Science blogger and University of Wisconsin scientist John Hawks recently demonstrated that it really is possible to blog and get tenure. Continuing this discussion, he now explains why scientists should take the time to blog. It will help you make an impact on the culture at large:

You might give media interviews, public lectures, or write more accessible treatments of your research or your field. You might even blog. By serving the public and your own colleagues, you raise the game. Science depends on criticism, on many eyes examining hypotheses and finding observations that test them. Science bootstraps itself, it can only advance when people near the top of the mountain send a hand down to lift others up. That means teaching your methods to others, and helping a broader public understand why the mountain is worth climbing.

A paper in Cell is reporting the sequence of a Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA genome. Mitochondrial DNA, which you inherit only from your mother, has long been among the most useful DNA regions for tracing your ancestry. In the Neanderthal mitochondrial genome, researchers found, not surprisingly, that the sequence differences are well beyond the range of what we see within human populations, meaning that Neanderthals clearly were a distinct biological sub-species.

A physics professor, writing in Inside Higher Ed, asks why intellectuals think it's ok to be ignorant of math and science, but not of art, music and literature. When among intellectual company, humanities professors can confess, without a trace of shame, their complete ignorance of science, one of humanity's most important intellectual achievements. But in our culture, a science professor had better not admit to a similar level of ignorance about art or music. This physics professor quotes another blogger to illustrate the phenomenon:

Is it worth considering that perhaps there are even some smart people who aren’t great at math and/or science?.. [A]re we to force every peg, round or square, into that hole at the expense of forcing students, who may be gifted in other equally important subjects, to drop out after a long series of demoralizing failures?

To which he replies:

Physicist Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson on computers and physics:

The prestige attached to computers and their erudite gimmicks impresses almost everyone, but especially the simulators. They often believe they have proved that a system--like the little crystal of solid helium--can't possibly behave the way experiments show, therefore there's something dubious about the experiments, and not the simulations. Of course, to the casual observer computer simulations are far more impressive than old-fashioned logic and common sense. But we must remember that a simulation, even if correct, can't really prove anything. Computers will always have limits of error in trying to model the world. In the end logic and pure science, independent of the computer, still get us closest to nature...

(That last part should be qualified: simulations can prove things, but those things may have no resemblance to what goes on in the physical world.) In this short piece, Anderson argues that in physics, the tremendous power of computers is more helpful in organizing experimental data than in guiding theorists. Simulations of complex systems that try to account for the interactions of every single atom involved are out of reach of our current computer power, and the shortcuts that simulators make to get around this limitation end up severely biasing the results of the simulation. Thus theorists, Anderson argues, should not be using simulations as a substitute for "logic and pure science".

I apparently missed this little episode in June, when a creationist (with no scientific credentials) read a news piece on the recent work of Michigan State biologist Richard Lenski, and then wrote an obnoxious letter demanding Lenski's data. Lenski has had a long-running bacterial evolution project, and recently published a paper on the evolution of citrate-metabolizing bacteria in his lab. Lenksi has long been the focus of creationist attacks, because much of his in-the-lab evolutionary experiments strike right at the heart of the claims of the intelligent design movement. This latest issue has been well-covered in various science blogs, but this little scene raises an interesting question: are scientists obligated to share data or reagents with anyone who asks, scientist or not?