Biden nominates Dr. Eric Lander as cabinet-level science adviser, in U.S. first
Dr. Eric Lander is a pioneer in genomics. What role will he play in the new administration?
18 January, 2021
Credit: William B. Plowman via Getty Images
- Dr. Lander is a mathematician and geneticist who's best known for his leading role in the Human Genome Project.
- Biden nominated Dr. Lander to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy and also serve as a cabinet-level science adviser, marking the first time the position has been part of the presidential cabinet.
- In an open letter, Biden said it's essential for the U.S. to "refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy to set us on a strong course for the next 75 years."
<p>President-elect Joe Biden has appointed Dr. Eric Lander, a pioneer in human genome sequencing, as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and presidential science adviser within his cabinet. It's the first time the adviser position has been elevated to cabinet level.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This is the most exciting announcement I've gotten to make," Biden <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-francis-collins-022fc771e262e6f1c7e33ffe80e1d37b" target="_blank">said</a> on Friday. "This is a team that is going to help restore your faith in America's place in the frontier of science and discovery."</p><p>The move signals a departure from the Trump administration's posture toward science. President Trump went 18 months without a science adviser before nominating meteorologist Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier to the position. </p><p>To some scientists, elevating the adviser role is long overdue.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This guarantees a seat at the table when the most important, consequential decisions are made," wrote Roger Pielke Jr. and Neal Lane in an article published by <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03148-w" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nature</a>. "It will also signify the importance of the role to federal agencies, to Congress and to the public."</p><p>In his announcement, Biden promised that "science will always be at the forefront" of his administration.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Their trusted guidance will be essential as we come together to end this pandemic, bring our economy back and pursue new breakthroughs to improve the quality of life of all Americans," he said. "Their insights will help America chart a brighter future, and I am grateful they answered the call to serve."</p>
Who is Dr. Eric Lander?
<p>Born in Brooklyn, New York, Dr. Lander started his academic career as a mathematician, often arriving at high school an hour early to do math. He won multiple awards in mathematics in his teens, including the Mathematical Olympiad in 1974.<br></p><p>Finding mathematics "too monastic" to pursue as a career, he began teaching managerial economics at Harvard Business School. Then, at the <a href="https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/eric-lander-the-genesis-of-genius/" target="_blank">encouragement of his brother</a>, a neurobiologist, Dr. Lander became interested in studying neurobiology and microbiology. This pushed him to his main lifelong pursuit: unraveling the mysteries of the human genome.</p><p>Dr. Lander spent more than a decade as a leader within the Human Genome Project, which provided the world a complete map of all human genes in 2003. In 2004, he founded the Broad Institute, a biomedical and genomic nonprofit research center that partners with M.I.T. and Harvard University.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ5Nzc1NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDI3MDA4OH0.9iOJn0Lq1LbXqNPxXNWiA1kaL-nTSGvT5InGWsbDcuk/img.jpg?width=980" id="8f671" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bddd5581d9fd798a7d2f6f9afecdc6a7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1920" data-height="1080" />
Credit: Pixabay
<p>Broad's <a href="https://www.broadinstitute.org/news-multimedia/basic-q-about-broad-institute" target="_blank">mission</a> is to "fulfill the promise of genomics by creating comprehensive tools for biology and medicine, making them broadly available to the world and applying them to the understanding of human biology and the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of human diseases." The institute aims to diminish diseases by better understanding cellular mechanisms, rather than simply treating symptoms.</p><p>Despite some <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/25/why-eric-lander-morphed/" target="_blank">minor controversies and patent disputes</a>, Dr. Lander remains a monumental figure in American science, and also previously served as co-chairman of former President Barack Obama's science advisory council.</p>What will Dr. Lander do in the Biden administration?
<p>If confirmed by the Senate, it's not exactly clear what Dr. Lander will do in his role as cabinet science adviser and head of the OSTP. But his primary focus likely won't be COVID-19, considering Biden has already established a task force dedicated to shaping policy and recommendations related to the pandemic.<br></p><p>But Biden revealed some of his expectation in an <a href="https://buildbackbetter.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OSTP-Appointment.pdf" target="_blank">open letter</a> that posed five questions for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to explore:</p><ol><li>What can we learn from the pandemic about what is possible—or what ought to be possible— to address the widest range of needs related to our public health?</li><li>How can breakthroughs in science and technology create powerful new solutions to address climate change—propelling market-driven change, jump-starting economic growth, improving health, and growing jobs, especially in communities that have been left behind?</li><li>How can the United States ensure that it is the world leader in the technologies and industries of the future that will be critical to our economic prosperity and national security, especially in competition with China?</li><li>How can we guarantee that the fruits of science and technology are fully shared across America and among all Americans?</li><li>How can we ensure the long-term health of science and technology in our nation?</li></ol><p>The president-elect wrote that it's essential to "refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy to set us on a strong course for the next 75 years," concluding:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I believe that the answers to these questions will be instrumental in helping our nation embark on a new path in the years ahead—a path of dignity and respect, of prosperity and security, of progress and common purpose. They are big questions, to be sure, but not as big as America's capacity to address them. I look forward to receiving your recommendations—and to working with you, your team, and the broader scientific community to turn them into solutions that ease everyday burdens for the American people, spark new jobs and opportunities, and restore American leadership on the world stage."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
This is your brain on political arguments
Debating is cognitively taxing but also important for the health of a democracy—provided it's face-to-face.
18 January, 2021
Credit: Zach Gibson/AFP via Getty Images
- New research at Yale identifies the brain regions that are affected when you're in disagreeable conversations.
- Talking with someone you agree with harmonizes brain regions and is less energetically taxing.
- The research involves face-to-face dialogues, not conversations on social media.
<p>You probably know the feeling: a rush of heat that assaults your entire body; your fingertips and forehead suffering fiery consequences of conflict; restrictions around your chest and throat; quickened breath, as if your lungs can no longer draw in the required oxygen; ears on alert, biding time for a break in your opponent's rhetoric to let loose the torrent of thoughts crowding your brain.</p><p>Of course, not everyone is an opponent. You likely know the opposite as well: the cool excitement of agreeableness, when the words in your head are returned to you from another being as in a mirror; unconscious head shaking as your sense of righteousness is validated; the warm exuberance of easy dialogue with a fellow tribe member. </p><p>In a digital age in which physical contact seems foreign and long past, we might have forgotten what it's like to agree—or debate—with someone in person. Pandemics are temporary, while societies are—well, nothing is forever, but we've outlived diseases before. According to <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.606397/full" target="_blank">new research from Yale University</a>, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, disagreeing with someone takes up a lot of brain real estate, while finding a compatriot is a much less cognitively taxing endeavor. </p><p>For this study, researchers gathered 38 adults to ask their feelings on contentious topics like same-sex marriage and cannabis legalization. They then matched each volunteer with people who either agreed or disagreed. Every subject had their brain scanned with functional near-infrared spectroscopy during these face-to-face discussions, during which time they were given a total of 90 seconds to discuss a topic in 15-second increments. </p>
There are two kinds of identity politics. One is good. The other, very bad. | Jonathan Haidt
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f0e52833af5d35adab591bb92d79f8e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l-_yIhW9Ias?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Unsurprisingly, harmonious synchronization of brain states occurred when volunteers agreed, similar to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322764116_Creativity_and_Flow_in_Surgery_Music_and_Cooking_An_Interview_with_Neuroscientist_Charles_Limb" target="_blank">group flow</a>—the coordination of brain waves that hip-hop and jazz musicians (among others) experience when performing together. Coordination exceeds the social, into the neurological. As the team writes, "talking during agreement was characterized by increased activity in a social and attention network including right supramarginal gyrus, bilateral frontal eye-fields, and left frontopolar regions."</p><p>This contrasts with argumentative behavior, in which "the frontoparietal system including bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and superior temporal gyrus showed increased activity while talking during disagreement."</p><p>Senior author Joy Hirsch notes that our brain is essentially a social processing network. The evolutionary success of humans is thanks to our ability to coordinate. Dissonance is exhausting. Overall, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210113090938.htm" target="_blank">she says</a>, "it just takes a lot more brain real estate to disagree than to agree," comparing arguments to a symphony orchestra playing different music. </p><p>As the team notes, language, visual, and social systems are all dynamically intertwined inside of our brain. For most of history, yelling at one another in comment sections was impossible. Arguments had to occur the old-fashioned way: while staring at the source of your discontent. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ4MTA2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODM2NTkyNX0.qyJE0yJtEBMEOnvx6qXH6S739-1hHOxc94tN9aGAmqM/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C46%2C0%2C46&height=700" id="66c2a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7bfa8033f2ffe6034e688942b4e92f4f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
People of the "left-wing" side yell at a Trump supporter during a "Demand Free Speech" rally on Freedom Plaza on July 6, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Credit: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
<p>Leading us to an interesting question: do the same brain regions fire when you're screaming with your fingers on your Facebook feed? Given the lack of visual feedback from the person on the other side of the argument, likely not—as it is unlikely that many people would argue in the same manner when face-to-face with a person on the other side of a debate. We are generally more civil in real life than on a screen.</p><p>The researchers point out that seeing faces causes complex neurological reactions that must be interpreted in real-time. For example, gazing into someone's eyes requires higher-order processing that must be dealt with during the moment. Your brain coordinates to make sense of the words being spoken <em>and</em> pantomimes being witnessed. This combination of verbal and visual processes are "generally associated with high-level cognitive and linguistic functions."</p><p>While arguing is more exhausting, it also sharpens your senses—when a person is present, at least. Debating is a healthy function of society. Arguments force you to consider other viewpoints and potentially come to different conclusions. As with physical exercise, which makes you stronger even though it's energetically taxing, disagreement propels societies forward.</p>In this study, every participant was forced to <em>listen</em> to the other person. As this research was focused on live interactions, it adds to the literature of cognitive processing during live interactions and offers insights into the cognitive tax of anger. Even anger is a net positive when it forces both sides to think through their thoughts and feelings on a matter. As social animals, we need that tension in our lives in order to grow. Yelling into the void of a comments section? Not so helpful. <p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Should law enforcement be using AI and cell phone data to find rioters?
The attack on the Capitol forces us to confront an existential question about privacy.
12 January, 2021
Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
- The insurrection attempt at the Capitol was captured by thousands of cell phones and security cameras.
- Many protestors have been arrested after their identity was reported to the FBI.
- Surveillance experts warn about the dangers of using facial recognition to monitor protests.
<p>If ever there were a reason to wear masks, the insurrection at the Capitol last week would have been it. But many of those present believed the anti-mask rhetoric being used as a distraction from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">nation's skyrocketing death rate</a>. In fact, the day might even prove to have been a <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/capitol-hill-riot-prove-covid-19-superspreader-event/story?id=75134968" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">superspreader event</a>, with at least <a href="https://www.axios.com/rep-pramila-jayapal-covid-19-capitol-hill-riot-1a7cda3c-973f-4376-97ad-f4eb3306a28c.html" target="_blank">two congresspeople becoming infected</a> after the siege. </p><p>Those involved in the attempted coup d'état were not concerned about a virus. Nor, apparently, were they worried about shielding themselves from the tens of thousands of hours of recorded video taken by thousands of phones. In a strange merging of social media and dark web chat rooms come to life, separating actual insurrectionists from revolutionary tourists could prove to be a cumbersome vocation. One thing is certain: identifying them is not difficult. </p><p>Instagram-worthy sieges bring us to a longstanding existential question: should law enforcement be allowed to use AI and cell phone data to prosecute offenders?</p><p>Of the many security failures that day, one stood out: the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/us/dc-police-previous-protests-capitol/index.html" target="_blank">small number of arrests</a> for a breach of outsized magnitude. As the nation ogled at an <a href="https://religiondispatches.org/q-shamans-new-age-radical-right-blend-hints-at-the-blurring-of-seemingly-disparate-categories/" target="_blank">unemployed actor turned conspiracy shaman</a> behind the speaker's chair in real-time, scenes of horrendous violence took hours, even days, to be released. In a game of <a href="https://www.insider.com/internet-slams-fbi-ask-for-help-identifying-mob-2021-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">seemingly futile catch-up</a>, federal agencies <a href="https://tips.fbi.gov/digitalmedia/aad18481a3e8f02" target="_blank">opened tip lines</a> to identify the insurrectionists that should have easily been in their grasp. </p><p>But the public responded.</p>
Brad Templeton: Today's Surveillance Society is Beyond Orwellian
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="06eb4a2ab19b644f5a3c0bf35ac2f42b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/awFrWxfDA30?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>There's the <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2021/01/capitol-rioter-larry-rendall-brock-identified-to-fbi-by-ex.html" target="_blank">ex-wife of a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel</a> whose neck gaiter was pulled down; the <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/capitol-insurrectionists-losing-jobs-social-media-identification-20210108.html" target="_blank">patriotic cohort of Internet detectives</a> crowd-sourcing information for the FBI; the director of the infamous pseudoscience film, "Plandemic," <a href="https://conspirituality.net/transmissions/plandemics-mikki-willis-joins-praises-violent-capitol-mob/" target="_blank">praising the "patriots" that breached the building</a> moments after he left the siege himself; and that unemployed actor who regularly attended QAnon events leaving the most public trail imaginable, and who is <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044" target="_blank">currently in custody</a> facing serious charges.</p><p>Fish in barrels, all of them. What of the remaining thousands? </p><p>This privacy discussion is not new. Arthur Holland Michel, founder and co-director of the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/gorgon-stare-surveillance" target="_self">warned Big Think in 2019</a> about the dangers of surveillance technology—specifically, in this case, a camera known as Gorgon Stare. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Say there is a big public protest. With this camera, you can follow thousands of protesters back to their homes. Now you have a list of the home addresses of all the people involved in a political movement. If on their way home you witness them committing some crime—breaking a traffic regulation or frequenting a location that is known to be involved in the drug trade—you can use that surveillance data against them to essentially shut them up. That's why we have laws that prevent the use of surveillance technologies because it is human instinct to abuse them. That's why we need controls."</p><p>Late last year, University of Miami students <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/facial-recognition-software" target="_self">pushed back against school administrators</a> using facial recognition software for potentially insidious means—a protest not limited to that campus. Can you place students refusing to attend classes during a pandemic with armed insurrectionists attempting to change the results of a democratic election? Not even close. More to the point, however, we should leave political leanings out of the equation when deciding who we think should be monitored. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQzNTgyMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTcxNzg2MH0.TLvfyh-a_svkgZVvOBDa11IoRDpdlvnA2ygBM9snU9w/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C49%2C0%2C49&height=700" id="81252" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ef0f43451bf9a466d323e52363fbea66" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
Protesters enter the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. Congress held a joint session today to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump.
Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images
<p>Shortly after the siege, the New Yorker's Ronan Farrow <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat-veteran-breached-the-senate" target="_blank">helped reveal the identity</a> of the aforementioned lieutenant colonel while conservatives <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/antifa-capitol-gaetz-trump-riot/" target="_blank">claim the riots were actually antifa</a>—a conspiracy theory that's <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748" target="_blank">been peddled before</a>. Politics simply can't be avoided in this age. Still, Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, doesn't believe the insurrection attempt <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-capitol-attack-doesnt-justify-expanding-surveillance/" target="_blank">justifies an uptick in facial recognition technology</a>.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We don't need a cutting-edge surveillance dragnet to find the perpetrators of this attack: They tracked themselves. They livestreamed their felonies from the halls of Congress, recording each crime in full HD. We don't need facial recognition, geofences, and cell tower data to find those responsible, we need police officers willing to do their job."</p><p>The New Orleans City Council recently <a href="https://thelensnola.org/2020/12/18/new-orleans-city-council-approves-ban-on-facial-recognition-predictive-policing-and-other-surveillance-tech/" target="_blank">banned similar surveillance technologies</a> due to fears that it would unfairly target minorities. San Francisco was the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban-san-francisco.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">first city to outright ban facial recognition</a> nearly two years ago. Cahn's point is that the FBI shouldn't be using AI to cover for the government's failure to protect the Capitol. Besides, the insurrectionists outed themselves on their own social media feeds. </p><p>When Pandora's box cracks open, it's hard to push the monster back in. Naomi Klein detailed the corporate takeover of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in "The Shock Doctrine." Real estate brokers, charter school companies, and government agencies didn't cause the flood, but they certainly profited from it. The fear is that companies like Clearview AI, which saw a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/facial-recognition-clearview-capitol.html" target="_blank">26 percent spike in usage of its facial recognition service</a> following the attack, will be incentivized, as will police departments to use such technology for any means they choose.</p><p>Cahn comes to a similar conclusion: don't expose American citizens to the "anti-democratic technology" known as facial recognition. New Yorkers had to endure subway backpack checks for nearly a decade after 9/11; this slope is even slipperier. </p>As the US braces for <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fbi-bulletin-armed-protests-state-us-capitol/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">further "armed protests"</a> in all 50 states over the coming week, phones need to keep capturing footage. Bystanders need to remain safe, of course. But if last week was any indication, the insurrectionists have difficulty deciphering between social media and real life. Their feeds should reveal enough.<p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Survey shows Congress is more religious than America
A new survey shows who believes what and how it differs from what Americans believe as a whole.
07 January, 2021
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
- The newest survey of congressional religious beliefs shows our representatives aren't quite like us.
- Members of Congress are much more religious and more Christian than the general population.
- The effects of this disconnect are debatable.
<p> The Congress of the United States is much smaller than the national legislatures of other Western Democracies in proportional terms. Each member of The House of Representatives comes from a district of about 700,000 people, and each Senator can claim to speak for an entire state, the smallest of which contains nearly 600,000 people.</p><p>Because of the numbers involved, it is probably inevitable that the legislature's demographics are going to differ from that of the general population. For example, a higher percentage of them are <a href="https://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2020-archive/november/ada-member-dentists-elected-to-congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">dentists</a> than you might expect looking at the general <a href="https://www.ada.org/en/science-research/health-policy-institute/dental-statistics/workforce" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">population</a>. </p><p>The various rules and practicalities of office also produce some differences. The typical Senator is 62.9 years old, and the average Representative is 57.6. The median age for Americans is <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/u-s-median-age-highest-ever-4068948" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">38</a>. People elected to federal office also tend to have more money than the people they <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-is-rich-heres-wh_b_6311718?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADwKfC076wGPUKSPweSxmibgMqN55UCcjZ_F-AdnFsrAGapBFx9ZyLq_DkC77l9LXMQzAujvZJ5lyBT_AG8S7LrYQT0jRcAWByU4H2nIBv-9dlGj97p-VQVB9PSx96SxNqTFNtjQsYL61PokysW3KWAGWgAoN0PnA8bJV6Zm_VjS" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">represent</a>. </p><p>A new report from <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/04/faith-on-the-hill-2021/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rel%20-%2021-01-04%20faith%20on%20the%20hill&org=982&lvl=100&ite=7652&lea=1693021&ctr=0&par=1&trk=" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pew</a> reveals that the religious affiliations in Congress also dramatically differ from those of the people they represent. Taken as part of a series of similar reports, it reveals certain trends in Congressional demographics that differ from that of the country as a whole.</p>
The demographics of Congress and their constituents
<p> A whopping 88 percent of Representatives and Senators are Christians. Breaking this down, 55 percent of them identify as some sort of Protestant, and another 30 percent are Catholic. Mormons make up around 2 percent of the legislature, with Orthodox Christians following at just above 1 percent. This puts them well behind the Jews, which 6 percent of the body identified as. </p><p>Behind them came the Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Humanist, and Unaffiliated members. Each of these categories amounts to under one percent of Congress by themselves, for a collective total of 12 members. </p><p>Eighteen members refused to answer the survey; many of them also refused to answer two years ago—speculation as to why this is and what they actually believe continues elsewhere. </p><p>For comparison, only 65 percent of the general public identifies as a Christian. Beyond that, only 20 percent of the population is Catholic, and another 43 percent Protestant. People with no religious affiliation make up another 26 percent. Judaism is three times as common in Congress as it is elsewhere in the country, with only 2 percent of the population identifying as such. </p><p>Mormons and Orthodox Christians enjoy nearly propositional representation, as they make up 2 percent and just under 1 percent of the population nationally. The remaining represented religions are in a similar situation. They are under-represented but not nearly as much as the non-religious—Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus each make up about one percent of the general population. Unitarian Universalists are seated in Congress at the same rate as the aforementioned faiths but are just under one percent of the population. </p><p>Some trends emerge in this data. Since 1961, the year this survey was first sent out, the percentage of Christians has fallen, though by far less than the population overall. Like the rest of Protestant America, members of Congress are increasingly likely not to name a denomination, such as Lutheran or Baptist, but to instead identify with the more general term of Protestant. </p><p> It is also worth mentioning that there may be more to this topic than these questions can reveal.</p><p>Many Jewish people identify as such while also being agnostic or even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">atheistic</a>. It is possible that the degree of actual belief among some of the members of Congress using the term varies dramatically. Likewise, the one "unaffiliated" member has stated before that they don't want to be bound by <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2012/11/09/breaking-kyrsten-sinema-is-not-an-atheist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">labels</a>, further reducing the usefulness of a survey that tries to label everybody.</p>Why might this be?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yz8VbAxkaDw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> In addition to the previously mentioned difficulties of having an entirely representative legislature, some religious groups are still more electable than others.</p><p>A recent <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gallop poll</a> demonstrates that only about 60 percent of Americans would vote for a qualified atheist and that only a few more would support a similarly capable Muslim. While these numbers have increased over time and differ greatly based on party affiliation, it is probable that many non-Christian potential candidates justify not running on the grounds of these numbers. </p><p> Before you point out that these are majorities, that is who is <em>willing</em> to vote for such a person at all, not a list of people who <em>would</em> for sure. You'd probably want better numbers than that unless you're sure you can get all of them. </p>What does this mean for legislation?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KS7pnPlQLcY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> It doesn't necessarily need to mean anything. Representatives of all faiths or lack thereof can govern in a secular manner that doesn't favor any particular worldview.</p><p>The Congressional Freethought Caucus, dedicated to fostering science and reason while defending the secular nature of <a href="https://secular.org/governmental-affairs/congressional-freethought-caucus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government</a>, has 14 members. It is, obviously, impossible for all its members to be non-religious. Its members represent a variety of faiths and denominations of Christianity, including humanism, while supporting all people's rights.</p><p>A remaining concern is that the disproportionate representation could lead to specific points of view not being <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/01/04/the-religious-makeup-of-the-117th-congress-includes-a-few-surprises/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">heard</a>. There are no atheists in Congress to articulate their viewpoints on legislation that concerns others like them. This lack of representation is <a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-representation-in-politics-matters" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">something</a> that <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/297143-why-our-representation-in-government-should-look-more-like-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">can</a> and <a href="https://genderwatch2018.org/scaling-womens-political-representation-matters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">has</a> been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/few-us-politicians-working-class" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> for <a href="https://www.voanews.com/usa/why-arent-more-native-americans-members-us-congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other</a> demographic groups both now and at different points in our history. </p><p>In any small body representing a larger one, there will be strange demographic mismatches by necessity. In the case of the United States Congress, these differences are rather pronounced. While they may have only a limited effect on legislation, there may be other, less tangible ways that this disconnect causes issues. </p><p>Or, it might be nothing more than a statistical curiosity. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
In 1988, Bernie Sanders outlined the key problem with news media today
"The function of private media is to make money for the people who own the media. It is a business," Sanders said.
18 December, 2020
Mother Jones via YouTube
- Over his four-decade political career, Senator Bernie Sanders has been an outspoken critic of mass news media.
- In a 1988 speech, Sanders described how it's virtually impossible to meaningfully discuss substantial political issues in 30-second sound bites, and how the consolidation of news outlets makes it harder for alternative views to reach the public.
- Surveys show that America's trust in mass media has been declining for years.
<p>No matter your stance on the Vermont senator, it's hard to deny that Bernie Sanders has rightfully earned a reputation for not changing his politics over his four-decade career. In speeches and interviews, Sanders reliably returns to mantras about the one percent, voter turnout, and affordable healthcare and education, to name a few. These views have long been divisive, and it's up for debate whether his unwavering politics is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-25/2020-bernie-sanders-democrat-president" target="_blank">indeed a virtue</a>.<br></p><p>But one of Sanders' long-held views seems uniquely uncontroversial: that the structure of news media makes it hard, if not impossible, to discuss important political topics in a meaningful way. Speaking in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aXF-b9gKs4" target="_blank">1988 at an event honoring the Vermont Vanguard</a>, an independent newspaper, Sanders spoke about how hard it is to cram coherent ideas into TV-news soundbites. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"If you are a serious public official, how do you deal with the complex issues that your city faces or your state faces?" Sanders said. "And you look at that camera and you say, 'Oh god, I got 30 seconds to do it.' And then you understand why politicians become morons. It's not necessarily their fault. You try it sometime. Try to deal about a complex and serious issue, and get it into the 24 seconds that you need to get it into to get it onto the tube. It drives you a little bit crazy."</p><p>Echoing this idea in a 2019 interview with <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/bernie-sanders-corporate-media/" target="_blank">The Nation</a>, Sanders said:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This country faces enormous crises, and you can't do it in 45 seconds or a minute. That's just the simple reality. And I understand the problem of how many candidates are running. But we need a political structure in this country which allows serious debate about serious issues, and the structure of those debates makes it impossible I think for any candidate to do more than shout out a sound bite."</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="499d98e92df8f0bacc75736488066028"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2aXF-b9gKs4?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>This "politics by soundbite" nature of TV news has changed not only the media, but also the way politicians think, Sanders said in 1988.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"You have politicians who then think in 30-second tidbits, which leads you to Ronald Reagan," he said. "The deep issues, the hard issues, are not as exciting as simplistic stuff."</p><p>Sanders' critiques of TV and corporate media extend further back than this speech. In a 1979 op-ed titled <a href="https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/social-control-and-the-tube/Content?oid=2434173" target="_blank">"Social Control and the Tube,"</a> Sanders said control of TV should be considered a political issue, and that public ownership would enable "serious writers" and "people with all kinds of views" to produce better work for the public.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"What the owners of the TV industry want to do, and are doing, in my opinion, is use that medium to intentionally brainwash people into submission and helplessness," Sanders wrote. "With considerable forethought they are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate, and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible."</p><p>Still, in his 1988 speech, Sanders said he doesn't support government control of the media, but that "corporate control over the media is equally dangerous, and that's very clearly the trend to which we're moving today."</p>
Media consolidation
<p>Three decades later, Sanders said: "In 1983, the largest 50 corporations controlled 90 percent of the media. Today, as a result of massive mergers and takeovers, six corporations control 90 percent of what we see, hear, and read [...] These powerful corporations also have an agenda, and it would be naive not to believe that their views and needs impact coverage of issues important to them."</p><p>The consolidation of media companies was accelerated by changes to the Federal Communications Commission, with two major deregulatory shifts that occurred under Reagan and then Clinton, whose administration passed the 1996 <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf" target="_blank">Telecommunications Act</a>. That law raised the cap on the number of local news stations and newspapers media corporations could buy.</p>Fewer Americans trust mass media
<p>What also adds to the homogeneity of news media is shrinking revenues and a trend toward click-bait content. Big Think's Reuben Jackson <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/news-media-consolidation" target="_blank">recently noted</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"One effect of the contraction of the news industry is that journalists are networking with fewer peers and sources. In one <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120926639" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recently published study</a>, "Sharing Knowledge and 'Microbubbles': Epistemic Communities and Insularity in US Political Journalism," researchers from the University of Illinois explore the extent to which groupthink bias is increasingly being built into the content we consume."</p><p>These factors may help explain why Americans' trust in news media is declining. A <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2020 Gallup</a> survey found that six in 10 Americans have "not very much" trust (27 percent) or "none at all" (33 percent) trust in mass media. It's not a new trend: Gallup notes that trust in mass media hovered just above the majority level until 2005, and since it hasn't risen above 47 percent.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
