By R. C. Anderson, on September 4th, 2008
Every day we hear reports of new scientific discoveries regarding what’s good for us, what’s bad for us and what could affect us well into the future. The reason these stories are given such credence in the media is an intrinsic trust the public holds for such scientific statements. In the August 29 issue of Science, however, accusations of fabricated data and blatantly false conclusions regarding the dangers of cell phones proved to be yet another instance in recent months of falsehoods unknowingly propagated in the public consciousness.
As of 2007, there were 3.3 billion cell phone users in the world with more than 156 million in the U.S. alone. In 2007, 798 million people worldwide used their cell phones for the internet and other mobile services. In 2006, this generated $31 billion. Texting services brought in another $100 billion in 2007. Revenue for music services equaled $9.3 billion with gaming generating $5 billion. In 2005, more than 125 million phones were discarded and replaced resulting in billions of dollars in new cell phones for consumers. This industry has grown so fast that, while in 1985 only 340,000 people used cell phones, over 140 million did in 2003. This growth continues as does the services offered and the necessity of this technology in everyone’s daily life. As a result, many have grown concerned that wireless electronic devices can cause irreparable harm to its users. Such groups have, in recent years, begun funding research into such a possibility. The cell phone industry, in response, has begun funding research of its own to prove the safety of its product.
Breaking DNA
Currently, two scientific papers have been published that link the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of cell phones to DNA breakage. Since DNA controls everything from skin cell reproduction to the quality of one’s health, this was seen as a serious potential problem, especially for children. Submitted by the Medical University of Vienna’s Dr. Hugo Rüdiger, the data in these two papers were noted as being somewhat incredible. In fact, the “perfectness” of the data led to an investigation into the scientists, their research and how they obtained their data. In May 2008, the investigators concurred with the initial critics of the research and deemed the data unreliable. While it was agreed that the papers should be retracted, the data and fears that stemmed from them is already in the public sphere, causing confusion and worry.
Nothing can be quite this clear-cut however. Since the research technician’s initial mea culpa, the confession has been “re-thought.” The technician now denies any guilt, and the scientist in charge of the project has, as a result, refused to retract both papers. Instead, he has agreed to remove only one. While it would seem unwise to believe the new statement of innocence from a technician who originally claimed guilt, the lead scientist of the papers has stated the technician’s data was not at fault. Rather, it was his critics who should be blamed since they are, he alleges, being paid by the cell phone industry to smear the results of his research.
These two studies originally gave substantial weight to the claims of those calling for more strict regulations of the cell phone industry. Prior to these papers, studies had only shown EMFs to be responsible for less severe consequences such as what genes were turned on rather than outright severing of the DNA strands themselves. It was these papers that pushed that idea that cell phones could cause problems so serious that they could affect one’s DNA and, as a result, cause problems in the DNA of the user’s future children.
Suspicious Motives
The European Union gave €3.2 million to project REFLEX to study if EMFs had any effect on humans. Rüdiger’s funding for his two EMF papers came from this. Alexander Lerchl, a professor in Germany, is one of the most vocal of Rüdiger’s critics. Rüdiger is correct when he states that Lerchl receives money from the cell phone industry. Lerchl receives money from an organization that accepts funding from many different companies and industries, one being the cell phone industry. While this in itself does not negate Lerchl’s right to question potentially incorrect data, it does cause one to consider his motivations. This is especially true considering the amount of money at stake for the cell phone industry if their product is proven unsafe for adults and especially children and teens, who made up approximately 66% of U.S. users in 2005.
The truth of what really happened and why may be lost in the finger pointing and character assassination that seems to be an on-going phenomenon in this case. However, at the very least, the most current paper published in 2008 is being withdrawn, and this casts a shadow over all the papers produced by the Rüdiger lab, indeed, even the research results of scientists in general.
By Stephan Zimmermann, on September 4th, 2008
It would be (or maybe is?) an interesting and informative exercise to poll existing undergraduate economic students whether they consider themselves “Homo economicus.”
A second part of the study could be completed with graduate students, about to embark with a plethora of knowledge of economics, ready to face the “real world” of jobs in the workplace.
What better place than to conduct such a study than in the pages of Amateur Economists where we could entertain a question and answer debate?
As part of the exercise the students would, of course, have to discern for themselves the various definitions of the Latin phrase, consider the implications of answering in the negative or affirmative, and provide an honest self-inventory of their personal preferences and self-perceptions.
Do today’s economics students consider themselves “rational, self-centered, perfectly informed individuals who want wealth and avoid unnecessary labor?” as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Vilfredo Pareto, and others discussed the model?
How do people, especially economists, see themselves?
How do they perceive their religious beliefs in light of the “Homo economics” model?
How does conventional European economics differ from its counterparts that espouse different philosophies, yet seek to answer the same questions of finite resources facing an infinite demand?
A discussion, if it occurs, would likely raise the very question of “maximization” as it is generally taught in economics classes and texts.
Moreover, it may be interesting and enlightening to read in a nutshell a synopsis of Islamic economic fundamentals as a start.
In a recent paper two Islamic scholars, Toseek Azid and Mehmet Asutay (Bahauddin Zakariya Universiy, Pakstan, and Durham University, U.K., respectively) point out that Maqasid al-Sharia (Koranic law, including economics and banking), or the objectives of the Shari’ah, aim to fulfill the objectives of human well-being. As a basic premise the authors suggest that “It, therefore, rejects the neo-classical postulate that human beings are in their intrinsic nature self-interest maximizers.”
This, of course, is diametrically opposed to current predominant economic thought. It is perhaps most closely approached by the late Nobel Prize winner, Herbert A. Simon.
Maximization of utility is also rejected by Sharia thought. The authors thus ask quite plausibly “if we suppose that all persons are egoists – they act for personal ends – what sense does it make to speak of ethics?”
While Islamic economics shares the belief that “the agents of the different sets of the economy are inherently selfish” the authors believe that “the attitude is changing towards the social and economic benefits through participation and cooperation.”
“A continuous process of … training of the society is required, which is only possible if we have an ideological system … that should not be biased towards any segment or set of the society and economy.” (Azid, Toseek, and Asutay, Mehmet, “Does ethico-moral coalition complement to economic coalition?” HUMANOMICS 23.3 (2007): 153-173)
Over the last quarter century, much of economics has been influenced by Herbert Simon’s ideas. He questioned the idea of economic behavior that intended to seek only the optimum result for each economic agent. Further, he suggested that individuals or even organizations could not obtain or process the massive information available to reach ultimate rational decisions. Instead, he suggested that decisions only need to be “good enough” to assure reasonable or acceptable results.
The question of “satisfycing,” rather than maximizing, has been a steadily growing trend, not only for philosophers, but for political adherents, as well. This has been especially true of Islamic adherents in Europe.
On September 22, 2007, the first Islamic political party in Europe was formed in Finland, the Finnish Islamic Party (FIP). Municipal elections will occur next month. The new party hopes to qualify to participate in national parliamentary elections in 2011. It currently has valid signatures for roughly a thousand of five thousand signatures required. The party was established by native Finns.
With the growing trend in Islamic populations throughout Europe, it is not inconceivable that Islamic economics and finance, as well as Herbert Simon’s ideas, may find greater acceptance. On the other hand, Islamic concepts may well be more and more co-opted into traditional European and American models.
Stephan is a former department chair for economics and taught at various colleges and universities at both graduate and undergraduate levels. If you would like Stephan to answer your economics-related questions, read his post “Got an Economics Question?” and submit your questions in the comments area there.
By Evelyn Black, on September 4th, 2008
Ever since Bill Clinton remarked, “It’s the economy, stupid!” the phrase has become a prominent part of the American political lexicon. This time around, we hear it all the time mouthed by pundits, and yet, watching the avalanche of political ads from where I live (in Michigan, a battleground state), it seems to me to be less about the economy and more about the patriotism and personal character of each respective candidate.
Plenty of “stupids” both implied and explicit are being bandied about.
Serious thoughts about the economy? Not so much.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has deep, unprecedented problems. Very serious problems. Problems so large that I think it is no exaggeration to say that they threaten to tank the United States politically, eventually relegating us to the world status of, say, Iceland – only without any of the socialized perks like healthcare and forward thinking energy policies.
While voters worry about who is wearing a flag pin and who will or will not raise their personal income taxes, inflation is hitting record levels; levels not seen in 17 years. The inflation rate for July alone was 1.9%. If the Fed raises interest rates (one conventional way to tame inflation), then mortgage rates will rise and lending will freeze up even more than it already has, driving the already catastrophic housing sector into an even deeper downward spiral, with the attendant loss of even more jobs, and yet another increase in foreclosures.
If inflation continues at this rate, the results will be just as toxic. Already there is talk of another economic stimulus rebate package, even though the first one was horrendously expensive and barely caused a blip on the consumer purchases screen. People needed that money to pay bills.
So there are no easy answers, but what strikes me in this campaign is that few are even asking the questions. Right now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock continues to deteriorate (20% in the past week alone) and the buzz is not about whether the recently passed rescue package will be used, but when and how. Remember, the rescue was tacked onto a foreclosure relief bill that was stuck in Congress for a year while representatives argued about “moral hazard” at an individual homeowner level. Once it turned corporate, boom, that bill was pushed right through, with the caveat, “We will likely never have to use this.”
Did anyone ever believe that?
Nouriel Roubini, the economics professor who correctly predicted the subprime crash and whom a recent New York Times article calls “Dr. Doom,” expects the cost of the Fannie/Freddie bail-out to hit $1.5 trillion before it’s all over. The famously bearish Roubini is quoted as saying, “A good third of the regional banks won’t make it,” and more disturbingly, “Our biggest financiers are China, Russia and the gulf states. These are rivals, not allies.” Roubini expects the worst to come throughout most of 2009, with a gradual recovery toward the end of that year, but he also notes, ominously,
We’re in uncharted territory where standard economic theory isn’t helpful.
He isn’t the first to say so. Henry Paulson of the U.S. Treasury has said as much, and all anyone has to do is look at Ben Bernanke’s face every time he speaks to Congress to understand instantly that we are in deep and confusing trouble. The man constantly looks like he’s about to wet himself.
Anyone who reads my posts for Amateur Economists can guess without any help which direction my personal politics lean, but I want to put it to the voters that, whatever your personal beliefs and political inclinations, now is not the time to indulge in American politics as usual with the chest thumping and flag waving and name calling and Boilermaker contests. Now is a time to listen very hard to policy making statements from both sides, to examine voting records and past behavior, and more than anything to ask yourselves how you will survive the coming hard times if no one who understands them is at the helm.
Thus far, what economic “policy” we have had has been reactive and seat-of-the pants. We’ve been plugging up holes in a leaky dike with wads of chewing gum. I don’t know if we have six months to waste, but it will be at least that long before a new administration is firmly in place and probably longer before that administration is able to formulate anything resembling an active response to the oil problem, the housing problem, the credit crunch, the bank failures, the crumbling infrastructure, the loss of American industry and jobs, declining wages, the healthcare crisis, and so much more.
John McCain owns seven homes, some of them condominiums, and all of them expensive. Barack Obama really was born in the U.S., does have a birth certificate here, and owns a million dollar home (just one though) near the Chicago law school where he used to teach. Both of them wear flag pins.
There. Now can we get serious?
|
|
Most Popular Posts