Archive for the 'open source' Category

Economic Recovery in Red vs Blue States

I was chatting with my Dad recently and he brought up a debate he’d heard on the radio between a Republican and Democratic candidate.

The Republican candidate said that in our present-day recession economy, Republican states were better off than Democratic states. My Dad seemed to particularly relish how the Democratic candidate scrambled to defend his party but didn’t contradict anything the Republican guy was saying.

Politicians are known for saying anything to win elections. Is it really true that Republicans manage the economies of their states better?

I found a treasure trove of state political data on Wikipedia. I also found information on unemployment for the month of February 2011 at the website for the US Bureau for Labor Statistics. And finally, I was able to get an estimate of the budget gap/head via The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And so I put everything together into a spreadsheet and stared at the data.

One assumption I’d always had (thanks to the New Deal era of President FDR) was that government spending was the best way to keep the country afloat during a recession. My data allowed me to plot unemployment vs. the state budget gap per person. Each dot in the graph below represents a state. The data is obviously very noisy, but there appeared to be a correlation between higher state budget gaps and greater unemployment. You could fit a line to this data, but the correlation was weak (only ~0.24).

The colors of the dots in this graph also show whether the state governor was a Republican or Democrat (if the governor’s party changed because of the November 2010 election, I went with the previous governor).

One might also conclude from this graph that Republican governors ran up larger state budget gaps and had higher unemployment than Democratic governors.  Just for the record, the state on the extreme right is Alaska, home of Sarah Palin. The state with the highest unemployment is Nevada.

Not wishing to make conclusions too quickly, we can use another metric to decide how to categorize the “Republicaness” of a state — the ratio of Republicans and Democrats in the upper and lower state legislatures.

It turned out that lower legislatures were all majority Democratic. That was surprising! In the chart below, red dots are more highly Republican legislatures and blue are more highly Democratic. Shades of purple show the degree of mixture. You can see the dots are all blue and shades of purple.

On the other hand, the upper legislatures in the states varied between majority Republican and Democrat.

The colors of the dots in this image now reflect the ratio of Republicans vs. Democrats in the upper legislatures. I’ve added threshold lines showing the highest value of the budget gap associated with each party. Clearly, the Democratic legislatures had larger budget gaps, but only narrowly. What struck me as a stronger relationship here was that purple, or split states, actually had the highest budget gap/person.

In fact, if I rotate the figure and fit a Gaussian bounding the outer edges…

The higher the budget gap, the more mixed the legislature. Note that the reverse was not true: a more mixed legislature did not necessarily imply that the budget gap was larger. In fact, there were several purple states very close to and even on top of the $0/head mark. Perhaps a graph of the standard deviation would also be enlightening:

Is it obvious that the more homogeneous the legislature, the more fiscally responsible its actions? Democrats spend more, but also tax more. Republicans tax less, but also spend less. An even mixture of the two bodies can lead to the extremes of spending less and taxing more (the $0/head Montana) or spending more and taxing less (the $1830/head Alaska).

It seems clear that majority Republican states are not better-off than majority Democratic states. But… Both the Republican and Democratic candidates could have gotten away with claiming that their states were better off than (some of) the purple states!

For your enjoyment, I uploaded my spreadsheet of state Republican vs. Democrat data to this website’s wiki: Republican and Democratic Economic Data, Feb 2011.

Footnotes:

Data extracted and combined from:

-Lyndie Chiou

Human DNA

There’s been a big push to gather together a vast genomic library of human DNA. The purpose for the dataset ranges for everything from personal genomic analysis to research into the genetic causes of diseases. Will any of these datasets be available for the public? The answer is nope.

Rotating DNABack in 2006, the National Human Genome Research Institute began collecting human DNA and posting it online for researchers to freely download. The datasets were downloaded 491 times before access was restricted. The reason? Fears about protecting patient privacy.

The basic reasoning goes something like this: say you donated your DNA to be analyzed and an unscrupulous person downloaded your data. This person could then synthesize your data and plant it at a crime scene. Investigators taking evidence would find your synthesized DNA and compare it with the online database from the National Human Genome Research Institute. If there was a match, they could then legally compel the Institute to turn over your identity for prosecution.

Does this seem a bit far-fetched? Over 99.9% of the human genome is identical from one human to the next. So forensic detectives just analyze the unique sections of the human genome to identify a person. Only these sections need to be synthesized. There is a well-known technique that allows a researcher to take a section of DNA and substitute a specific genomic pattern. Scientists such as Craig Venter are using this approach to try to create “artificial” life.

Of course, there’s the much more mundane threat that an insurance company could data mine the online DNA profiles to screen applicants. Or perhaps an employer could look up your genetic risk for alcoholism.

You might argue that the National Human Genome Research Institute should only provide averaged data. However in August 2008, a group of extremely clever researchers published a paper describing how to extract individual genomes in highly averaged data. So even averaged data does not protect the individual.

For the time-being, in order to access the human genome datasets at the National Human Genome Research Institute you have to be approved.

The number of for-profit personal DNA analysis companies is also growing.  A quick session with Google easily found five (for the list of retailers I found, see the bottom of this post). These companies charge anywhere from $399 to $99,500 for access to your personal genome. The results of their analyses can be very entertaining, informing you of your genetic lineage as well as a range of genetic diseases for which you may carry a susceptible gene or two. 23andMe.com even won the honor of Time’s Best Invention of 2008.

However, some question what safeguards are in place regarding their customers’ DNA. Do the retail genomic companies offer the same protection that financial companies use to protect customer records? Of course, we all know how well those protections have worked. If someone were to hack 23andMe.com, you don’t have the luxury of changing your DNA the way you can change your credit card number.

There have been a number of interesting articles written about the subject. Probably the best one was recently published in the American Scientist.

Retail genomic companies

  • 23andMe.com - $399. Genotype information for about 600,000 SNPs. They claim to estimate the genetic risk of the patient for over 80 diseases as well as ancestry analyses.
  • deCODEme.com - $985 – very similar to 23andMe but performs an analysis of 1 million SNPs and estimates the risk of 38 diseases.
  • RetailGenomics.com - $1000. Lists 72 conditions for which it tests. A relative new-comer and can’t seem to find much information on it.
  • Navigenics - $2500. Uses Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 , which tests some 900,000 SNPs and provides results on 20 diseases.
  • Knome - $99,500. Provides whole genome (98% genome) sequencing services. After analysis, the customer must travel to company headquarters where the scientists who developed their results discuss the analysis with them.
  • After having used any of these services, there is a free program called Promethease that will further analyze your personal genome for you. The service is FREE! 

Non-retail genomic organizations

  • PersonalGenomes.org – A charitable health & disease research project. Volunteers must permit their DNA to be made freely available to the public, however, the volunteers receive personal analysis as well as access to their own genome.
  • Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health – Kaiser Permanente’s project  to sequence the genes of its members in Northern California. Volunteers are supposedly anonymized and do not receive any genetic results. Limited access for approved researchers.
  • National Human Genome Research Institute – a government funded genomics project. Don’t see a link for volunteers. The volunteer DNA is made available for approved researchers.

-Lyndie Chiou




7 visitors online now
2 guests, 5 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 7 at 10:05 am UTC
This month: 12 at 02-02-2012 01:28 pm UTC
This year: 23 at 01-04-2012 10:32 pm UTC
All time: 44 at 11-08-2010 02:08 am UTC