Science Funding

Again, NPR spurring this discussion (1). We seem very well suited to have this conversation but notice that we have not yet had it on here. How is science funded and what kinds of behavior spawns from that funding? Conservative? How does a single person make an impact or is incrementalism the name of the game (caveat before joining a lab: get used to that fact)? David Montgomery (the MacArthur Genius Grant Winner 2008 for geoscience) said at one point, "my risky projects are dove-tailed to nights and weekends... not one has been funded." The other guest on the show is Kenneth Waters (who I just met last Friday), philosophy of science professor.

Noted by Waters was T H Elliot's 20-year-old undergraduate who brought in the new idea of how to map drosophila phylogenetics (does anyone know this?).


1) Audacious Science, Minnesota Public Radio Website. Accessed Sept 30, 2009.

Core Standards Initiative

On NPR this morning a lively discussion regarding national education standards covered the feasibility and reliability of implenting new standards for public education. The difference between this and past attempts according the Hoover Instiute expert and National Governor's Association (1, 2) apparently is that this time the standards are being called for by a coalition of states (all but Texas and Alaska's governors if memory serves).

Maybe Julie knows something about this?

We're looking at questions along these lines:

Why is this set of standards better and how are they different from the MCA's?
Are the standards appropriate for college entrance (and exit), is college entrance the goal?
Are the standards high enough (or maybe they're too high)? Compared to the current standards?
Should there be national standards for teachers (as there are for accountants, doctors, etc)?
Will these standards help the US compete against other countries (we are still lagging I presume)?
Are the standards created objectively or possibly to make sure everyone passes?


1) Hoover Institution, Wikipedia. Accessed Sept 30, 2009

2) Hoover Institution Stanford University Accessed Sept 30, 2009.


http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/30/midmorning1/

http://www.corestandards.org/Standards/index.htm

Dara O'Rourke and Consumer Reporting

He seems to be the main person responsible for this: http://www.goodguide.com/

Let's study this and see if what we're buying is as nice as we think it is. Apparently Organic foods might night be as organic as we think (how many times can these companies perpetrate blatant lies to the public and get away with it?)

Tipping Points

http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2009/UR_CONTENT_132007.html


I read about this in the news this week but did not realize we had some people at University of Minnesota involved. Jarrod, we should add this guy to our list of interviewees.

Are these tipping points real?
There are tipping points in the human body (I'm always forces to draw this analogy to help my understanding and realize it may be completely false). Acidification, for example. In renal and respiratory physiology, this is a big deal. But we have clear understanding in medicine for how the body regulates pH and we have a good idea of how to intervene. Now who are the doctors for the planet and how can they intervene? I think the truth would be, they can't, the science is too new and there are limited ways to gather data (medicine can watch literally millions of people die and autopsy them, earth science cannot).

Teaching Students how to Argue

One of the sites I use to study the supreme court decisions had this article:

" For a scored discussion to work properly, students must be well prepared. This may include doing a practice discussion with students so that they understand the criteria for their grades. A practice discussion could ask students to spontaneously discuss a controversial issue within the school, such as whether the school should have a dress code. After the discussion, the teacher could tease out the positive aspects of the discussion and the negative aspects of the discussion, to come to a consensus as to what constitutes a good discussion and how the students will be marked.

For example, students might receive positive marks for demonstrating skills such as:

• stating a position
• providing evidence for a position
• challenging another student’s use of evidence
• linking the discussion to the course material
• inviting others into the discussion
• asking a question
• appearing to listen attentively
• responding to the comments of others
• building on the comments of others
• playing devil’s advocate

Students might receive negative marks for demonstrating the following:

• disruptive interrupting
• monopolizing the discussion
• personal criticism
• irrelevant or distracting statements"

I was wondering how we'd do in this kind of rubric and how well others we know might do.

Supreme Court Case of the Week: McCulloch v Maryland

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution

"[The Congress shall have Power] . . . [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Case (with year)

McCulloch v Maryland, 1819

Chief Justice (just to familiarize ourselves a bit with the historical figures on the court)

John Marshall (1801-1835), nominated by John Adams

With the Federalists soundly defeated and about to lose both the executive and legislative branches to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, President Adams and the lame duck Congress passed what came to be known as the Midnight Judges Act, which made sweeping changes to the federal judiciary, including a reduction in the number of Justices from six to five so as to deny Jefferson an appointment until two vacancies occurred. (1)

Soon after becoming Chief Justice, Marshall revolutionized the manner in which the Supreme Court announced its decisions. Previously, each Justice would author a separate opinion (known as a seriatim opinion), as is still done in the 20th and 21st centuries in such jurisdictions as the United Kingdom and Australia. Under Marshall, however, the Supreme Court adopted the practice of handing down a single opinion of the Court. As Marshall was almost always the author of this opinion, he essentially became the Court's sole mouthpiece in important cases. His forceful personality allowed him to dominate his fellow Justices; only once did he find himself on the losing side (1827 Ogden v Saunders case).

Background

On April 10, 1816, the Congress of the United States passed an act entitled "An Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States" which provided for the incorporation of the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank first went into full operationin Philadelhpia. In 1817 the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland and transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes and performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform. Both sides of the litigation admitted that the President, directors and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch, or office of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the United States.

On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled, "an act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature".

James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect one half of the fine as provided for by the statute. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the Federal Government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Synopsis

Supreme Court of the United States Reversed lower courts and overturned McCulloch's conviction, holding that establishing a national bank is within the constitutional powers of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause and Maryland does not have authority to tax a federal institution. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Maryland Court of Appeals Upheld decision of lower court and affirmed McCulloch's conviction. McCulloch v. Maryland (1818)

County Court of Baltimore County Convicted McCulloch, the manager of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, for failing to pay the $15,000 tax levied by the State of Maryland McCulloch fined $2,500 ($31,259.40 in 2008 dollars according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi) McCulloch v. Maryland (1818)

Consequences/Legacy

According to the necessary and proper clause, Congress generally may assume additional powers not specifically listed in the Constitution, sometimes called implied powers, if there is a link to a power that is listed in the Constitution. For example, Congress may allocate money to test a missile-defense system (something not specifically listed in the Constitution) because Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies".
While the above example may seem like an obvious extension of Congress's power, other powers that Congress has assumed over the years are not so obvious extensions of powers specifically listed in the Constitution.

I
Later History: McCulloch v. Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the High Court of Australia in D'Emden v Pedder, which dealt with similar issues in the Australian Federation; while recognizing United States law as not binding on them, nevertheless determined that the McCulloch decision provided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal government and the Australian States owing to strong similarities between the American and Australian federations, and specifically cited Marshall's opinion in deciding the case.


Dissenting Opinions (what the argument against the majority opinion was)

"We are unanimously of opinion that the law passed by the Legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional and void."


Further Discussion

IMPLIED POWER: Congress gives licenses to broadcasters to play music on the radio.

ANSWER: Clause 3 may justify this activity. It gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Broadcasting is a business. Thus, it is commerce. Airwaves cross over state lines, so it involves interstate commerce.

1. Congress sets a federal minimum wage.
   
   
   
2. Congress establishes the United States Air Force.
   
   
   
3. Congress establishes national parks.
   
   
   
4. Congress creates federal laws against pollution.
   
   
   
5. Congress makes laws regarding discrimination in employment.
   
   
   
6. Congress decides that televisions should have V-chips that enable parents to block certain shows.
   
   
   
7. Congress passes the Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting anyone from possessing a firearm in a school zone.

1) Stites (1981), pp. 77-80.

2) Wikipedia: McCulloch v Maryland

3) http://www.landmarkcases.org/mcculloch/fedimpliedpowers.html

::Cough Cough Sneeze::

"What are the mid-range and long-term outlooks for production and distribution of the U.S. influenza vaccine supply?

Both the mid–term and long-range outlooks for the U.S. influenza vaccine supply appear very positive. Six companies are currently licensed to produce influenza vaccine in the U.S. market (sanofi pasteur, Inc., MedImmune Vaccines Inc., Novartis Vaccines, CSL Biotherapies, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, and ID Biomedical Corporation), many of whom are working to expand their production capacities." (1)

MedImmune was acquired by AstraZeneca in 2007, (2) ID Biomedical was acquired by glaxo in 2005. (3)

Pay attention to the fear propagated in the news and you could get rich (see graph above of glaxosmithkline stock since flu scare in march of this year).

1) Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Supply and Distribution in the United States, Center for Disease Control Webs

2) AstraZeneca to acquire MedImmune for $58 per share in a fully recommended, all-cash transaction with a total enterprise value of $15.2 billion, MedImmune Corp Website

07/04/23/astrazeneca-to-acquire-medimmune-for-58-per-share-in-a-fully-recommended-all-cash-transaction-with-a-total-enterprise-value-of-15-2-billion

3) GlaxoSmithKline To Acquire ID Biomedical Corporation, Pharmaceutical Processing Web

Supreme Court Case of the Week

Synopsis
"Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government."

Background
"This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional."

Consequences or Legacy
"There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law."

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."<sup>[22]


Discussion

I copy and pasted most of this from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


Judicial Review apparently was not in the constitution. The last sentence in the criticisms section reads, "</sup>Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."

Was judicial review inevitable? Do humans always break down into hiearchal structuring (think alpha male or pack leader with levels of subleadership and then all the way down to the workers)?


Aside

Also, do we have a day of the week for "Supreme Court Case of the Week"? And do we have a format for these? Just use Steve's?

Norman Borlaug

Norman Borlaug, University of Minnesota alum, 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, plant geneticist who developed a high-yield, disease resistant wheat strain, died on Saturday.

His work made wheat a staple food in developing countries. He was not without his critics though. They claiming plant gene altering was unnatural and that Borlaug’s work was facilitating the creation of monocultures reliant on wheat only. He often remarked of his critics that they had never felt the pain of hunger in their bellies and should go live that life before criticizing his work.

The question is, no matter how noble your intentions are, you have no idea what your research will be used for in the future as a scientist. Is the scientist ultimately responsible? Who is the scientist responsible for and who is he/she accountable to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Book Review: The Undercover Economist

Title
The Undercover Economist

Author
Tim Harford

Date of Publication
2005

Reason for reading
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m trying to learn more about economics in order to better understand the current financial climate, as well as to be a more informed voter. Josh Miller (Ryan’s old roommate) recommended the book, in addition to a textbook, and I have to say it was a good recommendation.

Supreme Court Decision of the Week: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

I watched a documentary last night called America: Freedom to Fascism, supposedly about the formation of the Federal Reserve. The documentary was not that great, as it briefly started on the formation of the federal reserve, then spent most of the time on whether or not income tax is actually legal, then had a bunch of random other stuff such as a national ID card, RFID, and one or two others. But it did make me think more about the Supreme Court, and so I read up a little on the decisions referenced in the documentary. And so, that, in combination with the memory of Sarah Palin not being able to name any other Supreme Court decisions outside of Roe v. Wade and knowing I'm not much better, I propose that we find an old Supreme Court decision once a week to read up on, so we can at least get a primer on old decisions. If you guys don't think this is a worthwhile posting, just let me know. But in addition to this, I've got another related one I'd like to do next week. After that, we'll rotate or something. Up first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co.

Case: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Chief Justice: Melville Fuller

Summary of the case: Pollock (a shareholder) sued Farmers' Loan & Trust Company because they automatically paid an income tax for shareholders & reported the shareholders' names on whose behalf they were acting (ostensibly so the people wouldn't be taxed twice). The basis for the lawsuit was that the tax was a direct tax, which under the Constitution must be apportioned amongst the states.

Results: The 16th Amendment was passed in 1909, and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913. It reads:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Interesting Points:
Two points from dissenting justices-
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Jackson, White and Brown dissented from the majority opinion.

Justice White argued:
It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being—a necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 638]

In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:
The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.[2]

As for Justice White, what is the argument for saying that a theory of the constitution is long repudiated and rejected? Unless it's been overruled by an amendment, must that not be the utmost decider of what's legal or not?

As for Justice Brown, it's interesting to see that even in the late 1800's, people have been using socialism as a scare tactic to advance their own agendas.

Further Questions:
I'm still trying to get a grasp on what apportionment really meant. It seems like the definition I've seen implies that all taxes must be spent equally amongst the states, according to population. However, the case argued by Pollock seems to be that all taxes must be taken equally from the states, according to population. If this is the case, would the nation have been restricted to taxing per capita based on the state with the lowest per capita income? Or if one state earns more per capita than another, would the state have to find other ways to increase the taxes on the lesser state (possibly just doing a higher percentage of income, etc).

Lessig: Trying to reform campaign finance

This guy is a JD who spent 10 years trying to change copyright law. Once he realized that he was working with an inept institution (Congress) he tried to figure out why and once he did he landed where we were several months ago. His strategy is to raise about 20 million dollars and use that to somehow leverage candidates in congressional elections to not run unless they are using a more pure form of financing. He believes congressmen are not inherently corrupt, but that the system is set up for "K-Street" (synonymous with career politician; they spend ~50% of their time raising money for the party or themselves and have to constantly build into their thinking whether their actions will ruin their chances for money and hence re-election and hence no job).

I think we've figured most of this out and I still think the other idea is better - where federally elected officials become a special class of citizen with special tax laws applying to them.

http://change-congress.org/

Internet Class Divisions

Kind of funny, but kind of not…an interesting question is broached here. Are there class division emerging online? Read about this microcosm and lets discuss whether it is translatable to the entire internet and is this unpreventable.

http://www.alternet.org/media/142356/facebook_and_myspace_users_are_clearly_divided_along_class_lines/?page=1

“For decades, we've assumed that inequality in relation to technology has everything to do with "access" and that if we fix the access problem, all will be fine. This is the grand narrative of concepts like the "digital divide."
Yet, increasingly, we're seeing people with similar levels of access engage in fundamentally different ways. And we're seeing a social media landscape where participation "choice" leads to a digital reproduction of social divisions. This is most salient in the States, which is intentionally the focus of my talk here today.”

Karen Ho: One ho worth mentioning

She's an University of Minnesota anthropologist with a new book (see http://www1.umn.edu/news/features/2009/UR_CONTENT_119895.html if you're interested but it's not entirely necessary for the question I want to ask).

She proposed an idea of untangling main street from wall street by removing social safety net programs from the grasp of the bankers/wall street. I don't have one of these 401k or pension plans or various mutual funds, but is there another option? If we assume that wall street is corrupt and if I had to guess I'd say popular sentiment would overwhelmingly support this idea, then do people give their money to these institutions simply because they have no other choice (monopoly)?

Which company is this?

Can you imagine working at the following Company?

It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
3 have been arrested for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are current defendants in lawsuits
84 were stopped for drunk driving ( in 1998 alone)

Can you guess which organization this is?