How can someone objectively believe that corporate funded research doesn’t bias scientific outcomes?
There’s just so much evidence that it does. This isn’t to say that every collaboration is biased, but we should presume that it’s more likely to exist than not.
Scientists Loved and Loathed by an Agrochemical Giant http://nyti.ms/2iOYpLm
In this wackadoodle election season it’s hard to remember all the good things a President can do. In the age of anti-intellectualism and truthers we should celebrate science.
He began an annual tradition of science fairs, arguing that if he celebrates the nation’s top athletes at the White House, he should do the same for the best young scientific talent.
Obama to Leave the White House a Nerdier Place Than He Found It http://nyti.ms/2aFeSkU
Wonder material graphene has broken out of the lab, but hasn’t quite broken into the factory. Lots of planned uses have already been envisioned. But who is going to have the first commercially available product?
My bet is a Chinese tchotchke company will produce some kind of toy meant for the desks of office drones worldwide; available for $9.99 at Brookstone.
Here’s hoping that the promise of graphene heralds the next era of unfathomable leaps in efficiency and productivity; solving the worlds ills, environmental, economic and otherwise.
Invest early and often in this one.
NYTimes: Bend It, Charge It, Dunk It: Graphene, the Material of Tomorrow
NobodyisFlyingthePlane when whiny moms demand antibiotics for their spawn and doctors blithely give them; shutting up the moms, avoiding lawsuits, and making things worse for the rest of us.
NobodyisFlyingthePlane when agribiz fattens their livestock spreading antibiotics all throughout the ecosystem.
NobodyisFlyingthePlane when people who don’t have OCD but act as though they do use antibacterial cleaners throughout their home and then wonder why their family still gets sick.
Can we accept that maybe the greater good is served by letting some bugs fester and survive while reserving antibiotics for the really serious stuff?
NYTimes: We Kill Germs at Our Peril
This would be a fun survey to look at every 5-10 years or so. I’m curious what folks thought about the idea of cellphones in 1980. Clearly there is a lot of trepidation about certain technological changes, but perhaps that is as much about the change as it is about the technology.
I’d bet it all that when we get driverless cars sorted out people will jump on the bandwagon with no fear and a fervor rivaled only by smartphones.
Surveys like this can’t really grasp people’s feelings about complex integrations of technology into life. If you told a person in 1980 that the government would be able to tell where he or she is 24/7 that person would freak. Thirty years later we willingly gave them that power through smartphones.
The idea of robots caring for the elderly or the sick seems repugnant, but that’s when you think of old people farms run entirely by robots. What about robots taking care of the least pleasant, most mindless and repetitive tasks amidst human care givers? Picture a robot that could lift a person out of bed, get them dressed and into their wheel chair all while a human care giver is looking on. What about a robotic ass wiper? Who wouldn’t rather hold onto their dignity and let a machine take care of the unpleasant parts.
Why should we let failed policies prevent study of a drug believed to have numerous theraputic uses?
Its pretty clear now that its not the boogeyman previously blamed for all of society’s ills. Its time to let doctors and scientists study it like millions of other beneficial drugs.
NYTimes: Tapping Medical Marijuana’s Potential
A look at why economics is not really a science, but rather an art with scientific aims.
The essential premise is that economics predictive power has not improved over time and therefore it fails the test as a science.
NYTimes: What Is Economics Good For?