Americans don’t know their scientists.

This article from Boston.com raises a critical point. Most Americans know the Harry Potter stories. They know many professional athletes, movies stars and musicians. But they know very little about the people who do science or how science is done. For instance, "Only 52 percent of Americans in their survey knew why stem cells differ from other kinds of cells; just 46 percent knew that atoms are larger than electrons." What is the cure?

Americans should be far more engaged with scientists and what they’re doing. They should know the names of leading researchers (most Americans do not) and the nation’s top scientific agencies (again, most Americans do not). To the extent possible they should know scientists personally, both so they can get a sense of the nature of scientific reasoning and so they feel they are being heard, not just lectured to. Perhaps this way, when it comes to the toughest and most politicized questions, they will better recognize that scientists will not rally around a firm conclusion unless it really is precisely that.

Continue ReadingAmericans don’t know their scientists.

Republican Scientists are rare

PEW has issued new research findings showing that relatively few scientists are political conservatives. Only 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republicans:

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.

Continue ReadingRepublican Scientists are rare

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?

George Will’s irresponsible article denying climate change and the Washington Post’s irresponsible fact-checking

George Will has written an irresponsible article denying climate change (AKA global warming). Here’s the basic problem with George Will’s writing, as stated succinctly by The Wonk Room:

In “Dark Green Doomsayers,” Will attacked Secretary of Energy Steven Chu for discussing a worst-case scenario of California drought caused by the decimation of Sierra snowpack, falsely claiming Chu predicted this will come to pass “no later than 10 years away.” Will also incorrectly claimed that “global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979″ — based on a 45-day-old blog post by Daily Tech’s Michael Asher, one of Marc Morano’s climate denial jokers.

Will’s article is riddled with falsehoods. The radically untrue nature of Will’s article is beyond dispute. Confronted with Will’s cauldron of conservative climate denial propaganda, the Washington Post was faced with a stark choice. It could either A) confess that it failed to do any competent fact-checking or B) compound Will’s lies with its own by claiming that it did real fact-checking. It chose “B.”

Continue ReadingGeorge Will’s irresponsible article denying climate change and the Washington Post’s irresponsible fact-checking

Dozens of top scientists support Obama for President.

Obama understands the importance of science as an important part of grappling with the huge problems Americans are facing.   Hence, this important vote of confidence by numerous nobel laureates. During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining…

Continue ReadingDozens of top scientists support Obama for President.