Week 17: Should you take Vitamins & Supplements?

Distribution Source: iTunesU
Content Source: University of California TV (UCTV)
Format: Audio
Length: 2 hours 52 minutes

I've wondered for a long time about vitamins, minerals and supplements. Grocery stores and pharmacies have rows and rows of bottles of VM&S, all of which implicitly or explicitly suggest some health benefit. Fish oil - good for your heart, calcium - good for your bones, vitamin C - keeps away colds. You name an ailment and one of those tinted bottles has the preventative solution. Obviously, there are rows and rows of these bottles for a reason. The biggest reason of course is that people buy them. But why? Are the health benefits real? Or are these wonder pills just another example of America's failed have-everything-for-free approach to life?

I'll start with what VM&S I currently take, and will end with how this might change going forward. Prior to this week's research, each day I took one multi-vitamin, one vitamin C pill, one calcium pill and at least one Omega 3 fish oil supplement. The vitamins I never gave much thought to, the calcium I take because unfortunately I became lactose intolerant in college (making drinking milk less straightforward than I'd like it to be), and the fish oil I began taking recently because I heard a few smart people say it's probably the right thing to do.

So what did the experts I listened to say about the subject? There are two very straightforward and uniform themes. First, absolutely nothing can replace a healthy, diverse diet consisting of in my case 2.5-3.5 cups of fruits and vegetables per day (click here to determine how much you need). Why not? In spite of recent advancements in science, it is still not known how all of the components of your nutritional intake react to each other, and to your body. Thanks to many studies it is known, however, that simply isolating the compounds found in foods (e.g. vitamin C) and taking a dose or pill of these underlying compounds does not offer the same health benefit as the food itself. In fact, the isolation of these compounds has in many cases shown net negative health benefits! The second theme is that each person is very different; nutrition needs vary greatly from age to sex to health conditions to genetics. In other words, you can't just say "this is the best regiment, take x,y and z."

So we clearly have a scientifically confusing and complex assessment to make. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that unlike other drugs, vitamins, minerals and supplements do not have to be tested before being sold. There are not requirements that guarantee safety, purity or effectiveness. The FDA is only now implementing regulations concerning the quality of manufacturing. While these regulations will force companies to keep records of their manufacturing process, the actual quality of the product will remain unverified, at least by the government. If you really care about what you're putting into your body you can pay the ~$30 yearly subscription to consumerlab.com, a site that independently tests the composition of various brands of VM&S.

So let's assume that we can vouch for the safety of these products. Why are they so important (either in pill form or through a healthy diet)? Vitamins serve as co-factors in many essential reactions that occur in our cells. Our bodies need them to function. And even though vitamins are needed only in small amounts, if there is a deficiency the required reactions literally will not happen. One only needs to read the history of pirates to learn about scurvy, one of the many ailments that could result from a vitamin deficiency.

While I listened to almost three painful hours of lectures on the specifics of each type of vitamin, mineral and supplement, I will summarize only those that stuck out as particularly meaningful or those for which scientific clarity exists. The scientific research is clear that free-radicals (molecules with an extra electron) are basically bad and can lead to many types of cancer and make you age prematurely. It is also clear that antioxidants neutralize free-radicals. If you don't like spinach or tea (which I of course love), vitamin C is an antioxidant rich option. While there is no research to support the theory that vitamin C prevents colds, it is crucial to producing collagen (the main protein of connective tissue). The other uniformly praised vitamin was vitamin D3. New studies show that vitamin D's benefits and necessity may extend to all major organs in the body. It has also been proven to be helpful in fighting many forms of cancer. Surprisingly, almost one billion people worldwide are estimated to be vitamin D deficient, in large part due to our fear of sun exposure. The sun triggers a reaction in our skin that allows the body to naturally produce vitamin D. But because we now wear sunscreen and in many cases work and live indoors, many of us are simply not creating the levels of vitamin D required for proper health. Taking a daily vitamin D3 pill can solve this problem. Finally, calcium has been shown to help with blood pressure, hormones, bone strength, and hypertension. Both of the experts took calcium and recommended others do the same, ideally calcium carbonate as opposed to citrate. As for the other vitamins, among them A and E, and minerals (iron and magnesium), the studies were either inconclusive or the benefits were useful only to a specific age or health subset of the population.

It is extremely important to note that taking too high a dose of just about any of these substances is bad for your health. This is particularly true for the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D & E) which can be stored in body fat for some time, as opposed to the water soluble vitamins (like vitamin C) which you will likely dispose of naturally. It is surprisingly easy to overdose on VM&S; one way to prevent this is to visit the NIH's website, where you can find intake guidelines, data and FAQ on most VM&S.

Going forward I will be taking the same assortment of pills described above, but will be adding one crucial vitamin: D3. It has proven health benefits and no major risk-factors. I was on the fence about continuing to take the multi-vitamin until one of the experts recommended it as a vitamin "safety net", but not your primary source of daily vitamins. My conclusion is that taking a select few vitamins, minerals and supplements makes sense. But it is important to understand and respect the potential downsides - mixing these pills with prescription drugs can be harmful. As previously mentioned, taking more than the recommended allowance is a bad idea as well. And finally, I've learned that the science is not only inconclusive in many cases, but it's also changing rapidly. So if you can stick to it (and I can't), the safest bet is to follow the advice of Michael Pollan, the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma: "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants."

Week 16: What We Can Learn from Kids

Distribution Source: TED.com
Content Source: Adora Svitak
Format: Video
Length: 8 minutes 13 seconds
Link: Adora Svitak

A very short post this week as I've been in the office all day and things aren't looking any rosier... Last night I saw the movie "Where the Wild Things Are", a book I loved as a kid. The movie on the whole was OK - but it had a few really touching, thought-provoking moments. For me, the most interesting scene was the one in which young, creative-but-crazy Max tells his mom the following off-the-cuff story:

There were some buildings. They were these really tall buildings, and they could walk. There were these vampires and one of the vampires bit the tallest building and his fangs broke off. Then all his other teeth fell out. Then he started crying. And then all the other vampires said, "Why are you crying? Aren't they just you're baby teeth?" And, uh, he said, "no, those were my grown up teeth." And the other vampires knew that he couldn't be a vampire anymore so they left him. The end.

When I heard this story from Max I was struck by the way Max is able to mix fantasy with reality... a clearly unrealistic scale (a vampire biting a building) is mixed with emotion (crying because other vampires left him), empathy (child-teeth falling out and becoming adult teeth) and pragmatism (a vampire can't really be a vampire without his teeth!). It made me wonder what my response would be if someone asked me to tell a story on the spot. As much as most adults would laugh off Max's story, I bet if asked many of them would stutter their way through something not half as entertaining as his vampire tale.

So after Max's story, I was drawn to a TED.com video titled "What adults can learn from kids" - it is a nine minute video of an incredible young girl named Adora Svitak. She is 12 years old, and says things like this: "The traits the word childish addresses are seen so often in adults that we should abolish this age-discriminatory word when it comes to criticizing behavior associated with irresponsibility and irrational thinking." Pretty funny stuff. She has already published books, essays, and stories, and also gave a TED.com keynote address. You should really watch for yourself - the mere typed words of an adult cannot do her enthusiasm, intelligence, and creativity justice.

Her basic point, one I agree with, is that kids aren't as hampered as much by reasons "why not." Kids still dream about perfection. They are in their own way more big-picture than adults, who in my experience too often get stuck in the weeds. While watching Adora speak, I couldn't help but wonder how many great ideas would have been sparked if adults took her rabidly curious approach to the world. It isn't that hard, but how often do you hear grown men and women ask "why?" Not enough, in my opinion.

Kids also have this amazing ability to soak up seemingly complex skills... I'm very fortunate to have been exposed to both music and language at an early age. Not that I'm anything special at either, but I've noticed the approach I take with both is more flexible than those trying to learn for the first time as adults. I internalized the notion that music is something you can break down, play with, and build back up. And that languages are much deeper than subject-verb agreements. The subtle nuances can only come from really communicating, not merely translating. This flexibility is something I'm convinced I picked up - and hopefully to some degree retained - as a child.

Of course, there are downsides. As a five year old my parents read to me about and showed pictures of the wonderful murals of Diego Rivera. I was so inspired that I took my crayons (and artistic initiative) and made my very own mural on our white wall... and yes, we were trying to sell the place at the time. But you know what? As a parent, while I'd probably be forced to put my child in time-out for drawing on the walls, the kid somewhere inside me would be happy.

Week 15: The Wonders of Tea

Distribution Source: Hulu.com
Content Source: The History Channel
Format: Video
Length: 44 minutes 23 seconds
Link: Tea

Since graduating from college, I have come to love tea. At my first job I had to be on the desk by 6 AM, and caffeine seemed to be a must. So I started with coffee... I quickly decided that for an already stressful job that involved staring at blinking screens all day, consuming large quantities of a strong (and in my opinion foul-tasting) jitters-inducing substance was less than ideal. Our kitchen's free green tea machine was my gift from heaven. That is, until facilities maintenance became unwilling or unable to stock adequately our floor's green tea supply. At this point, my Econ 101 professor's droning lectures kicked in - it was clear to me we were a floor full of green tea drinkers and that demand had eclipsed supply. And what does a supply shortage typically encourage? Hoarding. And hoarding, of course, induces even greater scarcity. This was serious - I was facing the very real possibility of a devastating negative feedback loop resulting in a structural green tea shortage. I had to act quickly. Purchasing green tea was not an option, as I had neither the time or the money as a first year analyst to go to Starbucks each day - the Flavia machine was my only viable option. Then I thought about the problem a bit more strategically; if a shortage of green tea were imminent it would make sense that the floor with fixed income traders would be the first to exhibit these supply and demand dynamics. After all, it's what they did - supply and demand. Bonds... green tea... the principles are the same. However the bankers on the fifth floor (if they were even in the office that early) were more likely to be pricing green tea sales into some spreadsheet for Lipton's management than thinking about an office tea shortage. So I went to the fifth floor kitchen, where sure enough there was an abundance of Flavia green tea! I took a full box back to my desk, and over the course of the ensuing green tea shortage became known by many senior and junior salesmen and traders as "the kid with the green tea." If I wasn't the smartest or the most hard-working analyst, at least I had cornered the third-floor green tea market.

But enough long-winded storytelling - why is tea an interesting topic? Aside from being a pleasant and healthy drink, tea has been symbolically significant to political revolutions (recent and historic), helped drive colonial power and profit, ignited war, and has for millennia represented a philosophic, religious, and of course cultural significance for a large portion of the human race. Oh, it's also the second most common drink on the planet; only water is consumed in larger quantities. Humans drink 1.5 trillion cups of tea per year. And yet it is still in many ways an enigma; while its antioxidants are supposedly able to reduce the risk of cancer, this has not been decidedly proven. The paradoxical qualities of tea further add to its aura; as one tea expert said on the video "if you are cold, tea will warm you; if you are warm, it will cool you; if you are excited, it will sooth you; if you are lethargic, it will stimulate you." Not too shabby.

I was particularly interested to learn that the US is well behind the rest of the world in tea consumption. Anecdotally I sensed this was the case when I recently busted out this nifty tea-drinking contraption, a birthday gift from my dad, and only my colleague from Hong Kong had any idea (or interest in) what it was. In the United States, tea is only the fifth most consumed beverage, behind water, coffee, soft drinks, and alcohol. Americans consume only 50 billion of the 1.5 trillion teas drunk each year. Also distinctive to American tea drinkers is that 80% of all tea consumed in the US is iced tea (as opposed to the globally far more popular hot tea). We also tend to drink tea primarily using tea bags; tea bags are somewhat of a taboo in China, where it is thought that the full flavor is inhibited if you drink anything other than the loose-leaf tea. But it is not hopeless for the US; specialty teas have become increasingly popular in recent years and tea consumption in the US is said to have doubled from 2001 to 2006. Meaningful tea production in the US is limited to South Carolina and Hawaii, the two states that can exhibit the semi-tropical, high levels of rainfall necessary for tea to thrive.

Globally, tea is produced mostly in East Asia, India, and parts of Africa. India is the largest producer, representing 30% of the global tea supply. In aggregate, 30 billion pounds of tea plants are harvested each year, resulting in six billion pounds of drinkable tea (apparently five pounds of plant are needed for one pound of final tea). On the consumption side, it is the Irish who lead the world. The Irish, perhaps to match their four pints of beer per day, drink on average four cups of tea daily. (This is about how many cups I drink each day, for those keeping score.)

I was surprised to learn that the three major teas - black tea, oolong tea, and green tea - all come from the same plant, Camellia sinensis. The difference between the three has only to do with the oxidation process following harvesting. Green tea has no oxidation, while oolong has about half the oxidation of black tea, the most oxidized tea. The longer the tea leaves oxidize, the greater their caffeine content. Accordingly, black tea is the most caffeinated, with about 40mg of caffeine per cup (roughly half the caffeine in a cup of coffee). However from these basic three teas come over 1,500 varietals. Tea sommeliers go through years of training to learn how to distinguish the various flavors and characteristics.

The two remaining tea topics that caught my attention were its incredible history as well as its medical powers (perceived and actual). The historical side is fascinating because of tea's seeming ubiquity and relevance, whether in China almost five thousand years ago, in Egypt and Iran where tea is the national drink, or in England where it was once simultaneously the drink of the elite, a key driver of the economic growth of the British empire, and a major source of contention with the Americans, the Indians, the Chinese and even lower-class British citizens. As for the medical benefits of tea, there is a similar laundry list; among other diseases tea is thought to protect against obesity, osteoporosis, heart disease, gum disease, and cancer. I can't speak to the veracity of these claims, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the historical significance and the health benefits of tea are linked. The fact that the Bronze Age Chinese did not have powerful microscopes to examine and understand tea at a molecular level does not mean they were wrong about its contribution to a healthy, tranquil life. I will leave you with a quote from the show that summarizes succinctly my current view of tea, namely that there is "no pleasure simpler, no luxury cheaper, and no consciousness-altering substance more benign than our simple tea."

Two Books to Read: Six Degrees of Connection & Making Ideas Happen

In the past few months two people I know and respect have become first-time authors. Liz Dow has recently published Six Degrees of Connection: How to Unlock Your Leadership Potential, a book focused on the common characteristics of "Connectors." After degrees from Cornell and Wharton and a successful run in corporate America, Liz gave up the rat race to become the CEO of LEADERSHIP Philadelphia. LEADERSHIP's mission is to mobilize and connect the talent of the private sector to serve the community. Scott Belsky is in the process of publishing Making Ideas Happen: Overcoming the Obstacles Between Vision and Reality, focused on the importance of execution when it comes to ideas. I guess you would describe Scott as the Harvard Business School and Cornell graduate with a great finance career who decided instead to found and run his own company (Behance). The truth is, in both cases the (stellar) resumes do not do the person justice - Liz and Scott are passionate, intelligent, creative people.... perhaps most admirable to me is that they don't sit around and wait for the world, they act.

But this is more than just a plug for these books - both Liz and Scott have in their own way inspired me to create The 52 Week Project. Through a variety of thought-provoking emails, Liz helped me remember how much I enjoyed writing, and encouraged me to find my voice. And about a year ago I caught up with Scott and ran him through a series of my ideas. Prior to this conversation my mentality had been: how do I decide if and when to quit my job and pursue an idea of mine? In other words, it was binary: job or idea. He suggested a more flexible (and realistic approach): putting aside a set amount of resources - primarily time and money - to develop ideas. This helped me realize there can be a middle ground. It wasn't until I internalized both my desire to write and my willingness to devote time outside of work to a very different kind of endeavor that I was able to jump into The 52 Week Project.

Both books are available for purchase on Amazon - I encourage you to click on the book links to the right (scroll through the carousel and you can find each cover), and purchase a copy of either or both of these books. I'm confident you will not be disappointed.

Week 14: Kiva and the Bolivian Potato Farmer

Distribution Source: YouTube, iTunesU, Kiva.org
Content Source: Kiva, PBS, Bill Clinton, Talkathon.org
Format: Video & Audio
Length: 50 minutes
Link:
The Story of a Kiva.org Loan
Bill Clinton on Kiva
Kiva on PBS

I'm going to start with this: I am extremely excited about this week's topic. Yes, it was interesting to learn that a grizzly bear can crush a bowling ball with its jaws or that organized crime makes up an estimated 15% of global GDP. But Kiva.org gets me more excited than even the iPhone's potential to transform the medical field. Kiva.org is a web-based, social networking-esque microfinance platform that allows anyone with an internet connection to make a loan of as little as $25 to an entrepreneur in a poverty-stricken country. It was founded just five years ago and it has already revolutionized microfinance.

The best way to tell the Kiva story is to explain the process by which (a few minutes ago) I made my first Kiva loan. After doing my due diligence on the site and its legitimacy (more on this later) - and with the seal of approval from Bill Clinton and Oprah - I signed up. I first created a username and password, then clicked on the "make a loan" tab. I proceeded to immediately get to work finding the entrepreneur to whom I wanted to lend. The site allowed me to target my search for the right borrower among other things by region, country, and type of business. I decided that I would make my first $25 loan to someone in Latin America, and in the "Food" business category. I was quickly drawn to the profile of a Bolivian potato farmer named Elias. On this profile I saw his name, picture, location and a description of what he would do with the $400 loan he needed (multiple people contribute to each loan). In this case he needed to buy potato seeds to plant, grow, and eventually sell potatoes, all to support his wife and four school-aged children.

After deciding that this was a loan-worthy cause, the finance nerd in me kicked in and I set about trying to figure out the likelihood that I get paid back. Kiva boasts an unbelievable 98.47% repayment rate, but this told me nothing of Elias' individual credit rating. From the profile page, I learned that the Kiva partner in Bolivia was a microfinance group called "Emprender." They were ranked 4 of 5 stars by Kiva, indicating a "Significant" likelihood of facilitating honest paybacks. They have also partnered with Kiva on over 2,300 projects over the last two years, with only a 0.37% delinquency rate. As for Elias himself, he has worked with Emprender for four years. Good enough for me. And if all this transparency isn't enough, look for yourself. Each loan has its own webpage, with all kinds of additional information, including expected repayment schedules and a list of all the lenders (scroll down on that link to see who my partners are on this loan).

As I was going through the loan confirmation process, I realized I could join a Kiva.org "team" and quickly decided on the Cornell team. This simply represented one of the thousands of mini-networks that live inside Kiva. While checking out, I indicated that I wanted my loan to count to the Cornell Kiva running tally and was pleased to see the total Cornell loan amount go from $6,300 to $6,325 following my loan to Elias. I was also able to send messages directly to other Cornell-Kiva lenders.

So this is clearly a cool concept - but why do I think it is revolutionary? It is revolutionary because it is an uber-transparent, bottoms-up, global, viral, reliable platform aimed squarely at the biggest problems on earth. And it works. And there's no bureaucracy. And you get paid back. And they've already made $129MM in loans since inception. Can you tell I love this idea?

Kiva is great because it leverages technology to empower individuals. These individuals, the borrower and the lender, are collectively starting to chip away at the anathema that is poverty and helplessness.

I could write another 10 paragraphs about how awesome this is, but instead I will let the facts speak for themselves. Below is Kiva's "balance sheet" - oh yeah, and they update these stats nightly for the world to see. Perhaps our government could learn from this approach?

Total value of all loans made through Kiva: $129,353,785
Number of Kiva Users: 694,924
Number of Kiva Users who have funded a loan: 442,194
Number of countries represented by Kiva Lenders: 196
Number of entrepreneurs that have received a loan through Kiva: 330,170
Number of loans that have been funded through Kiva: 180,952
Percentage of Kiva loans which have been made to women entrepreneurs: 82.28%
Number of Kiva Field Partners (microfinance institutions Kiva partners with): 111
Number of countries Kiva Field Partners are located in: 52
Current repayment rate (all partners): 98.47%
Average loan size (This is the average amount loaned to an individual Kiva Entrepreneur. Some loans - group loans - are divided between a group of borrowers.): $395.55
Average total amount loaned per Kiva Lender (includes reloaned funds): $186.50
Average number of loans per Kiva Lender: 5.43

Week 13: Grizzlies

Distribution Source: Hulu.com
Content Source: Exhibition Wild
Format: Video
Length: 45 minutes, 57 seconds
Link: 800 Pound Best Friend

Earlier today I came across the story of Casey Anderson, a man who apparently is "best friends" with a grizzly bear. The two spend time with each other daily, and the bear - perhaps ominously named Brutus - was Casey's best man and attended his recent wedding (you can find the wedding picture here). Brutus stands 7 ft. 8 in. and weighs over 800 pounds - and is still only an adolescent. This alone seemed ridiculous enough to merit further research.

I quickly confirmed that Casey was not the same person as Timothy Treadwell, the ill-fated "Grizzly Man" notorious for approaching and even touching wild bears in their native habitat. Unfortunately, he and his girlfriend were mauled to death and partially eaten by at least one grizzly in Alaska in 2003. So given this gory tragedy, why would Casey - a naturalist trained to know and understand the serious risks posed by grizzlies - befriend what I consider to be one of the most awe-inspiring and terrifying animals on the planet?

The story begins with young bearcub Brutus, who was born on an overpopulated wildlife preserve. He was therefore likely to be euthanized - there simply wasn't enough room for more grizzlies. So Casey saved Brutus by creating a bear sanctuary in Montana, and has raised him ever since. As Casey describes it, the difference between his story and Timothy's is simple: he would never come close to wild grizzlies. Brutus has grown up with Casey and recognizes him as his keeper and source of food. The cool part about having a large, well-trained grizzly bear (he can even give high fives) is that Casey can measure things like strength, speed and agility without having to risk an encounter with a wild grizzly. (He stays at least 100 yards away when tracking wild grizzlies.) In my opinion it is still outrageous to continually put yourself in such close contact with a grizzly bear, albeit a domesticated one. He is, however, using Brutus to educate people about grizzlies and more broadly about the impact of humans on the natural habitats of wildlife.

One look at the statistics on these animals is enough to send you running in the opposite direction... Not that you'd get away - grizzlies can in three strides reach a speed of 40 mph, equal to the speed of a race horse. Their sense of smell is seven times stronger than that of a bloodhound. Wild grizzlies have claws up to four inches long, to go along with dinner-plate sized paws. They have to eat 20,000 calories per day to sustain themselves. And the most incredible statistic? Grizzlies have a bite force of 1,200 pounds per square inch, enough to crush a bowling ball. Yes, a bowling ball. Ouch.

Apparently there used to be 100,000 grizzlies throughout North America. After decades of hunting and habitat destruction, only 1,500 grizzlies remain in the lower 48 states, of which 600 live in Yellowstone National Park. While still at very low levels, this is better than the all-time low of 200 bears in Yellowstone during the 1970s. At the time, bears had taken to eating from garbage dumps, which quickly became one of their primary food sources. The authorities subsequently decided to remove the garbage dumps. Ill-equipped to fend for themselves, the bears became more aggressive and human-bear incidents increased, resulting in the euthanization or removal of 200 grizzlies. Since the 1970s, the bears have returned to their natural food sources: roots, bulbs, rodents, leftover carcasses, salmon and other fish, and millions and millions of moths. One bear eats up to 40,000 miller moths in one day.

While it is certainly positive that the number of Yellowstone grizzlies has increased, and also that grizzlies are eating more moths and fewer Doritos, major issues concerning the survival of Yellowstone grizzlies remain. For bears, Yellowstone is basically an ecological island. Due to roads, human dwellings, and cattle ranches, the Yellowstone grizzly population continues to be separated from populations in Montana and Canada. As a result, the Yellowstone population is highly susceptible to changes to the environment. In particular, recent changes in climate seem to be affecting the migration of moths to the Yellowstone area. For grizzlies who return from hibernation to the same feeding areas year after year, the shock of removing a major food source could have very serious ramifications to the population.

As far as takeaways from this week's topic, I don't really have a profound message. If anything, I think the Yellowstone grizzly example reminds us of the impact exogenous forces can have on any kind of local environment. Grizzlies are fascinating, solitary, powerful creatures. While I don't necessarily want to raise one from birth, I will be rooting for their ongoing comeback.

Week 12: Why we eat more than we should

Distribution Source: CornellCast
Content Source: Cornell University/Professor Brian Wansink
Format: Video
Length: 1 hour, 18 minutes, 43 seconds
Link: Mindless Eating

In honor of my alma mater's historic win today over Wisconsin in the NCAA tournament, I decided to choose a video from Cornell's free collection of audio and video lectures. This week is focused on a fascinating talk by Professor Brian Wansink based on the findings chronicled in his book, Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. This topic is of recent interest thanks to numerous cues in my life focused on the issue of food, weight and health. Whether it was my girlfriend watching tonight's kick-off episode of Jamie Oliver's "Food Revolution" (a push to make Americans less fat), my co-worker's refusal to eat at 90% of restaurants around the office following a viewing of "Food, Inc.", or witnessing the intensity/insanity of a two-month extreme nutrition program undertaken recently by a good friend, it is clear to me that people care about food. More specifically, people care about how food relates to health (or lack of health).

The bottom line is perhaps unsurprising: we Americans eat with our eyes, not with our (abnormally large) stomachs. We often don't know when we are full, why we are eating, or how much we should be eating. I saw more than a little irony when, over the course of the hour-long lecture, I realized I had eaten a small plate of leftovers, about 8 baby carrots (healthy, right?), and chips with bean dip. And it's not like I was hungry - I had a massive Qdoba taco salad just two hours ago. So why are we - and why was I - doing this?

First, because the stomach is not a good or timely indicator of how much (or what) we should be eating, we look to external cues to guide our rationing process. For instance, we add to our plate or glass until it is full. That is, containers instruct our serving-size choices. Alternatively, we look around us and do what other people do. If they are munching on popcorn at the theater then by God, so will I! Case in point: 150 Chicago natives were asked how they knew they were full; their top three responses were "when my plate is empty", "when everyone else is through," and, no joke, "when the TV show I was watching ended." Contrast this with an identical survey of 150 Parisians: "when I feel full", "when the food no longer tastes good to me," and "when the food is cold." You draw your conclusions on this one, folks.

Professor Wansink outlined three food and eating myths: that bowl size does not instruct serving size, that we know when we are full, and that we know what food we like to eat. It is not that unusual to conclude that a bigger plate leads to larger portions. However the professor takes this a step further - he selected 60 graduate students and lectured them for 90 minutes EXCLUSIVELY on how larger serving sizes are a result of bigger containers. In a covert test following this direct and comprehensive education, those grad students with bigger bowls nevertheless ate 53% more than their counterparts. Similarly, he demonstrated that on average people pour 77% more on short, wide glasses than on narrow, tall glasses with the same volume. He did this test with many bartenders, with the exact same results. We pour to fill up the glass - that is our cue, not the objective measure of what portion should be consumed. (Note to self: check for short, wide bar glasses before ordering a whiskey on the rocks.)

As for the "we know when we are full" myth, Professor Wansink conducted a study in which he created a "bottomless" soup bowl that unbeknownst to the subject slowly re-filled his or her bowl. First, and most interesting to me, was that only 2 of 160 actually noticed that the bowl was not becoming less full as soup consumption was quite obviously taking place. Second, after 20 minutes, those with the bottomless soup bowl had eaten 77% more than those with regular bowls and reported IDENTICAL feelings of hunger. In other words, after eating almost twice as much food, they claimed to feel the same as those who had eaten far less!

His point with the "I know what I like" myth is that our tastes are in fact quite suggestable. In one study, he put chocolate syrup into vanilla yogurt and packaged it with a picture of a strawberry on it. All of his subjects readily accepted and spoke to the "strong strawberry yogurt flavors" in the chocolate yogurt. Similarly, at a mock restaurant he served 2 Buck Chuck (a horrendous, cheap wine good for only two things: getting you drunk and giving you a hangover) disguised as either a "California Cabernet" or a "North Dakota Cabernet." The descriptive cues and associated expectation of the California Cabernet resulted in a dramatic difference in results: California drinkers ate more, ate longer, gave the meal better ratings, and said they were more likely to come back than the North Dakota drinkers. Across many studies he has shown that by raising expectations, people actually believe things taste better. Put simply, adding candles and nice plates WILL make your date think you're a better cook (assuming of course that you don't serve her raw chicken).

So how to correct these sneaky overeating cues and impulses? If you think his solution is to get a gym membership, think again. He found that on average, most people gained a few pounds after starting an exercise program. This was not because people were building muscle - rather it was due to calorie compensation. People felt deserving of further indulgences as a result of working out, and consistently overestimated the number of calories they burned. On average people ate 28% more than they did before their work-out programs, but only burned 18% more calories!

He did, however recommend changing your environment, which he claims is much easier than changing your behavior. In other words, get rid of your short/wide glasses and buy smaller bowls. Alternatively, move your chocolate a few feet away rather than keeping it right in front of you and relying on your ability to say "no" fifty times without indulging. He also recommended against eating family style meals, and suggested putting serving bowls in the kitchen as opposed to on the table.

Will I change anything now that I learned more about the duplicitous nature of food consumption psychology? Probably not, but you should.

Week 11: What do Magic Johnson and a Paraglider Have in Common?

Distribution Source: iTunesU
Content Source: Open University
Format: Audio
Length: 54 minutes

This week's post focuses on a series of interviews with athletes conducted by Open University, a web-based learning center. I listened to six short interviews with athletes representing a variety of sports, including: a marathon runner, a paraglider, a judo practitioner, a fencer, a cyclist and a soccer player. The athletes focused primarily on a few themes: motivation, coaching, performance and nutrition. In general, they discussed the body as an engine and articulated how (and why) they go to such lengths to prepare for competition.

Perhaps most interesting to me was the reminder of how driven serious athletes have to be. The opportunity cost of what they do is astounding. Mental and physical preparation consumes almost every aspect of their lives. This is even more impressive when you consider that the marginal return of such training by definition has to be diminishing. In other words, there is the "best" you can ever be, and it takes increasingly more hours to move the needle from, say, 98% to 99% of your best.

So why do they do it? While the interviewees included Olympians and rising stars, none of them have been made wealthy by their sport. Indeed, they have spent large sums of money and countless hours on training. This dispassionate view of course ignores what is arguably the most important motivator: a love for the sport. I was in a book store today and flipped through Magic Johnson's autobiography; in it, he discusses how much he loved being with many women. However, he was clear that his love for basketball eclipsed even this intense love for women. As a rule, he would not have sex before any game, and would not invite women to his hotel room if he had a game the following day. Most athletes probably don't have to worry about turning down hundreds of women on the day of competition, but the point remains: sacrifice is crucial. In Magic's case, sacrificing women was a necessary part of his preparation; the young fencer described sacrificing her social life, the paraglider has sacrificed a substantial portion of his discretionary income to purchase equipment, and in the judo athlete's case most agonizing has been sacrificing "crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks."

In addition to sharing an intense love and dedication for their sport, the athletes interviewed all initially competed in many sports before settling on the "one." To me, this seems to suggest, like dedication, an inherent competitive trait of these athletes. Another striking point was the way in which these athletes framed competition. Of course, competition took place in races and matches, but these athletes were arguably more focused on internal competition (with themselves) than on external competition. They unanimously claimed to draw the most satisfaction from improving technique, learning new strategies, and strengthening weaknesses. I guess at the elite level this makes sense - if you get to your best physically and enter a competition with the right mental framework, what else can you do? At that point, the chips fall where they fall...

The issue of coaching was also focused on - in short, the conclusion was that coaching matters. Immensely. As I type this, the girl's basketball team of my high school is taking the court to play for the state championship. They are coached by my former classmate, who scored more points than anyone in our school's history and went on to play college basketball for four years. I have no doubt she has played an integral role in this success story. According to the interviewed athletes, the key for good coaching is to help athletes identify and travel the proper path to their stated goals. A coach first and foremost must have a scientific knowledge of the sport, but must also have the empathy with the athlete to coax her (or him) to where she needs to be mentally and physically. As the elder Olympic cyclist, now a coach, put it: "Psychology is huge. Just a word can ruin everything. Preparation on the day of the event has to be clinical. The impact of a proper diet is immeasurable." I couldn't agree more.

The same elder cyclist pointed out how far the science of elite athletics has come in the past few decades - as a young rider for the British national team, coaches advised him to eat a piece of beefsteak every day for breakfast (which takes three days to digest fully). They also recommended not hydrating during competitions, on the logic that a "drying out" period is good for you. This reminds me of my grandfather advising my father to breathe through his nose while running the mile for his high school track team. While given with the best of intentions, this advice is very clearly not ideal for peak athletic performance.

One lesson here is that in spite of obvious advancements in science, conventional wisdom should be questioned. If eating beefsteak makes you constipated, maybe you should respectfully tell your coaches that it is not something you'd like to eat going forward... Another lesson is that great success is very rarely an accident. In sports and perhaps in life, it takes a motivated, talented person with a dedicated, experienced team to inspire results at the highest level.

Week 10: How Marijuana Became Illegal

Distribution Source: YouTube
Content Source: The History Channel
Format: Video
Length: 42 minutes and 40 seconds
Link:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

I'm not sure how Maryland public schools stack up against other states (and countries) in terms of drug education courses, but I distinctly remember mine. We had an austere state trooper named Trooper Hamby come to our sixth grade science class and lead a course called DARE - Drug Abuse Resistance Education. We were taught, basically, that doing any kind of drug would result in either going to jail or dying. The approach was very clearly to scare the hell out of us. We were taught about all drugs, but I remember them focusing specifically on marijuana. In particular, we learned that it was an addictive drug that also served as a "gateway" to all the other, more deadly drugs.

It's clear that America has a certain fascination with marijuana: from its place as the counter-culture drug of choice (perhaps shared with LSD) to Bill Clinton's infamous "I didn't inhale" nonsense, it has always garnered attention. More recently, states have begun decriminalizing it, and given the recent recession, a discussion of legalizing and taxing the drug has gained more support. While still illegal nationally, fourteen states have decriminalized marijuana. (Click here to see how your state stacks up...) Putting aside the politics of the issue, the facts are astounding: 20 million Americans have been arrested, convicted and incarcerated for using marijuana. As of 2006, 44% of all drug arrests are related to marijuana. So how did marijuana become illegal, anyway? And why?

To answer this question, we should start with the understanding that marijuana was not illegal in the United States until 1937. While marijuana had a long medicinal, functional (the word "canvas" comes from cannabis), and of course recreational history in Asia, the Middle East and Europe, the drug did not come to the US until the World Fair of 1876. The sultan from Turkey introduced the drug at his booth, leading to perhaps the largest bakeout until Woodstock in 1969.

Following the expo, pot became more popular in the US. However it wasn't until 1920, when alcohol was outlawed, that marijuana's popularity took off. Indeed, it was the only legal recreational drug in the country. In particular, the drug became linked with the New Orleans culture of jazz and partying. It didn't take long for politicians to pay attention to the drug, and they soon began to blame the general chaos of the city - as well as its high violence rate - on marijuana. It was also a way to target the black population in the city. By 1924, Louisiana and fourteen other states had banned marijuana for non-medicinal purposes.

Each state had come up with different reasons for the ban - in the same way that Louisiana used the laws as a way to target blacks, the southwestern states used the laws to target Mexicans. By the early 1930s the Great Depression had set in, and with whites in breadlines, the surplus (Mexican) cheap labor was not at all appreciated by politicians. Following the 1931 Mexican Repatriation, the marijuana laws in these states became very strict. Possession of one joint could result in a life prison sentence, but more likely would result in a deportation.

The repeal of prohibition in 1934 placed pot squarely in the focus of authorities. Harry Anslinger, a senior prohibition official, was appointed as Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The organization had previously focused on cocaine and heroine, but under Anslinger the focus came to marijuana. The southwestern states pushed Ansliger for a nationwide ban on marijuana, and eventually he took his case - that pot caused rampant sex and murder - to Congress. With strong support from states with immigrant and minority "problems", Anslinger's proposed legislation passed in 1937. At the time, it was believed that an outright law banning marijuana was unconstitutional. As a result, the law dictated that a "marijuana stamp" was necessary to possess pot legally. Conveniently, extremely few stamps were created. Furthermore, one needed the drug in possession to obtain a stamp... of course, this possession was already illegal, by the very same law!

Following the law's passage, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia created a commission to study the affects of marijuana. The LaGuardia Commission released its findings four years later, and based on extensive research claimed that marijuana was significantly less damaging than suggested by Anslinger. However the law stuck. It wasn't until the 1960s that the constitutionality of the 1937 law was questioned, on the grounds that one could not adhere to the law without breaking it.

The Supreme Court overturned the law, but in 1970 the Controlled Substances Act passed, banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of a series of substances (including marijuana). This law came at a very divided time politically, and is considered by many to be a direct response to the "hippie" and anti-war movement. Not only did the law expand the nature of the nation's drug laws, it increased dramatically the federal government's policing powers. Similar to the LaGuardia Commission in the early 1940s, the Shafer Commission concluded soon after the law's passage that with respect to marijuana the law was unusually harsh and the punishments did not seem to be aligned with the crimes. Among other things, the CSA listed marijuana as a "Schedule 1" drug with LSD and heroin, and prevented doctors from prescribing the drug.

As we all know, today marijuana continues to be illegal in the United States. The Controlled Substances Act has been the basic framework for US drug policy for the last four decades. Without getting into a discussion of how things should be, there is a broader lesson to be learned from this case study. It is a lesson of how politics, and how the underlying societal forces that dictate the political discourse, drive the laws under which we live. It's clear from my research this week that cultural divides and extreme misperceptions about the effects of marijuana were what initially drove the passage of legislation against it. This is not to say marijuana should or shouldn't be illegal - the point is that objective and scientific study were not the basis of the legislative process. This reinforces to me the importance of observing - and thinking critically about - the political process, and how and why conclusions are reached.

Week 9: Why the Stethoscope is on its way out...

Distribution Source: TED.com
Content Source: Eric Topol
Format: Video
Length: 16 minutes and 59 seconds
Link: The Wireless Future of Medicine

As many of my friends know, I am a huge fan of the iPhone. From my iPhone I can access my bank account, get directions, send a customized post card (from a photo I took on my phone), read the news, play games.. the list goes on. Hell, my iPhone can also turn into a flute, recognize unknown songs playing on the radio or at a bar, and even repel bugs. Yes, you read that correctly - the phone emits a high frequency noise that keeps bugs away. It is simply unbelievable.

I've always tried to convince people who don't yet "get it" that the iPhone and other smartphones are revolutionary not because they have the internet, or because they have great graphics. They are revolutionary because they represent a very new platform that spans all spheres of life and literally expands the realm of what is possible. I'm not joking when I say that the iPhone has saved me more time than any other single device, person - whatever - in my entire life. By far. And what's exciting to me is that the realization of this potential has barely begun in the two areas in which it may have the most lasting impact on humanity: education and medicine. Indeed, one of the points of this blog is to show how iTunesU - which I access through my phone - provides good, free information to anyone with the internet. But today I will focus on medicine, something my mom and girlfriend know a lot about, but about which I know basically nothing.

Dr. Eric Topol gave a fascinating talk last fall that starts with a bold prediction: the stethoscope, invented in 1816 and still widely used today, will be obsolete by 2016. Why? Because not only will a patient's heartbeat be available to a doctor in real time - anywhere in the world - but so too will all vital signals. Already the technology exists to see a patient's electrocardiogram on an iPhone. In some hospitals, doctors can see from their phones the heart rhythm, blood pressure, oxygen and temperature of their ICU patients - without having to be anywhere near the patients! Here is an example of how this would look on a phone.

Other technologies are equally fascinating - imagine, as an expectant parent, being able to monitor in real-time intrauterine contractions or the fetal heart rate. While we have continuous glucose sensors for diabetes patients, they have to be placed under the skin and then brought to doctors. The technology is almost there to have a non-implantable sensor, link it to a phone, and then send the results electronically to a doctor. Soon every smartphone user will be able to map literally every minute of his or her sleep, with breakdowns by different sleep stages (REM, light sleep, etc). There are already many calorie measurement programs - intake and outtake - on smartphones. Perhaps the most popular exercise-management program is the Apple-Nike partnership where a chip in Nike shoes automatically uploads workout statistics to the iPhone. Over 1.2 million Americans use this technology. The Holter Monitor, according to Dr. Topol, will also soon be obsolete. Now we have peripheral sensors or "smart band-aids" that can be uploaded through a "body area network" to your smartphone. Once it is on your smartphone it can be distributed wherever or however you like - to the hospital, the doctor, etc.

It is important to note that the wireless medical innovations are not limited to just physiologic metrics. They also extend to areas like imaging. For example, GE has introduced a hand-held ultrasound. This device has the capacity to do a Cardiac Echo or fetal monitoring, and is more sensitive than a stethoscope.

While some of this may seem like it is not practically applicable yet, Dr. Topol surprised the audience by revealing he was wearing a wireless device during his talk. He then showed in real time his ECG, heart rate, fluid status, respiration, posture, oxygen level and temperature. All of these are vital for monitoring someone with heart failure, the number one reason for hospital admissions and readmissions. The cost per year is estimated to be $37B, with 80% of costs related to hospitalization. The readmission numbers are staggering: over 50% will be readmitted after six months. This monitoring software is now being used in a trial that will attempt to prevent such high readmission rates among heart failure patients.

The armchair politician in me scratches his head and asks - instead of trying to guess at future health care costs based on models of the number of sick Americans, why not immediately seek bipartisan support for trials like this? In the same way that cheap energy ignited an industrial revolution, shouldn't we be focusing on extremely cheap and scalable preventative monitoring practices? If successful, this would both cut costs and improve the health of Americans in a way that seems to represent the ultimate in consumer-driven health care.

The problem, of course, is huge: 140MM Americans have one or more chronic diseases, and 80% of the $1.5 Trillion in medical expenditures are related to chronic disease. How can wireless medicine help? Dr. Topol outlined the ten targets for wireless medicine, listing the innovations that will improve each:

Alzheimer's (5MM Affected) - Vital signs, location, activity, balance
Asthma (23MM Affected) - Respiratory rate, FEV1, air quality, oximetry, pollen count
Breast Cancer (3MM Affected) - Ultrasound and self-exam
COPD (10MM) - Respiratory rate, REV1, air quality, oximetry
Depression (21MM) - Med compliance, activity, communicatio
Diabetes (24MM) - Glucose, hemoglobin A1C
Heart failure (5MM) - Cardiac pressures, weight, BP, fluid status
Hypertension (74MM) - Continuous BP, med compliance
Obesity (80MM) - Smart scales, glucose, calorie in/out, activity
Sleep disorders (40MM) - Sleep phases, quality, apnea, vital signs

The potential impact of these technologies on Hospital/Clinical Resources are huge, with major implications for hospital beds, outpatient visits, assisted living facilities, sleep labs, Holter Monitoring, mammography, and ultrasound/echocardiography (to name a few). Also fascinating is the potential for overlap in advancements in genetics with wireless advances. We have learned more about the genetics of diseases in the last three years than in human history. Using technology for both monitoring and cross-referencing, we can begin to predict who is likely to get Type 2 Diabetes, who is at risk for breast cancer, who may get atrial fibrillation, sudden cardiac death, etc. To some degree this capability exists, but not on a widespread, scalable, cheap platform like that which smartphones will allow.

In short, the potential changes and implications of wireless medicine span the globe, span age, sex and race, and span the many types of diseases. Put simply: we need to accelerate the era of wireless medicine. An article on this topic said the following: "The personal metrics movement goes way beyond diet and exercise. It's about tracking every facet of life, from sleep to mood to pain, 24/7/365." This may sound very scary, and in some ways it is. But it's not inconsistent with the underlying theme that to some degree has and will continue to define my generation: uber-transparency and significantly less individual privacy. This is yet another piece of the puzzle that is the exponentially increasing volume of information. To me the two key underlying questions are: how do we use this information, and how do we protect both the integrity and security of sensitive information? These questions, while extremely important, are somewhat irrelevant to the bigger picture. The train has left the station: the unbelievable power and scale of these new platforms has been unleashed. Now we must learn to maximize their benefits and minimize their potential costs. Supporting wireless medicine is a good place to start.

Week 8: The Lucifer Effect - How Good People Turn Evil

Distribution Source: MIT World and iTunesU
Content Source: MIT
Format: Video
Length: 1 hour 50 minutes and 58 seconds
Link: The Lucifer Effect

I was worried this afternoon - after watching the first few minutes of the MIT world video (a new source recommended by a commentor - thanks), I knew I wanted to write on this topic, but also wanted to go to the gym. Given that the video was 2 hours long, doing both seemed impossible. So I decided to see if iTunesU carried the video as well. Sure enough, I was able to download the full video to my phone in 5 minutes... not only that, I was also able to plug my phone into the treadmill at the gym and watch the video while running. Pretty cool.

This week's topic focuses on the human capacity for both good and evil, from the perspective of Dr. Phillip Zimbardo. Dr. Zimbardo is most famous for his Stanford Prison Experiment, in which he gathered a bunch of "normal" Stanford students and randomly assigned them to be prisoners or guards. The results are fascinating, and are taught in every Pyschology 101 course in the country. In short, the experiment had to be called off after six days because the prisoner-guard dynamic had become so out of control. For me, this experiment has always reinforced the importance of critical thinking and maintaining individuality in the face of social pressures. If a few dozen smart, regular Stanford kids can abuse each other so quickly, we are all susceptible to situational and systemic pressures pushing us to do something that falls outside of our moral code.

Dr. Z makes an interesting parallel between his Stanford Prison Experiment and the tragedy of Abu Ghraib. I call it a tragedy because it was in my mind extremely unnecessary and was damaging to everyone involved: those who were abused, those who took the pictures and carried out the abuse, and the United States and its perception globally. Following the release of the pictures, Dr. Z highlights how the government - like any institution faced with a scandal - pointed to this as an incident of a few "bad apples." If it weren't so serious this shallow explanation would be laughable.

Few events have received as much scrutiny and military, government and journalistic review as the Abu Ghraib scandal. Across the board, they describe a fundamentally screwed up institution. Similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, most of the abuses took place on the night shift. For three months, no senior officer so much as visited the prison after hours. The stress level was extremely high - one Army reservist was in charge of over 1,000 prisoners, 60 Iraqi policemen, and 12 Army reserviests. He had received no specific training for the job and as mentioned, had no supervision. The chaotic conditions included constant weapons smuggling by Iraqi policemen, a neverending sewer stench, power blackouts, prisoner escapes, grenade attacks, noise and rationed water. The head Army reservist worked 40 days straight in 12 hour shifts per day. In his off-shift he slept in the prison. In social psychology, this 100% engulfment is called a "total situation."

Because of its proximity to dangerous Iraqi slums, the British told the US not to use the Abu Ghraib prison. Furthermore, for the first time Military Intelligence units were actively encouraging the Military Police (the Army reservists) to help break down prisoners. Of course, this is not the job of the police, whose job it is to keep order in the prison. When viewing this in the context of the administration's policy condoning "soft" torture tactics, it isn't hard to imagine how prisoner abuse resulted.

None of this serves to excuse any of the behavior that took place. Rather, it shows how putting "normal" people into a terrible situation, coupled with a lack of training and supervision, as well as tacit (and in some cases explicit) approval from superiors, results in a total disaster. Dr. Z and others had the opportunity to meet with and review the files of those who took the pictures and committed some of the acts; in his and military psychologists' opinions, these people were very normal. Indeed, Dr. Z points out that the lead officer was someone with the capacity to be a hero in a different situation. Yet instead he was a perpetrator of evil, smearing someone with his own feces and forcing others to similate sex acts while naked.... how is this possible?

Dr. Z's underlying point is that good and evil are hardly black and white. The human brain has an unbelievable capacity to be selfish and caring, heroic or villanous, creative or destructive. In other words, both good and evil are core aspects of human nature, and people can be transformed by powerful situational forces. After describing some other historical examples (the Jim Jones mass suicide, Eichman and the Nazis, etc.), he put together ten simple lessons on how to create evil in good people:

- Create an ideology to justify any means ("national security", etc.)
- Take small steps/minor action first
- Successively increase small actions
- Make sure a seemingly “just authority” is in charge
- Introduce a compassionate leader who changes gradually to become authoritarian monster
- Implement ever-changing/vague rules
- Re-lable situational actors & actions (“Teacher helping” when reality is aggressor hurting)
- Provide social models of compliance
- Allow verbal dissent, but insist on behavioral compliance (verbal dissent is the feel good thing)
- Make exiting difficult (this, he says, is the key to date rape…)

Perhaps some of you have seen a few of these steps in action, either from bosses, religious or government leaders. Dr. Z views corporate or institutional evil as the biggest evil, because it has the capacity to affect many people. In the case of corporations or governments, the rules of action are defined not by ethics, but rather by laws. The question is often not "what is right," but "what can we get away with?" He also described how corporate evil is always about the first little step - perhaps in the name of being a "team player." None of this is meant to be conspiratorial; it should instead reinforce to all of us that doing things because "that's what has always been done" or because someone "says so" is a poor reason that can have serious consequences. It's also clear to me that in a corporate or institutional setting, many of these evils can happen in marginal and indeed insignificant ways... with powerful disincentives to stand up for what is right.

So how do we keep ourselves from being even marginally evil? Dr. Z has also conveniently put together a list of twenty ways of preventing unwanted influences... while I won't list all of them here, you can click on this link to see the full list. Probably the most useful for me will be the following:

In all authority confrontations: be polite, individuate yourself and the other, make it clear it is not “your problem” in the process, or situation; describe the problem objectively, do not get emotional, state clearly the remedy sought, and the positive consequences expected – hold off on the threats and costs to them or their agency as last resort.

See ya'll next week.

General Petraeus on Strategic Leadership

I had the privilege of hearing General Petraeus speak today at Princeton University (and also was very fortunate to have met him in 2009). This is not this week's official "post", but I did want to at least jot down a few of the notes I took from his speech.

For those of you who don't know who General Petraeus is, he is the four-star general who leads the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and was the force behind the Iraq "surge" that has proven so successful in stabilizing the country following years of misguided US efforts.

He spoke briefly on strategic leadership, and gave these three guidelines:

1) Come up with the "right" big ideas.... as a leader of an organization you are expected to come up with the ideas that shape and determine the future of that organization. If the ideas are built on shaky or even faulty grounds, the organization becomes susceptible to failure. In Petraeus' opinion, the success of the surge in Iraq was more about a surge of ideas than a surge in troops. Specifically, it was about improving local sentiment, it was about living in the field and not in the barracks, it was about not just leaving after a location was cleared, and it was about partnering with insurgent groups that could be turned.

2) Communicate these ideas... he mentioned that the most important communication is communication DOWN the chain of command. In any type of organization those who are executing a strategy will be the ones who are further down the chain of command. Without a proper understanding of the strategy, tactics at the lower level can interfere with strategy at a higher level.

3) Direct and oversee the proper implementation of these ideas... what stuck out to me here was that General Petraeus, a career military man, said that this requires empowerment and not micromanagement. To me this is extremely interesting - I would have guessed that of all bureaucracies, the military would rank near the top in terms of micromanagement. However he said (correctly) that this stifles the ability to implement ideas and adapt ideas to ever-changing conditions on the ground. I couldn't agree more.

Also interesting was his statement that in planning for the Afghanistan troop increase, Petraeus met with President Obama "9 or 10" times, sometimes for more than three hours at a time! To me, this shows that Obama has taken this situation seriously and instead of simply hearing a briefing and making a decision (like so many decision makers have done and do), he decided to spend meaningful chunks of time to discuss and debate strategy. Political affiliation aside, this is encouraging to me. No matter what the ultimate decisions are, I hope we have more politicians and leaders who are willing to use this kind of process to come to decisions on the many major problems we are facing.

Week 7: McMafia

Distribution Source: TED.com
Content Source: Misha Glenny
Format: Video
Length: 19 minutes, 30 seconds
Link: Misha Glenny investigates global crime networks

After a fun but exhausting weekend in Las Vegas, I will be writing a shorter post this week... following Sin City I decided to watch a talk by BBC journalist Misha Glenny on organized crime. Misha chronicles the globalization of organized crime in "McMafia," a book he wrote after spending years traveling the world meeting with both perpetrators and victims, from the drug trade to human trafficking to cyber crime.

While I think Misha was a little too ambitious in his attempt to somehow link all types of organized crime across multiple regions of the world, his basic point - that globalized crime has thrived and evolved in the last two decades, and that "we" are ill-equipped to fight it - makes sense. Organized crime is estimated by Misha to account for 15% of global GDP. If true, this is a staggering number; 2009 global GDP is roughly $57 Trillion, which would put organized crime GDP at over $7.5 Trillion. Were it a country (isn't that a lovely thought), this would make the organized crime industry the third largest economy in the world, after the US ($14.5 Trillion) and China ($8.8 Trillion). In short, we are no longer facing your old-school Italian mob family.

Today's organized crime is not only bigger than before, but significantly more connected. Misha talks about how, when faced with a problem of declining membership, Japan's Yakuza mob simply outsourced their killings to the Chinese mob. He views the various organized crime players as savvy, well-resourced businesses supported by a significant demand base for illicit products and services and greatly assisted by access to off-shore banking services.

He divides the global organized crime business into zones of production (e.g., Afghanistan & Colombia), zones of distribution (e.g., Balkans & Mexico), and zones of consumption (e.g., the EU, US and Japan). The zones of production and distribution tend to take place in the developing world, and are often accompanied with extreme violence. Last year some 6,000 people have been killed as a direct consequence of cocaine trade through Mexico. And this pales in comparison to the Democratic Republic of Congo where, since 1998, 5 million people have died in the fight to control the illegal mineral trade. To give some perspective, in terms of deaths, this represents the largest conflict on the planet since WWII. Mafias around the world cooperate with local Congolese paramilitary officers to coordinate supply of minerals. The trade is simple: Congolese warlords send minerals to mobs in exchange for guns, and the various mobs sell the minerals to western markets.

With this production, distribution and consumption model in place, organized crime has become an increasingly efficient business, and one area in particular, the Balkans, has emerged as a hotbed, for two primary reasons. The first is geography; the Balkans are in many ways a gateway to Europe and are surrounded by the Black, the Aegean, the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Seas. All kinds of illicit goods come to Europe through the Balkans: heroin from Central Asia through Iran & Turkey, cocaine from Columbia through Western Africa, women from Russia through the Ukraine & Romania and of course minerals from Africa. In addition to geography, like many Soviet satellites, the Balkans experienced a major institutional collapse following the fall of communism. Governments fell, of course, but so too did the underlying institutions, from the legal systems to the security forces. Across Eastern Europe and the Balkans, tens of thousands of police and intelligence officers, trained in surveillance, fighting and killing, were left jobless. With such a massive structural void, and a supply of unpaid, disgruntled thugs-in-training, it is easy to see how organized crime could thrive. After all, even legitimate business owners would in this environment be forced to buy protection for their assets. And while important political progress has been made in the Balkans since the fall of the Berlin Wall (most obviously the splitting up of Yugoslavia), it is unfortunate that a political void allowed these players to gain power and legitimacy, further entrenching them and their businesses.

From Misha's brief video, it's clear that the illicit goods and services trade represents a complex problem for which there doesn't seem to be a globally coordinated, comprehensive counterbalance. While he does not make any policy recommendations, the lecture takeaway is that organized crime is a massive economic force that has to be taken seriously. I won't pretend to have any answers, but what is clear to me is the impossibility (and futility) of using top-down "bans" on drugs or prostitution in hopes of ultimately eliminating them. It simply doesn't work. So if the zone of consumption cannot be eliminated by force, either another method must be attempted, or we must instead focus on incentives to disrupt zones of production and distribution.

Week 6: The Way of the Samurai

Distribution Source: Hulu
Content Source: PBS
Format: Video
Length (Combined): 55 minutes
Link: The Way of the Samurai

"For existence is impermanent as the dew of evening, and the hoarfrost of morning, and particularly uncertain is the life of the warrior…" - Code of the Samurai

I have never been to Japan, and have had only limited exposure to the country and people. Outside of Quentin Tarantino movies I've had no exposure to the samurai culture. But what little I've seen has made me fascinated with samurai warriors. Their intense training from a young age and unyielding devotion to the warrior lifestyle in conjunction with a deep sense of honor, code of ethics and philosophy seems historically unique. Their status as powerful warriors is unquestioned... earlier today I was trying to figure out who would emerge if you locked a spartan, a Navy SEAL and a samurai in a room for a fight to the death (leave a comment if you have any strong views on this).

The video I watched focused on what was in years a relatively brief period (roughly 100 years), but which represented an immensely important part of Japanese history. It chronicled the ascent to power of one of the most famous and powerful samurai, Tokugawa Ieyasu. Ieyasu would ultimately pull Japan out of its feudal civil wars, implement a peace that lasted for almost three centuries, and build the city of Edo (modern-day Tokyo) from a fishing town into one of the world's largest cities.

Ieyasu was born in 1543, the year of the water and the hare, and also the year that the Portuguese "discovered" Japan. After observing the Japanese culture and its complex political system, the Portuguese for the first time viewed an Asian people as equals, not as an inferior group to be conquered. Interestingly, the Japanese were not so kind in their assessment of the Europeans - they regarded as defects their large noses, messy beards, and rudimentary eating style and utensils. The Japanese bathed daily while the Portuguese went months without bathing. It is perhaps unsurprising that the Japanese called the Portuguese "Southern Barbarians."

At this time, Japan was divided into many fiefdoms, with powerful daimyo lords - and their armies of samurai warriors - battling for territory. Ieyasu was born into the samurai class, an honor bestowed on only 10% of the Japanese population. In other words, one could not simply decide to become a samurai. But with the honor of being born into the samurai class came a deep, lifelong obligation. Many Samurai boys, Ieyasu included, were given up as part of the intricate game of feudal politics. There was deep distrust between various political factions; giving a child was a way to guarantee or solidify one's intentions. Ieyasu's father gave him as a "hostage" to a powerful daimyo, and the two would never again meet. But even as a hostage, samurai boys were privileged - they traveled in style and were educated.

This education included training in the art of kendo - the way of the sword - which among other things exposed Ieyasu to the rigors of unending training and taught him to remain clearminded in the face of danger and to accept death stoically. Ieyasu was also trained in the Chinese and Japanese classics, martial arts, and military strategy. This education taught him above all the philosophy of the samurai lifestyle. At the age of 15, Ieyasu became a man and was given the right to carry the two samurai swords - the larger katana sword and a smaller sword, called the wakizashi. Once samurai became men, their swords would never leave their sides, and would even be kept by their pillows at night.

True glory for a samurai came on the battlefield, defending his lord. The samurai had to be ready to be killed and die for honor at anytime. There is a Japanese analogy that suggests samurai are like cherry blossoms - very presentable, but it only takes one storm for them to blow away.

Knowing when - and how - to die was crucially important for a samurai. On the battlefield, during the last moment of life one must show his control and die with honor. Outside of dying in battle, the most common death for a samurai was through a highly scripted suicide routine called harikari (also called Seppuku). A samurai would carry out harikari for many reasons, ranging from a loss in battle to angering his lord. The samurai would write his death poem and, without expression, stab himself in the abdomen with his sword. Any indication of pain or suffering would undermine the honor of the death... one samurai wrote:

For the samurai to learn
There's only one thing,
One last thing -
To face death unflinchingly.

By his twenties, Ieyasu had become battle-hardened and had been exposed to death. When his lord died, Ieyasu made the decision to return to his homeland and reclaim his title as a daimyo (an independent lord). At the time the most powerful daimyo was Nobunaga, who had gained control of about half of Japan. Ieyasu and his eventual rival, Hideyoshi, were both loyal to Nobunaga until his death. Hideyoshi became the most powerful, and instead of fighthing, Ieyasu made a series of savvy moves, including offering his second son to Hideyoshi to show his allegiance.

Perhaps the biggest risk Ieyasu took was accepting a deal from Hideyoshi that gave Ieyasu a few provinces (including Edo) in exchange for his submission. This would serve the dual purpose of both keeping Ieyasu as an ally and keeping him far from the political center of Osaka. However Ieyasu used the distance to his advantage, as it gave him more autonomy from Hideyoshi.

Hideyoshi did not have a male heir until the age of 60, and when he died his son was only 5. Before his death, Hideyoshi made a deal with Ieyasu and four other leaders to oversee the country until his son was old enough to take power. Ieyasu swore allegiance to Hideyoshi's son. Soon after Hideyoshi's death, however, Ieyasu began a campaign to rule all of Japan, culminating in arguably the most historic battle in Japanese history: the Battle of Sekigahara. Severely outnumbered, Ieyasu sent his troops into battle with this rallying cry: "there are two ways to come out of battle: with the head of the enemy or without your own." Ieyasu's army won, and the era of warring states had finally ended. Three years later the emperor bestowed the title of shogun to Ieyasu, making him the undisputed ruler of Japan.

Ieyasu quickly eliminated foreigners from Japan and outlawed Christianity (many of the Europeans were there in an effort to convert the Japanese). His only remaining problem was the son of Hideyoshi, Hideyori, who was growing older and to whom Ieyasu had pledged his life and subservience. The young Hideyori began to assemble forces in Osaka, and Ieyasu decided he would have to go back on his word. In 1614 he accused Hideyori of subversion and decided to attack. Hideyori had tens of thousands of loyal warriors, and the castle of Osaka was thought to be impregnable. After a stalemate, Ieyasu decided to try a different tactic - he sent a woman samuri to negotiate a truce with Hideyori's mother. He offered a safehaven for all troops if Hideyori agreed not to fight, and signed this pledge with his own blood. Hideyori's mother convinced him to accept the deal. As soon as the fighting stopped, Ieyasu filled the moats with dirt and stormed the castle, slaughtering everyone inside.

The samurai battle ritual calls for the decapitation of all enemy warriors, which are then cleaned and placed together as a sign of respect. It is estimated that 100,000 heads were assembled following the victory at Sekigahara. Hideyori refused to surrender, and committed Seppuku.

The choice to go back on his word was problematic for Ieyasu. It is believed that he deeply regretted having to eliminate Hideyori, and was said to have done penance by writing the name of Buddha 10,000 times on scrolls of parchment. However, it is clear that Ieyasu thought the dynasty and lasting peace was worth the dishonor of eliminating Hideyori. Indeed, the peace that followed lasted through the industrialization of Japan in the 19th century.

Together the three famous samurai leaders, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu are known as "The Three Unifiers." There is a Japanese parable that summarizes Ieyasu's strategy of outlasting the other powerful samurai leaders:

The three samurai are watching a cuckoo bird, waiting for it to sing. Nobunaga says to the bird: "If you don't sing, I will kill you." Hideyoshi says: "If you don't sing, I will make you." Ieyasu, however, says: "If you don't sing, I will wait for you to sing."

I think my biggest lesson from this post involves the extreme patience of Ieyasu. As part of a borderline narcissistic generation that has come to expect real time gratification, it is enlightening to see how decades of patience and work resulted in Ieyasu's ultimate victory. It is clear to me that his strategy and tactics, as well as the self-discipline prescribed by the samurai code, are useful guides and deserve further study.

Week 5: Haiti.

Distribution Source: Google Video, YouTube, CBS, Al Jazeera, FOX, ABC
Content Source: Eunide Alexandre Television, CBS, Al Jazeera, FOX, ABC, Noam Chomksy
Format: Video
Length (Combined): 57 minutes
Links:
Voice of Haiti: History
Haiti's History of Struggle
Haiti's History of Hardship
Haiti's Troubled History
Noam Chomsky on Haiti
Haiti's Political History
History of US Aid to Haiti

This week's topic came from my girlfriend, who told me I should write about Haiti - not about the crisis, but how it became one of the poorest countries in the world. I thought this was a great idea, and am extremely glad I listened to her. This week, I will try to give you the succinct story of Haiti (or as much of it as I could understand from only an hour of videos).

To summarize everything that is to follow: over the past few hundred years, the Haitians have gotten a terrible deal. It's also clear that Haiti is inextricably linked - culturally, politically, and economically - to the US and to Western Europe.

The known history of Haiti, dating back to 1492 (the year Columbus "discovered" America and Hispaniola), consists of multiple world powers occupying and exploiting the country. The native Taínos ruled the island prior to the Spaniards claiming the island of Hispaniola. The story that follows mirrors other Conquistador victories - the Taínos were subjugated and forced to mine gold (of which Haiti and the Dominican Republic had a lot) or be killed. Disease also killed much of the Taíno population. In spite of the decimation of the Taíno population, due to mining and agriculture, Hispaniola was the most valuable land on the earth for almost a century.

Over time, the Spaniards realized that larger and more reliable mines could be found on the mainland, and largely withdrew from Hispaniola. Soon after, the French settled on the island. In 1697, the French and Spanish agreed to split up the land, with the Spanish keeping the eastern two-thirds of the island(now the Dominican Republic), while the French controlled the western third (modern-day Haiti). The addition of the French created an even more complicated racial and ethnic mix in Haiti, which already consisted of African slaves, Taíno natives, and Spaniards. The Haitian Creole language and culture followed. Religiously, Haiti was also unconventional, the result of an eclectic blend of Taíno spirituality, African voo-doo, and Roman Catholicism.

In the late 18th century, something amazing (and ironic) happened. Inspired by the egalitarian slogan of the French Revolution, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," the Haitians revolted against their French rulers. Napoleon sent tens of thousands of his battle-hardened troops to crush the Haitians and their leader, Toussaint l'Ouverture. Incredibly, the French could not defeat the Haitians. In 1804, Haiti declared its freedom, thereby becoming the first independent nation in Latin America and the first black-led republic in history (I recognize the western-centric use/notion of "republic" here). In 1809, there was a large creole exodus to New Orleans, doubling the population of the city.

Unfortunately for Haiti, while it had triumphed in a military sense against the French, it was unable to do so economically - France forced massive indemnification payments on the country, for "profits lost from the slave trade." A French abolitionist later pointed out how ridiculous these payments were: "Imposing an indemnity on the victorious slaves was equivalent to making them pay with money that which they had already paid with their blood." These debt payments took Haiti over 120 years to pay back and started a cycle of debt, dependence, and instability.

The newly independent country suffered from multiple coups (in its 200 years, Haiti has had 32 coups), and generally did not have the resources to build strong institutions that would allow an economy to grow. In 1915, US Marines occupied Haiti, citing the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which allowed the US to intervene in Caribbean economies if they were unable to pay their international debts (in Haiti's case, to France). It was also a direct effort to eliminate German economic interests in Haiti, making Haiti a derivative battle of World War I. In other words, Haiti's morally illegitimate international debts to France served as the precept for the US to occupy the nation and use it as a pawn in a global war. The US kept a military presence in Haiti until 1933; there were meaningful infrastructure projects undertaken, but throughout the entire period (and almost the entire 20th century) Haiti was ruled by dictators who routinely murdered and stole from the populace.

It wasn't until the 1980s that Haiti had any kind of representative government; the first truly democratic elections were in 1990, and Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected President. Within nine months he was overthrown in a coup and replaced by a thug. President Clinton successfully negotiated his reinstatement in 1994, but did so on the condition that Aristide implement his opponent's free trade policies. Haiti dropped its internal agricultural subsidies, and was flooded with cheaper international food. As a result, farmers migrated into Port Au Prince, which had became a city of a million people that by most estimates should hold only 40,000. More recently, Aristide was thrown out in 2004 in yet another coup; during this year Haiti was also ravaged by massive floods. In 2008, food riots plagued the country after four major hurricanes hit the island, inflicting over $1B in damage.

By now it should be clear that there is a major, complex problem facing Haiti's development. I am extremely disheartened by the failures of what we assume to be the best natural solution: foreign aid. Foreign aid figures to Haiti have been well-documented in recent history: $3B of US taxpayer funds have gone into the country since 1992, and $600MM per year in international donations have gone to the country. For a country with an annual GDP of $6B, this is significant. Most staggering to me, though, is sheer the number of international aid organizations operating in Haiti. For a country with 10 million people, I would have guessed between 100-1,000 organizations were operable. I was SHOCKED to learn that 10,000 aid organizations have on-the-ground operations in Haiti... in other words, one aid organization for every 1,000 people. How is this what's best for Haiti? Think of the overhead costs associated with installing so many different groups on the ground. Wouldn't it be better for these funds to go through fewer, more efficient groups? Alternatively, could this be a reflection of a failed NGO model? I'm reminded of the African official who, when asked what the UN could do for Africa made a heartfelt plea to please "leave us alone and do nothing."

In some ways, this is a moot point, because everything about Haitian aid and development has and will continue to change following the devastating earthquake. My hope is that going forward, the solutions implemented are those that empower individual Haitians to improve their own situation, as l'Ouverture and his army did against Napoleon. Otherwise Haitians will just be getting another raw deal.

Inventory of Free, Educational Video Sites

While searching for this week's topic, I came across this link:

About.com's inventory of free, web-based video sources

Week 4: The Climategate Controversy

Distribution Source: iTunesU
Content Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT World: Distributed Intelligence)
Format: Video
Length: 1 hour, 58 minutes, 31 seconds

This week's topic is the Climategate Controversy. "Climategate" refers to the November 2009 hacking of a University of East Anglia server and subsequent release of over 1,000 emails between climate scientists. Many of these emails appear to reveal scientists from the Climate Research Unit (University of East Anglia) and Penn State University behaving unethically - from suggesting data be altered to strategizing over how to keep the work of scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) global warming out of certain peer reviewed journals.

But if this were just an issue of two or three scientists behaving immorally for their own selfish purposes, it would not be worthy of the international attention it has received. Rather, this represents an important inflection between science and politics, on a global scale. It also represents an issue - global warming (or, the more politically correct name: climate change) - in which many different, often combative sides have entrenched interests (think developing vs. developed world, Democrats vs. Republicans, industrialists vs. environmentalists, just to name a few...).

This post is not about the science behind global warming - I'd embarrass myself even attempting to frame the debate properly. What I do know is that I've tried many times in good faith to understand the issue, and what the science says about the issue. In most cases, with nothing more than an internet connection, some critical thinking and a free afternoon, this is not exceedingly difficult. But with global warming, I've found the task tedious, in large part due the blatant propaganda from all sides. This fact alone is instructive as to the political backdrop of the issue. As I've researched this week's topic, it has become clear to me that science has to some degree taken a back seat to strong efforts on both sides to manipulate the climate change issue for political gain. Indeed, the fact that we discuss this in terms of "sides" shows how polarizing this has become (what with believers, nonbelievers, and the future of the earth in play), and how far we've gotten from rational, intelligent debate on what I think is the important, underlying question: is the world screwed and if so what can we do about it?

In the United States, it seems that the climate change debate has roughly fallen along partisan lines, with each side giving its followers an easy story. Democrats play the oh-so-certain side, safely dismissing any doubter of the veracity of anthropogenic climate change as an idiot (at the dinner party: "oh yes, dear, the poor thing, he doesn't even believe in global warming"). Meanwhile Republicans have embraced the "skeptic" terminology to represent their supposed healthy scientific questioning of the issue (on a freezing cold day: "it's -25 degrees today, yep, must be global warming!"). In other words, just like the health care debate quickly fell to an argument over death panels, the climate change debate has also regressed to lowest common denominator, politically expedient discourse.

But let's bring it back to Climategate. Why should we care? Some scientists wrote some nasty things about each other, maybe tried to change a temperature database, and discussed keeping contradictory work from being published. My first question was: what were the actual effects of this scandal? I particularly liked the approach of Ron Prinn (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT) - he posed six questions to himself about Climategate:

1) Are some of these emails unprofessional? His answer: Yes.

2) Were the scientists involved successful in preventing journal publications? His answer: No. Not successful.

3) Was the research done by scientists in question critical for the case for anthropogenic climate changes? (my note: the way I understand it, the integrity of one of the major client science databases is now tainted, and the question becomes: is the scientific consensus in tact ex-this database and its associated work) His answer: There are many different data sets and analyses; in short, these scientists aren't the only group doing this. The body of evidence supporting that climate change is anthropogenic is robust, and the risk is, in his mind, high (there is no other planet to retreat to).

4) Has the integrity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change been compromised? His answer: No. Yes, these scientists were involved with the IPCC, and the IPCC is the most important single input to international climate policy. However, in his experience publishing through the IPCC, it was a thorough, honest process, and he thinks hijacking the IPCC by a small group is simply not possible.

5) Is public perception of climate science affected? His answer: Yes. Media's ability to analyze hard science is diminishing, particularly as news sources continue cutting science writers. Moreover, the emails contained juicy soundbites for story writers and therefore gained a larger audience.

6) Can we do better as client scientists? His answer: We need to step back and move away from a knee-jerk tendency for polarization. The almost religious "Believers vs. Nonbelievers" framework needs to be moved away from. We need mutual respect and communication tools, not just on our conclusions but on our process as well.

Through this lense, it seems to me that the actual results of the Climategate scandal - from a climate science perspective - are not nearly as damaging as they have been made out to be. This is not to say they haven't had a meaningful impact on public discourse - the headlines surely provided fodder for those on one side of the political war. And let's be clear, this is a political war; the event was no accident - someone with a vested interest in the outcome hacked into a server, stole information, and released it to coincide with the largest international climate summit (December 2009, Copenhagen) since Kyoto.

But in my view, one major positive of Climategate is the opportunity it has provided us laypeople to think about how science and politics are married on this important issue. On the video panel, Judy Layzer, a Professor of Political Sciences at MIT and Government at Harvard, walked us through this intersection of the vastly different worlds of science and politics. Most people have a rational view of policy making - that is, the more we know about a problem the more we should be able to solve it. But that is simply not how it works.

Science is about assessing theories and advancing our understanding of the world in which we live, a process that is never complete, never certain, and always skeptical. She contrasts this with science-based policy decisions, in which people have to act in the very near-term on imperfect information. She points out that what we are asking of scientists in this situation isn't science at all. It is regulatory science, and regulatory science is inherently uncertain. And so scientists are asked to make assumptions, and assumptions are based on their values. Once we have assumptions based on values, we have moved from pure science into some other realm.

And from the purely political side of the equation, she says policy making is not at all linear - in other words we are never choosing the "best" from an array of options. Rather, there are many advocates - each with its own ideology, interests, and funding source - competing for the right to define a problem and therefore be able to give the solution. She goes on to say that, unfortunately, in many cases the underlying science has no impact on policy - it has to be woven into a political story to make a difference.

In climate change, environmental skeptics have learned the political game and know that discrediting the science is very important. Spinning the issues is not at all difficult - whether creating and using words like "Climategate" that conjure up previous scandals or simply discrediting scientists' models. Professor Layzer notes that a major problem is that scientists are not equipped to deal with such political attacks. Scientists are traditionally reserved in their language and the way in which they present arguments and conclusions. But when faced with a politicized opposition, they want to react. Imagine being a climatologist who has studied meticulously the issue of global warming and come to the independent conclusion that it is a major problem for the planet, your children, and the human race. Now imagine your valid work being discredited by some partisan hack as nothing more than the ramblings of an idealogue - wouldn't you be more willing than usual to use stronger language to persuade the public of your case? It's hard to imagine scientists not having more of these types of problems following the Climategate emails, which show impropriety on the part of only a very few scientists. While unfortunate, it represents the arena in which climate scientists, willingly or not, have been thrust.

To summarize, politicians are being politicians, some interested party hacked into computers and stole information for its gain, and a few scientists succumbed to human temptations thereby discrediting their work... What is the takeaway? First, it's clear to me that with the stakes so high all around, we will only continue to see a politicized and contentious debate on the issue of global warming. Climategate has reminded me that powerful misinformation campaigns exist, and they exist at very high levels. The incentives for scientists on both sides to be discredited are high, and my sense is that sides will only become more entrenched as we move closer to global climate regulation. This week's research has reiterated the need to have a healthy skepticism for everything that we read or are told. But also, I think we should be looking for and advocating forums, publications, and platforms that are focused on giving people access to the best possible information.