The Crisis of Big Science by Steven Weinberg. 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. How much should a country spend on basic scientific research? 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. A Result Of Zero Doesn't Always Mean Zero Results. Forlorn graduate students sometimes turn to a publication called The Journal of Negative Results.* In graduate student mythology, it’s the repository for toiled-over experiments that produced nothing — no effects, no detections, no differences, nothing.
(*This actually does exist for specific disciplines. But it’s not really the salvation most grad students wish for.) But: a) that’s how science works, and b) negative results can still pack a punch. Last week, two astrophysical negative results appeared in high-profile journals.In Nature, the IceCube collaboration (including then-graduate student Nathan Whitehorn) describes missing neutrinos — a paucity of particles that’s problematic for theorists suggesting that gamma-ray bursts generate ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Then, in the Astrophysical Journal, a team of astronomers in Chile concludes that dark matter doesn’t live within 13,000 light-years from Earth. It’s true. 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. 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. Dodgy tales of 'research' swirling the globe - opinion - 31 May 2012. Read full article Continue reading page |1|2 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. Science Denial In The 21st Century. Web edition : Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 Text Size MADISON, Wis. — The arc of science has faced roadblocks for centuries, but the pattern of denying the weight of evidence has taken on new virulence recently. Highly motivated people openly cast doubt on well-established evidence — the theory of evolution, the human effects on climate change, the value of vaccines and other findings that have achieved an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.
Researchers and science writers tasked with reporting on these issues gathered April 23–24 at the University of Wisconsin at a meeting titled “Science Writing in the Age of Denial.” Some noted that seemingly spontaneous denial of science in the populace is quite often a carefully choreographed attack. Sean B. 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). 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. What does it mean to say that something causes 16% of cancers? A few days ago, news reports claimed that 16 per cent of cancers around the world were caused by infections.
This isn’t an especially new or controversial statement, as there’s clear evidence that some viruses, bacteria and parasites can cause cancer (think HPV, which we now have a vaccine against). It’s not inaccurate either. The paper that triggered the reports did indeed conclude that “of the 12.7 million new cancer cases that occurred in 2008, the population attributable fraction (PAF) for infectious agents was 16·1%”. But for me, the reports aggravated an old itch. 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. 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. Geology will survive creationist undermining - opinion - 11 October 2011. Creationist infiltration of scientific conferences seems outrageous, but banning them would do more harm than good 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. Is how to engage with the crackpot at the scientific meeting an ethical question? 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. "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.
'Chemical-free' nonsense - latimes.com. 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. Red-Wine Researcher Implicated in Data Misconduct Case. 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. Just as many authors of the new psychiatry "bible" are tied to the drugs industry as those who worked on the previous version, a study has found, despite new transparency rules. Faulty Comparisons. 'Gay cure' psychiatrist apologises for flawed study - health - 22 May 2012.
A leading psychiatrist whose controversial study backed therapies to make gay people straight has admitted it was flawed and apologised to homosexuals for implying that they could be "cured". Leaders of controversial neutrino experiment step down - physics-math - 30 March 2012. Neuroscience Coverage: Media Distorts, Bloggers Rule. Brain as Icon. Spurious Positive Mapping of the Brain?
Many fMRI studies could be giving false-positive results according to an important new paper from Anders Eklund and colleagues: Does parametric fMRI analysis with SPM yield valid results? —An empirical study of 1484 rest datasets. The authors examined the SPM8 software package, probably the most popular tool for analyzing neuroimaging data. 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. TED: Even More Elitist Than We Thought. Great news! Governments agree to abolish death! Don’t mention income inequality please, we’re entrepreneurs. Philip Kitcher: The Trouble With Scientism. What Thomas Kuhn Really Thought about Scientific “Truth” Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us. 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. "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.