When I was growing up in New Jersey, hurricanes were “on the radar” for us, one of many possible (if infrequent) weather patterns during summer and fall. Later, in my first semester of college in Massachusetts, the morning of my first broadcast on the college radio station was made memorable by the landfall of Hurricane Gloria; I remember the name of the storm because I closed my show by playing the U2 song “Gloria” before signing off the air at 7 am. (The governor of the Massachusetts had just declared a state of emergency, although it wasn’t until some 30 minutes later that the trustees of the college decided it might be a good idea to cancel classes.) The Atlantic coast, and the inland area not too far from it, was a site of weather events that commanded your attention.
For nearly two decades now, I’ve lived in California, in an area described as having climate, not weather. When I started reading Chris Mooney’s new book Storm World, a part of me wondered whether the fact that hurricanes are no longer a part of my day to day life would make it harder for me to get into this book about the scientific efforts to understand and forecast hurricanes, and the political struggles around the science.
My worry was misplaced.
Category Archives: Scientist/layperson relations
Science in the courtroom: is ‘made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar’ false advertising?
The July 9 issue of Chemical & Engineering News (alas, behind a paywall — but worth checking to see if your library has an institutional subscription) has an interesting piece [1] on the recently-settled trial in which the makers of Equal (an artificial sweetener based on aspartame) sued the makers of Splenda (an artificial sweetener based on sucralose) over their claim in advertisements, “Splenda is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” The makers of Equal (a company called Merisant) asserted that this claim was deceptive.
Does writing off philosophy of science cost the scientists anything?
In my last post, I allowed as how the questions which occupy philosophers of science might be of limited interest or practical use to the working scientist.* At least one commenter was of the opinion that this is a good reason to dismantle the whole discipline:
[T]he question becomes: what are the philosophers good for? And if they don’t practice science, why should we care what they think?
And, I pretty much said in the post that scientists don’t need to care about what the philosophers of science think.
Then why should anyone else?
Scientists don’t need to care what historians, economists, politicians, psychologists, and so on think. Does this mean no one else should care?
If those fields of study had no implications for people taking part in the endeavors being studied, then no, I don’t think anyone should care about them. Not the people endeavoring, nor anyone else. The process of study wouldn’t lead to practical applications or even a better understanding of what was being studied – it would be completely worthless.
Let me take a quick pass at the “why care?” question.
Is medicine an art or a science?
In his book Generation Rx: How Prescription Drugs Are Altering American Lives, Minds, and Bodies (reviewed in the last post), Greg Critser includes a quotation from a physician (in a self-help book [1]) that I found really striking:
In your search … you are going to come across physicians who may initially be skeptical of any medication, technique, or new technology that has not already been proven to be successful with an indisputable double-blind study. This would not be the right physician for you. The very essence of Vitality Medicine has to do with flexibility, change, and a willingness to “experiment”.
A singularly bad way to respond to an ethical problem.
Planting incendiary devices, whether under vehicles or on doorsteps, even if you think the people you’re targeting are doing something very, very bad.
Discretion, deception, and communication between scientists and non-scientists.
A recycled post from the ancestor of this blog, before anyone read it.
In my “Ethics in Science” class, we regularly use case studies as a way to practice reasoning about ethics. There’s a case I’ve used a few times involving research with animals where the protagonist airs some of her concerns (specifically, about her PI telling her to change the approved protocol several weeks into the study) to a (non-scientist) roommate. In our class discussions of this case, the question arose as to whether the roommate should even be counted as an interested party in the situation. After all, she wasn’t involved in the research. And, since she wasn’t a scientist, she was in no position to assess whether the protocol was reasonable, whether the scientific question was an important one to answer, etc. So, you know … butt out.
Birth order, familial environment, and ‘intelligence’.
There’s another piece in the New York Times today about how birth order and family dynamics might play a role in “intelligence” (as measured by IQ — an imperfect measure at best). This is a follow up to their earlier story about research reported in Science and Intelligence that claims, based on research on male Norwegian conscripts, that “social rank” in a family accounts for a “small but significant” difference in IQ scores. (Zuska reminds us of the dangers of drawing too strong conclusions from limited data.)
Today’s Times piece seems to be a round-up of anecdata of the sort that readers would find engaging as they quaff their coffee. However, I think the anecdata suggest ways that the system under study is complicated.
Scientists and journalists.
I’m late to this round of the discussion about scientists and journalists (for which, as usually, Bora compiles a comprehensive list of links). The question that seems to have kicked off this round is why scientists are sometimes reluctant to agree to interviews, especially given how often they express their concern that the larger public seems uninterested in and uninformed about matters scientific.
As I have some interest in this topic, I’m going to add a few thoughts to the pile:
What do we know about nanomaterials?
Via a press release from Consumers Union, the July 2007 issue of Consumer Reports will include a call for more testing and regulation of nanotechnology:
[T]he risks of nanotechnology have been largely unexplored, and government and industry monitoring has been minimal. Moreover, consumers have been left in the dark, since manufacturers are not required to disclose the presence of nanomaterials in their labeling.
A few announcements.
- The Society of Women Engineers is hosting an event on June 3rd that may be of interest to girls (or their parents) in the Twin Cities area:
On June 3rd, hundreds of girls in St. Paul, Minnesota will attend an event hosted by SWE called, “Wow! That’s Engineering!” Through hands-on activities, girls will learn how solar power works, the wonders of deep sea diving, and even develop their own lip-gloss. Most importantly, they’ll realize that engineering is not just about working behind a computer; it’s about making a difference in the world.
This looks to be aimed at middle school and high school students. Spread the word.
- Tomorrow being the 1st of June already (how??), the 7th edition of the Scientiae carnival will appear at FemaleCSGradStudent. The theme for this round of stories of and from women in science, engineering, technology and math will be “How We Are Hungry,” so it should make for delectable reading.
- Finally, I’d like to call your attention to the Seed 2007 Science Writing Contest. The first prize is $2,500 and second prize is $1,000 for the best 1200-word essay on the following questions:
What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st century? How do we measure the scientific literacy of a society? How do we boost it? What is the value of this literacy? Who is responsible for fostering it?
The submission deadline is July 1, which is right around the corner. I can’t enter (what with my ties to Seed), but maybe you can*. If you were to win, I’d probably assert bragging rights!
Any other events, contests, carnivals, or whatnot we should know about? Lay them on me.
______
*Because of the laws on contests and sweepstakes, I’m sorry to report that only entries from the U.S. will be eligible to win. Boo!