Monday, May 28, 2012

800. A Word With the Reader: For a United Ecological Socialist Europe


Assistant Editor, Ernie, after a fist fight with a neighbor's cat.
By Kaman Nayeri, May 28, 2012


Let me put forward the following propositions for your consideration.
1.              The crisis in Europe, especially in its southern flank: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, offers an unmatched opportunity in four decades to educate, agitate and organize for a course towards a new and better society, an ecological socialist society.
2.             The European crisis is the continuation of the 2008 world capitalist crisis also known as the Great Recession, its current epicenter.
3.             Contrary to the claims of (bourgeois) economists and policy makers, this is not merely a financial crisis. [i] It is a multi-facet crisis of capitalism.[ii] It is a crisis of capitalist accumulation (growth). Moreover, it is a secular, systemic crisis that coincides with the planetary crisis fueled by carbohydrate-powered industrialization.  It is also a crisis of Our way of Life: a cultural crisis that of “civilization” that has been built on the premise of domination and exploitation of nature, including fellow human beings, the cultural basis of the class society institutionalized with the Agrarian Revolution, 10,000 years ago.
4.             The European crisis has already provided a pre-revolutionary situation in Greece. This was signaled by defeat of the four decades old two party system in the May 6th Greek parliamentary elections: the Pasok (a bourgeois socialist formation) and New Democracy (a right of center bourgeois party) that colluded with the troika--European Union (EU), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—to impose a bailout plan that mandates deep austerity measures lost their majority and could not form a government.  In a 300-member parliament, the Pasok took only 41 seats (13.18 percent of the vote) and New Democracy took 108 seats (18.85 percent of the vote). The anti-austerity parties surged; in particular the SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left) rose to the second position with 16.8% of the vote and 50 representatives.
5.              The election was preceded by two years of intensifying mass protests, including general strikes. During the past six month the socioeconomic crisis has begun to be transformed into a pre-revolutionary situation. Self-activity and self-organization of direct producers could create an alternative revolutionary leadership to find a genuine way out of the crisis for Greece and show the way to other Euro zone countries in crisis, particularly Portugal, Spain and Italy.  
6.            It is high time for the European parties and currents that speak in the name of socialism, ecology or ecological socialism, especially in Greece and Spain where the crisis has assumed a depression-like proportions and mass resistance is strongest, to call for a United Ecological Socialist Europe as an alternative institutional framework to the capitalist European Union. Let’s not forget: European Union was formed by the European capitalist classes to serve their class interest.  A United Ecological Socialist Europe will favor a European integration from below—based on self-organization and self-activity of the European working people—to re-establish a society in harmony with itself and with nature.  The contrast between the European Union and a United Ecological Socialist Europe will not be more stark: for the former society is organized to serve the economy (the profit-making machine) while for the latter all economic activities will be organized by the direct producers in the interest of society and in harmony with nature.
7.             The slogan of the United Ecological Socialist Europe combined with transitional demands tailored to each country’s situation will help working people to imagine a workable alternative to capitalism.  In the pre-revolutionary Greece, it should be combined with a call for a government of direct producers and a constituent assembly based organizations of the Greek working people.  The constituent assembly will determine how the Greek people will proceed—as master of their own destiny empowered by their own organization and government and in solidarity with the rest of the European and world working peoples  not as hostage to the capitalist masters Greek or otherwise.
8.            The slogan of the United Ecological Socialist Europe as a perspective helps explain why dichotomies proposed in the context of the current crisis (negotiation for better terms for a Greek bailout, remaining within the Euro zone or breaking with it, nationalizing banks or not, whether to rely of the June 17 elections for a resolution to the crisis, etc.) are false choices if the capitalist system itself is not questioned. However, the perspective of a United Ecological Socialist Europe should not be taken as a recipe for an ultra-left sectarian course. Clearly, there are no ecological socialist currents in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, elsewhere in Europe or the world with any influence among the broad masses of the working people.  This is a law of historical development: consciousness lags reality.  The slogan is not meant to maintain and to reinforce this isolation. The perspective should help to break out of this isolation through participation in the building of the mass movement as it emerges in concrete situation and to build unity in action and encourage widest discussion and build all forms of participatory democracy among all revolutionary minded individuals and currents.
*     *     *
There have been 99 posts since my last communication (nos. 701 to 799 inclusive).  As usual, the focus has been ecology, environment and ecocide (11 posts), global warming and climate change and other planetary crises (16 posts), evolution and evolutionary theory (10 posts), science and methodology (8 posts) and issues regarding the Cuban revolution (11 posts).

Nine post deal with various species and four with natural history, four were book/film reviews and seven posts offered alterative visions, including ecological socialism.  A number of posts dealt with labor, anti-war and protest movements.

As I state regularly all signed articles represent the views of their author(s).  They are posted here because they relate to a subject of our interest and some from the mass media can even represent current bourgeois thought.  Only unsigned articles are the points of view of Our Place in the World.

A list of hotlinks to the last 99 posts follow:

FAIR USE NOTICE
This web log (blog) contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, social, economic, foreign policy, human rights, scientific, cultural, educational, health and legal issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . All the materials contained in these pages are properly attributed. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you have to contact the copyright owner.





[i] For the past two year, the austerity approach to the European public debt favored by the German bourgeoisie represented by Angela Merkel, Chancellor, and supported by the French president Sarkozy, has been applied. The approach calls for frontal attack on the living standard of the working people to resolve the capitalist crisis as the debt-relief package for Greece exemplifies.
However, the test of events has discredited this approach. Greece and Spain where the austerity program has been implemented are in depression-like conditions. Unemployment rate in Greece stood at 21.7 in January 2012 and in Spain at 24.1 in March. Youth unemployment in both countries stands at 50%. Understandably, austerity has also led to the rebellion of the working people in Greek and to a lesser degree in Spain and contributed to the defeat of Sarkozy in the French presidential elections. The resistance to austerity could spread rapidly across Europe.  At the same time, the bond market—financial institutions that purchase sovereign debt—is no more willing to purchase Greek, Spanish or Italian bonds. Public finance remains in disarray.
This has given the Keynesian policy makers an opportunity. Prominent economists, including Nobel Prize laureates Paul Krugman and Amartya Sen, have criticized the German-led austerity approach. As Sen puts it: “There is, in fact, plenty historical evidence that the most effective way to cut deficits is to combine deficit reduction with rapid growth, which generates more revenue.” The Keynesian approach to macroeconomic policy differs from the neoliberal approach in that the former admits market failure in securing “full employment” to enable workers to earn their own livelihood and (2) that it favors provision of social services necessary for a smooth functioning of the capitalist economy and society. Thus, the Keynesians argue that the capitalist state has an important economic function (that the state and the market are interdependent). 
Over the capitalist long cycle of accumulation, Keynesian and neoliberal policies have alternatively been used and proponents of each claim historical support for their approach.  However, they seldom admit instances of the failure of their policies. For example, the Keynesian policies resulted in stagflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s and the 2008 financial crisis was most immediately caused by neoliberal policies. 
What is important to note is that neolibral and Keynesian controversies are about the best way to preserve the capitalist system.  They have little to do with how to arrive at a socioeconomic system best suitable for the working people and the planet.  Further, Keynesians also accept the need for austerity measures. However, they argue a pro-growth deficit spending program can soften the blow to the working people ensuring a less painful and dangerous path to recovery. 

[ii] Although the 2008 international Great Recession has manifest itself first and foremost as a financial crisis, it is neither merely a financial crisis nor it is simply due to bad (neoliberal) policies. It is the most serious systemic capitalist crisis since the Greet Depression of the 1930s.
The development of finance is integral to the process of capitalist accumulation:  it has increasing freed the accumulation process from the time requirements of the process of valorization of capital.  However fictitious capital—claims against future production; income generated by that production—is also money that is thrown into circulation as capital without any material basis in commodities or productive activity.  Thus, the potential for financial crises: speculation on future returns to capital that may or may not bear out.  All financial bubbles originate from this potential disparity.
However, if financial investment remains within reasonable bounds and valorization of capital proceeds without serious problems there will be no generalized financial crisis.  When the valorization process encounters problems and financial investment become increasing speculative as the result (because already held assumptions become invalid and because money flows from productive activities associated with industrial capital to speculation) generalized financial crisis happen as they did in 2008 and have been with increasing frequency and severity since the 1970s when the secular decline in the average rate of profit began.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

799. Let’s Be Less Productive


By Tim Jackson, The New York Times, May 26, 2012
Has the pursuit of labor productivity reached its limit?
Productivity — the amount of output delivered per hour of work in the economy — is often viewed as the engine of progress in modern capitalist economies. Output is everything. Time is money. The quest for increased productivity occupies reams of academic literature and haunts the waking hours of C.E.O.’s and finance ministers. Perhaps forgivably so: our ability to generate more output with fewer people has lifted our lives out of drudgery and delivered us a cornucopia of material wealth.
But the relentless drive for productivity may also have some natural limits. Ever-increasing productivity means that if our economies don’t continue to expand, we risk putting people out of work. If more is possible each passing year with each working hour, then either output has to increase or else there is less work to go around. Like it or not, we find ourselves hooked on growth.
What, then, should happen when, for one reason or another, growth just isn’t to be had anymore? Maybe it’s a financial crisis. Or rising prices for resources like oil. Or the need to rein in growth for the damage it’s inflicting on the planet: climate change, deforestation, the loss of biodiversity. Maybe it’s any of the reasons growth can no longer be safely and easily assumed in any of today’s economies. The result is the same. Increasing productivity threatens full employment.
One solution would be to accept the productivity increases, shorten the workweek and share the available work. Such proposals — familiar since the 1930s — are now enjoying something of a revival in the face of continuing recession. The New Economics Foundation, a British think tank, proposes a 21-hour workweek. It may not be the workaholic’s choice. But it’s certainly a strategy worth thinking about.
But there’s another strategy for keeping people in work when demand stagnates. Perhaps in the long run it’s an easier and a more compelling solution: to loosen our grip on the relentless pursuit of productivity. By easing up on the gas pedal of efficiency and creating jobs in what are traditionally seen as “low productivity” sectors, we have within our grasp the means to maintain or increase employment, even when the economy stagnates.
At first, this may sound crazy; we’ve become so conditioned by the language of efficiency. But there are sectors of the economy where chasing productivity growth doesn’t make sense at all. Certain kinds of tasks rely inherently on the allocation of people’s time and attention. The caring professions are a good example: medicine, social work, education. Expanding our economies in these directions has all sorts of advantages.
In the first place, the time spent by these professions directly improves the quality of our lives. Making them more and more efficient is not, after a certain point, actually desirable. What sense does it make to ask our teachers to teach ever bigger classes? Our doctors to treat more and more patients per hour? The Royal College of Nursing in Britain warned recently that front-line staff members in the National Health Service are now being “stretched to breaking point,” in the wake of staffing cuts, while a study earlier this year in the Journal of Professional Nursing revealed a worrying decline in empathy among student nurses coping with time targets and efficiency pressures. Instead of imposing meaningless productivity targets, we should be aiming to enhance and protect not only the value of the care but also the experience of the caregiver.
The care and concern of one human being for another is a peculiar “commodity.” It can’t be stockpiled. It becomes degraded through trade. It isn’t delivered by machines. Its quality rests entirely on the attention paid by one person to another. Even to speak of reducing the time involved is to misunderstand its value.
Care is not the only profession deserving renewed attention as a source of economic employment. Craft is another. It is the accuracy and detail inherent in crafted goods that endows them with lasting value. It is the time and attention paid by the carpenter, the seamstress and the tailor that makes this detail possible. The same is true of the cultural sector: it is the time spent practicing, rehearsing and performing that gives music, for instance, its enduring appeal. What — aside from meaningless noise — would be gained by asking the New York Philharmonic to play Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony faster and faster each year?
The endemic modern tendency to streamline or phase out such professions highlights the lunacy at the heart of the growth-obsessed, resource-intensive consumer economy. Low productivity is seen as a disease. A whole set of activities that could provide meaningful work and contribute valuable services to the community are denigrated because they involve employing people to work with devotion, patience and attention.
But people often achieve a greater sense of well-being and fulfillment, both as producers and consumers of such activities, than they ever do in the time-poor, materialistic supermarket economy in which most of our lives are spent. And here perhaps is the most remarkable thing of all: since these activities are built around the value of human services rather than the relentless outpouring of material stuff, they offer a half-decent chance of making the economy more environmentally sustainable.
Of course, a transition to a low-productivity economy won’t happen by wishful thinking. It demands careful attention to incentive structures — lower taxes on labor and higher taxes on resource consumption and pollution, for example. It calls for more than just lip service to concepts of patient-centered care and student-centered learning. It requires the dismantling of perverse productivity targets and a serious investment in skills and training. In short, avoiding the scourge of unemployment may have less to do with chasing after growth and more to do with building an economy of care, craft and culture. And in doing so, restoring the value of decent work to its rightful place at the heart of society.
Tim Jackson is a professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey and the author of “Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet.”

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

798. UNAC Report on the May 20th Anti-NATO Demonstration in Chicago



Led by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, 15,000 people took to the streets of Chicago to protest on May 20, the opening day of the NATO summit. The demonstration was the largest antiwar demonstration in the U.S. in several years. The mass demonstration was the culmination of a week of activity against NATO and the G8 summits.  Both summit meetings were originally planned for Chicago, but as protest organizing gained momentum, the G8 summit was moved to Camp David while the NATO summit was reduced to only two days from the week long summits originally planned.

As the summit approached, the May 20 demonstration gained impressive support from many diverse groups, including Jesse Jackson and Operation PUSH, area unions including many SEIU locals, the Chicago Teachers Union, UE locals, National Nurses United, and many others.  Peace organizations, community organizations and Occupy groups from around the country supported the actions, as did groups from many countries around the world.  International anti-NATO fighters came from several countries and solidarity demonstrations were held in London and several other European cities as well as in Iran, India, Bangladesh, Russia and Canada.  Click here for pictures and reports of some of the international solidarity actions: http://nepajac.org/internationChicago.htm.

Speakers at the rally included Jesse Jackson, Sr., member of the German Legislature, Inge Hoger, Malik Mujahid of the Muslim Peace Coalition, Vijay Prashad, author of “Arab Spring, Libyan Winter,” Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, Col. Ann Wright, Leah Bolger, president of Veterans for Peace, Carlos Montes of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, and UNAC leaders, among others.  Click here for UNAC leader Chris Gauvreau’s message to the rally: http://nepajac.org/chris.htm.

The march, organized by an ad hoc coalition called the Coalition against NATO and the G8 War and Poverty Agenda (CANG8), filled the wide Chicago streets from curb to curb for several blocks.  Those attending were predominantly youthful and energetic.  The march was lead by the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who, at the end of the march, conducted a powerful and historic ceremony in which they threw their military medals in the direction of the NATO summit meeting where more wars in the interest of the 1% were being planned. There was also a moving reconciliation ceremony with some of the war victims being represented by members of Afghans for Peace.  Click here for the Democracy Now report of the medal ceremony: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/21/no_nato_no_war_us_veterans.

At the end of the ceremony, as organizers urged people to start leaving the area, long lines of police in riot gear started moving towards the stage, preventing many from  leaving.  Police pushed with their clubs into the crowd as people fell against the metal barricades erected to contain the demonstrators.  Soon the police were swinging their clubs at protesters in full view of the TV cameras and reporters; many people were hurt, some seriously.  These were not lone-individual, out of control cops; this was clearly a planned attack.  Perhaps it was needed by the city to justify the tremendous costs of the security apparatus used by the Emanuel administration, including months of pre-summit scare tactics and violence baiting protestors. But it was not the demonstrators who were violent, it was the police.  It is not peace activists who are violent, it is NATO.
 
The civil liberties fight

UNAC first put in an application for a permit to march and rally in July of 2011. Five months later we were informed that there would be no protests during the summits.  But as a huge outcry developed, and after press conferences and protests organized by CANG8, Occupy Chicago and many unions, we were granted a permit.  During this period, UNAC placed a full page ad in the Chicago Sun Times with a statement in support of the right to protest signed by hundreds of people from the U.S. and people from 13 other countries.  During this period the Emanuel administration also proposed, and got passed, new restrictive ordnances governing protests. These were also protested by CANG8, Occupy and the unions. 

For months leading up to the anti-NATO and G8 protests, the Chicago police and city administration urged people to leave the area and scared people with stories of how the protesters would be violent.  CANG8 representatives continually told people that we were holding a peaceful, family-friendly demonstration.  We organized “peace guides” to ensure that the march and rally would happen as planned.  Up until the police attack on the demonstration at the end of the rally, it had been peaceful.

In the days leading up to May 20th, the police raided the homes of several demonstrators and made several arrests.  A total of around100 people were arrested in the week preceding the demonstration.  Three young men, now known as the NATO 3, were charged with very serious terrorism crimes.  It appears that this was a set-up similar to the preemptive prosecutions that Muslims have faced, as a provocateur was used in the same ways they are used to frame Muslims as terrorists.  Click here for the Democracy Now segment on these charges: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/22/attorney_nato_3_activists_detained_on.

Click here for Indymedia videos of the police attack: http://chicago.indymedia.org/node/946.

Click here for pictures of the police provocateurs:

Please donate to the defense of the NATO 3 by clicking here: http://www.wepay.com/donations/nato-arrestee-bail-fund.


Close to 800 people attended the People’s Summit, which took place at the Occupy Chicago indoor space on May 12th and 13th.  Sponsored by CANG8 and Occupy Chicago, the People’s Summit had people coming together to project a different future than the one being planned by NATO and the G8.  Messages were read to the Summit from the Afghan Youth Volunteers and from Malalai Joya, an antiwar activist and former member of Afghanistan's parliament, who was scheduled to attend the Summit and the May 20th demonstration but was sick and unable to attend.   Suraia Sahar, a member of Afghans for Peace based in Toronto read these messages. The Summit also heard from Mumia Abu-Jamal, who addressed the crowd from prison by phone.  Other speakers included, Kathy Kelly, Ann Wright, Abdul Malik Mujahid, a leader of the Muslim Peace Coalition, Occupy leaders, National Nurses United, and other union leaders as well as UNAC leaders and activists from other countries.

Following the People’s Summit, Occupy Chicago organized actions every day leading up to and during the NATO summit.  There were also actions organized by other groups as Chicago became a protest town during this period, with the media covering all the actions.

One very important action was a demonstration organized by the National Nurses United union.  This action pushed for a stock transfer tax, which would solve some of the country’s economic problems by forcing the rich to pay a share for the financial crisis they created.  This demonstration included several thousand nurses and their supporters. NNU also provided free buses for people to come to their demonstration and to the May 20th mass demonstration. 

How did the protest come about?

Last June, a UNAC leadership meeting in New York City took note of the fact that both NATO and the G8 countries would be holding their summits in the U.S.  We did not know where they would be taking place, but we decided that we would make it a priority to organize opposition to these summits.  We felt that having both summits together was a unique opportunity to draw the link between the economic and military policies of the ruling 1%.

When it became known that Chicago would be the place, we sought permits and held a meeting in Chicago last August, where CANG8 was set up as an ad hoc coalition to organize for a mass demonstration and the People’s Summit.  Over the next months, many other groups joined the effort, and the actions were able to get broad sponsorship.  

What was gained?         

The May 20th demonstration was one of the largest antiwar demonstrations ever held in Chicago.  Most national antiwar demonstrations have been held in Washington, New York, or on the West Coast.  The distance from these large coastal population centers made it difficult to get people from these areas to Chicago, yet we were able to hold a large action and support a week of activity that created a discussion about the role of NATO and the G8.  Without our presence and our actions, this would not have happened.  This may have been the first time people in the U.S. have protested against NATO, and our demonstration may have been the largest anti-NATO demonstration ever.

The Chicago city and federal administrations went on a relentless campaign to try and keep people away by saying that we were going to be violent.  New regulations were proposed in Chicago to silence demonstrators.  At every stage we countered this with a campaign in support of our right to protest and for civil liberties.  This helped push back their attacks on civil liberties and will help all those who seek to have their voices heard.  However, it is clear that the violence baiting did play a role in scaring some people away from the demonstration. 

We know from past experience that it is very difficult to build large demonstrations during election periods.  We knew Chicago would be an especially difficult place to build a demonstration during this election period, but we still managed to do so.  By the time of the demonstration, all national peace and justice groups and coalitions, including UFPJ and ANSWER, marched together in the streets of Chicago, while the eyes of the world were on us, proving that the antiwar and social justice movements were alive and growing

The activists on the ground in Chicago did a great job of pulling together the demonstration and leading the fight in defense of our civil liberties and the right to protest. Their actions strengthened the movement in Chicago and nationally.

We made new international contacts that will strengthen and broaden UNAC and the U.S. antiwar movement in the future.

UNAC will now move forward helping to build actions at the national political conventions and on Oct 7, the anniversary of the beginning of Afghanistan war. In New York on June 17th, we will join with the NAACP and others to demonstrate against racial profiling and Stop and Frisk practices.  We will continue to fight along with our Muslim brothers and sister against Islomophobia and against the wars at home and abroad.  Join us!



797. Book Review: Free Radicals


By Katherine Bouton, The New York Times, May 21, 2012

“Science is not for the meek and mild,” Michael Brooks writes in this entertaining new book. “It is red in tooth and claw; its very ideas and breakthroughs are subject to the law of the survival of the fittest. Good scientists must strive to overthrow, undermine and destroy their colleagues’ reputations.”

The “radicals” of his title are scientists with an unwavering belief in the truth of their ideas and no compunction about breaking the rules to prove it. They fight, they try to block colleagues’ progress, they commit fraud, they deceive and manipulate others.
And, more than occasionally, they rely on illicit substances and fever dreams. Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for creating the polymerase chain reaction, credited his breakthrough to regular use of hallucinogenic drugs. Nikola Tesla had to be shaken out of a catatonic state after he saw a vision in the setting sun that inspired the first self-starting alternating-current motor.
Then there is self-experimentation that no medical review board would approve if it were done on others. The Australian physician Barry Marshall discovered the cause of many gastric problems, including ulcers, by drinking the suspected bacteria “in a cloudy, brown, bug-nourishing broth.” Three days later he began to feel strangely bloated; five days later he was vomiting and his breath smelled putrid. Finally and luckily, his own immune system dealt with the infection. He won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005.
Scientists overlook inconvenient results, writes Mr. Brooks, a British science writer who holds a doctorate in quantum physics and writes a weekly column for The New Statesman. They ignore data that conflict with their ideas. Einstein, for example, bristled at criticism of his papers, withdrawing one submitted to The Physical Review after an anonymous peer reviewer pointed out an error. He published the paper elsewhere, Mr. Brooks writes, “complete with the mistake.”
Why then, do we think of the scientist today as someone who is logical, trustworthy and slightly dull? Mr. Brooks tells us that this was a deliberate postwar makeover on the part of scientific groups like the Royal Society.
World War II left an unpleasant image of science — madmen constructing apocalyptic weapons in a secret lab in New Mexico, developing lethal nerve gas and testing it on Allied soldiers, conducting gruesome medical and biological experiments.
This would not do, and the scientific establishment rallied to promote a reassuring countermessage: Scientists were responsible and safe. Science existed to serve the people. As the biologist Jacob Bronowski put it, a decade after Hiroshima, the scientist became “the monk of our age, timid, thwarted, anxious to be asked to help.”
But timidity has its downside, as we see now in the face of the unprecedented threat from global climate change. For all their risk-taking and backbiting behind closed doors, when scientists come together to speak as a group they “naturally, instinctively, make a concerted effort not to be alarmist,” as Mr. Brooks puts it. The postwar image of the humble public servant — scientists should advise government when asked, but not seek to influence it — does a disservice.
Quoting Michael Nelson and John Vucetich in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mr. Brooks writes: “It is a perversion of democracy to muffle the voice of the most knowledgeable among us and consequently amplify the voice of those with the greatest ignorance.” The only morally acceptable position, says Dr. Nelson, a philosopher at Michigan State University, is for scientists to speak up. “When scientists reject advocacy as a principle, they reject a fundamental aspect of their citizenship.”
The radicals of our time are scientists like Carl Sagan and James Hansen, who openly defied the hemming and hawing of the establishment to point out directly to the public, rather than only to their peers, the weakness of the contrarian claims.
As for the roguish behavior Mr. Brooks chronicles with such relish, “history, they say, is written by the winners.” And the scientists he celebrates were all winners. Michael Fuller, the technician who built Crick and Watson’s famous model of DNA, has seen 26 colleagues at Cambridge win Nobel Prizes over the past 58 years. The secret of their success? “Incredible egos. They just know, somehow, despite what anyone says, that they are right.”
In an epilogue, Mr. Brooks writes that his research surprised him. When he began the book he thought he was exploring science’s “dark side.” Rather, it became apparent that “anything goes” is a virtue — the secret of science’s success. “Free Radicals” is an exuberant tour through the world of scientists behaving badly.

796. On the Origin of Dogs


By James Gorman, The New York Times, May 22, 2012

The Saluki has less mixed DNA than many other dogs.
Photo credit: Alen Popov
As scientific puzzles go, the origin of dogs may not be as important as the origin of the universe. But it strikes closer to home, and it almost seems harder to answer.

Cosmologists seem to have settled on the idea that 13.7 billion years ago the universe appeared with a bang (the big one) from nothing — albeit a kind of nothing that included the laws of physics.
With dogs, the consensus is that they came from wolves. Beyond that, there are varying claims. It seems dogs appeared sometime between 15,000 and 100,000 years ago, in Asia or Africa or multiple times in multiple places.
There is a reason for this confusion, according to Greger Larson at the University of Durham in England. In a new research paper, he argues that the DNA of modern dogs is so mixed up that it is useless in figuring out when and where dogs originated. “With the amount of DNA we’ve sequenced so far,” Dr. Larson said, “we’re lucky to get back a hundred years, max.” He says that only with the analysis of DNA from fossil dogs, now being done, will answers along this line emerge.
Dr. Larson, the first of 20 authors on a paper about the origin of dogs published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues that genetic study of modern breeds does not “get us any closer to understanding where and when and how dogs were domesticated.”
Adam Boyko of Cornell University, who has worked in the field of dog genetics but was not involved in the study, said that Dr. Larson’s group had a “fantastic data set,” and laid out clearly the current difficulties in nailing down the details of dog domestication. Dr. Larson and his colleagues analyzed 49,024 locations on dog DNA where the genetic code varies, so called SNPs (pronounced snips, for single nucleotide polymorphisms). They took the DNA from 1,375 dogs of 121 breeds, and 19 wolves.
What they found was that all the so-called modern breeds had been so mixed that their deep genetic history was obscured.
They also found six breeds that they called basal, meaning that their DNA was less mixed — the basenji, shar-pei, Saluki, Akita, Finnish spitz and Eurasier.
When they added these to eight breeds deemed ancient (older than 500 years) in other studies, what they found was that the dogs that were most genetically distinct were not from the places where the oldest archaeological and fossil evidence had been found. Dr. Larson said that the expectation was that if these breeds were closer genetically to the first domesticated dogs, they would be geographically closer as well, more likely to be found near the sites of early dog fossils, or archaeological records of ancient breeds.
Instead, the more genetically distinct dogs had been geographically isolated relatively recently in the history of domestication. For example, dingoes, basenjis and New Guinea singing dogs came from Southeast Asia and southern Africa, where dogs did not arrive until 3,500 and 1,400 years ago, respectively. Their distinctive genes were indications of relatively recent isolation.
But, he said, all is not lost. Humans have buried their dogs for a long time, and as a result there are fossils of truly ancient dogs, in the neighborhood of 15,000 years old, from which DNA can be extracted. Just as DNA from Neanderthals has helped illuminate the origins of modern humans, DNA from ancient dog fossils should help illuminate the story of early dog domestication in the next few years.
“Let’s step back,” he said. “Let’s take a breath. We’re not a million miles away” from figuring out when and where dogs appeared. “We’re close.”