A recent news item by Rex Dalton in Nature [1] caught my attention. From the title (“Fossil reptiles mired in controversy”) you might think that the aetosaurs were misbehaving. Rather, the issue at hand is whether senior scientists at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science were taking advantage of an in-house publishing organ (the NMMNHS Bulletin) to beat other paleontologists to the punch in announcing research findings — and whether they did so with knowledge of the other researchers’ efforts and findings.
From the article:
Category Archives: Current events
Tracking down a source.
Maybe you saw the story in the New York Times about new research that may show that ingesting too much caffeine while pregnant increases the chances of miscarriage. And, if you’re like me, one of the first things you did was try to track down the actual research paper discussed in the newspaper article.
If so, I hope you’ve had better luck than I have.
Is a fake university a step up or down from a diploma mill?
Saying you’ve seen everything is just asking the universe to do you one better. So I won’t. Still, this story nearly required grubbing around the floor on my hands and knees to find the location to which my jaw had dropped:
Bogus university scam uncovered
Investigation
By Nigel Morris
BBC London Investigations Producer
An international education scam that targets foreign students who come to study in the capital has been exposed by a BBC London investigation.
The bogus Irish International University (IIU), which offers sub-standard and worthless degrees, has been allowed to flourish in the UK – virtually unchecked by the government – for the last seven years.
Let me pause here to note that these are not “sub-standard and worthless degrees” by the lights of your parents (who warned you not to major in philosophy or English or whatever discipline it was they deemed suitably flaky or disreputable) — they are actual fake degrees.
In defense of ‘flip-floppers’: attention to reality matters.
In response to one of my science-related questions for the presidential candidates, Drugmonkey points out that the question might not work the way I want it to because of the chasm between science and politics:
“8. If sound scientific research were to demonstrate that one of your policy initiatives couldn’t work (or couldn’t work without tremendous cost in terms of money, health risk, negative environmental impact, etc.), what would you do?”
This almost, but not quite, hits the fundamental cultural problem between the two societies, science and politics. Your question should be reframed as “what if research were to demonstrate your policy hadn’t worked in the first three years, then what would you do?”. The problem is that political behavior is unfalsifiable. “My policy didn’t work? Well, we just didn’t do it enough. Let’s do it more.” Tax cuts or welfare, same deal. No testing, falsifying and moving on to something else because the data told us the policy was flawed. Even the slightest sign of this and someone is a “flip flopper”.
I think Drugmonkey’s diagnosis of the politician’s MO is probably right. And, it occurs to me that this is the thing I hate most about politics-as usual. It’s what makes me want to hold the candidates down and ask them for their stand on reality.
Questions for the presidential candidates: where do you stand on science?
Science matters. It’s hard to make good decisions in today’s world that aren’t somehow informed by sound science — especially if you’re the head of state of a country like the USA.
This means that it’s important to know where the people lined up to get the job of President of the United States stand on science. Those of us deciding how to vote could use this information, and even you folks who are subject to US foreign policy have a significant interest in knowing what you’ll be in for.
There ought to be a presidential debate focused on science and technology before the 2008 election. It’s not just the bloggers who think so, either. A bunch of serious scientists support the idea, too.
Here are some big things I want to know about where presidential candidates stand on science — the kinds of questions a science and technology debate might put on the table:
Climate change driven movie pitch.
My better half and I have been catching up on movies (thanks to Netflix and our DVD player). Last week we watched 28 Days Later …. Last night we watched 28 Weeks Later. It is my better half’s view that the rage virus has burned itself out, so to speak, and that there won’t be another movie in the franchise.
But the drive to make sequels of sequels in inexorable, and I believe a recent news item from the UK holds the key to the next movie in the franchise.
Questions I have for Paul Davies after reading his NYT op-ed.
This New York Times op-ed, to be precise. My questions for Paul Davies can be boiled down to these two:
- What kinds of explanations, precisely, are you asking science to deliver to you?
- Just why do you think it is the job of science to provide such explanations?
What people know about animal care at my university.
Likely, the throbbing mass of humanity at my university knows at least a little more than it did before last week, owing to an article in the student newspaper about the institutional animal care and use committee. (It was a front-page article, so the chances that it attracted eyeballs was reasonably good.)
A few things that jumped out at me:
Quick thoughts on the Writers’ Guild of America strike.
If you’re a TV watcher in the U.S., you’re probably already aware that the Writers’ Guild of America is on strike, owing largely to inability to reach agreement with the studios about residuals from DVDs and from internet distribution of TV shows and movies.
While I am a member of a faculty union that was on the verge of a strike last spring, I am not now nor have I ever been a writer for the large or small screen. I don’t have a lot to say about the details of the contract negotiation in this particular case (Lindsay does). But, as Chris points out, as a blogger — indeed, a blogger who has “gone pro” — what I’m doing is connected in some interesting ways to what the WGA members are doing. Thus, I’ll give you my two cents as of this moment:
How not to make the case for animal rights.
People with concerns about the use of animals in biomedical research should also be concerned about the actions of the Animal Liberation Front and other “animal rights” groups — at least if they want other people to take their concerns seriously.
It seems that ALF views actions like the attack of the home of UCLA scientist Edythe London last week as somehow advancing its cause. This in itself makes it pretty clear to me that they have set aside reasoned discourse as a tool and gone straight to violence and intimidation.