16 March 2018

Superunknown: Scientific Integrity within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes

And as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end

That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names
-- The Jam

You may not recognize names like Amy Cuddy, Kristina Durante, or Brian Wansink but if you listen to NPR, watch TED talks, or read popular online news sites or local and national outlets such as the New York Times, you have probably stumbled across their work. They are among a growing number of academics who have produced one or more exciting, novel, too-amazing-to-be-true research studies that have caught the attention of the media and have been widely disseminated through American culture to the point that we may have internalized their findings as fact. Yet their work has since been debunked, shown to be unscientific and irreproducible. It is all part of what has been dubbed the “replication crisis” in science. Since replication is one of the basic tenets of science, failure to reproduce the results of a study (especially after several attempts) indicates a lack of support for the original findings. How does this happen time and time again, and what does it say about science and the news media?

Scientific research is far from infallible. While the right-wing assault on science stems from an invalid, self-serving, financial core, where money-making trumps all truth or reason, that attack has, in turn, rendered scientific endeavors sacrosanct to much of the left. But neither ideological side speaks honestly or accurately about the complex and nuanced nature of scientific research in practice. While the names mentioned above all perform research in the social (“soft”) sciences where the current reproducibility crisis runs amok, blatant errors, misrepresentations, and deceptions occur far too frequently throughout all fields of science that purport to utilize the scientific method, with untold consequences for society.

Illustration of Bad Science

What if I told you that scientists have proven that the rising of the sun makes you drink orange juice? You would instinctively know that’s not true and would probably question what the heck is going on in “science.” But academics purporting to work under the scientific method using statistical inferences have been making erroneous assertions just like that all too commonly and publicly, and an uncritical news media promote their false information.

Of course, drinking orange juice and morning breakfast-time are, or at least used to be, correlated in American households from around the 1930s through the present. This was in a large part due to the overproduction of oranges, the fear of vitamin C deficiency, and marketing by orange juice manufacturers.  But as most people know, correlation does not equal causation, and correlation may not even mean much of anything at all if you are not clear about all of the other possible contributing, confounding, or explanatory factors involved in the relationship, such as the three I mentioned. While the error in this example seems obvious, similar errors which render research conclusions null and void are too common among many high profile studies.

Case 1 - Amy Cuddy

Amy Cuddy’s famous study on how an assertive “power pose” could elevate testosterone levels and increase a person’s confidence and risk-taking was published in the prestigious Psychological Science, one of the top journals in that field. Then a professor in the Harvard Business School, Cuddy went on to give the second most-popular TED talks ever, sign a book deal, and travel around the world commanding huge fees on the lecture circuit based on the general theme of her study. In the meantime, other skeptical researchers, Joe Simmons and Uri Simonsohn, questioned the veracity of her claims and Eva Ranehill and colleagues failed to replicate the results of the study. One of Cuddy’s co-authors, Dana Carney, has since withdrawn her support of the study, saying "I do not believe the effects are real." But Cuddy, having voluntarily left her academic position, still stands by her work.

In truth, not only is the power pose study a replication failure, it is a failure of peer review. No one needs a particularly specialized expertise to see some of the problems with the study. One glance at the methods section of the paper and you see the sample size of 42, hardly sufficient or statistically powerful. In addition, like in many studies, specific subjective proxies were used to indicate a much more general, supposedly objective, finding. Here, risk taking was measured by participants’ willingness to perform a certain gambling task. Yet one’s interest in gambling is not necessarily directly proportional to one’s interest in other risky activities. Further, participants’ levels of confidence were self-reported on a scale of 1-5. Self-reporting is always error prone, because your level of “2” may not be equivalent to my level of “2.” And yet, all of these subjective measurements are treated as concrete quantifiable data. Finally, the study assumed no cultural differences; demonstrations of power or confidence might not be viewed as beneficial and positive as they are assumed to be in the American culture.

You can see how the reliability of the study deteriorates under scrutiny. But no study is perfect. One of the biggest problems with this study and many similar ones is not just how unreliable the results are, but that the results are treated as generalizable to everyone everywhere. If Cuddy had defined the results as provisional and contingent upon certain assumptions, and circumstances, then her research might have been more defendable, but instead she presented her shoddy science as universal immutable fact. This practice appears to be too widespread.

Case 2 - Kristina Durante

Kristina Durante has received public attention due to her research on the correlation (which she mistakes for causation) between women’s ovulation cycles and other social phenomena. Perhaps her biggest claim to fame is the negative attention she garnered after her study proclaiming that women’s voting preferences correspond to their ovulation cycles was reported by CNN. The backlash from readers focused more on the sexism of the concept than the validity of the research, but plenty of critics took issue with the poor quality of the research methods, the false assumptions, the misplaced correlations, the lack of control for confounding variables, erroneous conclusions not based on the data, and on and on.

I can point to two immediate flaws in her work. First, she assumed voters would only vote for Romney or Obama rather than any other candidate or no one at all. Second, she could not have possibly assessed how fertility or ovulation affects voting choices unless she looked at all of these women throughout their monthly cycles and determined that their voting preference changed during ovulation. Those are only a couple among the myriad errors in the paper; yet, like Cuddy’s, it was published in Psychological Science and the journal stands by the work.

Durante feebly attempted to defend her work as well, but her attempts did not hold water with much of the scientific community. Yet, she continues to conduct the same poor-quality research on ovulation at her new university, Rutgers. Her website states that, “her work integrates knowledge from biology with diverse areas of psychology and marketing,” but it is not clear where her knowledge of biology comes from, because she holds no degrees in any sort of natural science.

Case 3 - Brian Wansink

The most recent academic under fire is Brain Wansink, who achieved moderate fame over the past several decades as a food researcher, calling himself “the Sherlock Holmes of food.” His Food & Brand Lab at the Cornell business school examines consumer behavior with regard to diet. His work sparked a $22 million dollar program in public schools called Smarter Lunchrooms and he was appointed to the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion under George W. Bush. Some of his claims include that having a fruit bowl in your kitchen corresponds with lower body weight, sitting by a window in a restaurant is correlated with healthier food intake, and cereal box characters’ eyes are angled toward children to appeal to them in the grocery aisle. He wrote two popular diet books and his studies have been continuously, endlessly eaten up by the press. Now the press is covering his inaccurate and error-prone work.

The controversy for Wansink started when his (now-deleted) blog post about a highly productive graduate student outlined questionable research procedures and designs and produced an outpouring of confusion and shock within the academic community. Among the processes described were a number of suspect, unscientific practices. One such method, known as p-hacking, derives its name from the statistical probability value (p-value). In statistical hypothesis testing, most sciences choose a p-value of less than 0.05 to show that a result is significant, basically meaning that the result is not likely to have happened due to random chance alone. (A more precise definition can be found here.)  But in practice, that p-value can be manipulated through poor methods, and results that seem significant could be just random signals derived from a lot of noise. The other practice, HARKing, refers to Hypthothesizing After the Results are Known. This means you pretended to test your hypothesis, but instead actually did the reverse, so your results are suspect.

Wansink’s blog post sparked a number of scholars to look more deeply at his prodigious body of work, and what they found was troubling. First, Jordan Anaya, an independent scholar, along with Nicholas Brown and Tim van der Zee, two graduate students in the Netherlands, analyzed the four publications described in the post. They found nearly 150 inconsistencies with the data. They went on to look into more of Wansink's studies, along with research scientist James Heathers of Northeastern University. University of Liverpool professor Eric Robinson also took Wansink to task on the bad science behind the widely-adopted Smarter Lunchrooms program.

Using statistical and data analysis techniques and computer models, these critical investigators demonstrated that in over 50 of Wansink’s publications, the numbers reported simply did not add up or could not even be validly obtained; in short, some values had to be in error or were not real. They also found large areas of self-plagiarism (meaning the re-use of one’s own written material in more than one publication), which constitutes ethical misconduct. But Wansink’s work also suffers from many of the same issues seen with Cuddy and Durante’s: lack of consideration of cultural and socioeconomic differences, lack of control variables, erroneous assumptions, conflation of correlation with causation, and embellished claims, many of which could be noticed without any knowledge of sophisticated quantitative analytical skills.

So why weren’t Wansink’s research issues caught sooner? Actually, several people had raised some alarm bells previously, but few seemed to take note, In fact, the people behind the popular 87 year old American cookbook The Joy of Cooking found fault with one of Wansink’s previous studies concerning their recipes and were delighted when researchers confirmed their suspicions about Wansink’s sloppy studies. So it took a careless blog post and a few intrepid, unpaid critical reviewers to expose years of unsubstantiated scientific claims. This occurred partially because the evaluators relied on quantitative critiques rather than qualitative ones, the former of which are more valued in the current scientific culture.

As it stands, their voluntary work has drawn attention to the research problems in Wansink’s lab and has resulted in six retractions and 15 corrections of his research publications. Emails obtained by Stephanie Lee of Buzzfeed indicate that Wansink knew about his meager methods, but continued to play with his data to obtain desired, often pre-ordained results, and used his in-house public relations mechanisms to spread his message. Meanwhile, Wansink continues to publish and disseminate his more current results to the media and through speaking engagements while under academic investigation by Cornell.

The research irregularities noted above are not outright fraud as with the cases of Michael LaCour, Deiderik Staple, or Marc Hauser. If fraud were the main issue, then it might be easier to attribute scientific problems to particular bad apples. But the examples are more illustrative of the less acute, insidious troubles within science that could rot it through to its core if not adjusted.

The Problems

Unscientific research masquerading as science feels like it is rampant in the social sciences and in psychology in particular, where discussion of the replication crisis is most prevalent. But physician and statistician John Ioannidis indicates that even in the biomedical sciences, most research findings are false. In particular, it appears that findings in all human-related sciences are problematic, which is not surprising since human biology, psychology, behavior, social interactions, and ecological connections overlap in the real world and are difficult, if not impossible, to study completely with the reductionist tools of the scientific method. Perhaps it is easier to study non-human phenomena also because cultural, socioeconomic, and political factors are not in the mix.

Just because science cannot necessarily deal with extreme complexity and the scientific method has limitations, that obviously does not mean that all science is wrong or useless. Science performs beautifully, elegantly in certain areas of study; in others it cannot fulfill its promise because it is the inappropriate tool for inquiry or it is inappropriately used. Given that much of the public holds science in such high regard, the scientific community should strive to live up to its ideals. But currently, science is not performing to the high standards it promotes.

Problem – The Research Process

Problems with scientific rigor start with the research process. As exemplified by the cases above, too much research has no controls, no controlling for outside variables, and no hypotheses (or hypotheses that are unsupported by any existing knowledge, have no theoretical foundation, or are implausible). More exploratory types of research may need no hypotheses, but then they should not only be identified as such, they should not be mistakenly subjected to hypothesis testing, nor should the results of such inquiries be reported as anything but conditional, subject to further testing.

Many studies use experimental proxies to stand in for variables they seek to examine. For example, a researcher might say that taking a cookie indicated that that subject was prone to eating sweets. But what if I don’t care for the type of cookie given or I am allergic to something in that cookie? Maybe I do like sweets, but that particular cookie is a bad indication. Similarly, lab rats are used in toxicological, pharmacological, and other studies as proxies for humans, but we know that sometimes rats are good proxies, depending on the effect measured, sometimes they are poor proxies, and sometimes it depends on the specific type of rat for a given variable.

Another issue is the transformation of subjective data to seemingly objective, quantifiable data. Surveys do this all the time. They ask you to rank your preference on a scale of 1-5. Or they provide three to four answers from which you are forced to choose, even though none of the answers suit your needs, and your correct choice should be “other” - after which you should provide a qualitative answer which could not be entered into statistical analysis. When we quantify things that are more qualitative or cannot really be quantified at all (e.g., love) we leave room for error in the scientific record and we need to be clear that our results reflect this level of uncertainty.

Faulty assumptions, biased values, and subjective definitions of terms can also play a role in flawed research. A lot of agricultural science values high yield of food over the quality of the food produced. Many studies assume that the U.S. is a functioning democracy and/or define it as one, whereas other researchers find that not to be the case. Some people would simply define industrial livestock production as animal agriculture while others would call it animal cruelty. And a whole host of researchers tend to say, in the introduction of their publications, that various technologies have without question enhanced, expanded, helped, or benefited human lives, but fail to provide any citation or evidence for that assumption. I have encountered such unsupported suppositions assumed as fact so many times when reading research about human health and the environment, that my husband has coined it the First Paragraph Fabrication. But these subjective assumptions can lay the foundation for what then becomes supposedly objective results.

Additionally, quantitative data and analyses are most commonly utilized in scientific research, but can fail to elucidate clear conclusions. Sometimes quantitative data analysis can lead to erroneous conclusions when not coupled with qualitative data and/or analyses that put the quantitative data in context. In my own research, I examined media coverage of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and quantified how many citizens were interviewed about their experience. But only through qualitative analysis did I see that the citizens’ comments appeared to be limited to subjects such as economics and livelihood, rather than science or health.

Then there are statistics. What I know about statistics is that I have so much more that I need to know in order to perform meaningful research that takes into account the complexities inherent in most research studies. I also know that a lot of researchers know less than I do, and use and report statistics wrong. In my graduate regression analysis class, I found out, to the great dismay of my professor, that I was one of only about three people who had taken calculus. But because of the advancement of computer software over the past several decades, researchers no longer need to completely understand math when they can just input numbers into a program and obtain a p-value. Moreover, even though there is no such thing as any result being more statistically significant than any other, researchers sometimes still report p-values < 0.01 as more highly significant than p-values<0.05.

Finally, there are exaggerated and unsupported claims. Cuddy, Durante, and Wansink all suffer from drawing conclusions that do not necessarily stem from their data. Some research may be less problematic if is were more truthful - if the researchers report interim conclusions, if the deficiencies and limitations of the research study are clearly elucidated, and if correlational relationships are not transformed into causal ones. But that kind of transparency and clarity does not tend to make a scientific splash in the media and popular culture.

Problem – Publish or Perish

In order to get a job as a tenured professor, you must incessantly publish research in scholarly journals. Academic search committees do not usually read candidates’ publications, nor do they consider the quality of the research or the benefit of the research for the public good, but the number of publications is a crucial factor in hiring and tenure decisions. Quantity is valued over quality, so the incentives in academia are not to design extremely rigorous studies, pour over carefully obtained data, and act with extreme consideration in analyzing results or drawing conclusions. The incentives are to publish as much as possible as fast as possible - empty productivity.

In graduate school I encountered an ambitious professor who advised his students to attempt to publish every paper they had ever written. This person made a name for himself in his field, but his work is questionable.

When I conducted pilot studies surveying undergraduate students, my adviser recommended against publishing as these types of studies because, due to their unreliability and lack of rigor, they had become frowned upon. Moreover, they were merely exploratory – no conclusions could be drawn. By contrast, the ambitious professor would have urged me to publish. Despite the lack of rigor, studies using students as proxies for other populations are still published often and seep into media reports. The advice of the ambitious professor would have been more helpful toward academic career prospects (had I been interested), even though it was less ethical.

With competition fierce, academics are enticed to produce sexy, cool, headline garnering results, not necessarily truth. Not only is employment itself on the line, but grants and funding can be dependent upon these superficial goals. The emphasis on fame rather than truth corrupts science. Much like the rest of our consumer capitalistic culture, style is valued over substance. As Brian Nosek, professor and director of the Center for Open Science notes, “the real problem is that the incentives for publishable results can be at odds with the incentives for accurate results.”

A great deal of the aforementioned research problems might be better avoided with more time and a focus on quality rather than quantity, but that is not how academia currently works. Consequently, instead of slowly producing what would likely be fewer rigorous, meaningful, high-quality studies, academia produces too many studies, too quickly, lowering their overall quality. Those studies then fail to serve the public good.  Indeed, the pinnacle of such a perverse capitalistic incentive structure is in China, where scientists are provided cash rewards for publication; the more venerable the journal, the higher the pay. The implications for the corruptibility of science under such circumstances could not be clearer. But with the academic publishing industry posting astonishing profits, it is unlikely to change under the current free market system.

Problem – Peer Review

Peer review is considered the gold standard for vetting scientific research, but a lot of scientists recognize it is not. Nevertheless, much of the media and public view a peer-reviewed paper as incontrovertible. Like the rest of the academic system, peer review has broken down or may have never been as robust as people like to think. After all, the same researchers who are producing problematic studies act as peer-reviewers. But the problems lie deeper.

First, there is the outright fraud. With the emergence of more and more venues for academic work, journals exist that pretend to conduct peer reviews when they do not. Others charge the author fees to publish his/her work, with little concern for peer review at all. There is also the case of researchers or journal editors fabricating peer review. However, much like blatant fraud in research itself, these instances are less common than the more subtle factors at play.

Conscious and unconscious biases exist in the peer review process, as does manipulation. Often, reviewers rely on the reputations of high profile researchers and/or respected institutions, favoring their papers without reservation. Sometimes, researchers purposely cite previous publications from the journal to which they submit work, not because these citations are relevant in their study, but because they can increase the impact factor (the mark of prestige) of the journal. Study authors do this to curry favor and increase the likelihood of publication, while journal editors occasionally ask for it themselves.

Then there is the emphasis on sensationalism in scientific journals. They are not interested in careful, nuanced, studies - and forget about replication studies. They want novel, exciting results.  Nobel Prize winner Randy Schekman says that journals "curate their brands" like any other corporate product. He and others claim that this leads to unsound science that does not benefit society, as it was intended to.

There are numerous other issues with the peer review process. People might be afraid to scrutinize research because they fear their research may be equally scrutinized and found to be flawed. Conflicts of interest may exist between the reviewers and the authors. Reviewers who openly, rather than anonymously, criticize the manuscript of a colleague might fear reprisal for criticizing the work of someone who could, in turn, be tasked with overseeing the reviewer’s future grant proposals or publications. On the other hand, reviewers can and do enter into quid pro quo arrangements whereby they ease one another’s work through the review process without regard to its merit.

Sometimes peer reviewers may not be equipped for their job. Many reviewers just do not know statistical methods well enough to assess them. Other times, reviewers are simply overworked which could affect their ability to catch errors. Because their peer review labor is unpaid, they may even unconsciously prioritize it less, leaving it rife for mistakes and oversights.

I am sure any researcher can list endless examples of papers they have read which contained obvious errors, yet passed peer review. I recall one in which the statistical test outlined in the method differed from the test described in the results. The point is that peer review is far from perfect and is quite flawed due to the inherent pressures of the current academic research and publishing system.

Problem - News media           

The problems with media reports of scientific issues stem from the same market-driven demands that constrain the academic research process, and frankly, most of the processes in modern industrial societies. As the New York Times admitted, their paper is, in fact, ideologically driven; they believe in capitalism. Consequently, just as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky theorized in Manufacturing Consent, the pro-capitalist ideology of mainstream/corporate news media can therefore influence not only which scientific issues they chose to cover in their news (known as agenda-setting), but how they frame and cover the issue.

As a result, news publications and journalists have almost the same incentives as academic journals and their authors: flashy headlines, cool stories, clickbait. Journalists themselves are commonly rewarded for quantity of publications over quality, and for high visibility and readership. Subsequently, the research they tend to cover is the easy to understand studies with trendy results. Audiences seem to like results that are intuitive and confirm their beliefs or, conversely, improbable and leave them awestruck. Americans tend to be enticed by ease and convenience. They like solutions to problems that seem magical, particularly if they can be characterized as science. They want to believe. As one student commented after much of Wansink’s research was shown to be unsound, "Despite all the news about Brain Wansink's research, I still believe/follow some of his advice." That is why Cuddy, Durante, and Wansink’s work was so appealing to the press and to the public.

Much like the failure of the vetting process in peer review, shoddy research could be better vetted by science journalists. One way to do this is to have more journalists with actual scientific expertise cover scientific research and perform investigative journalism of, rather than public relations for, science. In this way, the press could fulfill its role as the fourth estate and act as an auditor and translator of scientific information, rather than as a stenographer for science.

Even though some more complicated scientific research would need a critical eye with a background in a specific subject, many social science studies such as the ones recounted here are pretty easy to follow and need no specific expertise to find the flaws. Thus, I suspect that the journalists covering the aforementioned faulty studies (and so many more) do not parse the research publications, but merely count on the university or researcher’s press releases, thus acting as publicists rather than journalists. As a corporate enterprise, a news service does not necessarily have the motive to produce truth.

In the case of Wansink, the same news media that first uncritically touted his research have now turned around to criticize his work, only because others brought the problems to their attention. For them and their business model, its win-win, but it is not at all a win for the public.
Because scientific research affects all of our lives and because most people obtain their scientific information either directly or indirectly (via social media) from the press, the press plays a crucial role in better evaluating the science it covers and in ensuring that low quality research does not get reported as scientific “fact.” In this way, they also avoid adding fuel to the current fire of (sometimes valid) proclamations of “fake news.”

Where This Leaves Science

-- Mark A. Edwards and Siddhartha Roy

Even with all of the difficulties described above, there is still so much good science being done, and there are still ethical, honest, scientists doing the best work they possibly can. The problem is, they are too often overlooked because meaningful, vigilant, nuanced work is not rewarded in the current system as much as fashionable, thrilling - if flawed - work. And the cycle can be vicious, with shoddy work gaining more attention, more rewards, and more funding. Due to this competitive and corruptible academic playing field, some of the best potential scientists either do not enter graduate school, drop out before graduating, or avoid work in academic research for lack of interest in the game.

Scientific research is vitally important and should be shared with the public, after all, most people agree that its goal should be to enhance public good. But we need to be wary of those who seem to be marketing their own products themselves. Some of these popular science researchers are not scientists at all but merely influence peddlers. There are roles galore for them in our current consumer culture, but promoting their unscientific research under the guise of science undermines the trustworthiness of all of science.

Some scientists are afraid of the current trend of open science, and of pre-publication and post-publication peer review, where scholars from all over the globe publicly scrutinize scientific research outside the traditional system. They fear we would all find that bad practices are too common. That mindset is anything but scientific, since science is supposed to welcome correction (in theory, if not in practice). Independent public review might be even better than traditional peer review in many respects. Reviewers might be less biased because they do not necessarily have to worry about career retaliation. Also, open review allows for constructive criticism from not just a set of several reviewers, but endless numbers. And there are scientists who even say that people outside of their specialized field, but who know enough about the subject, can even lend some of the best critiques because they view the work from a different, but valid perspective. These sorts of changes are all good for science.

Some people also view the push for more open science and more critical analyses of research as a witch hunt. The difference is that witches do not actually exist. Poor research does. If so-called scientists are not practicing real scientific research, and more importantly, if they will not learn from mistakes and change accordingly, then they should not be participating in science at all. They receive all of the adulation and reverence without the presumed integrity of their research.

Just like markets, science is supposedly self-correcting, yet neither are. Markets need regulations and regulators to keep them from enriching only the most corrupt, those with the least honesty and greatest ambition. So does science. The structures in place for checks and balances in science have been crumbling under the weight of the market system it which it operates. The question is, will the current movement for better science be able to withstand the forces against it? Right now, some scientists are characterizing those who uncover and expose bad research “data thugs” and “academic terrorists.” I would characterize them as people of integrity, even heroes. As Thomas Kuhn suggested, scientific paradigm shifts do not come easily and there will always resistance to change, especially from the establishment.

Given that scientific results affect citizens and social policies, it is vital that they be reliable. But the careerist, market-driven, capitalistic incentive structure in the system does not foster truth and reliability as much as it fosters entertainment and novelty. Scientific inquiry should be seeking truths, and in application, these truths should be for the benefit of all life on Earth. Forget the ideologues. Real people and scientists themselves are questioning the sanctity of science for real reasons, as they should. Dismissing the troubles in scientific research as simply due to such problems as conflicts of interest from ties with industry is merely targeting the lowest-hanging fruit.

The people who want to believe in magic, fairy dust, and the powers of positive thinking or prayer (both debunked) will always find ways to reject science for the wrong reasons and accept the unscientific research they like. Unfortunately, some people think science is magical. It’s not; it takes a lot of hard work to get it right. Those of us who are awestruck by the power, wonder, and uncertainty of science, need to be much, much more careful about what we publicly proclaim under the auspices of science and academic research. Science needs to adhere to the higher standards it presumes to uphold - otherwise, it is nothing more than business.

Kristine Mattis holds a Ph.D. in Environment and Resources. She is no relation to the mad-dog general. Email: k_mattis@outlook.com

23 November 2017

Slaves and Bulldozers*, Plutocrats and Widgets

There is not an industrial company on earth, not an institution of any kind - not mine, not yours, not anyone's - that is sustainable. I stand convicted by me, myself alone, not by anyone else, as a plunderer of the earth. But not by our civilization's definition. By our civilization's definition, I'm a captain of industry and in the eyes of many, a kind of modern-day hero.                   
                                                -- Ray Anderson, (1934-2011) CEO of Interface, Inc.

We are living a collective illusion known as the civilized world. We feign concern for our horrendous conditions of poverty, socioeconomic inequality, deteriorating public health, and severe environmental degradation (to which climate change is merely one factor), but everything we do belies that distress. These issues comprise the largest risks to the survival of the human species, as well as the most significant amoral atrocities on the planet. Both individually and as a species, our health, safety, and ability the live a decent, dignified life have always been imperiled by these predicaments. Yet, we continue along with complete cognitive dissonance in that the crux of our lives – our jobs, our consumer culture - all contribute to, perpetuate, and exacerbate the unsustainable and morally reprehensible conditions of our existence. But while we are all marginally responsible for the multitude of calamities befalling us, the one group who bears the brunt of the blame for our social and ecological decay is the wealthy.

Have you looked around and seen just what humanity has done to our stunning Earth? We've bulldozed the beauty for bucks. Far too much of what was once a glorious paradise is now a complete disaster of unfathomable proportions. A disaster wholly of our own making. In America, and in most places around the world, from the moment we are born we are preparing for a future career, and more specifically, for the lifelong goal of making money. But on the whole, most of the jobs we do end up being more detrimental than beneficial to society and the environment. We characterize work through measures of productivity, but producing more and more unnecessary, meaningless, and often useless products compromises our physical environment, which in turn, compromises the health of humans, other beings, and our entire planetary ecosystem.

So many of the things that form the basis of our civilization should not, and perhaps cannot, exist in a just and sustainable world. Items like arms and artillery, synthetic chemicals, concentrated animal feeding operations, plastic, smartphones and other electronic gadgetry do not feed a sustainable and equitable world but create more needless havoc. The irony, though, is that the very people who run the systems that incessantly construct and promulgate these harmful, redundant, or unnecessary products are the richest and most successful people on earth.

We define success in our society almost exclusively in terms of wealth, with its attendant power and sometimes, fame. Rich people are the recipients of adulation and reverence for nothing more than their accumulation of wealth and material products. We like to think that riches come by way of great intellect, talent, skill, and a strong work ethic, but in reality, monetary success is more a matter of inherited socioeconomic status, ambition, and determination, rather than ability and aptitude. Most of all, to achieve wealth means to have a myopic resolve, not only to look away from how the sausage is made, but to not care how the sausage is made.

The wealthy in our society then become the people with the most power and influence. While ironically, they are the people least deserving of our respect. They are the exact people whom we should look upon with the utmost skepticism and even disdain. They should not be in the position to make decisions about our collective lives and the workings of our society, because their financial success is completely antithetical to societal justice and sustainability.

It doesn't take great acumen or diligence to make a lot of money; it takes a narrow-minded, insular, immoral, sometimes psychopathic view of life, in which personal pleasure and profit are the primary variables. It's quite easy to do well financially and find personal satisfaction if the exploitation of humans, other animals, and the entire biosphere is left outside of the realm of your career consciousness. As Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpet admitted, "For 21 years
I never gave a thought to what we were taking from the earth or doing to the earth in the making of our products." He built his fortune without consideration to the effects of his enterprise until someone brought the deleterious consequences to his attention.

We like to believe the cream rises to the top, but the truth is that the top is actually full of scum. We have seen in recent weeks, if we did not know already, that entertainment, politics, and indeed, all of the wealthiest industries are cesspools of moral depravity, especially at the apex.
There may be some exceptions, but scum is the rule. Some might call these people ambitious, some might call them razor-focused, others would call them sociopathic. It takes a careful regimen of willful  ignorance and/or denial to not consider all the harms that directly and indirectly result from avenues toward career achievements in the process of our normal lives – harms such as exploitation of labor, torture of animals, and toxic contamination and of food, water, and natural resources.

Material success requires rape and pillage, figuratively and literally. Donald Trump bragged that when you have the kind of wealth he has, you can treat women as objects and just "grab 'em by the pussy." You can also exploit resources, exploit labor, befoul the environment, and endanger public health with few or no consequences. On a purely moral basis, only scum could have the hubris to consider others as mere playthings for their own enjoyment, to feel superior enough to warrant their extreme wealth which they did not earn but stole from the commons, and to believe that they deserve obscene riches when the majority of others do not even have basic life necessities.

How often have you heard the phrases "not that there is anything wrong with being rich," or "I don't begrudge him his wealth"? Wealth should be considered reprehensible. Wealth has always been in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many, and one's access to it has always been almost wholly correlated with one's socioeconomic status at birth. Yet we rationalize this immoral situation and pretend that the proverbial "pie," of which we all need a slice, is infinite in size and that wealth is accessible to anyone. We assume that being rich is not only acceptable but aspirational. It is neither in a just and sustainable world.

On a finite planet every excess dollar, every excess material good, every extra home, car, garment, trinket, piece of food, or beverage that one person possesses essentially correlates to an item that another person does not have. When we normalize one person having more than he/she needs in a world where billions have far less than the bare minimum required to meet their basic needs, then we are obliged to rethink our morality. When a simple handbag can cost between $12K and $300K and we as a society see nothing wrong with that kind of excess in the face of poverty, hunger, homelessness, and disease, we are not only completely socially corrupt, we are spelling our own doom. Poverty only exists because excessive wealth exists and neither is compatible with a sustainable and humane civilization.

To achieve a sustainable world, we must relinquish our use of non-renewable resources, we must utilize renewable resources at a level in which they have the time and ability to replenish, and we must leave no waste that is not regenerative. To achieve an equitable world, we must relinquish our greed and desire for opulence, excess, and disproportionate influence. In fact, sustainability is also a function of equity. However, our current society is predicated on the antithesis of all such requirements.

Wealthy people gain their successes because they have tunnel vision. They are singularly focused on themselves, their careers, and/or on money. They do not take into consideration the externalities involved in their actions. They pay little mind to the exploitation involved in their pursuits. Ethics never supersedes ambition. Therefore, these are the exact people who should not be in charge of making policies for the benefit of society and should not be in charge of civic ventures. To be able to be so wealthy without shame, guilt, or acknowledgement that your own wealth impedes the lives of others is to be either ignorant or indifferent. We are facing global ecological and economic collapse. Who made this happen? The wealthiest people of the world. If you are rich you do not have the solution. You are the problem.

The world is run on slave labor, indentured servitude, animal and natural resource exploitation, and endless generation of waste and contamination. Material success comes with adopting a shortsighted view of the world – closing yourself off to your own connection to global anthropogenic climate change, toxification, and inequality.

So many of the wealthy who consider themselves socially and environmentally aware perceive no connection between their own wealth accumulation and the causes they claim to champion. Instead of curtailing their materialism, they rationalize it. Instead of acknowledging that their consumerism intensifies global resource extraction, they produce more products (often erroneously labeled "green") to sustain their riches. When the wealthy are not hawking products for their for-profit activities, they have the audacity to solicit for charitable organizations that are only necessitated by the economic system that produces poverty and environmental devastation in the wake of their extravagant wealth. They ask donations from the majority of citizens who are barely making ends meet, when they themselves could surrender probably 90% of their accumulated wealth and not notice a marked change in their material status whatsoever. The elites who are not in denial about the problems we face want scientific and technological solutions - solutions that they can throw their money at and have others solve so they do not have to think about their own contribution to the problems.

But there are no silver bullets to end inequality and environmental destruction, while continuing with business as usual in civilized society. Science cannot save us. Scientific research itself relies on the same unsustainable production, consumption, use of resources, and waste as every other industry.

Technology mavens always tout the great social or biological service that their new technology will provide. Their innovations comes under the guise of helping the world, but the majority of the time, their creations are frivolous and do not do much more than use natural resources, create waste, and earn them exorbitant profit. At the university where I earned my doctoral degree there is a masters program in biotechnology and there's a reason why their curriculum extends beyond just science, containing at least two required business courses. Of course, business is fundamental to their instruction because the principle purpose of our education, of our careers, is profit.

All of the harmful products and practices in our civilization – military arms, sweatshops, low wages, pesticides, plastics, throw-away items, excess of products, animal cruelty, overuse of medicine and surgery - only exist to increase revenue for the rich. None are fair or just or equitable or sustainable. Our societal justification of the above items just marks our collective delusion. These products and practices persist in the name of profit, and we rationalize their continuation just as we rationalize extravagant wealth.

When Senator Bernie Sanders was on TV decrying President Barack Obama's half-million dollar speaking engagements on Wall Street, the anchors of the program said to him, "Wouldn't you do it if you could?" Bernie replied, "I wouldn't be asked." Rather, he should have explained that anyone with integrity would not accept money they do not need for some sort of quid pro quo from a destructive and corrupt institution. The hosts of the show surmised that everyone would jump at the opportunity to earn money if they had the chance. It is precisely that sort of mindset that enables these broadcasters to inhabit their influential positions on a national television program and to earn millions of dollars. They demonstrate what unethical opportunists they, and most of the rich, actually are. Their lack of ethics is internalized and taken for granted by not only them, but most of the rest of our society. They are more than willing to be bought at whatever price for whatever service. "Just doing my job" does not serve as an excuse for immorality.

Nevertheless, there are people who have chosen lives based on conviction rather than money. Former Uruguayan President Jose Mujica and Seattle City Council member Kashama Sawant chose to earn the local average income for their official positions and donate the remainder of their salaries toward social justice work. Biologist and writer Sandra Steingraber donated a portion of her $100K Heinz Award prize toward the fight against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) rather than spend it on personal treats. Likewise, teacher Jesse Hagopian donated his $100K settlement for being unjustly attacked with pepper-spray by Seattle police toward social justice action. Not everyone is looking to cash in, and not everyone is seeking the next, biggest profit-making endeavor.

Living with integrity and simplicity is difficult. People do not choose to live this way because their personal sacrifice will change the world. They do so because it is the right thing to do. They do so because having too much means others don't have enough. They do so because living by example allows others who care to see that a life of wealth and consumerism augments inequality and unsustainability; it is not the only way to live and need not be. They live this way because only by walking the walk rather than talking the talk will we ever start to achieve justice and sustainability to help preserve the future of our species.

In recent years there have been waves and wave of protests throughout the country and the world in response to myriad societal maladies. The best protest we can do in America now is to reject the bourgeois life - reject excessive wealth and the material components that come with it, reject profligate consumption, reject consumerism, reject wasteful holidays, reject wasteful trinkets,  reject all that is incompatible with what we purport to champion. For example, retired talk-show host David Letterman appears sincere in his dedication toward helping combat climate change, while at the same time, he remains co-owner of an auto racing team. In the world in which we currently live, auto racing is completely incongruent with climate change mitigation. We can't pretend to value matters like justice and sustainability unless the way we live upholds those values. We can't decouple our livelihoods from our lives.

The rich tend to ensconce themselves in their well-manicured communities, shop with abandon, and disregard the abject poverty, environmental degradation, and injustices all around them. They are in the process of spending small portions of their vast fortunes building survival bunkers to withstand either the revolutionary upheaval that may soon come as a result of immeasurable socioeconomic inequality, or the catastrophic ecological collapse that may result from reckless resource extraction and expenditure. How misguided or cynical are they to not realize that by renouncing their extreme wealth, they would need no such provisions and could play a large part in salvaging our civilization?

Need I even explain how the current tax scam pending on Capitol Hill will serve to enhance all of the socioeconomic, environmental, and public health calamities that are arising ever more rapidly and in quick succession? Need I elaborate on how our escalating climate-related weather catastrophes only reach the cataclysmic proportions they do because of the wealth disparities involved and because of the high-risk industrial components therein, that exist mainly to enrich the elite? Would these natural disasters be so disastrous if more people had the economic resilience that they deserve and if society took more precaution against the hazards of multibillion-dollar industries that manufacture products of questionable value while generating tremendous wealth to a select few?

We live in a time of unprecedented social disarray, ecological disrepair, public health decay, and moral depravity. Nearly every aspect of the way we live in modern industrial societies is completely unsustainable. Even if we were to transition to 100% solar energy tomorrow throughout the planet, the worst effects of climate change might be averted, but the plastic pollution that permeates the most far-reaching depths of the oceans would still remain, the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) that harm our own health and the health of the entire global ecosystem remain. Not only do they remain, but they continue to be produced, not out of necessity, but for the financial profit of the privileged few. The production of, consumption of, and waste stream from our global industrial society continues unabated. This is the system that forms the foundation of all of our lives in the civilized world, and this is the system that bestows excessive wealth to some while leaving others fighting for survival.

While it is indeed the system of capitalism that generates and sustains our societal injustice and ecological degradation, the system is comprised of people – people who could abdicate their fictional obligation to happiness via indefinitely-increasing earnings, people who can choose better. Without a preponderance of such people, no countervailing just and sustainable system can ever compete.

In 1964, Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano interviewed the famous Argentinean hero of the Cuban revolution Ernesto "Che" Guevara. In the midst of a comprehensive conversation, Che stated to Galeano, "I don't want every Cuban to wish he were a Rockefeller." To be sure, if we are remotely interested in a sustainable and equitable world, the attainment of wealth must be transformed from admirable to contemptible. With regard to the multitude of obstacles we face, Ralph Nader once wrote "only the super-rich can save us." He's right. They can save us by not existing.

 * RIP C.C.

Kristine Mattis holds a Ph.D. in Environment and Resources. She is no relation to the mad-dog general.. Email: k_mattis@outlook.com.

20 September 2017

Burden in My Hand*: The U.S. Medical Industrial Complex

 Years ago my husband and I were traveling out of town when he noticed a very itchy red blotch growing around his elbow. By dinnertime, the redness had migrated throughout his arm. We knew that it could be an infection, so after dinner, we were luckily able to stop at an urgent care clinic where we immediately saw the physician on duty who diagnosed it as a bacterial infection. She prescribed a course of antibiotics and told us to return in 24 hours for follow-up to be sure that the infection had receded. All of this cost between $5-7 - an inexpensive and satisfying medical visit.

Several weeks later we had settled into our temporary home and decided we were overdue for physical exams. We called a nearby doctor's office. They scheduled appointments for us in about a week and facilitated the visits so that my husband and I could each see a doctor at the same time. Moreover, the office was within a few miles of our home, so we could easily walk there. When we arrived, the only paperwork necessary was a form to list our names, addresses, and some personal and family medical history. The doctors greeted us both and were taken aback when we spoke to them with the formal "Dr." before their last names. They preferred to converse on a first name basis. Each viewed themselves as just another working stiff. After those medical appointments, we had some additional preventative and diagnostic exams and services, including x-rays. The primary-care physicians apologized that it might take up to two to three weeks to see a specialist. We, on the other hand, were flabbergasted at the expediency of the whole process.  Once we were through with our physicals and further exams, we received the bill.

No, wait just a moment. We didn't receive any bill at all, because we were living in New Zealand. Despite the fact that we were not citizens, nor (yet) residents of the county, we received all of the aforementioned medical care for free.

Unfortunately, our stay in New Zealand had to be curtailed for a number of reasons. We have never had such sufficient, efficient, and pleasant medical experiences before or since.

In our youth, whether uninsured or underinsured (which most people in the U.S. tend to be), we normally avoided seeing doctors because of the high co-pays and deductibles involved as well as the complete opaqueness of the cost of any sort of care. 

When care became more necessary as we aged, we reluctantly visited medical professionals, but the costs were usually shrouded in secrecy. For example, I was diagnosed with cancer (which was very likely, in part, iatrogenic) and needed surgery. Having extremely insufficient medical insurance, I expressed my concerns to the billing personnel at the hospital before the scheduled operation, but they could not divulge any of the prices of the known procedures. Instead, they told me that it was not something I should worry about. And you wonder why lack of health care coverage is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.?

Is there any other business in which you pay for services or products - and extremely expensive ones at that - but are not told the price beforehand, and moreover are told not to worry about the cost? It is absolute insanity and should be illegal. There are no standard prices for medical treatments and services and there is no transparency about costs. Indeed, medical care is the only service for which you are forced to buy the product prior to knowing its price. Consequently, patients are gouged with exorbitant fees over which they have no control whatsoever, particularly when they lack insurance and when they are people of color. Bottom line: those with the least pay the most and those with the most pay the least, as per usual in the United States.

Quantitative data clearly demonstrate the shortcomings of the U.S. medical system:
 Forget about being in-between jobs, forget about moving from region to region, let alone state to state - medical insurance in the United States does not account for the real life situations we all face. Though many applauded the Affordable Care Act's extension of coverage to children up to the age of 26 under their parents' medical plan, this provision only helped if those young adults could live at home with or stay within the same general vicinity as their parents. All of the vagaries in the lives of actual Americans are left unaccounted for within our tortuous system of health coverage.

But all of these statistics do not fully illustrate what it is like to sort through the costly, convoluted U.S. medical system. I, like most of my fellow Americans, can recount innumerable exasperating stories throughout my lifetime of dealing with health insurance. I could talk about how, after hours of phone calls seeking medical care for some alarming symptoms that could have been related to my prior cancer diagnosis, it took three months to find a physician to see me. I could talk about how my health insurance provider just completely dropped all dental coverage with no explanation, even after numerous phone calls and letters inquiring as to why. In the past year alone, this ridiculously labyrinthine scheme of accessing medical care has left me resolved to not bother seeing a doctor at all.

Most recently, after having moved to a new state and, fortunately, obtaining health insurance through my husband's job, I tried to set up dental appointments. The only dentists in the area covered by our insurance said that the next available check-up could be scheduled TEN months from now. Then I tried to find primary care physicians. I spent hours and hours and days and days calling doctors' offices only to be told that they were "not accepting new patients." I gave up and called the health insurance provider to help me. The nice woman at the other end of the line said she'd be happy to find a physician for me and would email me a list of those available. The next day, I received a list with the name of ONE physician within a thirty mile radius who would take new patients. However, not only does it take a minimum of two months to get an appointment with a physician, but the physician wants all of your prior medical history (which is nearly impossible to compile for someone like me who has moved around so much) and then, after examining your history for anywhere from one to six weeks, will then decide whether he or she will actually take you on as a patient. This is the scenario with what is supposedly the best medical insurance in the region. Imagine what it is like for those with "lesser" insurance plans or with no insurance at all.

Early this summer, my husband severely injured both of his knees, leaving him barely able to walk without tremendous pain and assistance from a cane. Since we had no doctor and no ability to get an appointment for months, we attempted to see if his injuries would heal on their own. When the hoped-for healing never materialized, we finally had to go to the emergency room since no other physician would see us, despite our supposedly excellent health insurance. We waited four hours just to get a referral to an orthopedic specialist, because the orthopedics on our health care plan would not see a patient without one, even though our insurance does not require a referral. No medical treatment, one referral, and four hundred dollars later, we were next denied care by two of the local orthopedic group practices for apparently no reason whatsoever. In all my life, I had never heard of such a thing - a patient needs care and a physician denies service even WITH health insurance. I finally obtained an appointment with an orthopedic about 40 miles away after I explained our dilemma and basically begged the nurse to help my husband. I suppose we were fortunate, though, given that the nurse at the ER told us that she, herself, visits a specialist six hours away from our town.

These tales, of course, are not unique, nor do they even come close to approach the worst of what has occurred to Americans attempting to navigate such a corrupt medical system, if they even have any access to it at all. My troubles pale in comparison to those who have suffered physically and emotionally, lost their life savings, and worse, lost their loved ones due to the unethical, immoral medical industrial complex in the United States that values profits over people at every turn. In every place I have lived in my adult life, I have seen flyers and advisements fundraising for local community members who have fallen ill, unable to afford to pay for their necessary and often lifesaving care. And it is also not uncommon for citizens to have to try to raise money to pay for medical bills for their deceased family members as well. What kind of a psychopathic nation would allow this? Ours, of course.

Unfortunately, too few people want to complain publicly about the system. Americans are told that the strong just grin a bear the burdens they face. Furthermore, the preponderance of anecdotes in the media do not even begin to explicate what a colossal clusterfuck - and that is truly the only fitting word - the U.S. medical system is. Anyone who claims that health care in the United States is good or even tolerable, let alone the best in the world, either has far too much wealth and privilege to warrant a voice,  has not been anywhere else on the planet to experience the contrast to our woeful structure, or has sorely low expectations.

Universal health care is not only feasible, it is the least expensive, least bureaucratic, most straightforward, most efficient, and only moral solution to our heath care crisis in the United States. To those who balk at how universal health care can be paid for, I ask how we can fund the past 16 years of illegal, atrocious, global wars, the trillions of dollars spent (and lost into thin air)  to supply the military-industrial complex, and the incessant tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations? Universal, single-payer health coverage for all Americans is long overdue. All of the bullshit excuses and obfuscations will no longer fly. It is high time for the United States to join every other sane, humane government in every other industrialized nation by removing this burden from our hands.

Kristine Mattis holds a Ph.D. in Environment and Resources. She examines science, health, and environmental communication within the context of social and environmental justice. She is no relation to the Mad Dog general. Email: k_mattis@outlook.com.

* RIP C.C.

02 June 2017

About Paris

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) marked the first international treaty to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by nation states to attempt to avert the impending disaster of global climate change. By December 1997, the UNFCC was expanded into the Kyoto Protocol which set legally binding emissions reductions targets; however the protocol was not implemented until 2005. In the meantime, the United States signed on to the protocol but never ratified it in Congress. Furthermore, many if not most nations, particularly the most-developed, including the U.S., failed to meet emission reduction goals and/or withdrew from the protocol.

In December of 2015, the UN held their annual climate change conference in Paris, France to assess the progress on international greenhouse gas emission reductions, as well as update the Kyoto Protocol. During this conference, a new accord, known as the Paris Agreement, was laid out describing non-binding emission reduction pledges specific to particular nations. As the Kyoto Protocol had expired in 2012, the Paris Agreement set forth a new framework for individual country emission targets, in addition to financial aid and assistance to developing nations in order to help them achieve sustainable growth - i.e., alleviate poverty without compromising environmental concerns. President Barack Obama signed the United States on to the Paris Agreement on Earth Day 2016.

As we all know, as of June 1, 2017, Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement. Yes, this is a symbolic travesty befitting all of the other travesties emblematic of his entire presidency thus far. But beyond the symbolism, does it really matter?

The Paris Agreement is symbolic in itself. It is completely voluntary and non-binding; there are no repercussions for not achieving emissions plans nor for not providing the financial contributions set forth in the accord. As of the end of Obama's term in office, the U.S. was already destined to miss its emission reduction targets.

Noted climatologist James Hansen suggested that an atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration exceeding 350 parts per million (ppm) would imperil planetary climate stability, unleashing innumerable, highly predicted, environmental, ecological, and public health effects. Carbon dioxide is the second most abundant (behind water vapor) and most discussed greenhouse gas because of its exponentially increasing concentrations since the manmade industrial revolution commenced. In April of this year, the atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 410 ppm. Clearly, all of our UN climate change treaties have been woefully insufficient.

Ten years ago in graduate school I studied the appraisals and predictions outlined in the reports by the international scientific body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As a scientist, I also know how conservative scientific risk assessments tend to be. The future scenarios ranged from, in plain terms, a best-case scenario based on sustainable economic growth and environmental protections, to a business-as-usual scenario, to a worst-case scenario based on unabated economic growth with little to no regard for environmental sustainability.  Not at all surprisingly, the world has already exceeded even the worst-case scenario of emissions and effects predicted by the IPCC.

Before Trump's decision was announced late Thursday afternoon, NPR's pundits on Morning Edition made mention that corporations and industries were already prepared for the Paris Agreement and had made plans for energy reduction in accordance with its goals. "What would become of these plans now?" asked the pundits. They also noted that international industries were already altering production to adhere to the strict environmental agreements by other nations. What would these industries do, since the U.S. would now have no such strict environmental protocols? Well, the obvious answer not stated by the journalists is that all such future plans for greater environmental protections and reduced fossil fuel use should remain in place, accord or no accord.

The fact is that the majority of the American public did not even know about the catastrophe of global climate change until Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth documentary in 2006. By that time, all treaties pertaining to reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions were decades too late. The 2015 Paris Agreement was horrendously overdue, and because it is non-binding, no nation that signed it is truly obligated to do anything at all. Indeed, if history is any indication, few nations even will.

Yet, just because we are not legally obligated does not mean we are not morally obligated to tackle climate change. We need to do anything and everything we have planned AND FAR MORE. Any industry, corporation, state, city, local municipality, and individual needs to do all that is possible to reduce energy use, reduce consumption, and reduce waste. All of that is probably not enough, but it is a good start. Moreover, we need to aid the most poor and vulnerable among us who are in no position to conquer climate change when their basic necessities of life are not met. None of our actions need be predicated on a non-binding international treaty. If the United States wants to be the moral arbiter of humanity that it always claims to be, if its citizens care about the future of the human species (and other species) on the planet, if we cannot rely on a federal mandate, then we can create mandates ourselves. The Paris Agreement, while an important superficial pledge, was never the saving grace for humanity's battle against climate change. The withdrawal of the U.S. and the failure of the current executive branch of U.S. government does not prohibit meaningful action. We already know that Trump and his administration do not care about anything but themselves and their own financial success. They have no moral or ethical compass. The question now is, do the rest of us?

Kristine Mattis holds a Ph.D. in Environment and Resources. She examines science, health, and environmental communication within the context of social and environmental justice. She is no relation to the Mad Dog General.  Email: k_mattis@outlook.com Twitter: @kristinemattis

Superunknown: Scientific Integrity within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes

And as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names -- The...