sciam.com— Science 2.0 generally refers to new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on.
Apr 21, 2008View in Crawl 4
media never reports accurately. AMENBisphenol A is a case-in-point. I read a couple papers published in the American Chemical Society which found that while Bisphenol A had all the bad effects the TV mentions, these were seen in mice that were injected with bisphenol A or in test tubes.When taken orally, both mice and men metabolize it into a form that is excreted harmlessly from the body in 4 hours. Bacteria in the environment are then able to digest it further....
And I will say the data is suspect until its been validated by peer review, and a blog is incidentally taking said suspect data direct to the public who will latch onto it as gospel and be disappointed when it turns out to be because the animal care person was scaring the bejeezus out of the rabbits and not popular drug Xyz causes panic attacks.
Credit also matters for people that are trying to get the increasingly difficult to obtain tenure positions, and it's one of the only metrics there is to measure how good a scientist is. If you put up a new idea and a couple of supporting experiments, there's absolutely nothing to stop some bastard PI from reproducing(your un-peer-reviewed web published experiments) and publishing your work in a real journal. I see absolutely no incentive for a scientist to post his in-progress work for everyone to see.
you would be surprised how easy it is for non morons to understand macro evolution, and seeing the results that prove it will only reinforce it. And i do hope we have more than 0.000001% intelligent population.
everyone I know says one of two things against it:-- statistics lie: people will be easly mislead by intentionally vague postings-- derails the process of peer review for science.but I think, we get the first problem whether or not the information is well prepared first or not — simple example from a Lewis Black routine: "We know next to nothing about what is good for you. Simple example, is milk good for you or bad for you? (silent rumblings) See?! I rest my case". And the second one confuses the peer review system with private data. Public data means the data is public. establsihed facts still have to be established though.
bhreconApr 22, 2008
SCIENCE!!!!
atact88Apr 22, 2008
media never reports accurately. AMENBisphenol A is a case-in-point. I read a couple papers published in the American Chemical Society which found that while Bisphenol A had all the bad effects the TV mentions, these were seen in mice that were injected with bisphenol A or in test tubes.When taken orally, both mice and men metabolize it into a form that is excreted harmlessly from the body in 4 hours. Bacteria in the environment are then able to digest it further....
Closed AccountApr 22, 2008
link?
diderottenApr 22, 2008
An article purely about science and you guys had to ruin it.
staticthunderApr 22, 2008
And I will say the data is suspect until its been validated by peer review, and a blog is incidentally taking said suspect data direct to the public who will latch onto it as gospel and be disappointed when it turns out to be because the animal care person was scaring the bejeezus out of the rabbits and not popular drug Xyz causes panic attacks.
deadpanscienceApr 22, 2008
Credit also matters for people that are trying to get the increasingly difficult to obtain tenure positions, and it's one of the only metrics there is to measure how good a scientist is. If you put up a new idea and a couple of supporting experiments, there's absolutely nothing to stop some bastard PI from reproducing(your un-peer-reviewed web published experiments) and publishing your work in a real journal. I see absolutely no incentive for a scientist to post his in-progress work for everyone to see.
llamaguy132Apr 22, 2008
you would be surprised how easy it is for non morons to understand macro evolution, and seeing the results that prove it will only reinforce it. And i do hope we have more than 0.000001% intelligent population.
robbiemuffinApr 23, 2008
everyone I know says one of two things against it:-- statistics lie: people will be easly mislead by intentionally vague postings-- derails the process of peer review for science.but I think, we get the first problem whether or not the information is well prepared first or not — simple example from a Lewis Black routine: "We know next to nothing about what is good for you. Simple example, is milk good for you or bad for you? (silent rumblings) See?! I rest my case". And the second one confuses the peer review system with private data. Public data means the data is public. establsihed facts still have to be established though.