Wikipedia describes the last year’ financial crisis as “an economic bubble (sometimes referred to as a speculative bubble, a market bubble, a price bubble, a financial bubble, or a speculative mania) as a “trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values”. A new and excellent Embo Report (thanks to WK) arrives at the same description of current science, a

dangerous cocktail of short-term gains prevailing over long-term interests, herding, increasing pressure to deliver results, the absence of effective oversight, and blind trust that the system would regulate itself (Show me more…)

From Slashdot today:

Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys. As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work. Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results. (Show me more…)

From a recent email that I received

In theory, science research laboratories are always peaceful places, where pure knowledge is being pursued. However, in recent years some tragic episodes of workplace violence have disturbed this tranquility. (Show me more…)

or should I write “there is no absolute barrier between good and evil”?

One has to realize that there’s no absolute barrier between good and evil. There’s no absolute polarization between the wonderfully good and the horribly evil, and that people who see themselves as trying to do good can inadvertently enter into evil.

I had the opportunity yesterday to watch a documentation about the Lifton interviews of the Nazi doctors by Wolfgang Richter “Wenn Ärzte töten” (SZ , trailer). Richter was accompanied by Christiane Clemm who did all the translations more than 30 years ago. There were moving moments both during the calm narration of the documentation but also afterwards when we could ask Richter and Clemm for more details. (Show me more…)

At least in medicine but also in many other fields, formal proof of a scientific hypothesis is difficult if not impossible. Reading again Greaves’ cancer book, I discover even more insights there. Talking about the hormonal stress leading to breast cancer he makes the point that

there is no ’cause’ in the straightforward, singular, or usually perceived meaning of the word; no tubercle bacillus equivalent. Neither is a mutant gene the common cause. Chronic hormonal stimulation driving persistent epithelial stem cell division seems to be a major factor (cycles driving cycles) and this reflects in large measure our social divorce from evolutionary adaptations for reproduction … Superimpose some degree of inherited predisposition and chance itself on this prescription and a very plausible causal network imbued with evolutionary principles becomes evident.

This is a very different view to the current sequencing headlines like “Lung cancer and melanoma laid bare“.

Youth is not a period of life. It’s a state of the spirit, it’s the product of a will. A quality of the imagination and an emotional intensity, it’s the victory of courage over shyness, of adventure over comfort. One doesn’t grow older for having lived a number of years. One gets older for having deserted an ideal. (Show me more…)