Bob Schwartz

Category: Science

Victims of the Federalist Laboratories


This morning, a pundit again tried to square the circle by explaining how Mitt Romney can be both the heroic father of Romneycare in Massachusetts and the sworn enemy of Obamacare in the U.S. It goes like this: the states are political/social/economic “laboratories” in which 50 different experiments can produce 50 different solutions. (It isn’t clear why the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc., are not capable of conducting these experiments too.)

This is nonsense. Not as political theory or as Constitutional interpretation. It is nonsense because it makes no sense, or at best, tragic sense.

America’s most notorious state-by-state experiment was slavery. And if an experiment is judged by its results, slavery was in some ways an excellent economic solution for the states that tried it. No matter how much other states tried to convince them that it was flawed, those slavery laboratories kept on operating—right until the time that they were forced to close them down in a bloody war.

This is how experimental laboratories work. Different scientists race to solve essential problems. When one comes up with an effective solution, that doesn’t necessarily stop the others from continuing their work on better answers, or from criticizing competitors. But in the meantime, if the problem is critical, the solution is rolled out widely to relieve the situation, at least until something better comes along.

Let’s say that the Massachusetts laboratory developed a cure for cancer. After some clinical trials, it was deemed worthy to be given to the whole state. The benefit was positive and obvious. One of the developers went out of his way to make a high-profile public case for its success and his role in it.

But the other 49 states said: not so fast. They believed that there was a better solution to cancer, if not right around the corner, then soon. All they needed was more time, and in the meantime, they didn’t want the people of their state subjected to these wild experimental solutions.

That is a much more apt metaphor than merely talking about laboratories in general. Call it what you want—Heritagefoundationcare, Romneycare, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act—we have a proven solution. Standing in the way of it, promising to repeal it, simultaneously owning and disowning it, is unconscionable in the face of knowing that with it, people who are well can be kept well and that people who are sick can get better.

Anyone, from a Presidential candidate on down, who can look at people and tell them that they will just have to suffer a little longer while the political scientists of the 49 states tinker in their laboratories needs to look elsewhere. They need to look at themselves, and see where the real problem is.

Smooth Newt and Newtsex Models


Sometimes posts don’t make it to the blog on time. The Republican Presidential primaries moved so fast that yesterday’s hot item becomes tomorrow’s “Who?” or “Who cares?” in a flash. Newt Gingrich is back in the news today, with the apparent collapse of his business mini-empire. This is in no way kicking a man when he’s done, since it is simply fascinating, not critical.

For those who think that “Smooth Newt” and “Newtsex Models” refer to something about a Presidential candidate, you are in for a shock. They are in fact references to four Newtsex models (known as Mark I, II, III and IV) that are part of a very sophisticated biological study of the courtship of the smooth newt (triturus vulgaris). The article How Long Will Newts Wait? explains:

The Newtsex model simulates the behavioural transition between two parts of newt courtship, Retreat Display and Creep, and models the interaction between four causal factors: the behaviour of the female, the male’s spermatophore supply, his need for oxygen, and feedback from the male’s own behaviour. The model predicts that, if feedback from the female is withheld at a critical point (Tail-touch), the male will revert from Creep to Retreat Display after an interval, the duration of which is proportional to his spermatophore supply. The results of an experiment in which the female’s behaviour was controlled support this prediction, but a high level of variance in the results suggests that respiratory constraints on male courtship behaviour require further investigation. (Behaviour, March 1991)

Newtsex. Tail-touch. Creep. Retreat Display. This is science. You cannot make this stuff up.