Sometimes it’s OK to hang back on the “Ask a ScienceBlogger” questions to let others snap up the obvious answers. (Yeah, I meant to do that!) I love Real Genius and Buckeroo Banzai as much as the next geek, but there oare other films out there worth your time.
The question is:
What movie do you think does something admirable (though not necessarily accurate) regarding science? Bonus points for answering whether the chosen movie is any good generally.
Because I’m showing up near the end of the party, I’ll give you three:
Category Archives: Ask a ScienceBlogger
Most of the ethical questions raised by cloning were already with us.
The Ask a ScienceBlogger question of the week is:
On July 5, 1996, Dolly the sheep became the first successfully cloned mammal. Ten years on, has cloning developed the way you expected it to?
On the technical end of things, I suppose I’m a bit surprised at how challenging it has been to clone certain mammals successfully, but getting things to work in the lab is almost always harder than figuring out whether they’re possible in theory. I expected, of course, that some would want to try cloning humans and that others would declare that cloning of humans should be completely off limits.
But as far as the discussions of the ethics of cloning go, I expected that more people would recognize that many of the ethical worries that flow from cloning were already with us.
What good science teachers don’t do.
No sooner do I post an answer for one “Ask a ScienceBlogger” question than another one gets posted. If you thought Summer at ScienceBlogs was going to involve lots of lounging by the pool and drinks with paper umbrellas, that’s not how it’s shaping up.
The question of the week: What makes a good science teacher?
Others are already weighing in about the things a good science teacher ought to do. I would like to remind current and future science teachers (and those who interact with them) what good science teachers ought not to do.
How do bloggers keep their day jobs?
How is it that all the PIs (Tara, PZ, Orac et al.), various grad students, post-docs, etc. find time to fulfill their primary objectives (day jobs) and blog so prolifically?
Hey, that’s sweet to assume we fulfill our primary objectives! Not that we don’t try, but to paraphrase Grad Student Barbie, “Research is hard!” (For the record, that’s what Grad Student G.I. Joe says, too.) Still, unless one wants to be a full-time blogger who is otherwise unemployed (which I do not), there is balancing required. Here are my strategies:
You can take the girl out of the lab …
It’s time for another spin of the “Ask a ScienceBlogger” wheel! The question this time is:
Assuming that time and money were not obstacles, what area of scientific research, outside of your own discipline, would you most like to explore? Why?
You may recall that I chose to leave chemistry for a career as a philosopher of science. Near the end of my time in chemistry, I was pretty anxious to leave the lab behind — preparing solutions, calibrating (and repairing) pumps, washing glassware, etc. So I’m actually a little surprised at my own answers to the questions, since I find myself drawn back to experimentation.
Directionality of gray matter flux.
It’s time for the bees in the ScienceBlogs hive to weigh in on another “Ask a ScienceBlogger” question. The question this time:
Do you think there is a brain drain going on (i.e. foreign scientists not coming to work and study in the U.S. like they used to, because of new immigration rules and the general unpopularity of the U.S.) If so, what are its implications? Is there anything we can do about it?
First, let me note that I’m in total agreement with Razib on the wording of the question:
A “drain” seems to imply a net outflow, and that doesn’t seem to be happening. But, as the parenthetical makes clear what meant is the reduction of the extent of the inflow.
The assumption, of course, is that the U.S. was counting on regular inflows of scientific talent from elsewhere. If the inflows fall off, who gets hurt and how?
What do scientists owe their (public) funders?
It’s time for this week’s installment of “Ask a ScienceBlogger”. The question of the day is:
Since they’re funded by taxpayer dollars (through the NIH, NSF, and so on), should scientists have to justify their research agendas to the public, rather than just grant-making bodies?
Although in earlier posts I’ve taken up the question of what the public might get out of (taxpayer funded) basic research, I haven’t yet dealt with the question as it’s being framed here. So let’s give it a shot.
Science and modeling.
It’s time for anothe installment of “Ask a ScienceBlogger”. This week’s question:
If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?
Here, because others have already snagged my standard answer to this question, and because I’ve already embraced unrealistically high expectations in the last 24 hours, I’m going to opt for something a little more challenging.
I want the public to understand something about how science uses models.
The future of humanity?
It’s “Ask a ScienceBlogger” time again, and the question of the week is whether the human race will be around in 100 years.
Folks, I don’t want to get all Clintonian on you (William Jefferson, not George), but I’m going to have to say, it depends what you mean by “human”.
The last century’s most loathsome invention.
ScienceBlogs is introducing a new feature called “Ask a ScienceBlogger” wherein the ScienceBloggers are all asked to respond to a question. (You’d never guess that from the name, would you?) The first question is:
If you could cause one invention from the last hundred years never to have been made at all, which would it be, and why?
I was thinking of going with cell phones, but I don’t really hate cell phones per se — I just hate people yapping on them while they’re driving, and I have seen other drivers create similarly dangerous situations by driving while applying mascara or driving while eating milk and cereal (with two hands, natch) from a ceramic bowl.
Really, the last century’s most loathsome invention ought to be horrible not merely in combination with some other activity (like driving). Its evil ought to be switched on no matter what the circumstances.
Which is why I’m going to go for embedded advertising.