Scientist Smackdown: Evidence of a Mammoth-Killing Comet, or Bug Poop? | 80beats

sporesIt makes for a good movie: 12,900 years ago, a comet slams into Earth, igniting forest fires across North America and sending the planet into a thousand cold years, killing off mammoths, giant sloths, and a bunch of other big mammals. But scientists have fiercely debated whether such a movie, about the cause of the planet-wide cooling period called the Younger Dryas, should be documentary or science fiction. According to a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters, new evidence–or refuted, old evidence–points to science fiction.

Those that think a comet hit the planet cite “carbonaceous spherules” and nanodiamonds found in sediment from the period of the suspected impact. They argue that these particles formed from the intense heat of the collision.

Lead author of this new study, Andrew Scott of the University of London in Egham suspects those spherules are not from a comet collision, but are bug poop, fungal spores, or charcoal pellets.

From a test that measures how much light the spherules reflect, Scott’s team has determined that the spherules were slow-roasted in a low-intensity heat (perhaps from natural wildfires) instead of in intense, comet impact heat. As shown in the figure, the researchers compare the charred spherules to fungal sclerotia, emergency cell balls created by stressed fungi that can germinate after a bad growing period is over, and saw a striking similarity.

Some of the more elongate particles are “certainly fecal pellets, probably from termites,” says Scott…. “There’s certainly no evidence [that any of these particles are] related to intense fire from a comet impact,” says Scott. Part of the problem, he says, is that “there was nobody [among impact proponents] who ever worked on charcoal deposits, modern or ancient. If you’re not familiar with the material, you can make mistakes.” [Science Now]

Scott’s team also radiocarbon dated the particles, and says those spherules aren’t unique to the collision time.

“There is a long history of fire in the fossil record, and these fungal samples are common everywhere, from ancient times to the present,” Scott says. “These data support our conclusion that there wasn’t one single intense fire that triggered the onset of the cold period.” [American Geophysical Union]

Other researchers aren’t buying it–like James Kennett, a proponent of the impact theory from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

“We disagree that charred fungal sclerotia … have the same morphology” as certain carbonaceous spherules, paleoceanographer James Kennett writes in an e-mail. “Their alternate hypothesis that the carbon spherules are simply charred fungal spores is incorrect.”[ScienceNOW]

Kennett also clings to the nanodiamonds that impact-believers say formed under the extreme conditions of the collision. The new study doesn’t address these nanodiamonds, but Scott says there is more to come.

His team has studied the nanodiamond issue, but he’s not yet able to discuss the results. He did, however, hint that the particles might not be nanodiamonds at all: Fungal spores the team examined have similar microscopic features. And, Scott said, “obviously [spores] are not nanodiamonds.” [National Geographic]

Related content:
80beats: Nano-Diamond Discovery Suggests a Comet Impact Killed the Mammoths
80beats: Spores in Mastodon Dung Suggest Humans Didn’t Kill Off Ancient Mammals
80beats: Comets Not So Likely to Smash Into Earth and Kill Us All
DISCOVER: What Caused the Great American Extinction?

Image: American Geophysical Union


The Florida Panhandle | The Intersection

As the 2006 Sea Grant Fellow for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), I spent much of the year working hard to keep oil drilling away from the state's coast. I am completely devastated to see photos of the Panhandle taken this morning by The Ocean Conservany. The full set is here, but be warned, these images are hard to see...


Alternate Universe airshow | Bad Astronomy

Via SciFiWire comes this amazing series pictures from the SciFi Airshow. This is seriously cool geeky stuff.

scifiairshow_eagle

Sigh. Beautiful. The gifted artist Bill George has created a huge series of pictures depicting real-life scenes with some of the best science fiction spaceships of all time. I suspect most of you out there haven’t even heard of the old scifi series "Space:1999" — it had a profound impact on my young self, and it spawned one of the most beautiful ships of all time: the Eagle. George has created a whole passel of Eagle images, and they’re spectacular! He even has several hi-res versions you can download.

scifiairshow_hawkHe has shots of ships from "Battlestar Galactica", "2001", "Land of the Giants" (who remembers that show?), and "Star Trek". These are truly amazing photos he’s put together, and if you’re of a certain age I expect your heart will pang with what could’ve been.

I hope he puts out a lot more of these. My heart races when I watch rocket launches and space activity IRL, but it was these shows that excited and inspired me as a kid… and still do as a grownup. We need to dream, and seeing these dreams made real — even if only in Photoshop — is still compelling.


Related posts:

- Freakin’ sweet!
- Happy Breakaway Day!


Update: International Whaling Deal Falls Apart | 80beats

whaleThis week’s crucial whaling meeting continues until Friday has come and gone, but the result is… nothing.

As we reported last week, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was ready to consider a proposal to lift a quarter-century-old moratorium on whaling, in exchange for agreements from whaling nations like Japan, Norway, and Iceland to reduce their catches over the coming decade.

Whaling in Antarctic waters, where Japan hunts hundreds of whales each year, would have been sharply curtailed. But that became the major sticking point in the talks. Delegates said that Japan and antiwhaling nations could not reach agreement on the size of the catch and that Tokyo had balked at agreeing to eventually phase out the hunt altogether [The New York Times].

The talks will continue into next year while some whaling continues under loopholes in the old rules. But given the present impasse it seems like the IWC nations are a long way from agreeing on anything.

Related Content:
80beats: Ahead of Critical Meeting on Whaling, Japan Accused of Buying Votes
80beats: Will Commercial Whale Hunts Soon Be Authorized?
80beats: Videos Show Collision Between Japanese Whaling Ship & Protesters
80beats: Is the Whaling Ban Really the Best Way to Save the Whales?

Image: Flickr/ Rene Ehrhardt


Cell Phone Towers Cleared: Study Finds No Link to Childhood Cancer | 80beats

CellTowerThe latest entry into the cellphones-radiation-health debate is a British study of thousands of children, which investigated whether the proximity of pregnant women to cellphone towers had any effect on whether their kids developed tumors or leukemia. The result: a big no.

Researchers from Imperial College London identified 1,397 children under five who were diagnosed with leukaemia or a tumour of the brain or central nervous system between 1999 and 2001. They compared each child with four children of the same gender who were born on the same day but had not developed cancer [The Guardian].

They then cross-compared all those children to how much radiation their mothers likely received during pregnancy, based on a survey of more than 80,000 cell towers and their radiation output. No matter how they ran the numbers, the team couldn’t find a significant effect.

For instance, the mothers whose children were diagnosed with cancer lived an average of 1,173 yards from a cellphone tower while they were pregnant — statistically indistinguishable from the 1,211 yards that separated the other pregnant women from their nearest cellphone towers. Tallying up the total power output of all cellphone towers within 766 yards of each pregnant woman’s home, they found that both groups had nearly the same exposure — 2.89 kilowatts for the mothers of cancer victims and 3.00 kilowatts for the other mothers [Los Angeles Times].

In a commentary that accompanied the study in the British Medical Journal, John Bithell notes its weaknesses. First, to take such a large sample requires estimating a person’s radiation exposure based on their address; measuring it more directly would be “scientifically valuable,” Bithell writes, though right now that’s impractical for such a large study. The scientists also couldn’t estimate the cellphone usage by mothers during pregnancy, or which of them may have moved.

Even so, he says, the independently funded study is strong, and reinforces the fact that people should be more worried about known dangers like driving and talking than they should be about living near cell towers, which seems to have no effect.

“It’s reassuring,” said Elliott, a professor of epidemiology and public health medicine at Imperial College in London. “On the basis of our results, people living near mobile phone stations shouldn’t consider moving based on health reasons” [AP].

Related Content:
80beats: SF Cell Phones Will Come with Radiation Labeling—But No Interpretation
80beats: Surprise! Study Suggests Cell Phone Use Could Actually Fight Alzheimer’s
80beats: Can You Fear Me Now? Cell Phone Use Not Linked to Brain Cancer
80beats: Cancer Doctor Issues Warning About Cell Phones, And Causes Panic

Image: flickr / Jeff Kubina


National Pork Board to Unicorn Meat Purveyor: Lay Off Our Slogan | Discoblog

unicornTrying to cut back on beef, but tired of fish and chicken? Try unicorn. According to a joke advertisement on the website ThinkGeek, unicorn is the “new white meat.”

But according to the National Pork Board, it had better not be. The Board’s lawyers sent the nerdy site–also sellers of Tauntaun sleeping bags (real) and Tribbles ‘n’ Bits cereal (fake)–a 12-page-long, cease-and-desist letter last month telling the site to lay off “the other white meat,” which is trademarked in the United States, Europe, and Canada.

ThinkGeek thinks the two meats can’t compare. Unlike pork, unicorn is an excellent source of sparkles. Also unlike pigs, unicorns aren’t real–so ThinkGeek believes the slogan “Pate is passe. Unicorn — the new white meat” constitutes fair use as a parody.

As reported in The Washington Post, Board spokeswoman Ceci Snyder says their lawyers must protect any use of the phrase:

“Clearly there’s some fun being had, and we can laugh, too,” Snyder said. “But in the end [the lawyers are] just following the law.”

From their site, it doesn’t look like ThinkGeek is budging. If the Pork Board is successful, maybe the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association might have a better sense of humor. “Unicorn: It’s What’s For Dinner” has a nice ring to it.

Related content:
Discoblog: Science (What Else?) Reveals the Secret of the Montauk Monster
Discoblog: Pilots Attacked By Frickin’ Laser Beams
Discoblog: The World’s Geekiest T-Shirt Has a Wi-Fi Detector

Image: flickr / Scorpiorules58 / Tanakawho


Food For Thought | The Intersection

As we continue to talk about energy, we'll be exploring its relationship with the food we eat. Food and energy are inextricably linked, but all too often, their connections are overlooked. But before we begin considering average daily per capita intake for humans and how that relates to production and availability, it's necessary to consider that an adequate amount of food is a vastly different topic from nutrition. The US National Research Council has set Recommended Daily Allowances for what we consume, which includes vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. In affluent countries like ours, it's relatively easy to obtain what we need, but micronutrient deficiencies occur at very high numbers globally. Micronutrients are necessary to make hormones, enzymes, and ensure proper growth and development. So deficiencies can lead to mental impairment, blindness, compromised immunity, infant mortality, hearing loss, and more. Billions around the world are now at risk. In Feeding the World, Vaclav Smil writes "the eradication of micronutrient deficiencies could exceed the impact of the global elimination of smallpox." How to get there--or at least, move in that direction? We can either provide the necessary foods to those who do not currently have regular access to them and/or make supplements readily ...


Baby’s first bacteria depend on route of delivery | Not Exactly Rocket Science

Newborn

They are mum’s first gift to her newborn baby on the day of its zeroeth birthday – bacteria, fresh from her vagina. Vaginal bacteria are among the trillions of microscopic hitchhikers that share our bodies with us. Collectively known as the ‘microbiota’, these passengers outnumber our own cells by ten to one. Children partly inherit their microbiota from their mothers. During birth, they pass from the largely bacteria-free conditions of the womb through the microbe-laden vagina into the equally bacterial outside world.

Being slathered in vaginal microbes might not seem like much of a treat from our adult perspective, but to a newborn, it’s a key event. The microbiota are important partners, influencing our physiology and our risk of disease. Now, Maria Dominguez-Bello from the University of Puerto Rico found that the way we enter the world determines the identities of our first bacterial colonisers. Babies delivered by Caesarean section end up with a very different portfolio to those who are born naturally.

To characterise baby’s first bacteria, Dominguez-Bello compared the microbiota of 10 mothers and their newborn babies, four of who had been delivered naturally and six of who were born through C-sections. She sampled the mothers’ skins, mouths and vaginas an hour before delivery, and the babies’ skins, mouths and noses less than five minutes afterwards.

She found that all the infants had the same bacteria all over their bodies. That’s very different to the situation in the mothers (and indeed, other adults), where different parts of the body are as varied in their resident species as deserts are to rainforests. In adult bodies, certain species of bacteria dominate certain habitats, so that your butt microbes have more in common with mine that they do with your elbow bacteria. Again, this wasn’t the case in babies.

Dominguez-Bello also found that the membership of the babies’ bacterial clubs was mainly influenced by their route of delivery. Those who were delivered naturally harboured bacteria all over their bodies that resembled those in their mother’s vagina – mainly Lactobacillus, which help us to digest milk.

But babies who were delivered by C-section were colonised by bacteria that are more commonly found on the skin, including Staphylococcus. These colonists didn’t necessarily come from mum either. The skin bacteria of C-section mothers were no more similar to those of their own babies than to those of other infants delivered in the same way. Instead, it seems that C-section babies pick their first bacteria from the hospital environment.

These early differences could directly affect a baby’s health. Staphylococcus is mostly benign but they can also go rogue, causing a wide variety of infections from spots to pneumonia. Antibiotic-resistant strains such as MRSA are particularly problematic and it’s perhaps unsurprising that in a Californian study, between 64-82% of newborns with MRSA infections were delivered through C-sections.

Other scientists have found similar trends for the bacteria in a baby’s gut, which also differ depending on how the child is delivered. Dominguez-Bello’s new study extends this knowledge to other parts of the body, but it’s more of a starting point for further research (and perhaps a narrow one at that, given that it only considered ten babies) rather than a conclusion in itself. We still need to understand the shifts that take place as children grow and the members of their microbiota rise, fall and take up residence in different body parts.

Dominguez-Bello suspects that all of these events hinge on the moment of birth. She thinks that the bacterial heirlooms that babies inherit from their mothers might act as a shield, preventing more dangerous microbes like MRSA from setting up shop. In this way, early colonisers can influence the direction of late successions. By changing baby’s first bacteria, C-sections could alter the make-up of their later communities, leading to long-term effects on health and nutrition.

There is some evidence to support this idea, but to date, it’s pretty circumstantial. Some studies have suggested that babies delivered through C-section might be more susceptible to allergies, although the increase in risk is pretty small. Nonetheless, in one study, probiotic drinks containing Lactobacillus could help to counteract this increased risk, at least for some types of allergies.

Results like these are easy to politicise, especially since a quarter of babies in the UK are delivered by Caesarean section. But this study is no condemnation of C-section deliveries, which are often necessary. Opinion pieces often decry women who opt for elective C-sections because they are allegedly “too posh to push”, but the reality is very different to the ones these straw (wo)men caricatures present. Official records show that such births only account for 1.5% of the total. And last year, a UK study showed that just 3% of women would opt for a C-section if they didn’t have a medical need for one.

It’s also important to note that this new study merely documents how the method of delivery affects the bacteria that babies inherit. The effect that this has on our health is still largely speculative (contrary to what some papers would have you believe). And whether those effects have any significant importance in the grand scheme of things also remains to be seen. Dominguez-Bello’s paper ends with a call for more research and that’s exactly what is now needed.

Reference: PNAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002601107

More on the microbiota:

Creationists suffer another legal defeat | Bad Astronomy

Some good news from Texas! Yeehaw!

The Institute for Creation Research — one of the biggest nonsense-peddlers in the 6000 year history of the world — was handed a nice defeat this week. That link to the National Center for Science Education (the good guys) has all the info you need, but to summarize: the ICR moved from California to Texas. In the previous state, for reasons beyond understanding, they were able to grant Master’s degrees in their graduate school. But Texas didn’t recognize their accreditation, so they filed to get it approved.

Not so surprisingly, scientists and educators rose in protest, and in 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board — the organization that grants accreditation — denied the ICR. The creationists appealed. In the meantime, they also tried to extend their ability to grant degrees temporarily while the lawsuit continued. What happened this week is that the extension as denied.

And I mean denied. Check out what the court said:

It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff [the ICR] to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.

That’s not surprising, as that’s the only kind of information the ICR is capable of producing. Not to mention wrong. See the Related Posts links below for lots more on the ICR’s recent follies.

As far as I can tell, this defeat means that the ICR is still seeking accreditation, but until and unless it does, it cannot grant degrees in Texas.

So what can be said about this? Oh, let me quote one of the pithiest and to-the-point minds of our day:

<Nelson Muntz>Haha!</Nelson Muntz>


Related posts:

- Peer-reviewed creationist research? HAHAHAhahahahaha!
- Ark of descent
- Creationist (heh) Master of Science (haha) degree (HAHAHAHAHA!)
- ICR at 0 degrees


The Science of Soccer | The Intersection

Just kidding with the title. I don't have anything particularly insightful to say about the physics of the game. Rather, this post is just to say, I'm off to watch the USA (and England). I won't be blogging this am at least until that is over and done with. But I'm sure people have opinions about the team, so this is a place to leave them, and discuss the game....


Senator Brownback Hosts Commercial Spaceflight Event with Norm Augustine

Washington, D.C. – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation is pleased to announce that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), the former Chair of the Senate Science and Space Subcommittee, will be hosting an event for his Senate colleagues and their staff on June 24 to discuss commercial spaceflight.

Senator Brownback said, “The private sector brings to the table many ideas for the next chapter of America’s mission in space, and I look forward to hearing from leaders in the spaceflight industry about the best ways to achieve a thriving commercial spaceflight industry. The growth of commercial spaceflight will lead to the creation of many highly-skilled, high-paying jobs. My home-state of Kansas has been a leader in general aviation for years now, and I have no doubt that we will also be leaders in commercial spaceflight.”

The keynote speaker is Norm Augustine, chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, and other panelists include:
- Ken Bowersox, SpaceX’s Vice President of Astronaut Safety
- George Sowers, United Launch Alliance’s Vice President of Business Development and Advanced Programs
- William Claybaugh, Orbital Sciences’ Senior Director for Human Spaceflight
- Mark Sirangelo, Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems Chairman and Commercial Spaceflight Federation Chairman

In his invitation letter, Senator Brownback asks his Senate colleagues and staff to “hear some of the leading private aerospace companies about what they believe the private sector can contribute to America’s mission in space, and what Congress can do to make it possible.”

The event, titled “Opportunities and Challenges in Commercial Space Flight,” will take place 10:30am-noon in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 562 on June 24. The event is open to the media.

For more information, please contact Stacy Cervenka in Senator Brownback’s office at Stacy_Cervenka@brownback.senate.gov or at 202-224-6521.

Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, stated, “We are very appreciative of Senator Brownback for hosting this important event. We believe that commercial spaceflight can make important contributions to NASA’s space program, as well as serving as an important engine of job creation in the space sector and inspiring youth to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. By allowing the commercial sector to handle the job of transportation to Low Earth Orbit, NASA can free up its own resources to accelerate exploration to destinations beyond Earth orbit.”

Senator Brownback has served as a U.S. Senator for over 13 years and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. From 2003 to 2005, Brownback served as chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, holding hearings on U.S. space exploration, the space shuttle, the International Space Station, and lunar and Martian exploration.

About the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
The mission of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) is to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever-higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s member companies, which include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, spaceports, suppliers, and service providers, are creating thousands of high-tech jobs nationwide, working to preserve American leadership in aerospace through technology innovation, and inspiring young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. For more information please visit http://www.commercialspaceflight.org or contact Executive Director John Gedmark at john@commercialspaceflight.org or at 202.349.1121.

More Than 50 Astronauts, Scientists, and Industry Leaders Urge Congress to Fully Fund Commercial Crew

Washington, D.C. – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation welcomes the support of more than 50 former NASA astronauts, scientists, and industry CEOs and leaders who sent a letter to Congress yesterday urging full funding of Commercial Crew and full support for NASA-led human space exploration beyond Earth orbit.

“It has been very gratifying to see the support for Commercial Crew from a broad cross-section of the community, ranging from former Apollo and Shuttle astronauts to scientists and former NASA Center Directors,” stated Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

“Commercial Crew is key to ensuring full utilization of the International Space Station, minimizing the gap in human spaceflight, and allowing NASA to focus its limited resources on exploration beyond low Earth orbit,” added Alexander. “President Obama’s plan for NASA achieves both of these goals by pursuing a robust Commercial Crew program. The President’s plan accelerates exploration by allowing NASA to focus on beyond-LEO exploration rather than spending its limited resources on a low Earth orbit transportation service. And given the urgency of the gap, the time is right to begin full funding of Commercial Crew now.”

The signatories of the letter wrote, “We specifically wish to express our concern that the commercial crew to Space Station program is sometimes seen as optional or too risky to America’s future in space, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the commercial crew to Space Station program is a fundamental enabler of NASA’s human space exploration beyond Earth orbit, specifically because it will free up the NASA dollars needed to develop deep space transportation and exploration systems for astronauts.”

Notable signatories include former Apollo-era NASA astronauts such as Owen Garriott (Skylab 3, STS-9) and Rusty Schweickart (Apollo 9); former NASA Kennedy Center Director Jim Kennedy, who also served as Deputy Director of NASA Marshall; former NASA Ames Center Director Scott Hubbard, who also served as a Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) member; former FAA Associate Administrator Patti Grace Smith; President and CEO of the Universities Space Research Association Fred Tarantino; former NASA Associate Administrator for Science Alan Stern; and former Columbia Accident Investigation Board member John Logsdon.

To view the full letter, please visit http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34355

About the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
The mission of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) is to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever-higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s member companies, which include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, spaceports, suppliers, and service providers, are creating thousands of high-tech jobs nationwide, working to preserve American leadership in aerospace through technology innovation, and inspiring young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. For more information please visit http://www.commercialspaceflight.org or contact Executive Director John Gedmark at john@commercialspaceflight.org or at 202.349.1121.

# # #

The dismal gods | Gene Expression

marketplaceLarry Witham’s Marketplace of the Gods: How Economics Explains Religion is a manifestly ill-timed book. He states that “…around 2006 I began to notice a good deal of hoopla in the book market about economic explanations for just about everything-books that were best sellers.” Marketplace of the Gods was obviously written to capitalize on the prestige of economic explanations, but unfortunately it has come out after the bubble had burst on that market, so to speak. Within the past few years even many economists have come to admit that the power of their discipline’s logic can explain far less than they’d once thought. In fact, it seems a bit much for economics to explain everything when the core competency in financial domains are themselves being challenged. Even in 2008 in The Logic of Life Tim Harford was engaging in a rearguard attempt to prevent behavioral economists such as Dan Ariely from knocking the legs out from under the central thesis of his book. A more accurate subtitle for Marketplace of the Gods would have been “economic explanations of religion.” Not punchy or imperialistic, but true to the content of the text.


These explanations are rooted in a few assumptions derived from conventional economic methodology and applied to religion. Humans are rational, they settle upon strategies which can fulfill their preferences, and their world is characterized by scarcity and opportunity costs. Phenomena are best explained in a reductionist framework which takes a methodologically individualist stance. In other words, what’s in it for the individual, not society. Larry Witham documents the intellectual journeys of two giants in the field, Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone. I have read Iannaccone’s papers, as well as most of Stark’s academically oriented books. There’s a lot of clear and crisp thinking there. Marketplace of the Gods reviews the long history of woolly theorizing about religion which explained everything and so nothing, and served as the ideal seedbed for the invasion of the subject by those wielding sharper tools.

But the supply side model of individuals consuming goods and services from competing religious firms, to translate religious phenomena into economic language, can not explain everything. The author acknowledges this in the text, but falls into traps whereby the theory which he has encountered allows for superficial inferences which are plainly false if one was aware of a richer set of data. Consider this passage:

In traditions that invest more intensely in human religious capital the rentention rate is highest. For example, Hindu, Catholic, and Jewish groups lose the least number of adherents over their lifetimes. In America today, 90 percent of Hindus were reared in that tradition, and the same goes for 89 percent of today’s Catholics and 85 percent of today’s Jews….

This sounds plausible enough, but the explanation that Hindus and Catholics have high retention because they “invest more intensely in human religious capital” is probably wrong. Hindus and Catholics have huge immigrant communities, and come from societies where religious switching is rare or taboo. The majority of American Hindus are immigrants, so they are not integrated into the American marketplace of gods. The Religious Landscape Survey which Witham references makes it obvious that American Hindus are not even particularly religious. Witham assumes they invest more intensely in human religious capital probably because of the 90 percent figure, but theory is misleading him because of the incompleteness of his data base. Similarly, Catholics have been the biggest contributors in the past decade to the irreligious segment of Americans. The last finding is relatively recent, and so may not have been available when Marketplace of the Gods was being written, but it shows the lack of robusticity of the set of inferences which one can generate from these models. New data easily overturns novel inferences on a regular basis.

Obviously there’s some real insight that can come out of the intersection of economics and religion. And Marketplace of the Gods serves as a decent precis of the literature, and its bibliography is well worth perusing. But if you know anything about religion it will be rather clear that the current theoretical contributions of economics in explaining most of the variation in the phenomenon is limited. Religion is a big topic, and a true “explanation” necessarily has to encompass evolution, psychology, history, and, economics.