Showing posts tagged Science

So Lamar Smith (R-TX) is introducing a bill requiring the NSF to start awarding grants purely on how “groundbreaking” the research will be. This is the same Smith that sponsored both SOPA and PCIP. The basis of this is to start looking at grants from an economic cost/benefit perspective.

The problem is this simply doesn’t work. The UK tried to do this with the Research Excellence Framework. The scientific community wrote some extremely good arguments against such a requirement, many of which are applicable here. To boil it down though: While research may not be financially viable, it has no bearing on its scientific value. Furthermore, to create a requirement where all research is “groundbreaking” shows how ignorant Smith truly is regarding how science works. Science takes many small steps towards a much larger goal. No one submits a research grant asking for money to “cure cancer.” No, first you research the pathways that cause cancers. Simultaneously, you recognize that while there are many different types of cancers, you ask if there may be an underlying commonality between them. If there is, that would greatly help with finding a cure. You search for different genes/proteins/irregularities involved. Then you look into what happens when you change those factors. Next comes finding a vector for a treatment. After that, there’s research into making your novel treatment both safe and affordable. Finally, if you’re very lucky, you get to start testing your treatment.

To assume science just makes this big jump from A -> B shows the underlying stupidity of the lawmakers involved. Such a bill is grossly counterproductive and will harm the scientific community.

Furthermore, someone like Lamar Smith should NOT be allowed to make laws regarding science or technology. Time and time again he has shown that he is completely inept and frankly stupid when it comes to these fields. Just like how SOPA was created on his extremely flawed understanding of the internet, this new bill is founded on his flawed understanding of scientific research. I cannot wait to see the day when Lamar Smith is voted out of office. He is one of the worst things to happen to scientific and technological legislation since Ted Stevens.

WHEN MY PI ACTUALLY DOES BENCHWORK

whatshouldwecallgradschool:

Challenge winner!

image

credit: krempe

(Reblogged from whatshouldwecallgradschool)

It’s Official: HPV Vaccine Doesn’t Turn Teens Into Monsters

ziyadmd:

New research today from the Department of Oh My God Why Does This Study Have To Exist — turns out, vaccinating teenage girls against HPV won’t cause them to go from innocent children drawing pictures of flowers with crayons to unstoppable sexzillas. Sort of like how wearing seatbelts doesn’t cause car accidents, or how wearing sunscreen doesn’t cause skin cancer. But will the study convince reticent parents to abandon their ass-backwards logic and actually acknowledge that their daughters’ sexuality will someday exist?

The study, published today in the journal Pediatrics, showed that there was no evidence that girls who are given the Gardasil vaccine against HPV respond by going out and hopping on the nearest guy. Instead, girls who receive the vaccine have similar sexual trajectories to their unvaccinated peers — except the girls who are vaccinated get the bonus of being protected from a deadly and preventable form of cancer when they do have sex.

Read More

I think it says a lot about the state of scientific literacy and ignorance in this country when a study like this is actually needed.

And to the last point:

Call me cynical, but I’m not convinced that the country that invented purity rings will be willing to throw Michele Bachmannesque anti-Gardasil hysteria aside en masse just because some fancy elites in Georgia used science to present some data. Unfortunately, in this case, ignoring the problem is a particularly ineffective method of solving it. And willful ignorance can’t cure cancer.

Nope, I don’t think it will either. Let’s look at vaccines, another “hot button” health topic. Wakefield’s paper has been discredited and many studies done finding no correlation between vaccinations or autism. Many of those “fomg look at this dangerous neurological disorder this person got!” on news channels years ago have also been found to be faked. Yet, there are still many people who believe that vaccinations will give you autism, will poison you, and are a conspiracy from “Big Pharma” to get you sick and ring you from money like an anti-establishment knee jerk reaction.

(Reblogged from ziyadmd)
dizzyticker: Every great scientific truth goes through three phases…

dizzyticker:

Every great scientific truth goes through three phases…

(Reblogged from dizzyticker)

The Blog..: Coffee May Ward Off Progression to Dementia

ziyadmd:

Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may be able to avoid developing dementia by drinking several cups of coffee a day, the results of a new study suggest.

The study showed that patients with MCI who have a plasma caffeine level of 1200 ng/mL avoided progression to dementia over the…

I HAVE HOPE

(Reblogged from ziyadmd)
fuckyeahmolecularbiology: 8 Myths About Scientists I stumbled across this in Thick Books and Thin Films by Adam Ruben. Pretty good. Myth #1: Scientists frequently make “breakthroughs.” Truth: Scientific discovery is agonizingly slow. The only time I’ve ever run naked through the streets yelling “Eureka!” is when I forgot to refill my prescription. Myth #2: Scientists work in isolation. Truth: Scientists are even prouder of setting up collaborations than they are of actual results. Most scientific talks end with a slide listing all collaborators like little badges of honor—and the less similar the collaborator’s field, the prouder the scientist. “Well, you know, I might have discovered a cure for tuberculosis,” a scientist will say, “but what I’m really excited about is this new collaboration with an Icelandic poet!” Myth #3: Scientists possess useful skills. Truth: Scientists possess useful laboratory skills. But you should never allow a physicist to wire your house. Myth #4: Scientists follow the scientific method as it was taught in high school: Observation, Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. Truth: In reality, the way scientists work is more like: Fiddle Around, Find Something Weird, Retest It, It Doesn’t Happen a Second Time, Get Distracted Trying to Make It Happen Again, Go to Chipotle, Recall the Original Purpose of Your Research, Start Over, Apply for Funding for a Better Instrument, Publish Some Interim Fluff, Learn That Someone Has Scooped You, Take Your Lab in a New Direction, Apply for Funding for the New Direction, Collaborate With an Icelandic Poet, Eat Chipotle With an Icelandic Poet, Co-Write Scientifically Accurate Ode to Walrus, Get Interested in Something Unrelated, Apply for Funding for Something Unrelated, Notice That 20 Years Have Passed. Myth #5: Experiments always yield data that teach or reveal something. Truth: Let’s say you’re doing an experiment with five mice. These particular mice will turn either yellow or blue. So you walk into the lab expecting to see five yellow mice, which will point to one explanation, or five blue mice, which will point to the other. Instead you would see one yellow mouse, one green mouse, one striped mouse, one plaid mouse (dead), and one mouse that has somehow sewn himself a little blue jacket, though he doesn’t wear it all the time. Myth #6: A personal tragedy can turn a scientist evil. Truth: Very few scientists are legitimately evil, though the number rises if you ask graduate students to characterize their advisers. Besides, it’s hard to be truly evil when you don’t have any practical skills. Myth #7: A scientist can be proficient in all branches of science. Truth: Exactly what discipline did the professor from Gilligan’s Island specialize in? Chemistry? Mechanical engineering? Coconut-based transistor radio construction? Any time a problem needed solving or a device needed building, the professor knew exactly how to do it. That guy could make anything. Except a boat. People who don’t understand science assume that scientists can master any subfield. That’s why we’re often asked for our opinions about scientific news items, and we can only reply, “Uh … sorry … I know I’m a molecular phylogeneticist, and this story was about molecular phylogenetics, but, well, I’m a different kind of molecular phylogeneticist.” Myth #8: Scientists are not sexy beasts. Truth: Scientists are indeed sexy beasts. Not only do our lab coats make us look dapper and charming, those same coats look even better strewn unceremoniously over a standing lamp while we make passionate love to you. #4: Too true. Even the Chipotle part <3 #5: My experience with cancer research #8: Damn straight ;D View high resolution

fuckyeahmolecularbiology:

8 Myths About Scientists

I stumbled across this in Thick Books and Thin Films by Adam Ruben. Pretty good.

Myth #1: Scientists frequently make “breakthroughs.”

Truth: Scientific discovery is agonizingly slow. The only time I’ve ever run naked through the streets yelling “Eureka!” is when I forgot to refill my prescription.

Myth #2: Scientists work in isolation.

Truth: Scientists are even prouder of setting up collaborations than they are of actual results. Most scientific talks end with a slide listing all collaborators like little badges of honor—and the less similar the collaborator’s field, the prouder the scientist. “Well, you know, I might have discovered a cure for tuberculosis,” a scientist will say, “but what I’m really excited about is this new collaboration with an Icelandic poet!”

Myth #3: Scientists possess useful skills.

Truth: Scientists possess useful laboratory skills. But you should never allow a physicist to wire your house.

Myth #4: Scientists follow the scientific method as it was taught in high school: Observation, Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion.

Truth: In reality, the way scientists work is more like: Fiddle Around, Find Something Weird, Retest It, It Doesn’t Happen a Second Time, Get Distracted Trying to Make It Happen Again, Go to Chipotle, Recall the Original Purpose of Your Research, Start Over, Apply for Funding for a Better Instrument, Publish Some Interim Fluff, Learn That Someone Has Scooped You, Take Your Lab in a New Direction, Apply for Funding for the New Direction, Collaborate With an Icelandic Poet, Eat Chipotle With an Icelandic Poet, Co-Write Scientifically Accurate Ode to Walrus, Get Interested in Something Unrelated, Apply for Funding for Something Unrelated, Notice That 20 Years Have Passed.

Myth #5: Experiments always yield data that teach or reveal something.

Truth: Let’s say you’re doing an experiment with five mice. These particular mice will turn either yellow or blue. So you walk into the lab expecting to see five yellow mice, which will point to one explanation, or five blue mice, which will point to the other. Instead you would see one yellow mouse, one green mouse, one striped mouse, one plaid mouse (dead), and one mouse that has somehow sewn himself a little blue jacket, though he doesn’t wear it all the time.

Myth #6: A personal tragedy can turn a scientist evil.

Truth: Very few scientists are legitimately evil, though the number rises if you ask graduate students to characterize their advisers. Besides, it’s hard to be truly evil when you don’t have any practical skills.

Myth #7: A scientist can be proficient in all branches of science.

Truth: Exactly what discipline did the professor from Gilligan’s Island specialize in? Chemistry? Mechanical engineering? Coconut-based transistor radio construction? Any time a problem needed solving or a device needed building, the professor knew exactly how to do it. That guy could make anything. Except a boat.

People who don’t understand science assume that scientists can master any subfield. That’s why we’re often asked for our opinions about scientific news items, and we can only reply, “Uh … sorry … I know I’m a molecular phylogeneticist, and this story was about molecular phylogenetics, but, well, I’m a different kind of molecular phylogeneticist.”

Myth #8: Scientists are not sexy beasts.

Truth: Scientists are indeed sexy beasts. Not only do our lab coats make us look dapper and charming, those same coats look even better strewn unceremoniously over a standing lamp while we make passionate love to you.

#4: Too true. Even the Chipotle part <3

#5: My experience with cancer research

#8: Damn straight ;D

(Source: approachingsignificance)

(Reblogged from rainwaterglass)

Seriously, federal funding is that important. Too many good labs and research projects have already been closed because of a lack of funding.

And to the people who say federal funding is a waste of tax dollars and that research should be supported by private companies and the free market: Bullshit. Such funding will only be driven by potential financial gain, and will only serve to hold back scientific progress. Don’t believe me? 18,000 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, said the same thing when a similar proposal was put forth in England.

If we as a country want to get back on top financially and academically, we need to start funding science research once more. To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, we need to see science as a necessity, not a luxury.

whiporwill:

Michelle Bachmann completely misses the point about CO2 emissions

If I facepalm any harder, I’d end up in the ER with a concussion and fractured skull.

But on the flip side, if this woman becomes the President one day, I look forward to using this argument to procure myself large amounts of Uranium.

(Reblogged from whipporwill-deactivated20111220)