The traffic in Doha is horrendous. Ask anyone who lives here. It might take you 45 minutes to commute a mere 15 km. The summers are brutal – the temperature bounces around the 50⁰C mark and the humidity threatens to drown you on the doorstep.
This morning I sat down with my 14 year old son and asked him what area of science caught his interest especially. He answered “the future of space exploration”. We carried out a search on the Web of Science for “future + space + exploration”, and the fifth article returned was “Comparing future options for human space flight” by Sherwood Brent (Acta Astronautica 69346-353, 2011). We downloaded the article and he read it. When asked, he said the paper was understandable and interesting – he was glad that he’d read it, and wanted to know where he could read more stuff like this.
There’s a myth that only people who have ready access to peer review papers have any real need or desire to read them, and it’s a pernicious myth.
Following on from my post a couple of days ago on teens and social media, I wanted to post this highly eloquent response to some of Susan Greenfield’s remarks about social media and society. It’s from Francisco of the YouTube collab channel Fellowship of the Ning, and directly addresses the 2009 Guardian article “Facebook and Bebo risk ‘infantilising’ the human mind”, in which Greenfield expresses her concerns.
The video adds to the series of videos I posted on August 24 from other members of this on-line group.
Francisco responds to seven points made by Susan Greenfield in the article:
“If you understand the true nature of stories, you know that books are nothing but one of the many ways of telling them”
“Social media … humanizes us”
“Imagine if man’s mind could change because of social media. Imagine if it could broaden our horizons, and change the parameters we move in. Imagine if it could lead to progress. I know – that’s a scary thought!”
Is social media messing up today’s teens? Adults, it seems, love to pontificate on the benefits and ills of emerging internet-based communication platforms on young people. But how often do they bother to listen to the teenagers they claim to be concerned about?
Dan Sarewitz has a rather provocative commentary in Nature this morning, where he suggests that proposals to increase basic research may be good politics, but questionable policy.
The headline alone is probably enough to get some science-advocates’ blood boiling, whether they go on to read the piece or not: “Double trouble? To throw cash at science is a mistake” does nothing if not throw down the gauntlet to an already sensitive science community.
Beyond the provoking banner, Dan raises serious if uncomfortable issues – there must come a point where investment in science is balanced within a much broader social context, and the consequences of not allocating funds elsewhere are weighed against the benefits of supporting research – especially blue skies research. But reading the piece reminded me of an associated debate which seems to get rather less air time – the personal responsibility that comes with government research funding.
It’s an inescapable fact that, for every dollar, pound or Euro that governments invest in research, someone, somewhere is getting less money to spend on what they think is important. In some cases, re-allocations may have minor social consequences. In others, reduced spending elsewhere in favor of science may be profound impacts on the lives of individuals – especially those at the margins of society. Continue reading Basic research and personal responsibility→
A well known and sometimes off-beat technology commentator explores new breakthroughs on a popular TV science and tech show.
Spiders’ silk is incredibly strong, but in short supply (ever tried harvesting silk from a spider?).
So why not take the gene responsible for making spider silk, and splice it into a goat?
The result: goats that produce milk laced with spider silk-protein.
All you have to do then is extract the protein from the milk and spin it into silk and hey presto – a plentiful supply of a super-strong, incredibly versatile, “natural” material.
How should the story end?
There’s a serious point to this question, which I’ll come back to later. For now though, I’m intrigued as to how people think the story should conclude – remembering this is a TV show for a broad audience.
The spider/goat stuff is real btw – check out this snippet from the US National Science Foundation.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plans to form a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and synthetic biology. The announcement was make by Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at OSTP, at a government-organized workshop on Risk Management Methods and Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology held last week. The AAAS policy alert (not available on the web yetavailable here) noted that the group is intended to provide research funding agencies and regulatory agencies an opportunity to discuss emerging policy issues. Continue reading White House plans a new government policy coordination group on emerging technologies→
A year or so ago, there was a challenge circling round the blogging community to write on a subject you know nothing about. It’s a little late, but I think this blog quite possibly qualifies as my contribution.
Earlier this year I rather foolishly agreed to rise to a challenge set me on the 2020 Science Facebook page by Jasmine Andrews: Write a blog about science and sexuality.
Now I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that I know nothing about sex. But lets be honest here: When it comes to the finer points of sex and sexuality, I’m male, I’ve lived a sheltered life, and I’m a scientist! Actually, I don’t think the first and last points count, but you get the idea.