Category Archives: Uncategorized

Better Science Policy in Canada

Government funded science is necessary. The government is the only entity with the resources to keep track of the long-term and widespread trends in population growth, pollution, climate change, poverty and so on. The government must therefore take some of our tax money and pay scientists to do research on issues that might lead to what is good for its citizens, whether they approve of it or not. As our Prime Minister says, “vital statistics are critical. You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Any ruling political party will face the question of how best to fund and engage with science. While all parties agree that science is valuable, they manage it differently because they have to make different trade-offs based on their values and ideologies.

Suppose science values truth, society values well-being, government values security and industry values wealth. The way these four elements interact determine how their values are balanced. If you value wealth, you might focus on promoting science that is profitable. If you value well-being, you might focus on medicine and technology. This is further complicated by the changing constraints on the resources of time, money, materials and humans.

Many people have argued that the current Conservative government has traded away too much science in the interest of wealth and other party interests. Followers of this blog will already know what I’m talking about. Here are some of the accusations.

Climate scientists are not allowed to speak about climate change, to the media or the public. The reason given was that meteorologists are not qualified to speak about climate change. With no one speaking about climate change, media coverage has gone down 80%. (See also herehere and here). This supposedly profits Harper because with no one to stand in his way, he won’t have to reduce emissions (and profit) in factories, or worry too much about the damage caused by the Alberta oil sands. Some evidence of this attitude is the fact that the conservative government has pulled us out of the Kyoto protocol. We are a top-ten polluting country worldwide, and we have turned our backs on one of the most important international agreements ever made to fight global climate change.

Scientists at the Canadian Institute of Health Research must now find matching funds from industrial sources to be eligible for grants. This makes it much harder to do basic research. And it makes things especially difficult for those who study Aboriginal health issues, as there aren’t many organizations willing to invest in that research.

A report from the Broadbent institute shows that the Canadian Revenue Agency appears to be targeting left-leaning charitable organizations that focus on environmental issues, while right-leaning charities escape.

Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment has found that Canada is delaying any monitoring of oil sands pollution, as well as creating misleading information in previous reports. Also the federal committee responsible for Canada’s climate has not met in three years.

Seven of the nine most important libraries belonging to the departments of oceans and fisheries were shut down to save money by digitizing the data. But only a tiny fraction was actually digitized. The rest of the books were thrown in dumpsters, burned or sent to landfills.

Here is a partial list of some of the other things that have been shut down:

  • Environmental Emergency Response Program
  • Urban Wastewater Program
  • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • Smokestacks Emissions Monitoring Team
  • Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission
  • National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy
  • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Winnipeg Office
  • Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey
  • Environmental Protection Operations
  • Action Plan on Clean Water
  • Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL)
  • Sustainable Water Management Division
  • Environmental Effects Monitoring Program
  • Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan
  • Canadian Centre for Inland Waters
  • Clean Air Agenda
  • Air Quality Health Index
  • Species at Risk Program
  • Weather and Environmental Services
  • Substance and Waste Management
  • Ocean Contaminants & Marine Toxicology Program
  • Experimental Lakes Area
  • Centre for Offshore Oil & Gas Energy Research
  • Conservation and Protection Office (L’anse au Loup, NL)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Trepassey, NL)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Rigolet, NL)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Burgeo, NL)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Arnold’s Cove, NL)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Baddeck, NS)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Canso, NS)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Sheet Harbour, NS)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Woodstock, NB)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Port Hood, NS)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Wallace, NS)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Kedgwick, NB)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Montague, PEI)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Inuvik, NT)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Rankin Inlet, NU)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Clearwater, BC)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Comox, BC)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Hazelton, BC)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Quesnel, BC)
  • Conservation and Protection Office (Pender Harbour, BC)
  • Species-at-Risk Program
  • Habitat Management Program
  • DFO Institute of Ocean Sciences (Sidney, BC)
  • Freshwater Institute – Winnipeg
  • Oil Spill Counter-Measures Team
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Sidney, BC)
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Winnipeg, MB)
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Burlington, ON)
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Mont-Joli, QC)
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Moncton, NB)
  • Water Pollution Research Lab (Dartmouth, NS)
  • St. Andrew Biological Station
  • Canadian Scientific Submersible Facility
  • Ice Information Partnership
  • First Nations and Inuit Health
  • Fertilizer Pre-Market Efficacy Assessment program
  • Enforcement of Product of Canada label
  • RADARSAT Constellation Mission
  • Whapmagoostui-Kuujjuarapik Research station
  • Kluane Lake Research Station
  • Bamfield Marine Science Centre
  • Microfungal Collection and Herborium
  • Biogeoscience Institute
  • Coriolis II research Vessel
  • OIE Laboratory for Infectious Salmon Anaemia
  • Canadian Phycological Culture Centre
  • Polaris Portable Observatories for Lithospheric Analysis and Research
  • Mount Megantic ObservatoryInshore Rescue Boat Program
  • Species at Risk Atlantic Salmon Production Facilities
  • Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
  • At-Sean Observer Programs
  • Pacific Forestry Centre, Satellite Office (Prince George, BC)
  • Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing
  • Pulp and Paper Green Transformation Program
  • Isotopes Supply Initiative
  • Clean Energy Fund
  • Sustainable Development Technology Canada – Next Generation Biofuels Fund
  • Program of Energy Research and Development
  • Pacific Forestry Centre
  • Astronomy Interpretation Centre – Centre of the Universe
  • MRI research, Institute Biodiagnostics
  • Polar Continental Shelf Progam
  • Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Aquatic and Crop Resource Development
  • Molecular Biochemistry Laboratory, Aquatic and Crop Resource Development
  • Plant Metabolism Research, Aquatic and Crop Resource Development
  • Human Health Therapeutics research program
  • Environmental Risks to Health program
  • Substance Use and Abuse program
  • First Nations and Inuit Primary Health Care program
  • Health Infrastructure Support for First Nations and Inuit program
  • Interim Federal Health Program
  • Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
  • Environmental Knowledge, Technology, Information, and Measurement program
  • Science, Innovation and Adoption program
  • Rural and Co-operatives Development program
  • Centre for Plant Health (Sidney, BC)
  • National Aboriginal Health Organization
  • First Nations Statistical Institute
  • Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth
  • Smoke Stacks Emissions Monitoring Team
  • National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy
  • Environmental Protections Operations Compliant Promotion Program
  • Sustainable Water Management Division
  • Environmental Effects Monitoring program
  • Fresh Water Institute
  • Canadian Centre for Inlands Waters (Burlington)
  • World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre
  • Environmental Emergencies Program
  • Parks Canada
  • Montreal Biosphere
  • Statistics Canada
  • Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
  • Laboratory for the Analysis of Natural and Synthetic Environmental Toxicants
  • National Ultrahigh-field NMR Facility for Solids
  • IsoTrace AMS Facility
  • Canadian Phycological Culture Centre
  • Canadian Resource Centre for Zebrafish Genetics
  • Neuroendocrinology Assay Laboratory at the University of Western Ontario
  • Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding
  • Portable Observatories for Lithospheric Analysis and Research Investigating (POLARIS) (Ontario)
  • Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
  • Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research
  • St. John’s Centrifuge Modelling Facility
  • Quebec/Eastern Canada high field NMR facility
  • Félix d’Hérelle Reference Center for Bacterial Viruses
  • The Compute/Calcul Canada
  • Center for Innovative Geochronology
  • Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
  • Pacific Northwest Consortium Synchrotron Radiation Facility
  • Centre for Molecular and Materials Science at TRIUMF
  • Pacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research
  • Canadian Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating Facility
  • Atlantic Regional Facilities for Materials Characterization
  • The Canadian SuperDARN/PolarDARN facility

This is all pretty frightening. I presented some of this material to a class I taught at the University of Toronto on Natural Science and Social Issues. After getting in contact with Margrit Eichler, president of Scientists for the Right to Know (SRK), three of my students (Emma Pask, Adra Greig and Ally Mushka) decided to form a student group (Students for the Right to Know). On January 23rd, the four of us organized a workshop called “Better Science Policy in Canada.” The question that motivated us was, assuming that the state of Canadian science policy is not perfect, what can historians and philosophers of science do?

If nothing else I thought we might be able to provide some perspective. For example, Harper says funding applied science will increase economic prosperity. Historians and philosophers of science can say whether funding applied science really is more profitable than pure science. We can also provide cases and arguments that make clear their mutual dependence. For instance, if pure science is about knowing, and applied science is about doing, then notice that knowing enables us to do, and doing helps us know. We can point out that the distinction between pure and applied science has always been political. And finally, we can argue that if we focus too much on applied science Canadian innovation will be hampered as our top scientists lose their grip on the pure science being developed elsewhere. This would happen no matter how much money we gave to applied science departments.

There are many other areas of the science policy debate where clarity is needed. If scientists are having their centers shut down in piecemeal fashion all over the country, then there will be many sad and angry scientists. But without a comprehensive historical and conceptual view on what the current government is doing and why it’s wrong, it is difficult to create better science policy for the future.

So we organized a workshop that brought together philosophers and historians of science with scientists and politicians and pizza. Before I summarize it, I want to make it clear that despite the narrative structure and concluding remarks at the bottom, this is not a story with an ending. Whatever government we have in power, there will always be a difficult trade-off between science and government. I invited more than a dozen Conservative MPs to the workshop to defend or elaborate their party’s policies. While none of them came, I still hold out hope of hearing a Conservative voice in this discussion.

WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Margaret Eichler

Margrit Eichler (Professor Emerita of Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in Social Justice Education, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and of the European Academy of Sciences), was the first to speak. Margrit discussed a number of worrying actions the government has taken from April 2006 to the present. Infractions against scientific progress are collected (with links) on the timeline of the SRK website. Margrit justifies her use of terminology like “muzzling,” “libraricide,” and “the war on science” by arguing that we need to make people aware. Currently, government scientists cannot express public dissent, and this is a problem. Further, if Bill C-51 passes, then even non-government employed citizens who express certain kinds of dissent might be classified as terrorists (see also here). Margrit’s position is that we are not bullying innocent people by raising awareness of a bully. To raise awareness, sometimes we need inflammatory language.

Curtis Forbes

Curtis Forbes (U of T, Ph.D. candidate, History and Philosophy of Science) replied with a talk concerning social media and government policy. He reminded us that Harper became Prime Minister in the same year that Twitter was created, at a time when YouTube was only one year old. Harper is therefore the first Canadian Prime Minister to face modern social media. Twitter faux pas explode overnight and require resources to overcome. Any government is therefore going to need a policy to deal with them. If a government requires scientists on the payroll not to express their opinions on Twitter, we should not call this “muzzling.” Such a policy will necessarily form part of a broader media strategy that protects the integrity of government function.

Margrit agreed that while any government will need a media communications strategy, the problem we now face is not one about scientists and social media. As mentioned above, scientists can’t communicate to other scientists, whether in person, through the proper scientific channels without government intervention, or to science journalists who want to report on their work.

CASE STUDIES

Christianne Stephens, Pamela Wong, Amrit Phull, Edward Fenner and Rebecca Moore all presented case studies that illustrate other specific issues.

The first three speakers discussed environmental and aboriginal issues. They also shared a general conclusion: First Nations people are too often ignored, their health put at risk, and their knowledge overlooked or clumsily duplicated/approximated because of current scientific policies and practices.

Christianne (York University, Assistant professor, Anthropology) works with the Walpole Island First Nation (see photo), where nearby chemical contamination from spills and legal discharges is a serious issue. Christianne illustrated the very different portrayals of the environmental situation by scientific and First Nation sources. What is a catastrophic event with far-reaching consequences for First Nations residents is an off-hand technical remark for others.

Walpole Island

Recent funding cuts to programs looking at aboriginal health, suicide, sexual abuse, depression, and so on make it difficult to collect and analyze health data from those communities.  There are also funding structure changes that have made it more difficult to research Aboriginal issues. Finally, for Aboriginal people to go to graduate school they also have to secure an equal amount of money from industrial sources to match government money (part of Harper’s plan to make Canada more industrial). Christianne concluded:

These are just some of the current issues threatening the collection, circulation and analysis of data on the health and well-being of Canada’s First Nations peoples. The rapidly devolving situation precipitated by current changes in federal legislation and policy enacted unilaterally without consultation, dishonour indigenous peoples’ rights to own, control, access and possess information about themselves… And they also represent a blatant attack on rights to culture, identity and health, as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As such these actions warrant a swift and unified response by indigenous leaders, researchers, academics and social justice advocates.

Some of these conclusions were echoed by Pamela Wong (U of T, Ph.D. Candidate, Environment and Ecology), who discussed the differences between the way researchers study trends in polar bear populations and the way Inuit trackers and hunters do the same. Currently there is a lack of communication and collegiality between researchers and the Inuit trackers who aid them. Members of both groups would profit by working more closely together to achieve mutual aims. One way to make sure this happens is to share the results of research back to the communities that made it possible.

Amrit Phull (Waterloo, recent M.A. graduate, Architecture) independently supported the same idea through her work on subarctic Cree communities around James Bay. The difference between government research and traditional aboriginal knowledge is massive. Again, we should see this as an opportunity to explore new epistemic meeting places in an expansive middle ground.

Images of traditional versus government research (courtesy of Amrit). One places itself quietly in nature, the other barges through

During the panel discussion, Amrit suggested that new technologies be used to evoke emotional reactions to social issues. Public awareness about science policy depends heavily on getting people educated about the interaction between science, society and government, which could be facilitated through apps, smart spaces, and so on. This could supply crucial decibels to the public voice on science policy issues.

Another idea is to appeal to our sense of moral responsibility via apps and other technologies. Many people do care how their actions impact the environment and society and giving them a simple way to track the consequences of their lifestyle choices can help them to manage the damage they cause. Such technology exists in rudimentary form already, but it should be improved and promoted, especially since it does not require political change.

Edward Fenner (York University, recent M.A. graduate, Science and Technology Studies) discussed a different source of innovation: military science. His case study was Cold War science in America. During this period the distinction between pure and applied science crumbled. Some helpful morals Edward drew were comparative: Canada has much room for improvement with respect to innovation and science communication. In terms of innovation, we spend a great deal of money just to catch up to our neighbour in the south. Pure research can be done cheaply, if we’re smart. (Which we are). In terms of communication, we already have good resources (like SRK and Evidence for Democracy), we just need more effort.

Rebecca Moore

Rebecca Moore (U of T, recent Ph.D. graduate, History and Philosophy of Science) discussed funding for genetics research and the relation between GMOs, patenting, and industry. She highlighted problems with the view that science is important because it is profitable. This treats science as another cog in the political-industrial wheel, which it isn’t.

POLITICIANS

Bruce Hyer, Deputy Leader of the Green Party (and himself a scientist) had several important issues to raise with respect to science policy in Canada. First, MPs have less control now than they did in the past to raise bills and issues of their own, and to vote according to their own conscience. “Most MPs are robots,” as he put it, programmed by their parties. Second, and more importantly, the electoral system itself is partially to blame. We need proportional representation instead of the first-past-the-post system. When the percentage of seats won comes closer to the percentage of votes won, larger parties will have to take smaller ones like his more seriously. And in terms of science policy, that would be a good thing. You can see some of the Green party’s policies here.

IMG_7937

Ted Hsu

One MP who is not a robot is Ted Hsu, official science critic for the Liberal party. Ted began by giving a general introduction to the relationship between evidence and politics. While political policies are obviously not derivable from scientific evidence, the quality and availability of the evidence will affect the quality of political policies. One extremely important piece of evidence that we as Canadians need in order to make good policy decisions is the census. The mandatory longform census was abolished by the Conservative government in 2010. No longer do social scientists have the information they need to study groups of Canadians in relation to the rest, and no longer can we as Canadians make informed decisions about how social and economic issues have been addressed during this government’s tenure. The Conservatives replaced the longform census with a voluntary shortform questionnaire. The 2006 longform census had a response rate of 93.5%, while the 2011 shortform questionnaire only enjoyed a response rate of 68.6% (with fewer questions, and more confusing data).

Ted discussed the private members bill he introduced that would reinstate the mandatory longform census (Bill-C626). On Wednesday February 4th this bill was struck down in its second reading, even though it had the support of the opposing parties.

In a video contribution, Marty Cooke (Waterloo, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies and the School of Public Health and Health Systems and the Department of Pharmacy) replied to Ted’s proposal. One way for Conservatives to keep the census away is to emphasize privacy concerns and intrusiveness. To curtail that conversation, Cooke believes that we should consider funding a project (perhaps under Statistics Canada) to data mine public sources of information as a way of replacing all or some of the census. We give up basic information to public repositories all the time and we don’t cry about it. If such a system were adopted, we wouldn’t have to provide information twice; for example, once to the Ministry of Transportation and once to the census. And there would be no possibility of incurring jail time for not filling out the form every five years. Marty isn’t suggesting that secret government agents get your relationship status off Facebook, he’s just calling statisticians to do what they already do with available information. The problem is sorting through it, which would be a huge task. But this is a practical problem that other countries (with similar systems in place) have already solved. Marty agrees, however, that for now we should try to reinstate the mandatory longform census while we discuss how to get information about Canadians in a way that doesn’t violate our desire for privacy.

Whatever avenue we take, we need something like the census. The SRK has recently engaged a number of other organizations into a network, and one of its first efforts was to start a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #ItMakesCensus. At the time of writing, this hashtag has reached 604 239 people (keyhole.co). It sparked a number of articles in newspapers, and gained a great deal of public support (see here, here, here, here and here). Thanks to Ted’s bill, many more Canadians are now aware of the value of the census.

OPEN PANEL DISCUSSION

A number of important points emerged in the discussion that followed the talks. I asked Ted whether he would encourage more scientists to run for a position in government. He said yes, but emphasized that this is always a tough decision to make since it is hard to return to academic science after leaving it. It is perhaps better to learn about local politicians, find one that you support, and become involved in his or her election campaign.

Jim Brown (U of T, Professor of Philosophy) pointed out that the issue is not only one of Canadian science policy, but also international policy. Many of our international trade agreements are what really determine how we regulate things like pharmaceutical drugs and intellectual property, and changing these policies would not be as straightforward as in domestic matters like the census. One big obstacle is profit. The current arrangement increases the wealth of a small number of people and corporations. As they stand to lose a great deal, they will do all they can to oppose changes to the offending policies. It is possible to overcome the influence of the wealthy few with enough public support, but doing so isn’t easy.

Panel discussion

To get enough public support, a higher level of scientific literacy in Canada is needed. Documentaries, newspapers, academic journals and social media work well to spread the message, but people can’t appreciate the damage done by the Conservatives without knowing something about the general state of scientific knowledge and its role in government decision-making. There are television shows and podcasts dedicated to general science education, but people have to seek these out. Nightly news programs would be a good place for short snippets of basic science education, but that’s impossible given the current newsroom practice of limiting content to whatever has happened today that is relevant for our daily lives. This means we mostly hear about cancer cures or cancer scares in the science and technology segment of the news. We might try to train scientists to speak to the public themselves, but since communicating results to laypeople is not something that a scientist needs in order to get a job, it is hard to force them to think about it at the early stages of their career.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Any good philosophical treatment of the relationship between science, government and society will have to be abstract and make many assumptions. I once tried to make a diagram representing the flow of money (black arrows) and information (green arrows), as well as government media blockages that currently stop the flow of that information (red circles). It looked like this before I gave up:

At least society looks happy

Just because it’s difficult to characterize and understand these abstract relationships doesn’t mean it’s impossible. There are some things that only emerge at this highest level of analysis that might be missed at lower levels, like the conflict between the values of science, society and government. The job of philosophers is not always to suggest concrete roads to improvement but to show what our ideals are to begin with. What can we say about an ideal state? How should it be arranged? This has been an important pursuit from Plato’s Republic to Rawl’s A Theory of Justice. We need to consider things from this abstract level to understand the nature of these basic and important relationships.

On the other hand, such a pursuit is toothless without case studies because there are features of the relationships between science, government and society that only emerge when we consider cases. For example, research in Baffin Island on Viking settlers of Canada has been shut down, suggests the Fifth Estate, because it conflicts with Harper’s idea of Canada as a proud British colony with a battle history that begins in the 19th century. This makes it clear that it’s not just data on environmental and demographic trends that is in danger, but all kinds of government-funded research, including anthropology.

Therefore, top-down and the bottom-up methods must meet in the middle. No one person can see how to overhaul and reconstruct science policy. We need philosophers, politicians, scientists, historians, engineers, economists and everyone else. Aristotle argued that politics is the most important science because it determines how the rest are done. People from all across the country in all professions should contribute to issues like these, with the enthusiasm it is due.

One last thought. Whenever I ask someone clever what we can do to improve Canadian science policy, I receive the same answer: raise awareness. People are always talking about awareness. I sometimes find this unsatisfying. Awareness won’t bring the census back. It’s true that as someone who helped to organize a workshop, I might have made a few more people aware. Some of those people might organize things of their own. Hopefully they will vote, and they will get others to vote. And we will all use social media. And if this balloons, newspeople will pay attention because sudden civil unrest is newsworthy. And when things are in the news, politicians who want to appeal to popular opinion take notice. Enough people and enough news makes a difference. Just look at the Arab Spring.

However “raise awareness” is still unsatisfying because it provides neither a material nor a formal answer to the problem. (Just like how overthrowing an unjust dictator doesn’t tell you how to run the country in the future). It doesn’t tell us what policies to change or adopt, or how to restructure the policy making process. Of course, awareness is a necessary prerequisite for finding those answers. Without awareness, no one cares, and when no one cares, nothing happens.

For these reasons public discussions like the one we had on January 23rd are crucial: they raise awareness while providing an opportunity to discuss material and formal solutions to problems. Turning from mere awareness, here are a few constructive recommendations I think we agreed on, and I think we should discuss.

  1. Improve science education and journalism to increase scientific literacy.
  2. Reinstate the census or something like it.
  3. Require the government to be transparent and self-consistent about its scientific policies.
  4. Put scientists in charge of large government funding agencies like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
  5. As much as possible, allow arm’s length organizations to “audit” the government and its science unhindered.
  6. Foster public and interdisciplinary discussion about values. (What do we even want from science policy?).
  7. Allow scientists to speak freely (at least to other scientists).
  8. Ensure that evidence used in political decision-making is made available to the public (within reason).
  9. Increase government recognition for basic science, even when it does not offer an immediate economic pay-off.

Conservatives and opposition party members alike can admit the merit of each of these recommendations. What remains is to make these and other recommendations practically realizable through good faith conversation grounded in evidence and shared Canadian values. To do this, we need our evidence back, and our values taken seriously.

Here’s the livetweet stream from the workshop, courtesy of Ellie Louson (@elouson).

Posted in Events & Announcements, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Year’s Geekiest Gifts

If you wanted to give your true love all the gifts from the 12 Days of Christmas, it would cost you $27,673. But there’s no need to shell out that much for our picks of the best science-themed and geekiest gifts of 2014… except for #9.

1. You Are Here: Around the World in 92 Minutes, astronaut Chris Hadfield’s book of stunning photographs from the International Space Station.

2. Engineering kit/anti-“pink aisle” company GoldieBlox released its character Goldie as an articulated action figure, complete with zipline. True to form, they produced a striking video for its launch.

3. Due to incredible demand, the female scientist LEGO Research Institute is back in stores and online. No need to pay twice or even more than five times the price at online resellers! Be aware, there’s often a limit of 1 per household.

4. You can use littleBits modular electronic prototyping kits for anything from learning to program with Arduino to converting your appliances into a smarthome

5. It’s trivia time! The Art of Science Advanced Trivia Game (available at thinkGeek) lets you tailor trivia categories to players’ scientific strengths, with wickedly challenging questions in a variety of science fields.

6. Proof: The Science of Booze is Adam Rogers’ riveting history of alcohol, exploring the various sciences involved in its production as well as in our insatiable demand for its many varieties.

7. A Klein bottle opener, consisting of a single-surface shape. This “mathematical joke” is 3D printed from stainless steel.

8. The “STEM: Women Are All Over It” shirt, successfully Kickstarted in response to #shirtgate. Although the for-charity fundraising just ended, the shirt’s pattern, comprised of the faces of female scientists, will be made available soon.

9. The pièce de résistance: Wernher von Braun’s house. You and your family could live in the original mid-century modern home of the noted space engineer and rocket scientist, located in Huntsville, Alabama. It’ll only set you back $379K U.S.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Celebrating Situating Science and CCSST

The Situating Science cluster, and now the Canadian Consortium for Situating Science and Technology are doing inspiring work in helping all of us to understand how science works and how science and society interact. Below is a short video celebrating their accomplishments and explaining what they do. You can also subscribe to their YouTube channel.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Weekly Roundup – We Need to Talk about TED

Why read books or papers when there are easily-digestible videos of charismatic experts summarizing their work for you? Here are 5 interesting recent TED Talks, running the gamut from astronomy to metaphysics.

What’s the next window into our universe?

How not to be ignorant about the world

What makes us sick?

What’s next in 3D printing?

Why does the universe exist?

But to keep you from getting complacent (and to trap you in a paradox) here’s a classic TED talk on why TED talks are terrible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Weekly Roundup is going on vacation

That’s right, this will be the last column of the summer. I know you’ll miss us, so it’s supersized to tide you over until September.

We already knew that having sisters (who do the chores) make men more conservative, girls get lower allowances for doing more chores, and Pat Mainardi’s masterpiece The Politics of Housework is nearing its 45th birthday. A new study suggests that daughters’ career ambitions are enhanced when their fathers help out around the house.

Are you sensitive to gluten? Are you sure? The authors of the original study identifying non-celiac gluten sensitivity were repeatedly unable to replicate their results.

It’s Shark Week, and that means the return of the proud Discovery Channel tradition of lying to scientists.

You can debunk and debunk-debunk all you want, but academic urban legends persist thanks to a variety of poor citation practices. Even superstars aren’t immune to the temptations of research shortcuts, as Žižek and Goodall must attest.

With the announcement of this year’s Fields MedalsMaryam Mirzakhani became the first female recipient of the highest prize in mathematics. Alex Bellos at the Guardian breaks down the 4 medallists’ work.

How NASA psychologically screens astronaut candidates: “We’re looking for the ‘right stuff,’ but we’re also trying to get rid of people with the ‘wrong stuff.'” Which is important, since astronauts don’t get enough sleep either on Earth or in space.

In light of this year’s Xtreme Eating Awards, Slate explains why it’s misleading to directly compare calorie-laden foods and hours of exercise. I don’t know if I’d swim 7 hours for the Cheesecake Factory’s 2,780-calorie Bruléed French Toast with bacon, but with 93 grams of saturated fat, it’s one menu item that’s better shared with the whole table.

Kentucky State University interim president Raymond Burse took a voluntary $90K salary cut to increase the pay rate for minimum-wage university employees.

Christie Aschwanden reviews the results of several recent surveys suggesting that sexual harassment and gender bias are widespread in the sciences.

What is the key to happiness? Having things work out better than you expect, according to a PNAS study claiming to have produced an equation that can predict happiness through MRI data. We enjoy anticipating good things, but we’re even happier with pleasant surprises. Unfortunately for pessimists, grumbling about how bad things are likely to be erodes the benefits of an unexpected happy ending.

Here’s an interesting debate about the science Ph.D. job market, where Slate’s Jordan Weissmann sees the situation as bleak and Bloomberg Businessweek’s Alison Schrager disagrees. Weissman’s rebuttal points out the opportunity costs for science and math students of not pursuing an M.B.A. instead—an option which offers better renumeration.

 

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Roundup | Leave a comment

Weekly Roundup

LEGO has announced that it has approved one of the finalists in its Ideas product competition: a trio of female scientists based on Ellen Kooijman (aka Alatriel Elensar)’s Female Minifigure Set. It will be marketed as the LEGO Research Institute, and will be eventually available in stores.

Here are anonymous comments made by “muzzled” Canadian government scientists about the state of science under the Harper Government. Yikes! On a related note, Stephen Harper urged Canadians to “listen to the scientific evidence” when it comes to vaccinating children.

How many polar bears are there? It turns out that’s a tricky question.

Solar roadways have made a big splash with a successful Indiegogo campaign and flashy video. The husband-and-wife team of Scott and Julie Brusaw want to replace asphalt roads, sidewalks, and parking lots with durable, LED-programmable, and replaceable hexagonal panels that would generate electricity, with additional benefits including warning drivers of obstacles or animal crossings, responding to parking lot conditions, and providing infrastructure for buried power, phone, and internet lines. Unfortunately, critics figure that the project’s estimated $56 trillion price tag will be an impediment to scalability, as will problems such as keeping the glass layers clean and preventing traffic hacking.

The Chemical Blog describes the chemical composition of tattoo ink, which is surprisingly unregulated.

There is more fructose in many soft drinks and sweetened juices than their labels disclose, according to a new study in Nutrition. This is a problem for the Corn Refiners Association, who claim that High-Fructose Corn Syrup (or “corn sugar,” as we learn in this helpful video) is practically equivalent to sucrose (table sugar; glucose-fructose in a 1:1 ratio).

The FDA’s cost-benefit analysis for new e-cigarette regulations includes a “lost pleasure” factor which accounts for the expected decrease in lifetime pleasure for those who quit.

Sometimes all you need is a good headline: Researchers Develop Robot That Lets Them Feel Softness of Virtual Breasts.

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Roundup | 2 Comments

Weekly Roundup

npr

Here’s a roundup of the best April Fool’s Day hoaxes from around the web, and another one focused on the science/library community. But NPR’s prank is the clear winner.

“You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work. We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work”: Physics students at the University of Leicester have determined that Noah’s ark would indeed be buoyant.

Don’t tell Mr. Toad: A new study suggests that children retain less information about animals from anthropomorphized accounts. But kids learn more when science is packaged in a music video.

We don’t have stasis fields yet, but in a new clinical trial, gunshot or stabbing victims will be placed in suspended animation (induced hypothermia) while doctors repair damaged organs. [via Marginal Revolution]

Eliminating invasive species is more difficult than we realize, as is even labelling them “native” or “alien.”

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Roundup | 1 Comment

Weekly Roundup

Powerpoint presentations are the bane of higher education and the corporate world, claims this Powerpoint presentation.

A 43% reduction in American childhood obesity has been reported across multiple news outlets, but some question such striking results. Mark Liberman at Language Log has done some digging and suspects both the statistical treatment of reference population growth charts, as well as changes to the sampling method which result in a more racially-inclusive population.

We eat too much of everything… except yogourt: the FDA has proposed new serving sizes for several types of food to better reflect actual consumption habits.

Here is the first x-ray image of individual living cells, preserved without chemical fixation, from Physical Review Letters. This research illustrates the nanoscale damage to cell structures caused by traditional techniques [via Gizmodo].

What do women want while ovulating? Positional goods that improve their status compared to that of other women, according to a new paper in the Journal of Marketing Research. “Overall, women’s monthly hormonal fluctuations seem to have a substantial effect on consumer behavior by systematically altering their positional concerns, a finding that has important implications for marketers, consumers, and researchers” [via Marginal Revolution].

A new Pew survey of millennials, a demographic who confuse their parents, teachers, therapists, and bosses, shows that they are also pretty confused.

Men who act sexually aggressive in a barroom setting don’t drink more alcohol, but they target women who do, claims a new study in Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research [via Jezebel].

Insert a reference to your thawed-virus horror film of choice: a thirty thousand-year-old giant virus was discovered in the Siberian permafrost. But don’t worry; it only infects amoebas [via io9].

If you’ve got the time to scroll through mostly darkness, check out this scale representation of the solar system where the moon = one pixel.

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Roundup | Leave a comment

Spontaneous Generations: Economic Aspects of Science

Mike Thicke

I had the privilege this year to edit an issue of Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science. Issue #7, focusing on “Economic Aspects of Science,” is now online. We have contributions from many authors that readers of this blog should be familiar with, including Steven Fuller, Mark Brown, David Tyfield, and Esther-Mirjam Sent. Reproduced below is my editor’s introduction to the focused discussion.

Science has long been understood as an economic endeavor. As early as 1879, Charles Sanders Peirce applied abstract economic reasoning to model scientific decision-making (Peirce 1967). Beginning in the 1930s, chemist-turned-philosopher Michael Polanyi and physicist-turned-sociologist John Desmond Bernal clashed over whether the science of their time was best organized according to free-market or socialist principles (Polanyi 2000; Bernal 1939). And perhaps most well known to students of science, Vannevar Bush argued in his 1945 report, Science the Endless Frontier, that the social and economic benefits of science justified public funding of scientific research.

In recent years, it has only become more clear that science cannot be understood separately from its economic circumstances. During the Cold War, massive government funding for science in the United States and elsewhere created the illusion that science could be understood as a disinterested search for truth insulated from economic concerns (cf. Merton 1942). However, since the early 1980s, science has entered what Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent call a “Globalized Privatization Regime,” characterized by increased private funding for research and globalized intellectual property laws (Sent and Mirowski 2008). Even those scientists who still rely on public funding are increasingly being asked to justify their research in economic terms (Brown, this issue). With most scientists no longer protected from market considerations, their activities can no longer be understood as resulting solely from a desire for knowledge and peer recognition. Rather, these scientists must be understood as entrepreneurs in the literal sense: as individuals seeking funding from a variety of sources in order to further enterprises that will yield tangible economic benefits.

Even philosophers, who as a group have been very reluctant to acknowledge that science is undergoing a fundamental restructuring, have recently begun worrying about the new economic circumstances of science. Philosophers have never shied away from employing economic methodology for understanding science (eg. Radnitzky 1987; Kitcher 1993; Goldman and Shaked 1991). However, they have generally viewed science as an abstract economy, where scientists compete not for dollars but for esteem. Now, prompted primarily by troubling developments in the biological sciences, they have begun turning their attention to the concrete economy of science (eg. Radder 2010). The most common concern expressed by philosophers is that the commercialization of scientific research is undermining the Mertonian norms of disinterest and communalism, and as a result, undermining science’s objectivity and epistemic authority (eg. Resnik 2007). Consequently, it is now fair to claim that researchers from every discipline of science studies have become interested in science as an economic activity.

The papers in this issue’s focused discussion build upon that interdisciplinary interest in science as an economic activity. They include contributions from historians, sociologists, philosophers, and economists.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Weekly Roundup

After a very busy week with York University’s Materiality Conference, I’m happy to offer this supersized weekly roundup.

Biological Psychiatry recently published a study linking placental abnormalities and autism risk.

Russell Foster argues in New Scientist (republished at Slate) that high schools ought to start later to provide teens with much-needed extra sleep.

From Smithsonian’s Surprising Science blog, women apparently prefer deep male voices, while men prefer high female voices; a paper published in PLOS ONE explains these results in terms of body size preference. But don’t despair; you can always change your voice with this.

The House Science Committee is embroiled in a dispute over NSF funding for the social and behavioural sciences, as committee chair Lamar Smith’s questioning the NSF’s peer review system comes under some sharply-worded criticism.

An image of a 4th-grade science quiz entitled “Dinosaurs: Genesis and the Gospel” from a Christian school in South Carolina has widely circulated online.

A new “Vampire” treatment for baldness involves reinjecting the patient’s own platelet-rich plasma.

A “no jab, no play” campaign launched yesterday aims to allow childcare centres in New South Wales, Australia, to ban unvaccinated children from attending. A similar policy in Ottawa has resulted in hundreds of current high school students facing suspension for failing to provide up-to-date proof of immunization.

Blueprints for a 3D printed gun have been released online by Defense Distributed, prompting calls for tighter legislation.

The National Institute for Mental Health has rejected the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is about to release its 5th edition. NIMH research will now be oriented away from the DSM’s categories.

Posted in Uncategorized, Weekly Roundup | Leave a comment