Archive for the 'Science' Category


Web Science Includes the Social Impacts of Web 2.0 — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted November 9, 2006 Comments Off

A Thinking Ethics post from Nov. 6:

Web science

MIT and the University of Southampton, UK, are launching the new field of Web Science. The research will guide the future design and use of the world wide web. Tim Berners-Lee says the web is full of blogs that are inaccurate, defamatory and have uncheckable information. This new program is aimed at adding intelligence to the web, and will cover things like trust, responsibility, empathy, and privacy. It looks like Web 2.0 will be kinder and gentler. more

The link goes to a New York Times article:

Web science, the researchers say, has social and engineering dimensions. It extends well beyond traditional computer science, they say, to include the emerging research in social networks and the social sciences that is being used to study how people behave on the Web.

Further:

Web science represents “a pretty big next step in the evolution of information,” said Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, who is a computer scientist. This kind of research, Schmidt added, is “likely to have a lot of influence on the next generation of researchers, scientists and, most importantly, the next generation of entrepreneurs who will build new companies from this.”

Web science is related to another emerging interdisciplinary field called services science. This is the study of how to use computing, collaborative networks and knowledge in disciplines ranging from economics to anthropology to lift productivity and develop new products in the services sector, which represents about three-fourths of the United States economy. Services science research is being supported by technology companies like I.B.M., Accenture and Hewlett-Packard, and by the National Science Foundation.

And:

Ben Shneiderman, a professor at the University of Maryland, said Web science was a promising idea. “Computer science is at a turning point, and it has to go beyond algorithms and understand the social dynamics of issues like trust, responsibility, empathy and privacy in this vast networked space,” Shneiderman said. “The technologists and companies that understand those issues will be far more likely to succeed in expanding their markets and enlarging their audiences.”

AlphaPsy’s New Primers: Introductions to Evolution, Cognition, and Culture — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted October 31, 2006 Comments Off
AlphaPsy editors, over the past couple of months, have created a series of primers giving us what they describe as “really short introductions to various topics in the fields of evolution, cognition, and culture. It is chiefly aimed at social scientists with no background whatsoever in the domain. Each primer includes a link to the relevant AlphaPsy Bibliography, which is particularly suited for beginners. Again, it is only a very rough guide; it has no scientific ambitions, so don’t judge it too harshly.”Here’s the list of primers with links:

A Primer on Evolution

A Primer on Cognition

A Primer on Culture

A Primer on Darwinian Psychiatry

A Primer on Religion

A Primer on Coevolutions and Domestications

A Primer on Technology

A Primer on Meta-Evolution

A Primer on Neuroeconomics

A Primer on the Psychology of Politics

A Primer on Cognitive Arts

A Primer on Science and Folk Science

A Primer on Racialist Prejudices

A Primer on Mirror-Neurons

A Primer on Theory of Mind

Here, too, is the link to the guide to their bibliographies.

AlphaPsy’s New Primer: Sex Differences In Cognition — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted October 31, 2006 Comments Off
AlphaPsy has just added a new primer on sex differences in cognition. The other primers are listed here.

Science Samples: Mind/Body and Gender — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted October 20, 2006 Comments Off

Sample offerings in science from around the blogosphere this Friday morning:

Mind/body:

Does neuroscience hold the key to our understanding of how dummy medicines have a biological effect?

Gender:

Men and women are different — but how important are the differences?

More on biology and behavior differences of the sexes

pier

See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs To Move Upstream — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted October 18, 2006 Comments Off
Politics and science needn’t be like oil and water. How do scientists make their advice credible to a sceptical public? How can social outcomes of scientific and technological developments be improved by, yes, “engaging” the public from a substantive perspective (”citizens are seen as subjects, not objects, of the process. They work actively to shape decisions, rather than having their views canvassed by other actors to inform the decision[s] that are then taken”), not just normative (”dialogue is an important ingredient of a healthy democracy”), or instrumental (”engagement processes are carried out because they serve particular interests”) ones?James Wilsdon, a researcher on science, technology and sustainable development at Demos (”The Think Tank For Everyday Democracy”), and Rebecca Willis, then Associate Director of Green Alliance (”thinking, talking, acting on the environment”) and Vice-Chair of the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, published a thoughtful piece in the context of comparing public involvement in genetically modified foods, and nanotechnology, on “See Through Science” in January 2005. Here is their .pdf article:changethis-see-through-science.pdf

“Mind Hacks presents our 2006 list of essential websites for mind and brain students.” — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted October 10, 2006 Comments Off
I’m catching up with my reading, between breaks at the Keystone Conference, and am copying in full an excellent recent post from Mind Hacks, a neuroscience and psychology blog I read:

2006 – Essential sites for students:

spiral_bound_notebooks.jpgFollowing on from last year’s successful ‘essential sites’ round up, Mind Hacks presents our 2006 list of essential websites for mind and brain students, just in time for the new academic year.

Whether you’re a future graduate psychologist, a hardened lab-based neuroscientist or are in the midst of studying any of the cognitive sciences, we should have something to help you on your way.

* * *

News and information feeds

One thing that is likely to make you stand out from the crowd is if you can include new research in your work, rather than only including studies that are described in textbooks and handouts.

Keeping an eye on the latest news is also one of the most important things for maintaining your motivation. Study is hard work, and learning the fundamentals can sometimes seem a little uninspiring. Discovering that the fundamentals help you understand the latest discoveries in how we think, feel and behave can be a massive high.

The following sites are just a few of the ones that we get a particular kick out of.

New Scientist special reports on the brain and mental health.
As well as containing guides and information resources, these ’special reports’ also contain a constantly updated list of all the New Scientist’s new reports relevant to the area.

ABC Radio’s All in the Mind.
ABC Radio is Australia’s national talk radio network, and All in the Mind is their fantastic and fascinating show on everything mind and brain related. It is on every week without fail, you can download the shows as mp3 podcasts or listen online, or you can read the transcripts on the Wednesday after the show has been broadcast. It often tackles some of the most important issues in contemporary cognitive science and shouldn’t be missed.

The British Psychological Society’s Research Digest.
First let me say that Christian, who writes for this site, writes the BPS Research Digest. However, whereas he writes here for free, he gets employed by the BPS to write fortnightly summaries of scientific research to make psychology research as widely accessible as possible. You can even get it delivered straight to your email inbox to save you having to check the website every two weeks.

The Society for Neuroscience.
As well as having a huge amount of information that will give you all the background on brain and nervous system function, it also has news on the latest scientific developments and upcoming meetings and events.

The ScienceBlogs Brain and Behaviour Channel.
ScienceBlogs is a collection of scientist and science writers who write about what they love. The Brain and Behaviour Channel lists any article, post or opinion piece on psychology or neuroscience from a wide range of blogs. Great for opinion, alternative views of mainstream news stories, or careful analysis of scientific research.

Other great blogs which have a good mix of psychology, neuroscience and mental health news and are regularly updated include Developing Intelligence, Brain Ethics, PsyBlog, Neurocritic and PsychCentral. Actually, there are plenty more, so have a look round to find your most useful reads.

Grey Matters is a online TV station – dedicated to neuroscience!
It’s a project of the University of California San Diego, a world centre of neuroscience research, and has a massive video archive of talks and presentations that you can watch online using realplayer.

Other great archives of online psychology and neuroscience video includes Channel N and the NIH Neuroscience archive.

Getting things done

As well as being knowledgable about human nature, academic study involves doing the practical work of conducting experiments, writing reports and analysing data.

These sites should help you with some of these activities that can seem bewildering at first.

Simply Psychology is simply fantastic.
It describes psychological methods in a straightforward way, and there’s no better compliment than that. On top of this, it has sections on some of the key debates in psychology. A great introductory guide.

Other resources include All Psych’s Guide to Research Methods which is more of an online textbook if you need something a little more in-depth, and if you’re a bit more experienced with research and have a query, the Research Companion Message Board is an online watering hole for social science researchers.

Recommending PubMed is like recommending Google for internet users.
It’s the world database of medical and related research. It seems obvious, but it’s an essential resource and one that’s worth learning how to use effectively. There are also services that run a specific search on PubMed every week and email you any new articles that have appeared. I prefer BioMail but you can do this in PubMed itself now.

Google Scholar is an alternative to PubMed.
PubMed can be a bit light on psychology research and a bit intimidating at first. Google Scholar has a very wide range of research indexed and it’s a bit easier to use. The only drawback is that sometimes you can’t find the articles it lists. Still a useful tool though.

Classic papers in psychology and neuroscience.
These are two great sites which have the full-text of some of the most important mind and brain research in history. Enough said.

Final words

The best internet resources are the one’s you have collected yourself because you know they fit your needs, but hopefully this list should give a balance of useful reference material to bookmark, and sites you can check regularly for the latest in news and views.

If you have any sites which you’ve found particularly useful that aren’t included here feel free to add them to the comments below (just remember that you need to paste the web address in as text, as the blogging software disallows direct links to prevent spam).

Apart from that, enjoy! After all, there’s nothing more interesting than people.

—Vaughan.

Scientists and Engineers for America — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted September 29, 2006 Comments Off

This new organization launched two days ago. From their website:

Today a group of scientists and concerned citizens launch a new organization, Scientists and Engineers for America, dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.

The principal role of the science and technology community is to advance human understanding. But there are times when this is not enough. Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.

We ask every American who values scientific integrity in decision-making to join us in endorsing a basic Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. Together we will elect new leadership beginning in 2006, and we will continue to work to elect reasonable leadership in federal, state and local elections for years to come.

America needs your help. Will you join us?

These are the points in their Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers:

 
Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers

Effective government depends on accurate, honest and timely advice from scientists and engineers. Science demands an open, transparent process of review and access to the best scholars from around the nation and the world. Mistakes dangerous to the nation’s welfare and security have been made when governments prevent scientists from presenting the best evidence and analysis. Americans should demand that all candidates support the following Bill of Rights:

  1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and analysis both from within the government and from the rest of society.
  2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal websites.
  3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified research after a reasonable period of review without fear of intimidation or adverse personnel action.
  4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons should be free to bring this information to the attention of the public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower laws.
  5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the results of their research.
  6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be based on the candidate’s scientific qualifications, not political affiliation or ideology.
  7. The federal government shall not support any science education program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from ideology and not science.
  8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release of information about specific applied research and technologies for reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system.

Science literacy: politics can affect “science”.

Is String Theory Unraveling? Does Sprouting New Brain Cells Cure Depression? — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted September 27, 2006 Comments Off

Scientific American magazine in a recent Science News column identified six “raging debates” in current scientific theory. The articles remind us that scientific theory is created, developed, and supported (or not) in a process involving people and time, and that its final, accepted form will seldom be the same as its earliest iterations. Here’s the introduction:

Textbooks usually make the triumph of a scientific theory seem inevitable and uncontestable. But at the time that a theory is being forged, the reality is not nearly so tidy. An experimental result is only clear-cut if researchers agree on how to interpret it. Individuals may have conflicting hunches about what nature is up to, however, and a finding that is conclusive to one scientist may be unimpressive to another. In some cases the ideal experiment is not yet possible. In others only one or a few data points exist. Disagreement is productive, though. It forces each side to clarify its views and to find experiments that will distinguish one idea from another. And in the end, researchers generally come to a new consensus. Experiments corroborate each other. Theories make defensible predictions. And new students come along who lack the prejudices of their predecessors. Science marches ahead, in other words, erasing m any records of dissent along the way. Here are six raging debates that textbooks will one day no doubt present as cut-and-dried:

Is String Theory Unraveling?

Is Global Warming Raising a Tempest?

How Does A Planet Grow?

Should Epidemiologists Swear Off Diet Trials?

Does Sprouting New Brain Cells Cure Depression?

Was the Hobbit Just a Sick Modern Human?

For example, the give-and-take process in critically challenging string theory is engaged – two recent books critical of the current state of the theory are being reviewed these days, including this review in Scientific American.

Sex Differences In the Brain — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted September 26, 2006 Comments Off

Here’s an online Scientific American article on sex differences in the brain.

Science Literacy and the Female Brain — EngagingConflicts.com

Posted September 25, 2006 Comments Off

Many of us are fascinated by male – female differences, or, rather, by investigations into what the differences are, if any, and, further, what the differences mean, if anything. Here, too, science literacy reigns. Or, rather, should.A new book that has generated much buzz is also generating criticism about one of the points used to promote its premise. This from ScienceBlogs, specifically from The Frontal Cortex blog:

Factchecking the Female Brain

Category: Neuroscience
Posted on: September 25, 2006 10:36 AM, by Jonah Lehrer

It’s a shame that exaggerating the extent of brain differences between men and women can be such a boon for book sales. (Call it the Mars and Venus phenomenon.) This publishing truism has been most recently demonstrated by Louann Brizendine, a researcher at UCSF who wroteThe Female Brain. But now the backlash has begun. The Boston Globe ran a nice column dismantling Brizendine’s oft cited claim that women use 20,000 words per day while men only use 7,000.

The author of the Boston Globe column is Mark Liberman, Trustee Professor of Phonetics at the University of Pennsylvania. After reviewing what appears to be Ms. Brizendine’s source for the claim, and the existing research literature, he concludes:

I haven’t been able to find any scientific studies that reliably count the entire daily word usage of a reasonable sample of men and women. But based on the research I’ve read and conducted, I’m willing to make a bet about what such a study would show. Whatever the average female vs. male difference turns out to be, it will be small compared to the variation among women and among men; and there will also be big differences, for any given individual, from one social setting to another.

I haven’t read the book yet, and I haven’t reviewed the studies, but I think the Boston Globe article is interesting, and exemplifies some of generalizable themes I hope to explore through this blog’s Science and Science Literacy categories: emphasis on some divides, such as a male-female divide can be, well, divisive and a source of conflict; if we are considering classifications that can be divisive, like gender, race or religion, we may want to be particularly careful about the sources for our information and be confident they are credible; and when we do use them, we will want to be careful to use them in ways that acknowledge their limits, too. Inappropriately or improperly emphasizing a male – female difference may divert us from remembering male-female similarities, and, further, may divert us from recognizing that individual differences within a gender, and particular social settings, may explain more.

« Previous Page