background preloader

Wetenschapsvertrouwen

Facebook Twitter

Time to democratise science. By Dan Hind Some of the taxpayers’ money that pours into research should be directly allocated by the public, argues Dan Hind THE natural and social sciences exert a huge influence on the ways our societies develop.

Time to democratise science

At present most of the funding for scientific research is controlled by the state and the private economy. Perhaps it is time to look at their track record and consider an alternative. In economics, we already have damning evidence that the funding system isn’t working. Before 2007, many university economists were happy to provide the justifications for deregulation, liberalisation and credit expansion that the financiers paid them handsomely to produce – with disastrous results.

Advertisement As a source of world-changing knowledge, the social sciences are as nothing when compared with the natural sciences. This remains true today. “The profits that derive from taxpayer investment have overwhelmingly been captured by the few” This probably comes as no surprise. ‘Ik vind de onderkant van de samenleving te belangrijk om aan links over te laten’ Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues: The Role of Expert Framing and Political Worldviews - Lachapelle - 2014 - Policy Studies Journal.

Bibliotheek Den Haag - Wetenschap is ook maar een mening. - Een programma over feiten en fictie op 12 november in de Centrale Bibliotheek.

Bibliotheek Den Haag - Wetenschap is ook maar een mening

Woensdag 12 november / 20:30 - 22:00 uur / Centrale Bibliotheek / Spui 68 Onderzoekers lijken de kop van jut. De mondige burger laat zich niet zo gemakkelijk meer voorschrijven wat waar is en wat niet. Alles is toch te vinden op internet? Verliest de wetenschap zo haar geloofwaardigheid, en zo ja, hoe krijgt ze die weer terug? Waarom luisteren zoveel mensen liever naar indianenverhalen van anonieme zelfbenoemde deskundigen dan naar iemand die “ervoor gestudeerd heeft”? Speak up : Naturejobs. Peter Fiske argues that too many young scientists adopt a passive voice, to the detriment of their careers.

Speak up : Naturejobs

When I was in graduate school studying geology and environmental sciences, many of my professors insisted that we students write our manuscripts in the passive voice: “This was done” rather than “I did this”. They reasoned that removing the agent from the description of the action lent an objective tone. As scientists, we stood apart from our work and encouraged others to critique it (rather than us). Today, teachers are much more likely to advocate use of the active voice in manuscripts. In general, the active voice is more readable and engaging, which can be particularly helpful in light of the sometimes turgid prose of scientific papers. In the years since I moved from academic science to business, young scientists have started to adopt a more active tone in their manuscripts.

Survey suggests half of EU citizens believe scientists are 'dangerous' Europeans recognise the benefits of science but are fearful of the power that knowledge gives to scientists.

Survey suggests half of EU citizens believe scientists are 'dangerous'

Photograph: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters Despite World Cup and Wimbledon fever, a survey published this week suggests that more Europeans are interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments than are interested in sport. According to the latest Eurobarometer survey for the European Commission, 80% are interested in science and technology whereas 65% are interested in sport. However, the same survey found that 57% think scientists should be doing more to communicate their work to the general public and 66% believe governments should do more to interest young people in scientific issues.

Europeans overwhelmingly recognise the benefits of science, but many also express fears about risks from new technologies and the power that knowledge gives to scientists. An alarming 58% of respondents across the European Union agreed that: The figure falls to 49% for UK respondents. Science Communication as Political Communication. The great potential of citizen science: restoring the role of tacit knowledge and amateur discovery. Citizen science is nothing new, but what makes internet-enabled citizen science different, is the sheer scale of amateur involvement.

The great potential of citizen science: restoring the role of tacit knowledge and amateur discovery.

Benedikt Fecher sees great potential for citizen science, but argues a return to smaller-scale, high-involvement projects would be beneficial. This alternative model depends on citizen analysis, rather than just data collection. The core challenges for this kind of citizen science is to motivate and enable expert volunteers to make a long-term commitment to a scientific problem. What do Benjamin Franklin, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Francis Bacon have in common?

Welcome to the Age of Denial. In 1989, when “climate change” had just entered the public lexicon, 63 percent of Americans understood it was a problem.

Welcome to the Age of Denial

Almost 25 years later, that proportion is actually a bit lower, at 58 percent. The timeline of these polls defines my career in science. In 1982 I was an undergraduate physics major. In 1989 I was a graduate student. My dream was that, in a quarter-century, I would be a professor of astrophysics, introducing a new generation of students to the powerful yet delicate craft of scientific research. What I Learned From Debating Science With Trolls. Tussen onderzoek en samenleving — Product_Images-a36bf0652a99.jpg (350×261) Www.boomlemmatijdschriften.nl/tijdschrift/sociologie/2010/1/TS_1574-3314_2010_006_001_002.pdf. Www.wrr.nl/fileadmin/nl/publicaties/PDF-overige_uitgaven/Rapport_Vertrouwen_in_de_Wetenschap_WEBnw.pdf. Www.dickhoutman.nl/mediatheek/files/jaarboek_kennissamenleving__houtman__2009.pdf.