What if every scientist (and every author) had a unique identification number?

The March 27, 2009 edition of Science explores the issue of personal identification numbers for scientists. Why? Because it's getting difficult to tell authors apart.

A universal numbering system could aid scientists trying to stay on top of the literature, help universities more readily track staff productivity, and enable funding agencies to better monitor the bang they're getting for their buck. An effective identification number might also make it easier to find information about an author's affiliations, collaborators, interests, or simply their current whereabouts.
This article indicates that published scientific papers are growing in quantity by 3% annually. Many authors are getting married or divorced and therefore changing their names. Some journals have varying style rules for noting first names and initials. Chinese authors often transliterate their names using opinion. "At least 20 different Chinese names, many of them common, are transliterated as "Wang Hong." And, of course, there are many scientists not of Chinese descent who have common names who don't want to be confused with others.

Continue ReadingWhat if every scientist (and every author) had a unique identification number?

Bacteria that talk to each other

Bonnie Bassler, who teaches molecular biology at Princeton, explains that bacteria don't just grow and divide, grow and divide. They speak to each other and with other species of bacteria through their chemicals. Bassler studies how bacteria use chemical signals to act as coordinated social units. In this delightful TED talk, Bassler discusses how her research group has studied the manner in which bacteria talk to each other. They make chemical "words" to enable group activities (such as triggering the timing for effective virulence attacks), sensing each other through their "quorum-sensing molecules." They can also sense the difference between themselves and other bacteria. Note that each of us is 99% bacterial. Our human body consists of about one trillion of "our own" cells, but ten trillion bacteria. We have about 30,000 of "our own" genes, but we carry about 100 times more bacterial DNA than human DNA. Bacteria live as "mutualists" with us. They help us digest our food, make our vitamins, protects us from other pathogens and help us survive in numerous other ways. Rather than using antibiotics to kill bacteria (which inevitably selects for more virulent strains), Bassler suggests that a better understanding of the communications schemes used by bacteria is allowing scientists to develop potent new medicines. This is an upbeat and informative talk regarding a most ancient form of life.

Continue ReadingBacteria that talk to each other

Rush Limbaugh IS a “Brainwashed Nazi.”

I’ve long subscribed to a rule which says that in political discourse whichever side calls the other side a “Nazi” first loses. The “Nazi rule” means that if you use it, you lose it. The “Nazi rule” holds true almost universally. I say “almost” because the one calling the other a “Nazi” first loses unless the first one using the term “Nazi” has it right. Recently, a caller on Rush Limbaugh’s show identified himself as a Republican voter, a veteran and opposed to torture and blamed Rush and his ilk for the recent electoral woes of the Republican Party. The caller, ”Charles from Chicago”, called out Limbaugh for his support of torture and blamed Limbaugh and others which supported torture for why the American people have left the GOP in droves. Rush begged to differ and Charles called Rush a “brainwashed Nazi.” Rush blamed people like Charles for the Obama win, and didn’t stop there but, called Charles “ignorant” among other things. First, “Brainwashed” is the intensive forced indoctrination of new beliefs to have them supplant old beliefs.

Continue ReadingRush Limbaugh IS a “Brainwashed Nazi.”

The Associated Press argues for a no-tolerance prohibition regarding its work product

The Associated Press is going to war against all websites and bloggers who use any part of its work, even small snippets, and it is publicly threatening a barrage of lawsuits. The AP's threats are even aimed at search engines.

If the AP is successful, and they clearly believe they will be, then the Internet will be changed as we know it. Linking (with snippets or not) to the content of others could become a permission based concept where one only links (and quotes) after they have received the appropriate approval.

This battle is starting to remind me of the plague of RIAA suits against music downloaders. It seems to me that the AP is going to need to live with the legitimate exception of "fair use." I realize that there are many abuses out there--I've seen blogs cutting and pasting entire news articles without any attempt at meaningful comment. On the other hand, I've seen many sites making legitimate comment on news articles that really do fall within the fair use exception. We'll be keeping an eye on this issue as it develops.

Continue ReadingThe Associated Press argues for a no-tolerance prohibition regarding its work product

Varnum vs Brien: the abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage

What follows is an abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage: KATHERINE VARNUM vs. TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder. Decision date: April 3, 2009. Who would have thought that the next state to recognize gay rights was going to be Iowa? Right out here in the heartland, neighbor of Missouri, where I live? Many these states in the Midwest have taken pains to amend their laws to forbid gay marriage. I am highly impressed by the Court’s ruling and opinion in the case of Varnum vs. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage (here’s the full text of the opinion). Here’s Des Moines Register’s brief description of the holding. It is an extraordinary opinion, extremely well-written and well-reasoned. It is extraordinary for both the legal analysis and for the emotional and social insights expressed by the court. This Court really gets what is at stake in this case, and did hide from any of the arguments asserted by the County. It’s amazing what happens when you carefully lay out all of the arguments for the world to see, and I do believe that the Court covered all of the arguments expressed by those who are opposed to gay marriage, even a big argument that the anti-gay-marriage forces didn’t have the courage to raise in the courts (religious objections). Because the Court took the time to carefully lay out all of those anti-gay-marriage arguments, we can all see how empty and paranoid they sound in the abstract. When we see the anti-gay-marriage arguments calmly on paper, without the angry faces and the megaphones, we see them as the specious arguments they truly are. Today, I took the time to read the entire 70-page opinion by the Iowa Supreme Court. It occurred to me, though, that many people (especially non-lawyers) might not want to work their way through the entire opinion. Therefore, I have created this “abridged” version, preserving the significant points, but redacting the citations and technical points. This actual words of the Court’s opinion are truly worth your while. Don’t settle for the simplified news media stories on this decision. This court’s opinion is professional and inspirational. In it’s thoroughness and directness regarding a tumultuous subject, it reminds me of the Pennsylvania decision of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., (full decision of the Dover decision here). In this legal decision, the Iowa Supreme Court takes the long view of history, as you can see at page 16, where the Court points out that it prohibited slavery more than 15 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of slave-owners in the Dred Scott case. This discussion is on the mark, given that any legislation curtailing the rights of gays is based on bigotry. The Court has a long analysis ready for those who would argue that homosexuality is a choice, starting around page 41 in the “immutability” section. The also Court slams the concept of "civil union" as a second rate version of marriage (for example, see page 9). What was at stake in this case was Iowa Code section 595.2(1), which ostensibly provides:

“[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”

The Court considered a mountain of evidence and reviewed dozens of amicus briefs (briefs from interested individuals and organizations who are not direct parties) before rendering its opinion.

Continue ReadingVarnum vs Brien: the abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage