Science’s proper place
is in the basement of Waterstone’s in London. Can’t win ’em all.
Continue reading →is in the basement of Waterstone’s in London. Can’t win ’em all.
Continue reading →But if this case is anywhere near this serious — if multiple former students are accusing Hauser of outright fabrication, or if many others in the discipline have harbored grave doubts about the integrity of the data — then this case turns us back to the perennial question of how to curb such shenanigans.
…The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.
Continue reading →This isn’t something we’ll figure out in a couple workshops; it’s something the industry and the broader genomics community will need to consider carefully over the next few years, even as it rapidly grows.
Continue reading →Jerry Coyne relates that Birds are getting smaller. Most students use Wikipedia, avoid telling profs about it When I talk to writing classes, someone will usually ask if I use Wikipedia. I tell them, “It’s often my first stop — never my last.” Carl Zimmer has mashed up the data from his clever online survey […]
Continue reading →I’ll try doing this now and then, maybe regularly, to gather the more notable tweets I get in my twitter feed. Darwin2009: Population-level traits that affect, and do not affect, invasion success http://ow.ly/1mMUp jayrosen_nyu: “The New York Times is now as much a technology company as a journalism company.” <— Bill Keller http://jr.ly/2pfz dhayton: “H-Madness” […]
Continue reading →was thrilled this morning to learn that this humble, erratic blog was named one of Top 30 Science Blogs by Eureka, the new monthly science magazine recently launched by the Times of London.
Continue reading →It was a riveting, invigorating, almost intoxicating experience. It seemed a glimpse of the sort of honesty, rigor, transparency, and quality of thought and discussion that a more open system of science communication and discussion might generate.
Continue reading →Ask not whom to kill, but how sci journalism and/or sci journalists might adapt to a new environment.
Continue reading →If good science writing were easy, we’d be choking on it. Instead, it’s rare enough that when we find it, we celebrate it and pass on the links as something especially worth attending. Why pretend it’s otherwise?
Continue reading →