If I wonder how much we’ve failed in science and math education, the current flu season and the challenges of the H1N1 (swine) flu virus has made it clear once again. I’m astounded by the reports (and even what I personally hear) of the number of people who say they won’t get a flu shot for themselves or their children due to concerns about the vaccine.

Hundreds of millions of people get the flu each year and on average 36,000 die in the US each year from flu related causes as reported by the CDC. Yet people fall prey way too often to believing internet legends or talk show ranting about the dangers of the flu vaccine or linkages with other childhood problems.

I did some quick checking at sources I’d encourage others to use such as the Center for Disease Control’s website or www.flu.gov to check some of the facts using the best knowledge scientists and health professionals have gathered from around the world.

What we have in too short a supply is an understanding of the scientific process, basic math of probability, and the difference between correlation and cause and effect. We don’t have a population that is fully equipped to make smart and health choices about their lives—putting them and the rest of us at higher risk.
One report of a death after a vaccination (cause or correlation?) or talk show discussions about autism and vaccine preservatives (proven or conjecture?) seem to be enough for some people to outweigh extreme efforts at safety and the evidence of safety and decide vaccinations are bad. (And it’s not just the flu vaccination at issue).

Life has risks. We can’t stop them but we can play the odds, but only if people understand and act on the odds.

Linking a story of a possible bad reaction with the prediction it will happen to you or your child seems to in too many people’s minds to be a better given than the study of millions of doses of a virus and those remote dangers that can be scientifically associated. Plus people don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation (an observed linkage in change between two activities) and cause and effect (a proven cause of one result by the first one taking place).

I still remember this difference being highlighted in one of my early research classes. Did you know there is a strong correlation between ice cream sales and crime? They both increase significantly in the summer.
Does eating ice cream drive more people to commit crimes? Of course not! There are many factors around summer–longer daylight hours, warmer weather and people outside more just for example which contribute to the increase in both behaviors. That’s correlation—not cause and effect. Just observing that two actions (flu shot and some medical issue) occurred in close timing doesn’t prove that one caused the other. Yet I hear people citing some odd occurrence they’ve heard of to justify their decision to forego vaccination.

People also don’t seem to understand probability. Are you more likely to contract the flu or suffer a perceived (not proven) side effect? Do you have a greater chance of death from the flu (remember that 36,000 normal year death rate) or some unproven side effect of the vaccine?

Our society has more and more information upon which to base intelligent decisions about our personal health, the health of our children, and even the health of our environment and planet. Yet we don’t seem to be equipped as a society to make judgments that fully reflect what we actually know and have the greatest evidence to support. It is extremely frustrating.

We have discussed at COSI and at national and international levels among science centers worldwide about how do we play a greater role to help people to make reasoned personal decisions based on the best knowledge of the time.

What can we do at COSI that we are not doing to help this situation? I’m open to ideas as we look at our role connecting our community to the real issues and the real science related to those issues so we can all lead healthy lives and create a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

Cleveland Heighs High

This last weekend was my 40th reunion. I left Cleveland at 17 years of age and essentially didn’t look back or stay in touch with classmates (any of the 1100 in my graduating class!). I had ventured back for our 10th reunion but had a less than satisfying experience so hadn’t bothered with any others.

Something drew me to the 40th and I went, but with some trepidation. At the 10th it seemed like the old high school dynamics were still in play—the popular football players and cheerleaders clustered together, the “in group” hanging out together since among them were the class officers who had arranged the reunion, and then the rest of us in one identified subset or another.

I “floated” to some degree during high school—a successful athlete on the one hand (but face it, track and cross-country prowess don’t necessarily excite the general populace) but also a “pocket protector carrying geek”. Never fully integrating into one group and alternately feeling more comfortable as a “science geek” or an athlete.

The 40th was so different. Many of the “jocks” had grown too old, bald, and heavy to sustain their “heart throb” status. And some of the stars of the class that everyone at the 40th were referencing were the “geeks” who had gone on to start biotech companies, pioneer arterial replacement strategies, develop and move forward wind generation and solar photovoltaic approaches, and even win a MacArthur “Genuis” Fellowship award for energy conservation strategies and national standards.

Yes, the “geeks” were actually among the most noted classmates, the “cliques” had faded away, and I didn’t feel like I had to apologize for my old pocket protector anymore.

So why couldn’t we have been that way 40 years ago and more when we were in school?

How do we change that culture which still seems engrained in schools?

It has become an annual event now for us to host with WOSU and OSU the partnership effort that brings a panel discussion of the intersection of religion and science to our community. (A Templeton Foundation grant has afforded us the ability to make this an evolving dialogue over several years).

I find it interesting that in our society this is often an uncomfortable and/or contentious conversation. So each year I anticipate the evening with excitement and a little bit of trepidation. I usually get at least one earful a year from someone who feels that we were not balanced enough or that we didn’t tilt in the direction of their point of view enough. And we usually show up on blogs or websites that tend to be at an end of the thought spectrum with reviews and some criticism—either of the speakers or the partners pulling this together.

Having or promoting a position is not the point in my mind. I hope that by our efforts people can look at the intersection of religion and science not as a clash of cultures but two different lenses through which to look at our world and make meaning. If participants (on-site or through WOSU’s media channels) can embrace a widening of their points of view and an appreciation for other perspectives then maybe that’s what we’ve been able to contribute.

The speakers are always fascinating and well known in many circles. (Of course there was the year that I didn’t prep well for the event and was stupidly asking Dr. Francis Collins “so what do you do?” This was directed at the National Medal of Honor awardee who had led the well publicized and notable federal government’s efforts on mapping and sequencing the human genome! I rationalize that since I had had Dr. Craig Venter at my previous museum—who had led the private initiative that I was tuned into the effort, but limited to one side of the equation. I had thought of dropping Dr. Collins a congratulations note since he was recently named head of the huge National Institute for Health (NIH) – but thought maybe I’d not left the best personal impression and should let my uninformed actions fade in his memory;-)

Anyway, the panelists today– Moderator Neal Conan, host of NPR’s Talk of the Nation; Dr. Francisco Ayala, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at UC Irvine and author of Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion; Dr. Denis Lamoureux, Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta, Canada, author of Evolutionary Creation and co-author of Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins; and Dr. Eugenie Scott, American physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education and author of Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction– are all notable thinkers in this arena (and I’ve looked up their backgrounds better this time!).

I think they will stimulate thought and command respect–but then I never know how the public reaction will be. It should be another interesting evening in more ways than one.

What do you think about COSI hosting more events of public interest related to science, even when the topics may have some controversy around them?

What a surprise to be glancing through The Columbus Dispatch regarding the announcement of the discovery of the oldest hominid skeleton and see the face of my good friend Dr. Bruce Latimer looking back at me in one of the photos.  The fun of getting to my age (and granted not all aspects of aging are positives!;-) is that people you’ve worked with over the years are hitting the peak of their careers.

Bruce is a world known expert in bipedal locomotion and was chief curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (CMNH) prior to becoming its Executive Director for a number of years until stepping down last year.  CMNH was also deeply involved in the discovery and analysis of Lucy, previously identified as the oldest hominid skeleton ever found (but roughly a million years younger than “Ardi”!)  So the scientists there, including Bruce, know their stuff and have been deeply involved in some of the most meaningful work in understanding human evolution.  Analyzing Ardipithecus ramidus takes this to a whole new level of ancient knowledge working with a skeleton pegged accurately at 4.4 million years of age.

The unusual and unpredicted evolutionary qualities of “Ardi” include a biped creature but one still having a curved big toe for gripping tree limbs for climbing.   Something totally unique.  I loved Bruce’s quote, “There’s not an animal alive today that does that…It’s just bizarre.”

Science is an ongoing process of discovery and reassessment based on the latest best data and insights—sometimes throwing out significant previous understandings as in the case of the implications of Ardipithecus ramidus.  That’s the power of science—willingness (sometimes grudgingly) of updating understandings or totally dropping based on new knowledge.  (Also why folks are confused sometimes by the process of science).

Human evolution is naturally of interest to many people.  I find it cool when a friend and my childhood museum play a role in one of the greatest finds in human history.  In the meantime, if you are interested in learning more about Ardipithecus ramidus, you can check out the article in Sunday’s dispatch or go to Science, the publication of the American Association of Science.  The Discovery Channel ran a major show last Saturday night which I imagine they’ll be reshowing as well.

As for me, I can’t wait for my lunch with Bruce this weekend to get more personal insights into this incredible discovery!

I have always dragged work home.  In the early days it was tests to grade or create for my classroom.  Now a days it’s grant proposals, strategic plans, and budgets, usually accompanied by my laptop.

But last night I added probably the strangest piece of homework I’ve ever taken home—the thick paged children’s book The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle.

I was reading for a group of the 400 preschoolers at COSI today and I wanted to make sure I had my reading down pat.  I’ve certainly read often enough to my three daughters when they were little, but as adults all around 30, it’s been awhile and I felt rusty.  And little Leah our granddaughter is still more interested in taking a book and tearing it apart or flipping it over and over in her hands rather than letting you read from it.

So there I was reading it aloud at home to make sure I had the cadence and intrigue of the story captured—I didn’t want to flub my chance with the kids.  And it was a fun time today with the children, joined by other readers from the Mayor’s office and Mikela Hunt and Monica Day from Channel 4.

I continue to be surprised by the tasks and opportunities being a science center president affords—this was certainly one of the most fun.

Now I’ll be better prepared for when Leah does sit and focus on us reading a book together—I can’t wait.

I just came up from the lunch presentations of some industry and thought leaders as part of Mid-Ohio’s Regional Planning Commission’s Summit on Sustainability & the Environment, held here at COSI. I’m impressed how a very diverse base of perspectives—industry to research to government to community advocacy—can all agree (at least in that room) on the urgency and importance of addressing our behaviors that our rapidly changing our global climate.

As we look for ways to engage, inform and inspire the public I’ve been looking at what other science centers are doing. Turns out other centers are deeply interested in helping address this global issue as well. A small group of us from COSI went to the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry(MSI) to spend two days discussing the possibilities with a small core of colleagues from leading centers around North America.

An inspiration point was the Energy House Chicago’s MSI has built on their campus as a showcase for what can be done with current design and technology to substantially reduce the energy use of a home and its environmental impact. Features included factory construction for quality control, recycled materials, technology controls, rain gardens, green roof and renewable energy sources (wind and solar–including thin film solar rolled out on the roof that delivers electricity even with a blanket of snow on it!).

Smart Home: Green + Wired

And the house was attractive and appealing! A great inspirational point and proving very popular to visitors who even pay an additional amount to have a tour through the house.

Has me inspired to see what we can do here to bring energy and environmental topics “home” to our visitors and program participants.

Until we get our own here, check this inspirational house out online

In the meantime we’ll continue to host programs and sustainability summits like we are today. I’ll share other initiatives in the coming months as we expand our focus in this area.