Italy's Assault on Science? Not Necessarily.

I have seen a lot of ink over the conviction of six Italian scientists (and one other government official) in L'Aquila last week. The coverage, to put it mildly, has been bad. A serious injustice has occurred here, but most of the English-language media have been too busy sensationalizing to comment meaningfully on it.

For anyone not familiar with the situation, a 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy, caused the deaths of more than 300 people. In the days leading up to the earthquake, tremors in the area appeared to indicate a coming earthquake. One Italian official, on information from the Italian National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, stated that an earthquake was unlikely. After the quake, the official and six scientists at the Commission were charged with manslaughter on the theory that their "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" statements caused people to stay when they should have fled the area. Last week, the Italian court handed down a verdict of guilty and a potential sentence of 6 years.

Make no mistake about it: This is a bad thing. Seven people who do not deserve imprisonment look likely to get it. (Although, under Italian law, the sentence must be reviewed.) But the English-language press, out of the United States and United Kingdom, has largely missed the point. They have focused on largely on two things: 1) This conviction bends the definition of "manslaughter" and 2) This conviction is an attack on science that will have a chilling effect on how scientists do business.

I am not really convinced that either one is true.

FTC Gets Crowdsourcing Right, Sets Example for Rest of US Government

When I interned in the federal government in 2010 and 2011, the government was experimenting with crowdsourcing to its employees. Every once in a while I would receive an e-mail soliciting ideas for what the department could do to save money and eliminate waste. The best idea each round would receive some recognition, and the department would implement it. (I can't remember if there was a cash bounty attached.) Submissions usually involved saving on electricity by turning off electronics or reducing paper waste by changing printing policies. I appreciated the idea, but it wasn't generating any landscape-changing policies.

Around the same time, the Government Services Administration (with input from the Office of Management and Budget) rolled out Challenge.gov, an online platform for soliciting ideas from the public. Much broader in scope, Challenge.gov is available for any government department to post challenges to the entire public. Challenges on the site range from video essays on responsible saving to launching nano-satellites to orbit. Again, this idea is an intriguing step, but limited exposure and lack of focus have limited its appeal.

This week the Federal Trade Commission has changed the game, I believe. The just-announced FTC Robocall Challenge has all the elements to get the viral attention a crowdsourcing initiative really needs.

The FTC wants you to "Be a hero." I think people will answer the call.

Dinosaur Poaching: A Crime Against Scientists and Children

(See edit below for one archaeologist's reaction to this post.)

Dinosaur piracy.

There, I said it. Today I am writing about dinosaur piracy.

A man was arrested today in Florida on suspicion of smuggling illegal goods and the sale of illegal goods. The "goods" in question are the skeleton of a Tarbosaurus bataar, a dinosaur related to the ever-popular Tyrannosaurus rex. (Most news sources are identifying the skeleton as "Tyrannosaurus bataar". This designation is currently disfavored. There is some disagreement about whether Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus should be considered the same genus or separate. They are currently viewed as two separate genera. Now you know more than you ever thought you would about Tarbosaurus.) The Tarbosaur has been impounded by the U.S. government.

So what exactly is dinosaur piracy? I am glad I rhetorically asked that question on your behalf.

The Real Beginning of the Commercial Spaceflight Era

We've been waiting for commercial spaceflight ever since the Pan Am Orion III space plane lifted Dr. Floyd to Clavius Base in 2001: A Space Odyssey. (I'll admit to having cheated and looked up the name of the base.) By 1997, commercial companies were using the Eastern Test Range regularly to test rockets. In 2004, Virgin Galactic formed with the intention of using private money to put private individuals into space. But time marched on, no one bought a ticket to space, and commercial spaceflight looked like it was always on the horizon, never getting any closer.

Pan Am won't be flying us to the moon any time soon (especially since it was shuttered in 1991), but this week we crossed the threshold into an era where commercial spaceflight exists.

At 8:35 Eastern Time on Sunday, a rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral to bring supplies to the International Space Station. Like many missions before it, this flight, officially labeled CRS-1, will bring cargo and supplies to the space station. The difference is, this time the rocket and capsule are entirely built and operated by a commercial company.

The rocket was the SpaceX Falcon 9, and the capsule was the SpaceX Dragon. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell had the following to say about the launch: "It's just awesome."

Yes. Yes it is.

Who Says Internet Surfing Harms Attention Spans?

Not Congress, apparently.

The Senate voted unanimously this week to recommend that the President oppose any regulation by the International Telecommunications Union of the Internet. The resolution states that the government should "promote a global Internet free from government control." In his statement explaining the vote, Senator Marco Rubio noted that "I just want to be clear that America is on record as being in favor of Internet freedom and that we don't want to see any internationally recognized right for government interference on the Internet and the free flow of information on the Internet."

Senator Rubio authored an opinion piece in advance of the vote in Politico, discussing how important "Internet freedom" is:

"A top-down, international regulatory model goes against the very nature of the Internet. An international regulatory regime, and the politics and red tape that go with it, directly conflict with the Internet’s purpose of sharing ideas and connecting people. Governments and international bodies cannot keep pace with the Internet, and they should not try to do so." (emphasis mine)

There is a lot of room for debate about what "Internet freedom" means, and how we should react to that politically. Senator Rubio knows that as well as anyone: He co-sponsored PIPA.

Yep. That happened.