Bert Brecht
… Ich, sagte er uns
Bin der Zweifler, ich zweifle, ob
Die Arbeit gelungen ist, die eure Tage verschlungen hat.
Ob, was ihr gesagt, auch schlechter gesagt, noch für einige Wert hätte. Continue reading Le Doubs
Category Archives: Philosophy
I am a scientist
Widely cheered in the blogosphere, Science magazine asked if we as scientists “are ready to be become a number”.
So, in general, I think there’s plenty of agreement that this sort of author ID system is past due. It can do everything from ease the process of manuscript submission to help researchers mine the existing volume of scientific data.
Sure, a unique DOI like ID Continue reading I am a scientist
Die Aerzte sind die Kranken
Life expectancy of physicians is lower in most countries – an argument why Karl Kraus may be right:
Was ist’s mit den Analysen? Kann da ein Zweifel bleiben? Die Methode ist bewiesen an jenen, die sie treiben. Daß man mit euch nur scherzte – welch törichter Gedanke! Im Gegenteil: die Ärzte sind Kranke.
While just recovering from an orthopedic procedure (see picture below) my impression is that the quality of medical care has very much approved during the years. The performance of a surgeon can be always immediately verified ;-)
Ill will, good will – free will?
Neuroscientists largely see the “free will as an illusion” – according to a recent essay in Nature. As the author of this interesting essay, I have a major problem to give up the idea of a “free will” (mainly for theodicy reasons that needs a free will of humans). Maybe our will is being influenced by many factors, it is not always a conscious decision and it can of course be altered by chemicals or diseases. Nevertheless the subjective, sudden and not anticipated impetus to do something – for example writing a blog about free will – is a symptom of free will even with all existing antinomies, yea, yea.
Science flies
Still in the spirit of the last few posts, here comes something exciting: sciflies.org aims at
We look forward to receiving your application for funding of initial proof-of-concept STEM research projects in the range of $5,000 to $12,000. To participate in this unique online grassroots-funded opportunity, please complete the questionnaire about your project, including details of its possible outcome/impact and profiles of the researchers or research team.
but, sorry, I have to warn you – the website does NOT save your project – it took me 20 minutes to figure that out.
In-tui-tion, In-tui-fiction and educated guess
During my recent lecture series on science and religion, I tried to make clear that science includes many beliefs in addition to hard facts while religions encompasses hard facts in addition to many beliefs.
So what about the fuzzy approach of intuition or educated guess in a prototypical biological experiment? If this is not just a dose or time variation from a previous experiment, it will always involve an extrapolation from somewhat related facts believing that the next experiment will be better than the last Continue reading In-tui-tion, In-tui-fiction and educated guess
Grant preparation costs may exceed grant given
FYI – a citation from “Accountability of Research”
Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the $40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of $30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100% of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage.
Will that be ever read by our governments? Nay, nay.
FGA
Frequently given answers – an article at Spiegel online has some of the answers you will need when being asked by research administratives or journalists for your work.
- Everything is possible, we will make progress, future research will show, adds significantly to our understanding – blabla attack
- Sorry, could you repeat your question (usually when asked to give short! summary) – the noway attack
- Can I send you some more documents – the flooding attack
- sorry for having to go now to the kindergarden – the privacy attack
- no idea – the unpolite attack
- silence – the ivory tower attack
Please, please, please don’t try on my phone.
Publishing on the recommendations of the head of the authors’ lab
Campbell writing at Edge about Maddox
Despite his original establishment of the peer-review process at Nature, Maddox always had strong reservations about its conservatism. These were perhaps best reflected in his view that the Watson and Crick paper on the structure of DNA wouldn’t pass muster under the current system. That paper was published as a result of recommendations by Lawrence Bragg Continue reading Publishing on the recommendations of the head of the authors’ lab
Paper, supplement or what?
A reviewer just wrote in response to one of our papers
I am first concerned over the structure of this manuscript, being divided into what will be a printed article and an on-line supplement. The description of what I consider to be essential methods are fragmented across these two segments, making the article disjoint and difficult to follow.
I fully agree as I have the same problem with many Nature and Science papers. By the online evolution papers are even more difficult to read. Curiously, even PLoS does this split although there is no printed paper at all.
What about abandoning the supplement practice in favour of a full and an abbreviated version of an article? So we would have an abstract for quick screening, a brief version for the printed journal and a long, fully referenced online version, yea, yea.
Addendum 1-7-09
NG continues with this artificial setup
Starting this month, readers will notice a new section called Online Methods in our Letters, Articles and Technical Reports. Material previously published as Methods and Supplementary Methods is now combined, fully edited and hyperlinked in the new format that will be present on the journal’s website and reprints, and can be downloaded in PDF format. Readers of the monthly print journal will now be directed to find the Methods online.
Is evil contagious?
Here comes an update of the Lucifer post as there are new books on the market. Some want to understand (like Arendt or Amery) while others (like Nietzsche and Sartre) would strongly oppose. I am somewhere betweenboth parties with an increasing tendency to explain human (and corporate) behavior by social group pressure while there is still room by inborn personal differences. Continue reading Is evil contagious?
Mirror neurons and science careers
Spiegel online has an excellent report about mirror neurons, empathy, social background and research (taking up a theme in the ZEIT 2003)
“In unserer Kultur sind am erfolgreichsten die”, sagt Gruen, “die am meisten von ihren Gefühlen, von der Fähigkeit zum Mitgefühl abgeschnitten sind.”
Shift happens
The current issue of the blue journal has more stuff on the vitamin D hypothesis (that has been shifted recently into the opposite direction). I agree with the editorial that
Intervention studies of vitamin D in the primary prevention and treatment of asthma raise a number of difficult scientific, ethical, and regulatory issues.
That may be true while the editorial includes the widely quoted myth that immunological effects occur only at high doses Continue reading Shift happens
Law not right
Epistemic disruption
A new First Monday paper examines our modern publishing system that has been driving the art of doing science into a primitive strategy of making impact points.
These disruptive forces are represented by changing technological, economic, distributional, geographic, interdisciplinary and social relations to knowledge. The article goes on to examine three specific breaking points. The first breaking point is in business models — the unsustainable costs and inefficiencies of traditional commercial publishing, the rise of open access and the challenge of developing sustainable publishing models. The second potential breaking point is the credibility of the peer review system: its accountability, its textual practices, the validity of its measures and its exclusionary network effects. The third breaking point is post–publication evaluation, centered primarily around citation or impact analysis. We argue that the prevailing system of impact analysis is deeply flawed.
yea, yea.