In a recent PEW report, scientists rank roughly equal to doctors (those are “real” doctors) and slightly less than teachers in the public’s eye.  In other words, if the public had a giant T-Mobile cell phone their fave-5 would be Military>Teachers>Scientists>Doctors>Engineers.  This is a good thing, I suppose, but I still don’t think we’ll be getting discounts on cars or preferred air travel.

On the other hand, 85% of scientists think the public is full of retards and 50% feel as thought the public has unrealistic expectations of what scientists can do.  I quoth:

While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

Then there is a section for bellyaching on the lack of funding…

If you follow down that long list of questions two things popped out at me:

87% of scientists believe in natural selection compared to 32% of the general public.  I’m concerned about that number.  87%? 1 out of 10 scientists think God did some magic shit?  hmmm… That’s a fucking shame.  I’d accept 95%, just because people are weird and there’s nothing you can do about that but 87% seems awfully low.  While I can dismiss the public as being horribly educated (thanks teachers – who are more loved than us!) and thus more likely to reject something that has been horribly explained to them, I have a hard time doing the same for quote-end-quote scientists.  Coincidentally, roughly the same number (84%) think the earth is getting warmer due to man’s involvement.    At the very least, we can all agree 84% is a consensus, since, apparently, 13% of “scientists” haven’t yet discovered the first chapter of a biology textbook.

Then, at the very bottom, the partisan breakdown occurs with an astoundingly low 6% calling themselves Republican (so shut up Bill Carroll) with a slightly higher number (9%) calling themselves conservative. (I think they’re mostly engineers.)

The US supreme court ruled a few weeks ago that the chemists that perform tests in forensic analysis are not immune from cross examination by defense attorneys.  It’s not surprising that the American judicial system did not inherently allow for this, since it’s a very biased and fucked up system.  With this tool in the briefs of attorneys, it sets up a very real and very likely chance that a number of methods used in forensic science, as conducted in the state crime labs, will not hold up to scrutiny.  Not because they’re necessarily invalid (though, we shall see about that), but because they’ve not been done with the appropriate controls – an argument mentioned in the majority arguments by Scalia:

He cited one report, for example, that said “there is wide variabiility [sic] across forensic science disciplines with regard to techniques, methodologies, reliability, types and numbers of potential errors, research, general acceptability, and published material.”

Putting the chemist or lab technician on the stand to be tested by cross-examination, the majority said, will help “weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.

While this is a good thing for people who are accused of crimes they didn’t actually commit, it provides a way for a young, naive lawyer to get unfortunately schooled in a cross examination.  Without knowing the fundamental questions one should ask (and know before you ask) this could be a strategic blunder, making the forensic evidence look all the more compelling.

So, then, what should a young lawyer who suddenly learned they have this new power look for?  Frankly, I don’t know – but I can say there are somethings they should be aware of:

TLC (thin layer chromatography) is not a quantitative method because commercially obtained plates do not contain a consistent density and quality of silica, which means any TLC results are suspect without a co-spot.  Even so, co spotting can be misleading, unless you’re using the correct visualization method, to make sure you don’t have any overlapping spots.  In effect – I’d thing TLC evidence would be the easiest to toss out and make fun of as a method to corroborate a story.  It may be good enough to test purity for a rough guess, but it’s not accepted in the journals as proof – because it’s not.

MS  (mass spectrometry) can be misleading since calibration of the instrument must be done correctly.  Any competent technician will give the method of calibration.  I would guess that state labs use old equipment and they very would could be passing off aberrant noise as a peak of some sort.

Actually, I have to assume most of the stuff they’re doing is done on really old equipment – though that in itself isn’t reason to suspect the results.  Questions regarding the validation of that equipment, however, is appropriate.  Most scientific instrumentation loses some degree of precision as it ages, rendering it less accurate at the extremes of its detection ranges.  External companies are often used (and are usually necessary) to validate the instruments to some specification (I assume NIST standards) and provide proof of that validation.  Equipment that lacks this validation may not necessarily provide reliable evidence.  If a case could result in a very long incarceration of someone who may be innocent, the calibration – even in a reasonable range of detection, should be a concern.

GMP protocols probably will provide a better guide than I could.  I assume if it’s a standard by which drugs are made, it should be a standard by which evidence is measured….

As new details emerge in the fatal UCLA lab fire that killed Sheri Sangji, a research assistant in Patrick Harran’s lab, it becomes more evident that UCLA is a dysfunctional department in an environment where the burden of responsibility is placed upon everyone and everything other than that of the university or the department.  The slow decline of UCLA and recent high profile departures suggest a department of infighting and low morale.  From the LA Times:

In electronic missives to university colleagues, Harran complained that UCLA had all but hung him out to dry in the press. In one e-mail, he said that reports in two chemical industry publications “read like an indictment, without having the facts.”

In another, he took issue with a UCLA investigator’s report, which was detailed in a March 1 story in The Times. The report, citing previous lab deficiencies that had gone unfixed, made it “sound like I deliberately did not adhere to policy” and was part of a “culture of neglect,” he wrote.

According to the same article a similar, though non-lethal, incident occurred at the school not but a few weeks ago.

While I pick on UCLA (rightly so) the issue is far more systematic and, as anyone who has gone through graduate school knows, safety training is almost non existent.  I rarely see lab coats on in my own lab, though it’s hypothetically required.  I generally never wore a lab coat until I got an asskickity one as a gift from my boss for making a website for him.  If custom lab coats get people to wear them, then that’s what schools should offer!

I contacted my senator about this issue.  I’ve had good relations with his office and am a strong supporter, but he was unreceptive to the idea.  If you could, for just a moment, pull your cell phone out and call these senators and reference the LA Times article above about the need for universities, who receive federal research grants for science, to provide comprehensive training to all laboratory workers.  You may well do something to help prevent this shit from happening again.  Indeed, maybe even to yourself:

The first time you contact an “almighty” senator, you will likely hear the voice of one of his or her staff members. This is quite fine, they’ll dutifully report to the senator any grievances you have so long as they aren’t too grandpa Simpson.

For tips, you would start like you were calling an insurance office asking for information. Introduce yourself, tell them what you do and how you are relevant and then, quite politely, say something like:

I’m not sure if you’re aware of the recent laboratory fire that killed a 23 year old UCLA lab assistant, but having gone/been/are in graduate school I can attest that the safety measures that surrounded this death are all too common. I feel as though because these schools all receive federal funding, it should be within the purview of the senate to require, as a condition of receiving federal funding, to provide life saving training to students and employees. You can read the latest in a recent LA Times article…

Hutchison’s people will likely ponder if that’s really within the purview of the feds and wonder if it’s even worth considering (such is the stalwart nature of Republicans). I would anticipate little to no static from any of the other Democratic senators. You will likely not hear back, but you will still be heard, I assure you. I have spoken with the offices of my senators many times.

NOW DO IT! Or I’ll give you swine flu.

UPDATE:  Answer this poll question!

 Loading ...