Ask a ScienceBlogger
razib | June 5, 2006Is it me, or did Janet explode by the old 300 world barrier? :) In any case, she brings up some good issues in her expansive post, and there is one thing I want to follow up in regards to the "brain drain." Who is it good for? Who is being drained?
This is a definitely "US centric" question. As an American, and a mildly patriotic one (or, more properly, US-egoistic one) I do look at this question through the "but is it good for America?" lens. Some people might ask, "but is it good for the world?" (that is, brain drain to the United States). That depends, but in general, I think yes…
pharyngula | June 5, 2006Or rather, don't. Here's this week's "ask a science blogger" question:
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?
Just read Mark. His answer is perfect.
The one thing we could do about it is kick a lot of Republicans out of Washington, and a lot of spineless Democrats, too. I don't see it happening.
(Oh, and do go say hello to Good Math, Bad Math, a member of…
jstemwedel | June 5, 2006It'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…
razib | June 2, 2006This weeks "Ask a Science Blogger" is:
"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?"
A "drain" seems to imply a net outflow, and that doesn't seem to be happening. But, as the paranthetical makes clear what meant is the reduction of the extent of the inflow. And yes, from all I can gather this is an issue in regards to student visas. My father had to pick…
jlynch | May 31, 2006Here I answered out overlord's question of the week, namely:
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?
This press release is therefore particularly apt:
Americans support free access to research
Poll results show overwhelming majority believes federally funded research should be publicly available
Washington, DC – May 31, 2006 – In an online survey of public attitudes conducted recently and released today by Harris Interactive®, 8 out of 10 (82%)…
apalazzo | May 31, 2006This week:
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?
Yes, yes, and yes.
But if the public does not agree? Then the blame rests on our scientific leaders. They should be out there in the spot light, educating the populace as to why this research is important. If the public does not want to fund this research, then the scientific establishment has failed in educating the public on the benefits and importance of basic research.
Part of the reason for…
jstemwedel | May 30, 2006It'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.
The underlying premise of the question is that the taxpayers, as the folks putting up the money (by…
evolgen | May 30, 2006Another week, another question from the Seeders. This week they ask us:
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?
My answer is below the fold.
It all depends on how one defines "the public". If you're asking me whether a school teacher, a construction worker, and a street vendor should be evaluating grant proposals and making funding decisions, I say no. It's not that the general public shouldn't have an influence on what research gets funded. They…
jlynch | May 29, 2006The mothership asks:
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?
I reply:
No. Every two years the NSF publishes its Sciencen & Engineering Indicators (2004 results are here), and every two years results reinforce the sad fact that public understanding of basic scientific principles & modes of thought falls very far short of what would be necessary for the public to be able to make informed decisions regarding research.
That being said, I think…
dmunger | May 29, 2006This week's "Ask a Scienceblogger question" 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?
NO!
The public isn't qualified to determine whether research is worthwhile. Why do you think researchers spend nine-plus years studying their specialties?
However...
I do think that research paid for by public money should be freely available to the public. That means that the journal publishing industry would have to be turned upside down. Today subscribing to a…
pharyngula | May 26, 2006The new "Ask a Science Blogger" question of the week 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?
NO. No way.
The public has no context in which to understand most research programs and aren't at all qualified to assess a grant proposal. This would be an invitation to the ignorant to proxmire good research. Can you imagine how the creationists would react to proposals in evolutionary biology? Or cat lovers to experimentation on animals?
On the…
razib | May 25, 2006This week's "Ask a Science Blogger" 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?
This question is loaded because how you interpret it really colors how you respond. I would say, no, the public doesn't really understand any specific science, just as physicists and biologists (or biochemists and population geneticists) don't really understand the particulars of other fields. Unfortunately, science is the domain of specialists, even across and within…
tlambert | May 23, 2006This weeks ask a Science blogger question is:
"If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?"
Random sampling. If I want to know how many crimes there were in the country last year, you get a more accurate answer if you take a random sample of people and ask them than if you add up all the crimes recorded by the police. Now the crime rate in your sample might not be exactly the same as the population, so you have introduced an error by sampling, but we can mathematically estimate the size of the error, while using police records introduces an…
jstemwedel | May 23, 2006It'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.
When scientists are trying to understand systems and phenomena, they turn to models. A model is a simplified version of…
evolgen | May 20, 2006This week, the SEED kings are asking us:
"If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?"
This is the first thing that comes to mind, and the scientific method is a good answer as well. I'm going to take a step back and say the public should understand what science is. That way they can tell the difference between this and science. From there, an understanding of evolution should come naturally.
Answers to last weeks question can be found here.
apalazzo | May 19, 2006This week's question:
If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?
That's tough. Perhaps the meaning of the word HUBRIS? But that's not really "scientific". I guess the easy answer would be evolution or global warming ... but to be honest I would be happier if Americans would show a little more curiosity with regards to the world we live in. This drive to find out more is what science is all about. I do believe that humans are inherently curious; however all too often that drive to learn and find out more is quashed at a very young age.
Why?…
pharyngula | May 19, 2006The new weekly question is:
"If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?"
I'm going to get all fundamentalist on this one. The one thing I wish everyone understood is…
Math.
I know, it's cheating, and it's a whole wide range of concepts rather than just one idea, but really—everything would be so much easier if they knew a little algebra, some basic probability theory, and a teeny-tiny bit of statistics. If only everyone understood probability, the opposition to evolution would decline rapidly (even the creationists who purport to be…
razib | May 18, 2006This weeks "Ask a Science Blogger" question is:
"If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?"
I assume others will answer this also, so I want to get this out first: my reply is that the public needs to know that the most important idea about "science" is that it is not about ideas, but it is a way of getting to those ideas through a specific way of thinking about the world and interacting with your fellow human. Science is the means, not the ends. And, that means is a synthesis of a set of heuristics mediated by a particular social context…
jlynch | May 18, 2006The mothership asks
If you could shake the public and make them understand one scientific idea, what would it be?
I answer ...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" (Charles Darwin, 1859)
A simple testable idea, but a powerful one, and one that can fruitfully both explain and predict phenomena. Irrespective of…
apalazzo | May 18, 2006While preparing for my talk, I guess I really missed the boat on this one.
So the question was:
Will the 'human' race be around in 100 years?
Well if it isn't around, it's only 'cuz it went somewhere else. (That would be a resounding yes.)
As for predicting the future. What shall I say?
- Major source of energy in 100 years? Fusion.
- Food will be mostly synthetic. With the excess energy from the fusion power plants we can easily produce organic compounds from CO2, N2 and H2O. Only the rich will be able to afford biologically derived food. The term organic will take on a new meaning.
- Will…