Tag: Science Communication

University scientist job description

Some more musings on the odd notion that a university PR officer would act as a gatekeeper between journalists and scientists:

Academic scientists are typically (but not always) university employees, however they are generally hired as more independent actors than a scientist at a corporation or government agency (as demonstrated by the fact that most research universities have a tenure system).

In addition to teaching and various administrative duties, the job description of a university scientist is primarily the following:

1) Conceive of a research plan

2) Get that research funded

3) Carry out the research

4) Communicate the research

These tasks are generally distributed among the PI (professor), graduate students, and postdocs, with the key to the balance of power among these people being that the PI is generally the only one eligible to apply for lab-wide funding, and the PI has hiring/firing/graduation power. These scientists are carrying out the four primary tasks on their own, not under the supervision or control of some university manager or officer.

University scientists are not like corporate scientists or government scientists. There is no reason why scientists and journalists cannot communicate directly with each other.

Non-coding DNA function… surprising?

The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great surprise uncovered by genome sequencing projects, both in large media outlets and in scientific publications that should have better quality control in place.

Eric Lander, writing a Human Genome Project 10th anniversary retrospective in Nature, explains the real surprise about non-coding DNA that was revealed by big omics projects.

Despite ravings about the newly identified mysteries of the ‘dark genome’, it remains a fact that functional, non-protein-coding DNA has been known for more than half a century, well before such interesting things as micro RNAs, ribozymes, and long ncRNA were discovered. The diversity of functional (and dubiously functional) RNAs has been genuinely interesting, but, in my humble opinion, not nearly as surprising as the discovery made about the relatively small slice of the human genome that shows strong evolutionary conservation (and is therefore most likely to be functional). Lander writes:
Continue reading “Non-coding DNA function… surprising?”

I’ll Trade You an Evolutionary Theory for Your Creationism

Mixed emotions over PZ Myers’ condescending response to a 12-year-old child‘s email supporting creationism[1], reminded of a very interesting conversation I had with my father at a dinner this holiday season. Lemons and lemonade, people.

During our conversational meanderings, we touched on the debate between creationism[2] and evolution. We did not directly discuss the political/social issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in schools[3].  Rather, we discussed the difficulty of convincing individuals that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. Continue reading “I’ll Trade You an Evolutionary Theory for Your Creationism”

Scientific Method in Decline?

Jonah Leher in The New Yorker about the slipperiness of the scientific method:

“The Truth Wears Off: Is There Something Wrong With The Scientific Method?”

The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.

But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.

The piece, dressed up in a bit of mysticism, is essentially a description of some well known (but too rarely acknowledged) biases in science: Unconscious selection of favorable data; the tendency to publish only positive results, and the effects of randomness. Continue reading “Scientific Method in Decline?”

Airport Body Scanners: Not Much Risk, Even Less Benefit?

Are the new backscatter x-ray airport body scanners going to give you skin cancer? Probably not. And when I say probably, I mean really really really unlikely. The risk posed by these scanners is well within the “if you are worried about this, best not ever leave your house or turn on the light switch” type parameters we consider “safe” for all our other modern “conveniences”. For an excellent discussion of their safety, go read Mike’s post “Airport Body Scanners Won’t Give You Cancer” now. I’ll wait for you to come back. . .

. . .ok, welcome back. That was pretty solid, eh? Mike does good work, no?

What is curious about this debate is its absolutist nature.

The scanners will give you cancer.
– or-
The scanners are the only way to stop the terrorists.

In the rest of our lives, we regularly balance probabilistic risks with probabilistic benefits all the time, and reject absolutist thinking as childish. Continue reading “Airport Body Scanners: Not Much Risk, Even Less Benefit?”