The Crisis of Big Science by Steven Weinberg. Last year physicists commemorated the centennial of the discovery of the atomic nucleus. In experiments carried out in Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory at Manchester in 1911, a beam of electrically charged particles from the radioactive decay of radium was directed at a thin gold foil. It was generally believed at the time that the mass of an atom was spread out evenly, like a pudding. In that case, the heavy charged particles from radium should have passed through the gold foil, with very little deflection. To Rutherford’s surprise, some of these particles bounced nearly straight back from the foil, showing that they were being repelled by something small and heavy within gold atoms.
This was great science, but not what one would call big science. Nuclear physics soon got bigger. The first to disintegrate a nucleus was Rutherford, and there is a picture of him holding the apparatus in his lap. After World War II, new accelerators were built, but now with a different purpose. Is 'Big Science' In Trouble? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture.
Hide captionA 2007 artist's conception of the James Webb Space Telescope in operation. A 2007 artist's conception of the James Webb Space Telescope in operation. Science is expensive, but the payoffs more than justify the costs. Let's focus here on basic science, that is, science that doesn't have the goal of being "useful" in the short run through technological or medical applications, and through generating wealth (usually for the shareholders). By basic science (and the boundary between basic and applied science is very blurry) I mean science for science's sake, the investigation of the fundamental workings of nature. In a time when balancing the United States' federal budget seems a distant dream, we have to ask if, indeed, a country is justified in spending billions of dollars on fundamental research.
At the dawn of the 20th century, physicists were grappling with a whole new way of thinking about the world. In my view, it is unacceptable to cut the funding for big science. Leaks, hacks and science - science-in-society - 06 December 2011. Science thrives on freedom of expression and must be at the forefront of defending it THE words "science" and "censorship" do not sit easily together. And yet over the past decade, science has come to occupy an increasingly important role in debates over free speech. This is partly due to public clashes between science and politics, from the censoring of climate science in the US under the Bush administration to David Nutt's dismissal as the UK government's adviser on drugs after voicing his views on the safety of ecstasy.
But it also reflects a revolution in access to information which has exposed every sector of society to an unprecedented level of scrutiny. From WikiLeaks to phone hacking, the tension between openness, privacy and confidentiality has become one of the defining issues of our time. In recognition of this trend, the award-winning magazine Index on Censorship, which explores challenges to freedom of speech, has dedicated its latest issue, "Dark Matter", to science. Science in the Telegraph and the Daily Mail: What’s wrong with British journalism? Illustration by Robert Neubecker. For a few hours last week, I'd planned to write a column about the "five-second rule.
" Scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in England had released a study showing that some foods (ham, cookies) were safer to eat than others (dried fruit, pasta) after being left on the floor to collect germs. The Huffington Post picked up the story, as did Gizmodo and Good Morning America and the TODAY Show. But the research—if that's even the right word to use here—was rotten from the start. The first warning sign was the subject matter: The five-second rule has been tested, explained, and at least partially debunked over and over again, for at least as long as I've been a journalist.
More damning was the story's overseas origin. Let's not single out the Mancunians, though: Industry-funded science fluff litters the whole of the British Isles. This sounds like jingoism, I know. While mulling this over—and chanting U.S.A.! Dodgy tales of 'research' swirling the globe - opinion - 31 May 2012. By Daniel Engber For a few hours last week, I had planned to write a column about the “five-second rule.” Scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in England had released a study showing that some foods (ham, cookies) were safer to eat than others (dried fruit, pasta) after being left on the floor to collect germs. The Huffington Post picked up the story, as did Gizmodo and Good Morning America and the TODAY Show. But the research – if that’s even the right word to use here – was rotten from the start.
The first warning sign was the subject matter: The five-second rule has been tested, explained and at least partially debunked over and over again, for at least as long as I’ve been a journalist. The most notable example was a 2006 study by Paul Dawson of Clemson University, South Carolina, who published his findings that germs can hop right onto a slice of bologna in the peer-reviewed Journal of Applied Microbiology. More damning was the story’s overseas origin. Faux research.
When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).
Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”
The Financially Driven Erosion of Scientific Integrity. All else being equal, if you pay for something bad, you will get more of it. If you punish something good, you will get less of it. These basic rules of economics apply as much to junk science and scientific integrity as they do to junk food and political candor. Science and the scientific method are the jewels in the crown of Western civilization. The ascertainment of facts, construction of reproducible experiments, development of falsifiable theories, impartial training and meritocratic advancement of practitioners, and - most importantly - integrity of the publication process by which a well established body of truth can be confidently assembled all underpin the respect accorded to science by the citizenry.
In modern times, this respect translates into tax dollars. Unfortunately, today those tax dollars are corrupting the process. Exactly what is going on here? The lion's share of actual laboratory work is done by these apprentices. For some PIs, life gets even better. What Is Pseudoscience? Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream.
The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason. In his 2010 book Nonsense on Stilts (University of Chicago Press), philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci concedes that there is “no litmus test,” because “the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and pseudoscience are much fuzzier and more permeable than Popper (or, for that matter, most scientists) would have us believe.” Princeton University historian of science Michael D. The Allure of Gay Cavemen | The Primate Diaries. Third genders, two spirits, and a media without a clue. Author’s Note: Earlier this month the UK Daily Mail reported on continued excavation at an archaeological site near Prague where researchers described an individual with an alternative gender identity.
The following post originally appeared at Neuron Culture hosted by Wired after the original report last year. "Cave Painting" by Nathaniel Gold In 1993 the reputable German weekly Der Spiegel printed a rumor that Otzi, the 5,300-year-old frozen mummy discovered in the Otztal Alps two years earlier, contained evidence of the world’s earliest known homosexual act. “In Otzi’s Hintern,” wrote the editors, referring to the Iceman’s hinterland, “Spermien gefunden worden.” (If you require a translation, chances are you didn’t want to know anyway.) The rumor quickly spread on computer bulletin boards as the recently unveiled World Wide Web inaugurated a new age in the free flow of misinformation. Geology will survive creationist undermining - opinion - 11 October 2011. WHAT should a scientific society do when creationists want to participate in its conferences?
This question faces many scientific organisations in the US. At meetings of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in 2009 and 2010, young-Earth creationists, who think Noah’s flood was a historical event and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, presented posters, gave talks and led field trips. I attended a number of these events, and I can attest that the creationists were careful to give mainstream presentations using standard geologic methods. They referred to the geologic timeline of millions and billions of years. It’s not surprising that they were able to do so: the presenters had received decent geology educations from legitimate institutions. The point is to be able to claim legitimacy. Geologists are understandably fuming.
“Astronomy conferences don’t welcome astrology talks so why do geologists tolerate creationism?” Science is a process. Is how to engage with the crackpot at the scientific meeting an ethical question? | Doing Good Science. There’s scientific knowledge. There are the dedicated scientists who make it, whether laboring in laboratories or in the fields, fretting over data analysis, refereeing each other’s manuscripts or second-guessing themselves.
And, well, there are some crackpots. I’m not talking dancing-on-the-edge-of-the-paradigm folks, nor cheaters who seem to be on a quest for fame or profit. I mean the guy who has the wild idea for revolutionizing field X that actually is completely disconnected from reality. Generally, you don’t find too much crackpottery in the scientific literature, at least not when peer review is working as it’s meant to. The referees tend to weed it out. But where you do see a higher proportion of crackpottery, aside from certain preprint repositories, is at meetings. Doctor Crackpot gives a talk intended to show his brilliant new solution to a nagging problem with an otherwise pretty well established theoretical approach. Crickets chirp. "Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman. Richard Feynman From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974 Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr.
Feynman! During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of it did. But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO's, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did.
'Chemical-free' nonsense - latimes.com. In honor of this year’s “eat healthier” resolution, my teenage son and I drove over to a local bakery in the first week of January. On the shop’s window, someone had painted the words “Whole-grain bread.” So far, so good. The next line read “No preservatives.” And the third — I did a double take — “Chemical-free.” My son, slouching next to me, heard me inhale and hastily looked for the cause. “Mom,” he said urgently. “Mom! Of course, he was remembering — and who could really forget? I date my crusade to about two years ago. I use the word “navigate” because I tend to think of the chemical world as an unfinished map. Honey, all honey, is actually a chemical stew of sugars, acids, enzymes, proteins, vitamins, minerals and more. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that a product free of industrial chemicals is necessarily harmless, or that the word “natural” is equivalent to the word “safe.”
Age of oldest rocks off by millions of years - space - 29 March 2012. In cancer science, many discoveries don't hold up. As Dutch Research Scandal Unfolds, Social Psychologists Question Themselves - Research. By Christopher Shea The discovery that the Dutch researcher Diederik A. Stapel made up the data for dozens of research papers has shaken up the field of social psychology, fueling a discussion not just about outright fraud, but also about subtler ways of misusing research data. Such misuse can happen even unintentionally, as researchers try to make a splash with their peers—and a splash, maybe, with the news media, too. Mr. Consider just two of his most recent papers: "Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women," from Psychological Science, and "Coping With Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination," from Science—two prestigious journals.
Even before the Stapel case broke, a flurry of articles had begun appearing this fall that pointed to supposed systemic flaws in the way psychologists handle data. "If high-impact journals want this kind of surprising finding, then there is pressure on researchers to come up with this stuff," says Mr. And Mr. Mr. Mr. Red-Wine Researcher Implicated in Data Misconduct Case. A three-year investigation into a University of Connecticut biology laboratory has found its chief guilty of falsifying and fabricating data on more than two dozen papers and grant applications. Dipak Das, director of the Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) in Farmington, and his lab studied the beneficial health effects of wine (including one component resveratrol, which has been linked to life extension and other health benefits) and other foods, as well as cardiology.
A 60,000-page report issued yesterday (you can read a 49-page summary here) by UCHC found Das guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data, involving at least 23 papers and 3 grant applications. The alleged misconduct involved manipulating the presentation of experiments called western blots, which assess the presence and amounts of specific proteins.
"Today I had to look up who he is. Web freedoms fuel 'academic spring' journal protest - science-in-society - 13 February 2012. Many authors of psychiatry bible have industry ties - health - 13 March 2012. Faulty Comparisons. 'Gay cure' psychiatrist apologises for flawed study - health - 22 May 2012. Leaders of controversial neutrino experiment step down - physics-math - 30 March 2012. Neuroscience Coverage: Media Distorts, Bloggers Rule. Spurious Positive Mapping of the Brain? Gary Taubes — Author of Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories. Paranormal Circumstances: One Influential Scientist's Quixotic Mission to Prove ESP Exists | Mind & Brain. TED: Even More Elitist Than We Thought | Economy. Great news! Governments agree to abolish death! | Chris Snowdon. Don’t mention income inequality please, we’re entrepreneurs. Philip Kitcher: The Trouble With Scientism.
What Thomas Kuhn Really Thought about Scientific “Truth” | Cross-Check. Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us | Magazine. Gould's skulls: Is bias inevitable in science? - life - 25 July 2011. Beware the Fausts of Neuroscience. The Right Way to Get It Wrong. Fritz Haber's Experiments in Life and Death | Past Imperfect. "The Nobel Prize and Einstein's Ghost" by Anders Barany.
‘Open Science’ Challenges Journal Tradition With Web Collaboration. Secret Computer Code Threatens Science. Why full disclosure is healthy - health - 14 February 2012. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. A few simple checks would transform science reporting - opinion - 09 December 2011. The publication imperative - 24 April 2012. "Publish or Perish" by Iain Chalmers.