bulgarian expatriate and dissident. Markov, a harsh critic of the Communist Bulgarian regime, settled in England and became a BBC and Radio Free Europe journalist. Because he had a large radio audience in Bulgaria, he received several warnings and threats from the Bulgarian government to stop his critical comments of its leaders. However, he continued and, thus, was marked for removal. On 11 September 1978 he was stuck in the leg by an umbrella-wielding man at a bus stop near Waterloo Bridge in London . He died in agony 3 days later. Blood poisoning and kidney failure were first diagnosed. At the autopsy, however, a tiny metal sphere was found in his leg. This was sent to Porton Down (England 's Chemical and Micro-biological Warfare Center) where it was examined. In it were two extremely tiny holes, now empty, that were thought to have contained some biological toxin.

Having no substance to analyze, investigators at the Center immediately suspected catharidin to be the lethal agent because of the unusual manner and symptoms of Mr. Markov's gruesome death. Earlier, in August 1978, a similar but unsuccessful assassination attempt had been made in Paris on Bulgarian dissident Vladimir Kostov, who received a pellet in his back. When it was removed, the pellet was found to contain the biological toxin ricin (derived from the castor bean plant). Because of similarities in the modus operandi, Scotland Yard investigators concluded that ricin had been the agent of Mr. Markov's death. Later, a Coroner's jury brought in the same verdict.

Because (1) my original source stated that a cantharidin pill was found, (2) no toxin analysis was ever possible for Mr. Markov, (3) because Soviet KGB and Bulgarian State Security agents were known to have experimented with several deadly “natural” toxins, including cantharidin, ricin and even snake venoms, and (4) because of the described death symptoms, especially the kidney failure, I chose to stick with cantharidin as the cause of death. Ricin could fit the bill as well.

I should have said “How done-it” instead of “Who done- it.”

Richard Haynes

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.