Fake Banner
Marijuana For ADHD?

Cannabis and THC, its main psychoactive compound, have been endorsed by people suffering from anxiety...

Rutgers Study - Forcing DEI Programs On People Increases Hostility

If you have done nothing wrong, do you want to be treated like a criminal? That was always the...

Minnesota Trial Lawyers Want To Ban Neonics - Here Is Why That Is A Mistake

Minnesota is having a challenging year, so challenging they are approaching California as the wackiest...

The Toxic Masculinity Of Disney Movies

Once upon a time, stories were just stories. They were fantasies that took people to a new world...

User picture.
picture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Robert H Olleypicture for
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
What do you get when you cross the founder of Wikipedia with Cambridge biologist Michael Ashburner and about a million other people? An article in Genome Biology, that's what. It's WikiProteins, the first WikiProfessional project. Most of the project has been importing papers from PubMed and other locations. Then, with all that data, they are counting on a large group of participants to make sense of it all. Jimmy Wales is all about the power of crowds. And anonymity.

Scientists like order and structure and methodology. Repeatability is even better, though that often requires additional grant funding. It's no different when it comes to weekends, bars and picking up science groupies.

But it's not so simple, even for scientists. The perfect world of methodology and repeatability is instead replaced by linguistic voodoo and trial and error regarding alcohol. Science, as always, is here to help.

There are rules, you see, but they are unwritten. By taking a broad cross-section of shared experiences we can establish a baseline and go from there. That is good science.

There's victimization and then there's, apparently, indirect victimization. Even the most popular girl in school can be a victim of indirect victimization, according to University of Alberta Educational Psychology PhD student Lindsey Leenaars and colleagues, especially if indirect victimization includes receiving anonymous notes that make fun of them, being socially excluded by some group or having rumors spread about them. In other words, indirect victimization happens to everyone in high school. Leenaars took data from questionnaires filled out in 2003 by some 2,300 students (ages 12–18) in Ontario. The anonymous questionnaire included questions about their attractiveness, their sexual activity, their friendships and school social problems. Leenaars found that females who viewed themselves as attractive had a 35 percent increased chance of considering themselves indirectly victimized.

One consistent feature of human progress throughout history has been that science will come up with creative answers to current problems. When ancient people living in small tribes were running out of game to hunt, some leaders thought rationing and mitigation were the answers. They would have created a culture of despair. Domesticated livestock was the answer instead and then efficient agriculture and even terraforming.

Based on that confidence, a lot of people, me included, assume that global warming can be solved by some 'future technology' as yet undeveloped. Killing our economy by 25% now (yes, imagine it 25% worse) to stave off a .5 degree warming problem in 50 years is positively un-scientific.

But hope is not how things get done. People point to Y2K and say 'it was all hype, nothing happened' but they forget that's because we spent billions prior to that fixing problems. Likewise, acid rain was a huge concern in the 1980s and is not now because problems were addressed squarely.

Capturing and storing carbon dioxide is a solution the anti-global warming contingent (read, political pundits and bloggers using science to attack Democrats) say can keep us in an SUV Promised Land today. Then future technology can deal with it permanently.

To those people (in this case, Republicans) I say, 'Pretend a Democrat is saying Social Security will take care of itself in the future. Would you be skeptical?' Well, that's how I feel when they insist nothing needs to change and it will all be okay.

Bottlerocket in New York City, the coolest wine store on the planet, is having a book signing with the coolest futurist on the planet (and Scientific Blogging fave) David Houle. Meanwhile, Howard Bloom has been holed up in a cave working on his latest magnum opus - I am sworn to secrecy but it somehow ties together Osama Bin Laden, Michael Jackson and a unified theory of pretty much everything. So there's a sweet SB coffee mug on the line for anyone who can get him out of Brooklyn and into a picture with both of them wearing their Scientific Blogging shirts.
"No Child Left Behind" is controversial because it pointed out something everyone knows but the people being blamed didn't actually like hearing - education in the US was not all that great at the lower levels.

No Child Left Behind doesn't work as well as we want and never will, as long as the people being blamed are the ones it's supposed to motivate into doing better. At the university level, where America does quite well, it's a different system.