Tag Archives: climate change controversy

Perceptions of Promise, an art/science show at Glenbow Museum, Alberta

Leave a reply

The art/science show, Perceptions of Promise, at Alberta’s Glenbow Museum in Calgary features stem cell research, ethics, and art. It’s the outcome of a workshop that was held May 2010 in Alberta. Here’s an image from the show,

Derek Besant, Still from Metamorphosis Theory, 2010. Copy obtained from Glenbow Museum website.

An article by Jef Akst, Controversy on display; A Canadian art exhibit takes a different look at the ongoing debate surrounding human stem cell research,  in The Scientist provides an interview with one of the organizers of the show, Timothy Caulfield, a bioethicist at the Health Law Institute of the University of Alberta,

Over the last couple of years, Caulfield [Timothy] has worked with his brother Sean, a professor of art design also at the University of Alberta, to brainstorm ways to combine their interests in art, science, and society. The brothers’ first brainchild, a 2009 art show in Alberta called Imagining Science, explored legal and ethical issues surrounding biotechnological advances, such as cloning and genetic testing

While they were happy with the exhibition’s success, they felt there were plenty more issues left to cover. “Many of the people involved thought this conversation isn’t over,” Sean says. “It’s kind of just beginning.” So they decided to do it again, this time focusing on the contentious issues surrounding stem cell research.

Following the tradition of their first exhibition, they organized a workshop that brought together scientists, social commentators, and artists to present their work and represent diverse perspectives on stem cell research.

Here’s an excerpt from a posting by one of the participants, Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor in the School of Communication at American University. (At the time of writing, his blog was called Framing Science, Nisbet has since changed his blogging focus and has moved and renamed his blog, Age of Engagement; all the archival posts for Framing Science are included.) From Nisbet’s archived May 5, 2010 posting on Age of Engagement,

Last week I traveled to the Canadian Rockies to participate in a unique workshop organized by the University at Alberta that focused on the shared perspectives and collaborations among artists, scientists, ethicists, and social scientists. The workshop was the second in a series organized by brothers Sean Caulfield and Timothy Caulfield, professors of Art and Law respectively at the University of Alberta.

In 2009, the first workshop resulted in the “Imagining Science” exhibit at the Art Gallery of Alberta and a book by the same title. The critically acclaimed initiative highlighted the emerging genre of “bio art,” which Tim Caulfield in his contribution to the award-winning book describes as “a field of artistic inquiry that both utilizes the techniques of biotechnology and serves as a medium of reflection on the societal implications of the research.”

Here’s an example of a collaboration from the 2010 workshop which has resulted in the Perceptions of Promise show (from the article by Jef Akst),

Paul Cassar, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto who works with mouse embryonic stem cells, took an even more hands-on approach to his collaboration with artist Daniela Schlüter — he actually drew some scientific schematics from which Schlüter created her mixed media drawings.

“By no means am I a good drawer,” Cassar says. “Even my sketches could have been done better by a three year old,” he jokes. But when Schlüter overlaid her own drawings, she was able to “create this story to contrast some of these tensions [of] where we are now with this stem cell debate,” he says. “I think is a really neat example of how science can be inspiring to other creative minds.”

There’s also video of the show featuring the images,

Finally, the Perceptions of Promise website and the Glenbow Museum website.

Science shenanigans made visible; a surprising (or not) appointment to CIHR; announcing a wee holiday

Leave a reply

Human nature, even scientists have it. They recently reasserted their human nature with the climate change controversy over possibly suppressed and/or distorted data. According to the Globe and Mail article by Doug Saunders (Breach in the global-warming bunker rattles climate science at the worst time), even scientists who agreed with the group at the University of East Anglia were not given access let alone people who were perceived as hostile to the cause. Note that word, cause.  From the article,

Unusually, even sympathetic scientists and some activists have concluded that the credibility of climate science has been seriously harmed.

“We should not underestimate the damage caused by what has happened, either for the science or for the politics of climate change, and potentially it could have some very far-reaching consequences,” said Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at East Anglia whose e-mails were among those included in the pirated files and who has been critical of the secrecy and lack of impartiality in his colleagues’ work.

Independent scientists are quick to point out that the actions described in the e-mails do not describe anything like a fabrication of global-warming evidence, and that two other major sets of historical data drawn from the same sources, both held by NASA institutions in the United States, also show a historical warming trend.

…

While such insinuations of poor scientific practice have drawn the most attention, more damaging for climate scientists are e-mails which reveal the hostile, partisan, bunker-like atmosphere at the lab, which goes to ridiculous lengths to prevent even moderate critics from seeing any of the raw data.

In one e-mail, Prof. Jones [head of the CRU] wrote that climate skeptics “have been after the CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

Jones demonstrates the kind of behaviour and communication (or lack of) that we associate with a wrongdoer trying to cover something up or with a fanatic determined to convince you at all costs. Unfortunately, human beings, even with the best of intentions, can take a wrong turn and it would seem that Jones stopped being a scientist and became a true believer.

Some of what’s being discussed in view of the public eye is the usual back and forth amongst scientists as they dispute each other’s findings in sometimes less than genteel tones and cast aspersions on each other’s methodologies. The more high profile the work, the more bitter the fight.

Very quickly, I want to direct you to Rob Annan’s latest postings on a CIHR [Canadian Institutes of Health Research] appointment, a representative from Pfizer, to their governing council and science policy in Europe. If you’re interested in science policy and the implications of some of the new decisions being made and/or taking view of science policy discussions elsewhere, please do check these postings out. Plus I just (5 minutes ago at 9:45 am PST) received this email from the folks who organized the 2009 Canadian Science Policy Conference,

We have just made the entire content of the CSPC publicly available for all Canadians at our website (http://sciencepolicy.ca), including:

  • video of keynote addresses and plenaries
  • audio of all conference sessions
  • video interviews with opinion leaders, conducted on-site at the CSPC by The Mark News
  • written report of all sessions

We are working towards the production of a comprehensive evaluation of CSPC 2009, including detailed performance measures and outcomes of the conference. To that end, we would greatly appreciate your input.

I look forward to viewing the material from the conference (thank you, organizers) when I settle down a bit. I am currently in the throes of a major transition and may not be blogging again until Dec. 17, 2009 or after.