Category Archives: Mailbag

Is all animal research inhumane? (More from the vault)

Posted on by

This post, originally posted 8 January 2006 on the old site, responds to an email I got after the last post. Given John’s recent post on Pro-Test, the questions are still timely.
* * * * *
I received an email from a reader in response to my last post on PETA’s exposing of problems with the treatment of research animals at UNC. The reader pointed me to the website of an organization concerned with the treatment of lab animals in the Research Triangle, www.serat-nc.org. And, she wrote the following:

Some people may think that PETA is extreme. However, the true “extreme” is what happens to animals in labs. If the public knew, most would be outraged. But, of course our government hides such things very well. Those researchers who abuse animals in labs (which is ALL researchers, by my definition), cannot do an about turn and go home and not abuse animals or humans at their homes. Animal researchers are abusers, and there is enough research on people who abuse to know that abuse does not occur in isolation. The entire industry must change.

Continue reading→

Those deadly chemistry sets.

Posted on by

Months ago, I wrote about the Department of Homeland Security’s concerns about chemistry sets. (You know, for kids.) Well, it seems the push to make the world child-safe (or perhaps not legally actionable?) continues.
Reader Donn Young points me to this story from Wired about government crackdowns on companies catering to garage chemistry enthusiasts. Donn also shares a story of his own:

Growing up, two friends and I had a chemistry ‘club’ centered around our chemistry sets and ‘labs’ in our basements. My friend’s mother, who was a chemist at Battelle Memorial Institute, would give us short monthly talks about famous chemists, have us do an experiment based on some important principle, and as the grand finale [which kept the interest of 11-year olds] gave a demo of some greatly exothermic reaction – the loud noises, colored fire, billowing smoke, and smell were impressive – in a time of no smoke detectors! It resulted in two of us getting degrees in chemistry [her own son became an investment banker – go figure]. We all held her in awe because she could get us chemicals that were really strong oxidizers, powerful acids, or toxic [and we all survived because she taught us lab safety as well – goggles, gloves & a plexiglas shield saved my eyesight when my hydrogen generator blew up – I was curious to see what color a pure hydrogen flame would burn].
The current movement to squelch a kid’s curiosity in a basement lab with a chemistry set doesn’t seem to bode well for the future of the field

Given my present position as ScienceBlogs resident chemist, I ought to weigh in on this.

Continue reading→

Editorial cartoons that will ignite your Bunsen burners (not overturned cars).

Posted on by

There’s a lot going on in our world that might make you want to gnash your teeth. Some of that stuff, which you’ve heard about here before, involves the government trying to exert an influence over science — either in what research gets supported (and who makes that decision) or in how the results of research are reported (or not) — that maybe the government ought not to exert.
Sometimes detailed analyses of these skirmishes are what is called for. Other times, satire is the best delivery method for a stinging condemnation. Cartoonists, the Union of Concerned Scientists is tagging you in.

Continue reading→

Uninvited nest update.

Posted on by

Yesterday I asked for advice about how to deal with a nest of eggs that presents itself in an inopportune place (a tree slated to meet a gruesome end in a whisper-chipper) at an inopportune time (mere days ahead of when we finally launch our backyard overhaul). The consensus among commenters who professed knowledge of or experience with birds in the wild seems to be that there is no promising way to relocate the nest without scaring the mama bird away and leaving the eggs cold and orphaned. Given that the whole point of moving the nest would be not to throw out the baby birds with the despised tree, this outcome would be sub-optimal.

Continue reading→

Being Socratic is nothing without the hemlock?

Posted on by

Do people routinely assert that the tools and activites of your field are utterly worthless in real life? Do they go so far as to say that what you’re doing is worse than nothing, because it distracts from the real tasks that need tackling?
Or is it mostly just philosophers who get this kind of reaction?
While there are some issues on which some philosophers focus that don’t have what I’d describe as wide appeal (problem of universals, anyone?), I’d like to think at least some of what philosophy has to offer is portable to all manner of questions and thus could be useful in real life. But perhaps I’m mistaken. So, let’s kick off the debate:

Continue reading→

What can you do with a science degree besides research?

Posted on by

A reader asks me to dig up a post he thinks I might have written about various careers, other than research careers, that one might pursue with a science degree. As far as I know, I haven’t written a post on this subject (although maybe he has a time machine and is remembering it from the future …).
It’s a very good question, though! Especially since one of my slogans is “Your major doesn’t need to be your life path,” I believe that science majors can do many, many things in the world of work (just like philosophy majors, only with fewer incredulous looks from bystanders).
But, it’s been a long time since a science major who wasn’t looking to become a philosopher has asked me for career advice. I’m a little rusty at this particular question.

Continue reading→

There’s a word for people like you

Posted on by

It has come to my attention that there is an adjectival form of my surname in use. However, none of the extant meanings of it seem applicable to me and the stuff I do. So, dear readers, I’m asking for your help.
But first, here’s the usage to date:
Stemwedelian; alternate spelling: Stemewedellian (which rhymes with sesquipedalian)
adj.
1. (in computer science; first usage c. 2000) practically successful despite disregard of formal considerations (e.g., network architectural trickery that seems wrong at the time of implementation but which makes things work within budget constraints)
2. (in contract law; first usage 2006) relying on distinctions too fine to support, but in a way which illuminates flaws in the drafting of a contract; more generally, characterized by the creation of havoc using a clever litigation strategy.
We need to work out the meaning of Stemwedelian properly applied to the realm of the philosophy and ethics of science. Some possibilities:

Continue reading→

More on career makeovers and their risks

Posted on by

A couple of follow-up items to that last “how did I get here” post:

Changing sides/forsaking science

Posted on by

Last week, I blogged about my own path from chemist to philosopher. Not only did this prompt an interesting post from John Lynch about his trajectory, but it prompted the following comment:

Dear Dr. Free-Ride. Your mechanistic steps to changing from hard science to philosophy of it were more what I would expect from a hard technically-oriented methodical bench scientist rather than a philosopher of science.
Philosophically speaking (or is this bordering on sociology), what motivated you to forsake the rigor, the demands, the difficulties, the frustrations, and the infrequent joy of the eureka as a player of the game to become an onlooker from the security of stadium seats or the armchair. What conflicts did you face, if any, and with what rationalizations/motivations did you manage them?
Still playing the game and, yes, still yours truly a—
Polly Anna

It is true, my earlier post focused almost entirely on the external part of my journey — the particular tasks involved in my transformation — rather than on the internal process of deciding to throw myself in a different direction. At Polly Anna’s request, let’s delve deeper.

Continue reading→

Changing career paths

Posted on by

Last week, while I was occupied with Tangled Bank, a reader left me this comment:

I was just wondering, how did you change from chemistry to philosophy? What little career steps were involved — if you don’t mind my asking.
– From an academic considering a career change.

Below the fold, my secret protocol for changing from chemistry to philosophy …

Continue reading→