The National Science Foundation and Science magazine collaborate on an annual Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge.  Awards are given in five categories: Pictures/Photography, Drawing/Illustrations, Explanatory Graphics, Interactive and Non-interactive media.  You can peruse the winners, and when I did I was struck about the lack of explanation in the images.  Sure, the images are arresting, but I think more directed or explicit communications ought to receive more attention.  New kinds of charts and graphs, and new forms of description that are beyond charts and graphs, are things worth encouraging.  Winners like this revisualization of the bible are what I’d like to see more of.  That they receive little attention and less explanation in the press and promotional material is frustrating and disappointing.

Perhaps someone at NSF or Science could be introduced to the works of Edward Tufte.  Besides demonstrating to the world that PowerPoint is indeed evil, he’s done a fair amount of work on the design of effective visual communications – on using the technology properly to get the message(s) across.

A Guest post by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch

The Survey of Climate Scientists (Bray and von Storch CliSci2008) closed on October 1. On September 29 preemptive negative comments were posted on the popular blog Real Climate by Gavin Schmidt, a NASA scientist. Here we would like to respond to some of the issues that he raised.

First, for the record, as there seems to be some confusion as to who we are, I am a sociologist and Hans von Storch is a climate scientist.

First a thanks to those people who took the time to respond to the survey and those who contributed favorable comments on the RealClimate blog.

I attend first to the blog posting and then some of the responses.

(more…)

Having studied science and technology policy as well as science and technology studies (yes, sadly, the two are distinct academic fields), understanding and rebutting common assumptions about science and technology is almost a commonplace.  When I taught an undergraduate introductory course in science and technology studies this past summer, my syllabus was full of readings and assignments that hopefully forced my students to do the same.  To do this with any hope of success requires understanding where your audience – whether students or colleagues – is coming from.  You can’t hope to know exactly where they’re coming from when you start (for instance, I thought my students would take easily to the online-only format of the course, and they did not), but a little bit of thought and research are good preparation.

To that end, there is the Mindset List, annually released around the beginning of the academic year to remind professors the mindset of their incoming students (some attempt to open the eyes of incoming students might be useful, but does not appear to be publicized, if it is done).  The current list is for the Class of 2012, most of whom were born in 1990 (when I graduated high school, for what it’s worth).  The List is written by the Public Affairs Director and an English professor at Beloit College in Wisconsin, and has been done annually since 1998.  Tom McBride, the English professor, writes in the Fall 2008 issue of The Common Review about the List as a tangible reminder of aging, but I think the real value is in identifying assumptions worth addressing.

While it’s not noted explicitly, many of the points are often related to science and/or technology.  The list is particularly good in pointing out what young people will *not* be familiar with – which is just as important as what they know.

(more…)

You may have read recently that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently started operations.  Contrary to the exaggerated concerns that black holes will form – as noted in this 2000 segment from The Daily Show – there was no such incident when the LHC powered up last month.

What did happen was a magnet failure, prompted by a problem with an electrical connection.  As the BBC reports, it will take a couple of months to properly assess and repair the problem(s).  The downtime is particularly critical for the LHC, because its electricity needs – roughly equivalent to enough power for all of the households in the Geneva area – limit the amount of time it can run during the year.

There is a long list of relatively small errors that have compromised large technological systems: the O-rings and the Challenger, the failure to convert units on a Mars probe, the Spruce Goose being just too heavy to fly.  This may or may not qualify as an error, but it does reinforce the notion that the larger and/or more complex a machine is, the easier it can be for things to go wrong.  It also reinforces the idea that it’s not only the large technical hurdles that matter when trying to innovate, but making sure every part functions effectively.

With most of North America voting soon (Canada holds an election on October 14th, and many states have started early voting), it’s worth noting the use of technology in voting.  (Disclaimer, this issue has dominated a fair amount of my work at the Association for Computing Machinery, and I defer to their work on the issue.) This is also a not so subtle reminder for all of our Canadian and American readers to get out and vote.

If you are going to vote in person, rather than by mail, take a few minutes on Election Day to note not only the machines you use to vote, but the system in which voting takes place.  Are the poll workers well trained?  Are there enough resources to handle the flow of voters?  If not, talk to your local boards of election (or equivalent agencies) to see if they have the resources and training that they need. If not, it’s worth agitating to make a change.

Many jurisdictions have rolled out electronic poll books over the last 2-3 years for checking in voters, replacing paper lists.  So not only have touch-screen voting machines spread in popularity, touch-screen registration lists are also more common.  With a move from physical to electronic records in both registration and voting, there are tradeoffs.  Those tradeoffs are highlighted in times where close election races lead to recounts and other election disputes.  In an effort to ensure fair elections that are acceptable to the supporters of the losers, a general principle worth pursuing is transparency.  Unfortunately, that transparency is hard to come by when it comes to voting.

I have an article on science and politics in the current issue of the Harvard International Review. You can access a copy here in PDF. Here is an excerpt:

We have choices in how experts relate to decisionmakers. Whether we are taking our children to the doctor or using science to inform policies, better decisions will be made more often if we pay attention to the role of expertise in decision-making and the different forms that it can take.
Striving for better decisions, rather than trying to separate science and politics, is the best method for dealing with the challenges of the politicization of science.

For regular Prometheus readers there won’t be much new, but for others maybe so.

In light of continued federal incompetence in passing budgets, I recently suggested that finding alternative sources for research funding is worth considering.  The state of the economy, both here and abroad, adds to that need.

Unfortunately, it’s possible that a good alternate source of funding – foundations – may not be as available as I thought.  Noted paleontologist Richard Leakey recently noted that the credit crisis will likely affect scientific research because of reduced donations to foundations.  Dr. Leakey, of Kenya, made his remarks this week while speaking at the University of Arkansas as part of a book tour.  Acknowledging that there are many other consequences of the crisis that are more dire, he noted:

“With the investment portfolios being hit as hard as they’ve been hit in the last few weeks, particularly the last few days, I would have thought there would be a very dramatic reduction in available funds for research in all sorts of countries,” Leakey told reporters Wednesday. “Unless they bring it under control, I think it’s going to spread. I think it’s extremely worrying for science.”

Now funding of scientific research outside of the United States might be more reliant on funding from foundations, philanthropists and companies than it is here, but it seems unlikely the United States would be immune from the necessary spending and investment cutbacks likely to take place over the next several years in those institutions.  So the squeeze is likely to get tighter.

In this week’s Denver Post, there is a series of articles criticizing the Colorado Democracy Alliance. The articles insinuate impropriety among a loose collection of left-leaning nonprofits. The reporter, Jessica Fender, argues in her article “Progressive gang uses nonprofits to push politics”:

Colorado’s best-known progressive donors are advancing their political and ideological agenda through a web of advocacy and nonprofit groups, many of which claim nonpartisanship and receive tax exemptions.

The 37 organizations that collectively receive millions at the direction of the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CoDA) serve unique purposes in the progressive power brokers’ toolbox.

They build voting blocs, provide policy research, shape media communications, train progressive leaders or encourage civic engagement, according to the alliance’s organizing documents.

She continues in a second article:

The model, which appears to legally skirt federal regulations that prevent coordination between candidate campaigns and issue groups, has proved so successful at turning a red state blue that it could cause nationwide change as 18 other states prepare to adopt it.

While Ms. Fender might not like the outcome, what is wrong with a nonprofit engaging in politics?

Yes, there are a number of laws that restrict nonprofit behavior in politics. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit — the most restrictive tax designation – cannot support specific candidates for office, contribute to political campaigns, or tell its members how to vote.

However, 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in issue advocacy, sponsor talk by candidates, and attempt to persuade candidates to adopt the organization’s position. Certainly, these are political activities!

I have a guest post on the logic of IPCC statements on attribution up over at my father’s blog. Please feel free to read it over there and comment here.

Last month over 60 Nobel Laureates released a short letter endorsing Senator Obama for President.  Exercises like this tread those blurry lines between science, technology and politics.  The letter takes care to not make the claim that the science suggests Senator Obama would be the better candidate, but that the endorsing scientists prefer how he would use science and technology for various social/political purposes.  From the letter:

The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

…

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise
have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific
advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant
position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We
have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse
climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially
applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance
our nation’s competitiveness

…

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and
technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We
hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

The details in the letter are all focused on specific policy outcomes desired by the signing laureates.  Invoking the signers Nobel status (implied in the letter, but very explicit in the associated reports on the letter) does suggest that they speak for science (no winners of the Economics, Literature or Peace prizes have signed it so far), and that is the one part that I find problematic.  There are some mitigating circumstances that make this easier to swallow.

(more…)