Link: List of 50 Experts to pay attention to about COVID-19

 https://elemental.medium.com/50-experts-to-trust-in-a-pandemic-fe58932950e7

 

 

The Story of Bathybius

The subject of mis-identification of microscopic material  leads to some respected authorities in the annals of science.  Bathybius is a classic example.   Another one is the misinterpretation of the life cycle of Millepora spp.  by a staunch authority of Invertebrate Zoology, Sydney Hickson.  They may serve as a cautionary tale.  Conclusions are jumped at for many reasons.  Perhaps as evidence of a favorite theory (that is wrong). 

 The link here is to an article by a historian of science about Bathybius. 

 

Something that matters. How are we going to teach the kids about Nuclear Waste Dumps (etc.)?

This article by BBC hits the mark:

 How to build a nuclear warning for 10,000 years’ time

Some perspective: the atmosphere's thickness is something in proportion to the thickness of a layer of paint on a basketball.   

 

 

 

 

Teaching Environmental Science was an accident.  The most fortuitous accident of all.  As my grasp of the subject  matured, the fog lifted.  That was when I began prefacing every first class meeting with something like this:

  This course will be an introduction to the impact of humans on our world: our planet, to be sure, and also our community.  Throughout our history, we have treated the environment as a combined supermarket and rubbish heap.  My generation has caused its share of the damage; but during this generation, more than any other, the condition of our planet has become a focus of attention.

In 1969, a human snapped a photo of Earth, from the Moon.  This was not the first, but is a convenient marker for the time that the Earth became visible as a blue marble.  Perhaps this marked the beginning of an Era.

My parents and my grandparents were unaware of the impacts of the lifestyle they had elected to pursue, with improvements in health, medicine, onsumer goods, transportation,...  in every aspect of life.  With the Industrial Revolution---beginning in about 1750---came an explosion of goods---cooking pots, weapons, locomotive, steam engines, ushering in a consumer economy on a massive scale.  In the 1950s plastics appeared, refining this industry, making possible manufacture of previously unimaginable forms.  Refrigeration, electricity, commonplace plumbing, automobiles, roads.  This seemed to forebode a better life.  In cities, human existence was transformed.  Populations exploded.

But little attention had been given to consequences and side effects.  

While none of us from previous generations intended all of this trouble, it has happened, and today, in the 21st century, Environmental problems such as global warming, over harvesting of marine life and trees, destruction of ecosystems, pollution of rivers and streams, plastics and microplastics in the Oceans---all of these problems now threaten the existence of our own species and our lifestyles.  We have caused the extinction of numerous species, and accelerated the transport of other, robust species to places they do not belong.

 In the 1970s, perhaps, the problems became obvious enough that Universities began to offer degrees in Environmental Science, and some high schools began, around that time to offer courses in Environmental Science.  In recent times, almost all high schools in America and probably other coutries offer courses in Environmental Science.  Something has happened.

Why are we teaching these classes?   In a few words: we cannot be here to solve the problems that threaten the very existence of our children and students, so we need to help your generation and future generations to grapple with and solve them.  We are obligated to provide you with tools, and to help you to understand the problems, the science, and possible future scenarios.  Tools.  

 

I would argue that Nuclear Waste is a different kind of problem.  

Here's the core issue: Nuclear Waste does not go away, not in hundreds of lifetimes.  

To the children, and their children's children, for hundreds of generations: Here's the crux of your inherited problem.  Neither Mars, nor any other known planet, can save us.  This is our planet, and we are destroying its life nurturing abilities. I think plastics are terrible; but even plastics should no longer be a problem by then. 

When I look at that photograph of Earth from the Moon, it does not feel like a goodbye photo.   We need to do better.   Let's work on that.

For perspective, here is the first photo of Earth ever taken from space--in 1946.

 

 

 

The probability of this new idea: "Confidential Computing" being airtight: vanishing

Another claim of improved security/privacy:

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-07-google-cloud-confidential.html

I predict that before long this system will be hacked.  I base this on my understanding a little about limitations of the human brain.  The human brain evolved to solve problems, and we are the best at it.  Here's another challenge.  Add another to the list of perfected systems designed by humans.

• The Titanic
• Alcatraz
• Bank (etc) encrypted security systems  

Is anybody listening?

Does the National Academy of Sciences "encourage education?"

(Who is modeling inclusiveness in Science?  This article approaches this question  at a time when trust in science has eroded to a dangerous level.) 

As a student, I was told that the goal of education was to learn how to learn, that life-long learning is a highly cherished life habit.

As a teacher, I focused dutifully upon that objective.  I encouraged my students to do research, sometimes in the backyard, or maybe at the beach; and other times reading, or writing an email (before email, write a letter) to a researcher and ask a question.

You have the golden key, I told my students in the Pacific Islands.  Every organism you see or wonder about---almost every one---someone, some scientist or student, is an expert about it, is devoted to learning about it.

This is a wonderful world.  Knowledge is cool.  So many ways.

Today I was engaged in one of my deepest passions: browsing the Internet, reading about scientific research.  As a sophomore in College I had a Venus fly trip as a "pet," used to feed it flies.  So when I saw news today that the mechanism of the Venus Fly Trap's snap trap had been figured out, I was eager to learn about this---as eager as my young students about corals.

I read the article, and was eager to learn more, so I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page---after navigating through a thicket of advertising.  The original report of this research was published by the National Academy of Sciences, in PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  This is indeed fortunate, I should have thought---as a public institution, it has always seemed obvious to me that there should be no secret about these publications.  Aha!   I found the abstract, a summary of the research result, but without any of the juicy morsels, here.  If you, like me, click on this link you will discover quite a page.  Prominently displayed will be a diminutive button that says "PDF."   I was thrilled.  This would be the gateway to the original article.  I taught students to at least try to read original articles.  With the right thinking, it can only shed more light on the findings that were reported elsewhere.

However, I was to encounter an impediment---one that, frankly, I have encounted hundreds if not thousands of times.

Let's zoom in:

See that, on the bottom of this image?   This is actually a good deal compared to many other scientific publishers.  I can remember many articles that would cost 52.00 for 7 days of access!

My poor students would be unable to pay that amount.  Out in the islands, there isn't even a library they could visit and access it that way.

Whos is the National Academy of Sciences?

I decided to dig in.  That National Academy of Sciences seems like a prestigious title.  What do they do?   Accumulate research findings for their prestigious members, who can doubtless afford to subscribe.  Let's find out how much a subscription would cost:

For just some guy like me (or my poor students) this would cost 235.00.  If I want to just subscribe to 3 or four scientific journals, it would cost not much less than 1,000.00.

I looked into this organization that deprives students reasonable access to the publications of the esteemed scientists who publish behind their walls:  at this point I had about HAD IT!   Here's the nice "Mission" statement: (The good parts are in Red.)

Mission

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Approximately 500 current and deceased members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM, formerly the Institute of Medicine) -- were founded under the NAS charter in 1964 and 1970, respectively. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. The National Academies' service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.

Clearliy the National Academy of Sciences has a limited perspective on what constitutes public understanding in matters of science, engineering and medicine.  Does this walled garden approach " encourage education?".

No.  Not so far as I can see.

 

More About Scientific Publications

How many scientific publications are there?  According to Vice, there are 8,000 FAKE science journals.  One source I found via a google search had these statistics on their site:

How many science journals?

with one comment

• Estimation: <> 25-40,000 journals
• 96% are published online
• 8-10% are published under Open Access models
• 20% of science articles are available free of charge
• How many articles have been published ever (means since 1665)? est. 50 millions
• Growth: 1.4 million of articles per year
• There are 2,000 publishers but Top 3 (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley)  account for 42% of articles published
• Elsevier itself publishes 250,000 articles a year in 2,000 journals
• The biggest platform of ejournals, ScienceDirect, provides 240 million of downloads per year to 10 million of users
• The cost of publishing a single online scientific journal article is estimated at $10,000
• To purchase an article for an individual: $30-40
• Average cost of a subscription for a library: $3,792 (average cost for a chemistry journal) up to $10,000
• The most expensive: Biochimica & Biophysica Acta, $20,930 a year!

Speaking of Elsevier, the University of California Library system has had enough, and has not renewed their contract with Elsevier to provide access.  If I understand this well, the Library encourages publication in Open Access journals.   Much of the research at the University is publicly funded.   How do publishers justify to blockade the public from the reports of this research?

This has been a problem for a long tiome.  The phrase "Peer Reviewed Journals" has been a weapon in that hands of some of the publishers.

There is no time, nor do I have the energy at this point, to rant further about my personal battle to access science literature while teaching and researching in Micronesia.  I will say, however, that no small number of research projects bear consequences for islanders: publications about global warming, sea level rise, parasites, tropical diseases, nutrition.... to name a few.  Even articles about the cultures of the islands themselves are "paywalled," a term meaning to demand payment for admittance to access.

There is hope.  The Public Library of Science is a group of journals that were organized to provide scientists publication access, with peer review, in a totally open access manner.  Check it out: https://plos.org/

The Business of Publishing

I saw two news items today, on opposite ends of the spectrum (from amazing to abjectly horrible).

I. Archive.Org sued

Putting a positivie spin on it, Slashdot.org fielded this

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/20/06/11/194226/activists-rally-to-save-internet-archive-as-lawsuit-threatens-site

II. One more University (MIT) faces down Elsevier

https://news.slashdot.org/story/20/06/11/2114259/mit-ends-elsevier-negotiations

Just how long have we known about climate change anyways?