I've started a new blog for sharing all the useful, nifty, informative, and entertaining miscellany of the web that I feel like sharing. Be sure to stop by Ginkgo100's Picks from the Web some time.

A recent article in Maternal and Child Health Journal found the more culturally Americanized a pregnant Latina woman is, the more likely she is to be suffering from depression. Hispanic women who speak English or were born in the United States scored higher on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale.

Based on the abstract, this article's conclusion appears to be badly flawed. The problem is that the CES-D appears to be focused on measuring depression in people coming from American culture. Depression, curiously, appears different in Latino culture. Somatic (physical or physiological) symptoms are much more common, and may include headaches and stomach problems. The cultural place of women, in particular, may lead them to find it inappropriate to express opinions contrary to those held by people in authority over them, which "obviously may interfere with necessary self-disclosure," according to the Mental Health and Aging Website.

It is possible that in this study, Latinas who were less Americanized experienced depressive symptoms more as physical complaints and less as mental or psychic pain. They also may have felt inhibited from giving completely open responses on the questionnaire, even if they was kept confidential, if those responses might be in conflict to what authority figures (husbands, boyfriends, fathers) expected of them. Women who have internalized American cultural values to a greater extent would be more likely to have high scores on an American depression scale.

The abstract does not indicate whether these issues were addressed in the study. If not, it may show only the predictable result that Americanism leads to a specifically American experience of depression in pregnant Latinas.

Image credit: Maria & Michal Parzuchowski. Some rights reserved.

Scientific American recently interviewed U.S. Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) about her new book, Sex, Science, and Stem Cells. DeGette's book decries opposition to her favorite political pets, those related to human reproduction. Her thesis that this opposition constitutes an attack against science itself is an appalling lie, in which SciAm is blithely complicit. (It's not the only publisher so inclined; "Science and Religion News" glowingly praised the interview.)

The trouble starts right with the title of the interview: "Congresswoman Slams Religious Right's Assault on Science's 'Edgier' Side." "Edgy"? To many scientifically literate people, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is vivisection writ very small. Something that unethical can hardly be described with the benign adjective "edgy."

What began in the title grows worse throughout the article. On the second page of the online article, the interviewer asks, "Why did you choose to focus on what you call the "edgier-side" of the big antiscience conspiracy?" This is a classic loaded question, an informal logical fallacy, which makes SciAm's political position crystal clear. Let me refute the assumption behind this question here:

There is no big antiscience conspiracy. The Bush administration is not whispering together with other opponents of (ESCR), "How can we stymie science? Let's count the ways!" In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to identify even one ESCR opponent who also opposes research that does not involve destroying human beings.

There is no assault against science. Rather, the assault is against particular forms of scientific research that are unethical. ESCR is in the same category as the notorious Tuskegee Study.

ESCR is not about sex. It's about human life: the lives of embryos and the lives of sick people hoping for cures. Research ethics forbid allowing the potential for medical cures to trump the rights of research subjects. It would be just as unethical even if adult stem cell research did not offer potential cures without the ethical thorns.

DeGette declares, "I'm pro-science." She seems to be trying to recouch language to denigrate her opponents, the same way abortion-rights supporters did when they coined the noxious term "anti-choice." There is an implicit lie in DeGette's rhetoric: If you disagree with her political views on ESCR, then you are "antiscience." SciAm should dispense with perpetuating this mendacity and pay no more attention to DeGette.

I am making my way at a sedate pace through NASA astrobiologist Peter D. Ward's book Life as We Do Not Know It: The NASA Search for (and Synthesis of) Alien Life. Astrobiology is the real-world version of what science fiction fans have sometimes called “xenobiology.” Though “astrobiology” means “the study of star life,” Ward doesn't limit the possibility of alien life to other stars or even to other planets. We may not only find alien life on Mars, but even on earth.

The scientific definition of life — little more than an intellectual exercise for most biologists, since they know life when they see it — is the most fundamental problem in astrobiology. We have to know what we are looking for if we are to recognize it.

Ward discusses the history of defining life. Some famous scientists have addressed this question, including more physicists than biologists. One of the first books was What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell by Erwin Schrödinger (yes, the guy who both killed and didn't kill theoretical cats). Ward extensively discusses the criteria developed by Paul Davies, another famous physicist. Davies' book The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life lists six qualities that could be expected in any life form: metabolism, organization, development, autonomy, the ability to reproduce, and the ability to evolve. Here are a few thoughts on these qualities.

Metabolism and organization

I grouped these together because they are inseparable. Metabolism is the processing of energy to reduce entropy, and entropy is the opposite of organization. So metabolism preserves organization. And since metabolism requires enormous complexity, organization enables metabolism.

Development

Development is the change in an individual organism over time. I am unconvinced that development, separate from metabolism, is absolutely necessary in the definition of life. Some microbes develop little, if at all, between their asexual “birth” and their reproduction; why should we require it of a microscopic alien creature?

Autonomy

This is the slipperiest of the concepts in the Davies definition of life. Not only is it difficult to pin down exactly what it means (something about “self-determination”), but also exactly how it applies. For example, is a bee hive with a single queen an autonomous unit? Or does that apply to each individual bee in the hive? Or to each cell within each bee? The bee's cells, and the hive's bees, depend respectively on the bee and the hive for their “self-determination.”

Ability to reproduce

Organization means information, so reproduction requires a means to transmit information. Therefore, for any potential life form to reproduce, it needs both a way to reproduce its physical substance and metabolism and the information necessary to organize it. In other words, life needs a genome.

Ability to evolve

I am not sure this item is necessary for the list, not because it is inaccurate, but because of parsimony. The other five qualities can all apply to single organisms, but evolution is something that happens to populations. Metabolism and organization imply variations in efficiency (and therefore competition among members of a population). If reproduction involves any errors or changes in the genome, then logic shows that any population would evolve through natural selection.

Aliens and Origins is an occasional series on Leave the lights on. To make sure you never miss an article in this series, you can subscribe for free.

When I was at university, I worked under the assumption that scientists (some of whom I knew personally, as my professors) were in the business of uncovering the truth of the natural world. Not so, according to the Internet! As a matter of fact, scientists are in the business of hiding the truth, say a staggering number of conspiracy theories.

I just want to know why I wasn't let in on any of these conspiracies. After all, as a student of science, I should have been told what discoveries I had to suppress! Maybe they were saving that for graduate school.

Top 5 conspiracies of science (as found on the Internet):

5. AIDS is not caused by a virus

People die of so-called AIDS because of the toxic effects of AIDS medications. HIV, the virus allegedly responsible for AIDS, is harmless. How do we know? Because there are no "scientific documents" that show HIV causes AIDS. And because a "growing" collection of "bio-medical scientists" says so!

Why the conspiracy? It must have something to do with money, since the website that exposes the conspiracy spells it "AID$".

4. The earth is growing

The earth is growing. Subduction — the meeting of two tectonic plates in which one slides under the other — is impossible according to Science. Yet we have evidence that the opposite of subduction — spreading — does occur. Since the plates undergo spreading but not subduction, the earth is getting bigger and bigger. Q.E.D.

Why the conspiracy? Because this discovery would upset an entire hundred years of science! Just like those other secret discoveries, the photoelectric effect and natural selection! Oh, wait... those weren't kept secret. Wonder why this one was?

3. There are 12 planets in the solar system

Astrologers have known for years that there are really 12 planets revolving around the sun. In 2006, the existence of three new planets was declared by one "Professor H. Cohen," according to T. Stokes, paranormalist. No word what it means to astrology now that Pluto has been redefined as a non-planet. Actually, there is no word about the three new planets, or even about where Prof. Cohen professes, from anyone but T. Stokes.

Why the conspiracy? This one is based on the ignorance of scientists, who could not be bothered to learn about astrology. Out of sad ignorance, they declared it bunk, so they missed out on the astrologers' knowledge.

2. Vaccines contain toxins that are injected right into your bloodstream

The DTaP vaccine, which confers immunity against diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis, contains toxins. Toxins! In fact, it contains toxins from dangerous diseases, including pertussis, tetanus and diptheria!

Why the conspiracy? Toxins! Toxins!

1. The Lucifer Project: Starchild!

Are you prepared.... ....for lots of bad.... PUNCTUATION???? And a video that acknoleges it's speling errors without apollogy? And as one of history's stupid sheeple, are you nevertheless concerned about the next thing on the agenda of the Illuminati after 9/11? 'Cause they are planning to illuminate Saturn by turning it into a second sun!

Why the conspiracy? The Illuminati are going to use the new star to evolve themselves above us "sheeple." How? Well, somehow, of course!

In an old post, I tallied the assorted protests of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States. Expanding on that precedent, I present the 2008 Leave the lights on Awards for World Youth Day Protesters.

The Irony Award

For confusing one's own characteristics with those of the object of one's protest.
Winner: The Green Left for calling Benedict XVI "the reactionary pontiff."

The Most Outrageous Lie Award

For getting it so, so wrong.
Winner: Alex Bainbridge of the Socialist Alliance, who declared that the Church is waging a "war against sex"
Runner-Up: This guy, whose T-shirt reads, "I won't f---- with your gods, you don't f---- with my science"

The Most Childish Complaint Award

For the protest with the tone most akin to a child whining, "He got more pudding than I did!"
Winner: The Australian Greens, a political party, which was upset that the government of New South Wales spent so much on extra police, made road closures, and so forth — all for an event "just for Catholics"

The Most Legitimate Protest Award

For having a good point, even though the thing requested is logistically unrealistic.
Winner: Various victims' advocates who felt the Pope's public apology to sex abuse victims should have been made in personal audiences