The first keynote address of the evening is noted author Michael Crichton, who has become quite controversial of late for his novel State of Fear. Crichton opened his remarks noting that the Skeptics Society questions the existence of all sorts of paranormal phenomena. Perhaps, he suggested, the society should also question the existence of skeptics. After all, true skeptics are "vanishingly rare" in modern society.

The body of Crichton's talk focused on the harm to scientific inquiry and the public welfare caused by the commercialization of genetic research. For instance, Crichton discussed the case of John Moore, whose cells were taken surreptitiously to be patented by UCLA. Crichton said this story is symptomatic of the larger trend in academic biology of pursuing the commercialization of biological products, pushing universities in to the commercial drug-testing business subsidized by the federal government. Taxpayers are effectively subsidizing university research that enriches universities and academic researchers when it leads to the development of private pharmaceuticals.

The problem today is that most genetic research today is done in secret and for profit, Crichton said. As a result, there are few disinterested scientists to engage in public discussions about important scientific questions. As a result, he said, our technology-dependent society lacks impartial advisors to provide perspective and insight.

"Where were the skeptics" during this transformation of science, Crichton asked. Why were there not skeptical voices raised within the scientific community? Genetic research continues apace, genetic information is collected and commercialized, and there is little oversight or quality control. The human genome was sequenced in 2004, and already 20 percent of the genome is privately owned.

"Meanwhile we are racing toward a true revolution in human existence" - the ability to engage in human modification, Crichton warned. "Nothing stands in our way," just as nothing stood in the way of the rise of eugenics and sterilization, nothing stands in the way of apocalyptic projections of a carbon crisis. When large mass movements arise, skeptics seems to disappear, Crichton said. Sterilization should have been discredited after the fall of Nazi Germany (if not before), yet the state of California did not discontinue its sterilization program until 1964 – at which point thousands had been sterilized.

Why is this? Crichton wondered. Is it due to the mass media? A genetic predisposition for group think? Whatever the reason, it is a problem because we need skeptics. When there is a mass movement we are told "there is no debate; there is a consensus" -- yet "there is a debate about everything." Debate is "a permanent condition of mankind."

"To say there is no debate ought to be a danger sign" because it does not mean there is no debate, but that people wish to shut off opposition, or those who would question are no longer willing to raise their voices. "The fact is that skeptics have failed in the past." They lost their nerve, their funding, or their willingness to question, Crichton said "and we need them especially when debate seems to end."

Needless to say there were lots of questions for Crichton. One questioner, a Russian immigrant, challenged Crichton on his opposition to commercialization. She grew up in a society of "pure science" - the Soviet Union - all science was government funded, and the system yielded Lysenkoism and lack of productive research. In response Crichton seemed to backtrack a bit, saying he did not oppose all private funding of research, but rather was concerned about the lack of balance and increased commercialization of science.

Asked if he received any corporate money -- as some environmentalist critics have alleged -- Crichton seemed amused and said clearly that he "is not paid." He also shared some of the other conspiratorial theories about why he wrote his book, including the hypothesis that he was asked to write the book by Karl Rove ("if I wouldn't write a book for Stephen Spielberg, why would I write a book for someone I've never met?").

Someone asked the obvious question: Isn't there some point when debate should shift, if not end? Are there not some questions, perhaps such as the existence of evolution, that should be beyond debate? Not really, was Crichton's response. "If people want to continue to debate evolution, it's okay with me. I'm tired of it." Crichton added that he believes in evolution -- not "anything else" -- but he would like to see observational documentation of speciation.

Asked about how his views of global warming have evolved in the past few years, Crichton spoke about what led him to write State of Fear. When looking into climate changes, he noticed that all future projections were based upon computer models, and that such models were not sufficiently compelling to him. Crichton noted that what is in dispute is not whether the globe has warmed, whether human activity has increased carbon dioxide levels, whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, or whether increased concentrations of greenhouse gases should cause future warming. Rather the relevant question is how much warming will occur. The issue is the climate's sensitivity anthropogenic forcing, and what that means.

Crichton insisted he was not comparing eugenics to global warming -- in his talk or writings -- but he does think the history of eugenics is important. A century ago societal elites believed in eugenics and believed it was grounded in science, and it led to mass sterilization and other injustice. "If it happened once, who is to say it cannot happen again?"

All the bloggers reading would be happy to know that Crichton suggested that blogs may be part of the answer to the problem of mass movements and group think. "The new media replaces the old media," and Crichton suggested this is a good thing, as blogs can question authority and blogging can have significant effects.

Another questioner suggested that part of the problem is the lack of democracy within universities, and the lack of faculty power over university decisions, including those related to commercialization. Crichton seemed to agree, but he did not know what to do about it. "My job is to complain and let other people solve the problem."

Crichton pointed out that people are increasingly isolated from those with opposing views and have a hard time understanding those with different worldviews. The tendency is to demonize those with whom one disagrees, rather than to try and understand their point of view and appreciate differences of opinion. Crichton said he doesn't talk about climate anymore because it has become a "spiritual issue" - as evidenced by the increased involvement of religious organizations in the issue It's now a matter of belief and not of rational discussion, Crichton said, "so I'm done."