More Fudge in Science: NASA Tweaking Shuttle Safety Data

from Associated Press
date: April 22, 2005

NEW YORK — Internal NASA documents obtained by a newspaper suggest that the agency is playing down the dangers posed by shuttle debris so it can continue to send astronauts into space.

The New York Times reported Friday that the documents by engineers and managers for the space agency show at least three changes in the statistical methods used in assessing the risks of debris like ice and insulating foam striking a shuttle during launching.

One presentation said lesser standards must be used to support accepting the risks of flight "because we cannot meet" the traditional standards, according to the newspaper.

The Times said there is debate within the agency about whether the changes are a reasonable reassessment of the hazards of flight or whether they jettison long-established rules to justify getting back to space quickly.

Debris was blamed for the disintegration of the shuttle Columbia (search) as it was returning from space in February 2003.

Experts who have seen the documents told the Times that they do not suggest that the shuttle Discovery (search) — scheduled to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on May 22 — is unsafe.

Shuttle systems engineering manager John Muratore, the author of one of the documents along with a colleague, told the Times he's "never jiggled a number" in his 25-year career and that the engineering challenge is enormously complex.

Earlier this month, Muratore openly acknowledged that even marshmallow-size pieces of insulating foam from the fuel tank could doom the space shuttle under the worst circumstances. He told reporters it is a risk NASA and the nation must accept for flights to resume anytime soon, and that it would take a total redesign of the tank to completely eliminate foam loss.

Paul A. Czysz, emeritus professor of aerospace engineering at St. Louis University (search), who read the documents at the Times' request, said they did not demonstrate that the shuttle is too dangerous to return to space or that NASA is stinting on efforts to make it safer.

To achieve a profound safety improvement, he said, NASA would need to replace the shuttle fleet, which was designed in the 1970s, with an entirely new vehicle.

But Czysz, who spent some 30 years with NASA contractor McDonnell Douglas, likened the statistical shifts to moving the goal posts at a football game.

"I was amazed at how they were adjusting every test to make it come out right," he said.

Muratore told the Times the statistical process was not meant to move any goal posts.

A call by The Associated Press to Johnson Space Center (search), where Muratore works, was not immediately returned Friday.

NASA officials maintain that the shuttle is safer than it has ever been because of changes made after the Columbia disaster, and they have long acknowledged that not all debris risk can be eliminated.

Week 7 - Open Forum - Monday

The open forum, which will be posted Monday, Wednesday and Friday, will allow for the smooth transition of discussion. Forums are designed to provide a leisurely paced medical science forum (or conference). Comments, suggests, and input from the general public is welcome.

Assessing Funding Models - Charities Part 1

If you're wondering, why spend so much time on funding? Simple, funding is the key to research and the research that can be done. If funding fails in the middle of research, years of work can be lost. Work that often represents a scientist's life and dedication. This is why funding and answering the funding question is so important. Scientists spend much of their time worrying about funding, and all their research is centered around it. Few understand the cost and risk of medical research. The TV Channel CNBC, a channel dedicated to finance and economics, produced an estimate that a new medical discovery task (on average) 10 years and $1 billion. Further, size does not provide any certainty of discovery. In fact, most discoveries come from small innovative operations - who succeed against all odds. Now, with increasing medical concerns, new medical discoveries and the funding that supports it, is more important than ever. This means that a good funding model is key.

There are essentially three funding models; 1) government, 2) charities, 3) drug companies/for profit medicine. We are going to start with the second, and most visible - charities. Everyone has heard of, or has been called by, a charity asking for money for medical research. Almost every disease has a charity. The more popular the disease the more attention and money it gets. This is why charities hold fundraising drives and events, to bring attention to their medical issue. We have already taken a brief look at some of the largest medical charities. These large charities like the American Heart Association and the Canadian counter-part are large enough they can hold city halting events - like runs and walks. Corporations line up to sponsor these events, because it's good public relations to be seen doing good and supporting a good cause. However, when the annual reports of these charities are reviewed, you see that at most only 30% and as little as 10% actually goes research. To provide a better look, I compiled a list of 20 charities and looked for their annual reports and/or financial information. Of the twenty large charities collecting money (their annual report listing finances and income in the thousands, for example 20,000 list is really 20,000,000) only one reach 56%, and one 29% four were as low as 10%, and half had no financial information. This produced an average of only 10%, of the income collected by large medical charities, actually is spent on medical research.

Week 6 - Open Forum - Monday

This change in the open forum, which will be posted Monday, Wednesday and Friday, will allow for the smooth transition of discussion. Forums are designed to provide a leisurely paced medical science forum (or conference).

Week 5 - Open Forum

This is an open forum that will last until next Friday. The public may post discuss any medical issue.

For researchers posting critical review to count as publishing please include full identity information. Anonymous comments and post will not count as critical review.

The Hidden Perils of Social Medicine

These leaks, in turn, contaminate soil and groundwater, posing health risks to those who live nearby or drink the water. Such health risks can range from nausea to kidney or liver damage or even cancer. As a result, some communities have closed their drinking water wells. A recent news report illustrates the problem. A school in Roselawn, Indiana, discovered that the children had been using and drinking water with nearly 10 times the EPA-recommended safe level of MTBE. I understand that an investigation is trying to determine whether the MTBE came from a nearby tank and whether it is a factor contributing to the children’s nosebleeds and other reported health problems. [Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director of Environmental Issues, U.S. Government Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20548]

Nosebleeds in children are a common occurance, and there is no data to suggest an abnormal increase due to a hidden chemical cause. So these studies, which are just suggesting a possible problem (with no real data) use very lose and general terms. The "concerns" are generated by environmental charities who need a cause to raise money. This sound very cynical, but after a study of several major medical charities, the statement is unfortunately true.

Studies done on the American Heart Association, the American Stroke Association, the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society found that of the total annual income (based on their annual reports), the ADA scored the highest with spending only 20% of their income on research. The AHA and ASA, which are the same charity scored the lowest with only 10% of their income going to research. Ten other medical charities were also checked and none scored above 20%.

This means that a bulk of the funding comes from the NIH and drug companies. In this amount, the NIH and drug companies must support the medical systems of every country with a social medical program. In Canada, for instance, many medical scientists are supported by grants from the NIH, because the Canadian government has no money to fund it (or so it's claimed). The fact is that socialist Europe requires the American free enterprise medical system to exist.

If the Dems get in and create a social medical system in the US (as the United States of America becomes the United Socialist States of America) - who are they going to turn to - to develop their medicine?

Link

Week 4 - Open Forum

This is an open forum that will last until next Friday. The public may post discuss any particular medical issue.

For researchers posting critical review to count as publishing please include full identity information. Anonymous comments and post will not count as critical review.

The Puzzle (Random Walk) Method

Much is made of the term "The Scientific Method", as if it's a divinely ordained process of thought. What is taught in school and the public sees, is the outdated, "classical" scientific method. In the classical method, much was made of this recipe for truth. It fits in with the idea that the world and all knowledge is logical and rational. The idea that was inherited in the world of education. However, if one examines the history of scientific development and the development of scientific theory, the reality is fair from the concept of The Scientific Method. The irony is, although the scientific method is presented as the method of science, a little known concept from quantum physics - the random walk - is the method that actually worked.

The scientific method sets out to control thought and theory, backed by control experiments designed to show the validity of a theory. Essentially, come up with a "scientific" idea, design an experiment to show this "scientific" idea. This is what's taught and what's behind all "scientific" awards and prestige. Here are portions of a section on The Scientific Method, from the University of Rochester,

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c <<>> 10^-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

[Introduction to the Scientific Method, http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html ]

This is a scientific method common to physics, where hypotheses leads experimentation - designed to confirm hypotheses. However, they do allow for experimental "failure" where an experiment fails to show the hypotheses. The problem, is that bias (that favors the hypothesis) often creeps in to experiment limiting the value of the experiment as the validation of hypothesis. The result historically, scientific advancement has come in the face of scientific ignorance. Data that was labeled a erroneous and discarded, showed the way to a new understanding. The result, over history has been, the random walk is the primary method of science and knowledge.

The random walk was developed as a concept for the probability. It views the collection of data, as a random walk, with no absolute path, just a probability or trend. The example of which would be the collection of climate data, which todate fair exceeds the abilities of the best models to predict. However, I've found an analogy to the random walk - the puzzle (1500 pieces or more). These very large puzzles are fair more difficult to construct than the smaller puzzles, and the random walk effect occurs with this large of a task. The random walk is represent by organizing the pieces of the puzzle so you can begin a process of trial and error to determine which pieces fit. In this, there is no way to predict where in the puzzle you'll begin or what section of the puzzle will come together first. Ironically, this same method can be applied to science, as shown in the last few articles. Here, in science pieces are not provided, but have to be found, examined and the assembled into a picture. This is the basics of the new random walk method.

A Look at the ACS Puzzle and Beyond

This is the last piece of the Association/Society/Foundation puzzle that we will look at. We currently have enough to make a general assessment of the piece that we have. This last piece was a little unusual in that the 2004 Annual Report of the American Cancer Society did not have any financial information and when the financial information was found is was in a unaudited consolidatd statement and only for 2003. There was no financial information for 2004. There was the standard section for the public, a section for healthcare providers and a section for researchers. Much of the 2004 annual report was "forward looking" (just like in the others), it wasn't until you see the consolidated financial statement that we see what has actually gone into research. After looking through the document I found the two numbers needed; 1. the total revenue and 2. the total expendature on research. The total revenue was listed as (for 2003) $836,296,000 and the total expendature on research was listed as $130,952,000, meaning of the total amount spent only 16% was spent on research. They list administation costs at 20% an the rest 64% as "education and promotion".

The question that remains to be answered, is why so little on research and so much on education and promotion. Education and promotion seem to be the main function of these associations, societies and foundations. The question here is how effective have these "charities" been and could more be done. There seems to be an association, foundation or society for every disease. This means that there is a clear roadmap to follow in exploring what's been done, a puzzle that will tell us what's left to be done in the puzzle of medical science.

Week 3 - Open Forum

This is an update of the weekend forum, except this forum will last until next Friday.

For researchers posting critical review to count as publishing please include full identity information. Anonymous comments and post will not count as critical review.

End of Week Links of Interest

1.

2. NIH Library

3. DC Prinicples Free Access to Science

A Look at the ADA Puzzle

We saw in the article on the AHA (American Heart Association) that the medical science puzzle is not a single puzzle, but a puzzle made of other puzzles. We moved to look at the ASA (American Stroke Association) puzzle, which was actually part of the AHA puzzle. Now, we are going to examine the ADA (American Diabetes Association). Our examinations, are still only preliminary, just enough to get a general picture. This general picture will provide further direction for research. This is a type of research, that was very briefly touched on in Quantum Physics, with the introduction of the "random walk". From this concept, which held the view that true science cannot be predicted only observed and explored, it could be said (or equated) that the "random walk" was the same as single frame (picture) in a movie, or a single piece in a puzzle. This means that while you can't predict what's going to occur, you can find enough pieces to produce a general picture (or trend). It's this process that saw the amazing developments in astronomy, physics, computer science, and the space program. However, from our initial pieces that we have found (of the medical science puzzle) this method does not exist here.

To examine the ADA, we will go to the same point that we did for the AHA and ASA, the annual report.

1. The prevalence of diabetes has never been greater, and the American Diabetes Association continues to rise to meet the growing challenges that go along with diabetes research, information and advocacy. The steady growth of the Association’s Research Program is exemplified by three different targeted grant projects that were initiated in FY04. These projects include the largest annual grant that the Association has ever awarded, focusing on obesity and type 2 diabetes, as well as the two largest grants ever given to individual researchers, focusing on islet cell transplantation in type 1 diabetes and diabetes in pregnancy. [Page 4, MESSAGE FROM THE VOLUNTEER LEADERSHIP]

2. We live in a nation where more than six percent of the population — 18.2 million people — have diabetes, and the number is on the rise. As the challenges that diabetes presents continue to increase, the American Diabetes Association will be there, fighting to prevent and cure this devastating disease. [Page 5, message from the CEO]

3. In Memory and Recognition of GAIL PATRICK....As a tribute to Ms. Patrick, the American Diabetes Association established the Gail Patrick ADA Innovation Award. This prestigious award will go to the highest scoring innovation application from our two grant cycles each year in perpetuity. The award will provide $50,000 per year for two years to the researcher for developing an idea that could have major impact on diabetes research and the Association’s efforts to cure diabetes. [page 11]

4.
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES (in thousands of dollars)
Public Support and Other Revenue
a. [2004 annual report]
Total Revenue $208,198
Expenses - Research $47,472 (23% of the total income)

These four pieces will give us a good general picture. From pieces 1 and 2, the point to an increase in diabetes. Pieces 1 to 3, are forward looking along with the rest of the document. Yet we see a research expendature similar to (although twice that of) the AHA and ASA (combined research expendature was only 20%). This places the same funding pressures on researchers, as described in the article, "Science is no Place for Fudge". The vast majority of its funds are spent on professional and public information, education, and promotional programs. This brings the same issue as seen in the AHA and the ASA - why do MD's need these "education" programs? However, we will look at this question of MD education and qualication, in a later article. For the next direction we will take a clue from the final report and look at the American Cancer Association (ACA).