Category: Follies of the Human Condition

The state of R01 funding and how we got here

A snippet from Paula Stephan’s How Economics Shapes Sciencep. 141-143, Harvard University Press, 2012:

“The NIH Doubling: A Cautionary Tale”

It is tempting to assume that money is the answer to many of the problems that plague peer review and, more generally, the university research enterprise…

But anyone who thinks so should be careful what they wish for. The doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2002 ushered in a host of problems…

Faculty were spending more time submitting and reviewing grants. Although early in this century 60 percent of all funded R01 proposals were awarded the first time they were submitted, by the end of the decade only 30 percent were awarded the first time… [T]here is little evidence that the increase translated into permanent jobs for new PhDs, as had been the case in the 1950’s and 1960’s when government support for research expanded. Continue reading “The state of R01 funding and how we got here”

Mathematically challenged biology

I can’t decide whether this is sad or hilarious:

PNAS July 17, 2012 vol. 109 no. 29 11735-11739

Heavy use of equations impedes communication among biologists
Tim W. Fawcett1 and Andrew D. Higginson

Most research in biology is empirical, yet empirical studies rely fundamentally on theoretical work for generating testable predictions and interpreting observations. Despite this interdependence, many empirical studies build largely on other empirical studies with little direct reference to relevant theory, suggesting a failure of communication that may hinder scientific progress. To investigate the extent of this problem, we analyzed how the use of mathematical equations affects the scientific impact of studies in ecology and evolution. The density of equations in an article has a significant negative impact on citation rates, with papers receiving 28% fewer citations overall for each additional equation per page in the main text. Long, equation-dense papers tend to be more frequently cited by other theoretical papers, but this increase is outweighed by a sharp drop in citations from nontheoretical papers (35% fewer citations for each additional equation per page in the main text). In contrast, equations presented in an accompanying appendix do not lessen a paper’s impact. Our analysis suggests possible strategies for enhancing the presentation of mathematical models to facilitate progress in disciplines that rely on the tight integration of theoretical and empirical work.

Classic Adventures in Deep Space

My local library system, to make room for never-ceasing influx of new sci-fi, frequently discards rarely read gems which I pick up for a quarter. I’ve managed to snag a half-dozen books from David Pringle’s famous mid-80’s list of the 100 best science fiction novels, and a volume of first-rate C.L. Moore stories, among others. Here’s another gem that might be easy to miss: Deep Space, a collection of mostly 1950’s stories about, you guessed it, deep space. Despite the lackluster cover, this collection has some first-rate stories, including early ones by Harlan Ellison and Gordon Dickson, and a psychedelic planet story from Jack Vance that is even better than the Dying Earth stories. Continue reading “Classic Adventures in Deep Space”

Sunday Poem

This week’s poem is Mary Oliver’s “Imagine”, which places imagination and wonder at the heart of our efforts to understand the world. At its best, science capitalizes on imagination and wonder, and becomes a fulfilling pursuit whether you are a professional or not. In the absence of those essential, fundamental traits, science as a job becomes a stifling activity that does not repay the opportunity costs of its pursuit.

I don't care for adjectives, yet the world 
   fills me with them.
And even beyond what I see, I imagine more. Continue reading "Sunday Poem"

It would be nice if you could legislate away reality…

…but that usually doesn’t end well. Scott Huler at Plugged In reports on the futile attempts of North Carolina legislators and members of a developer’s lobbying group to legislate away a possibly catastrophic sea level rise by making non-linear scientific models illegal:

That is, the meter or so of sea level rise predicted for the NC Coastal Resources Commission by a state-appointed board of scientists is extremely inconvenient for counties along the coast. So the NC-20 types have decided that we can escape sea level rise – in North Carolina, anyhow – by making it against the law. Or making MEASURING it against the law, anyhow. Continue reading “It would be nice if you could legislate away reality…”