Tag Archive for 'science'

On the alleged correlation between beer consumption and academic productivity.

Here’s the link to the paper in Oikos.

Before we get into philosophical discussions, however, let’s look at what they actually showed.

Alleged paper/beer consumption correlation

The first thing to notice is that this analysis is over the range of 1-6 liters/capita/year. That’s 1 pint every 6 months up to once a month. Now, I don’t know any Czech ornithologists personally, but I do know several Germans, some Polish, and a couple Hungarians. Their spread of consumption rates among them is more like 1-6 liters/capita/week. Therefore, unless Czech ornithologists have a significantly different consumption from the regional average, one must assume sampling error is present among such a rarefied population. When you look at it, and I know this is what passes for great results among ecologists, but the correlation really ain’t all that great, is it?

Now, as we all know but often forget, mere correlation doesn’t imply causation, so it could be just as likely that low productivity causes drinking or that some third factor causes both low productivity and drinking. What could that putative third factor be? Could it be that people who tend to…ahhh…misrepresent themselves tend to have higher publication rates (until peer- catches up with them, of course), and would also, on this near-teetotaler end of the drinking scale, tend to under-report their consumption? So all they’ve really done here is show that people who lie on surveys get more publications!

To actually make one serious comment, let me say that it does make sense that someone who has no life at all will spend more time in the lab, but since 99.9% of all researchers worldwide already fall off the right side of the chart, how useful is this information?

Lots of interesting things at psychology today.

Like this story about magical thinking, which is particularly topical.

Why are we so impatient about new web technology?

Look, I can use a web meme too! I R teh funnay!David Crotty from CSHL, who I’ve corresponded with before, has again published an obituary for Science Web 2.0. I think this is premature but typical of how the media cycle works, especially on the web where the youthful perspective predominates. I’ll get back to this, but permit me, on the occasion of Castro’s resignation, a brief philosophical detour.
Continue reading ‘Why are we so impatient about new web technology?’

Scientists should learn to be communicators, says Chris Mooney

Interesting talk yesterday, the main points of which were:

  • is complicated
  • You can’t expect the media to get it right
  • So, scientists should stop obsessing over tedious facts and learn to market, or “frame”, our work.
  • Nice sentiment, but facts are what we’re trained to do, and facts are all that many of us care about. If gene expression profiling suggests that one race is smarter than another, then that’s what they’re going to believe. The very literal, logical point of view is why they became scientists in the first place, and it’s a necessary ingredient of their success. If they cultivated their creative, expressive side they might not have been able to tolerate the grueling tedious hours in the lab that were necessary to achieve their discoveries. I think Chris missed this because of his English background, really, so it’s understandable, but do we really want to put the responsibility of on the non-socialized, Asperger’s-afflicted, born nerds?

    blogging is great, but one’s audience is self-selected, so you can teach someone who accepts global warming about climate models, and you can teach someone who accepts evolution about phylogenetics, but you don’t get to reach the undecided without the help of broadcast media. Media that exposes people to things they didn’t seek out.

    Of course, I’m comfortable with blogs being a source of information for broadcast media reporting, digesting the raw into understandable issues, but I think that’ll be a pretty bitter pill for traditional media types to swallow.

    “Bloggers producing content that the media repeats?” “Inconceivable!”

    So it seems to me like the real question is whether the real story of gets told better by -ignorant reporters sensationalizing things or by unsocialized, slightly sociopathic scientists trying to learn to communicate their results better.

    Maybe there’s a niche for people with a background who somehow retained skills? What’s the going rate for a “ ambassador” these days?

    The commentary on “Defining Pluripotency in Human Cells” is up at the Niche.

    Featuring commentary on their previous article by Peter Andrews, Shinya Yamanaka, Paul Tesar, and William Gunn(aka yours truly).

    I really like Paul Tesar’s idea of a “pluripotency score”, because it’s just this kind of multi-factorial definition we’ll need to really nail down just exactly what pluripotency is.

    A good intro to microarray technology

    A set of video clips illustrating the technology behind a DNA microarray. This is also a good example of the use of video in , leaving the focus on the process and not the reporter.

    What’s new in Pubmed this week: Stem Cells

    I’m subscribed to some search feeds at Pubmed. Here’s what caught my eye this week in the Stem Cells feed:

    Continue reading ‘What’s new in Pubmed this week: Stem Cells’