For Science!

You should probably check out this 50-question quiz from the Christian Science Monitor to determine whether or not you're scientifically literate.

I got 37 of them correct, or 74%, so I'm not especially scientifically literate, but could be worse. I did pretty well with the questions about planets, because I was into astronomy as a kid, and also the ones where the question included some sort of information about the answer like "from the Greek for..." because I read a lot and have picked up a lot of the basic Greek and Latin word roots over time, but I wasn't so hot on anything having to do with biology or physics.

Sigh...those are totally important topics that my knowledge base is the poorer for lacking. I will hang my head in shame.

I saw this on Skepchick.

Science Science Science Yay!

Today's first science camp presentation was epidemiology.

Michael Kneeland gave a lively overview of the various types of studies that inform epidemiological research, from randomized controlled trials on through case studies, and stressed the need to read and think carefully, which I'm sure we can all applaud.

Then Joel Ticknor talked about some studies in his area, environmental health, making the point that in this field you're not going to get randomized controlled trials on specific chemical exposures in humans or whatever, so you have to look at narrow slices of the whole like how something is metabolized, genetic mechanisms, etc. However, we can (and sometimes must) act based on evidence that is less than the gold standard RCT--as he pointed out, we don't do randomized trials on parachutes vs. no parachutes to protect against falling damage, either.

We heard a lot about Bisphenol A a few years ago (a compound in hard plastic bottles that is thought to possibly leach into water, with unknown effect), and while the official jury is still out on how dangerous it is, the outcry prompted industry to remove it from a lot of products. This shows that we don't always have to wait for some sort of verdict; companies don't want to lose business, so if there's enough concern, they may just act.

On the other hand, this chemical was replaced with one that we don't know any more about than we initially knew about BPA, so we have no way of knowing if it's actually any safer. A major takeaway from this presentation was that a lot of chemicals have basically not been studied, so as far as anyone knows they're safe, in the sense that they haven't caused any obvious problems to date, but we don't actually know much of anything about them so it's impossible to say if they're actually harmless, or if one is better or worse than another.

Just part of life in the exciting modern world!

My latest theory: when the robots rise up against us, they won't bother to crush us, they'll just poison us with chemicals. As you can imagine, my positive outlook and cheerful attitude is a boon to any gathering. Invite me to your party!



After lunch, Nathan Wilson and Holly Miller talked to us about exciting scientist/librarian projects at the Marine Biological Laboratory/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Encyclopedia of Life, the Biodiversity Heritage Library, and NetiNeti (a program that picks scientific names out of text) are all cool projects that librarians have worked on, to the benefit of scientists as scientific data is organized and made accessible.

Again, I could say so much more about these presentations, which I have no justice whatsoever, but I am weary. Just be filled with pure, sweet happiness at the thought that I got to enjoy them, and let your glee at my good fortune also be salted with your own bitter tears of remorse at not being there yourself.

Sweet happiness plus bitter tears makes a great seasoning for Friday night.

.

Bring on the Science!

I'm having a fine time at Science Camp so far, everyone.

We learned about robotics and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's robotics program this morning, and although we did not get a sock-wearing robot of our own to take home (so, yes, my heart is broken), we did get to see several tournament-winning machines from the WPI Team 190. We also met some of the impressive young men and women who design, build, program and drive these mechanical contraptions, and I must say that my faith in the continued future awesomeness of robots is strong.

Sure, they may one day turn on us and kill us all, but at least it will be a sign of our having been too clever by half. Go out in a blaze of poorly applied intelligence, that's what I say.

If I were younger, I would be so filled with a burning need to go into robotics, I can't even tell you.

Anyway, presenters Mike Gennert and Ken Stafford talked about what a robot is, the many applications of robots in society (medical uses including surgery and rehab, defense/military uses, nanotechnology, manufacturing, entertainment), and the interdisciplinary nature of the field, which draws from computer science, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering.

Also discussed was the need to be aware of the social implications of these technologies: are robots making the world a better place? There are clear ethical issues around some of these things, like the way military drones can make war something like a 9-5 job that someone can do from an office, remotely launching missiles on the other side of the world. Robots can really change the way things are done, as well as the types of things we can do, and we have to think about the implications.

There was a lot more to the presentations, but alas, time is short and I must press on with other notes before I sleep.


After lunch, we had astronomy, which was very cool. I haven't had an astronomy class since college, so it was fun to get a refresher. One presenter, Dr. Stephen Schneider, basically went through everything from my astronomy 101 course in an hour and a half (minus the lab work). I love that stuff. Enormous, cosmic scales! The past and future of the universe! Peering backward through time by focusing into the farthest reaches of space!

Key concepts were the huge differences between studying things within the solar system, where we can see fairly clearly and send probes and cameras (and robots!) to test things out, and studying things outside the solar system, where we can only observe.

In both cases, astronomy, like geology, is a field in which we really can't do controlled experiments to test hypotheses the way we can in other disciplines. There's only the one universe, and things happen on such large scales of space and time that all you can really do is observe, make hypotheses, and then see how well they proves to predict something previously unobserved.

The second speaker, Dr. Alexandra Pope, addressed some specific research into large, dusty galaxies that are colliding. Apparently this situation is a veritable hotbed of star formation, which can be determined through measuring every possible wavelength of radiation coming from said galaxies. We learned about different types of telescope (radio, optical, submillimeter) that measure different wavelengths, and the sorts of things that can interfere with measurements.

In response to a question about whether there's still a role for amateur astronomers, we also learned about Galaxy Zoo, where you too can help astronomers explore the universe, and about the collaborative nature of much of astronomy, where large data sets from one study are often made available for others to use as well.

Again, there was a lot more than that, but no one wants to read all the details of my scrawled notes. Just take my word for it, it was a fun day and you are totally overcome with jealousy because you missed it.

And, in a completely unanticipated turn of events, the fact that I memorized the Robert Frost poem Fire and Ice 20 years ago came in handy. Which just goes to show, you never know. Seriously, you do not know.

That's why you do research.

Science ho!
.

Camping In

I'm here in lovely Worcester, MA, chilling in a dorm room that is far more fabulous than anyplace I ever got to live when I was in college, waiting for tomorrow's programming.

We start with robotics in the morning, and I'm going to tell you, it will pretty much break my heart if I do not get a robot to take home from the session. Because that would be the best conference swag ever.

And I speak as someone who is extremely fond of swag, including the classic pens, the ever-practical sticky notes, the useful lip balms, the coveted flash drives, the small toys of any description, the hand sanitizers, the buttons, the bags (one can never have too many) and, of course, the candy. If there's anything I missed, don't worry, I'm almost certainly fond of that too.

You know what else would make good swag? Socks. I would wear socks with company logos on them all over the place.

A robot in socks carrying a bag full of pens and candy? Pure awesome.

.

Let's Go, Let's Go!

Oh, drat. I was just sitting here peacefully reading blogs and then I remembered that I have to pack because I'm going to Science Camp for Librarians* tomorrow.

It's going to be awesome. I hope we toast marshmallows and sing songs around a crackling fire. We probably will, too!

We'll be hearing about robotics (nice!), astronomy (nice and enormous!) and epidemiology (nice and contagious!). It will be a lot different from the last time I had any sleepaway camp experience, which was an aikido camp in 1995 or something.

Well, better go pack my toasting sticks and banjo.

Just kidding. I don't own toasting sticks.


*The official name is Science Boot Camp for Librarians, but I'm less in favor of that because it suggests marching and push-ups, while I prefer handicrafts and bonfires, so I've decided to just go with Science Camp.

.

Strange Ideas

There's a lengthy but interesting post on Respectful Insolence about how easy it is to scornfully dismiss the stupid things the government spends money on, and how sometimes those things turn out to not actually be stupid.

He's talking specifically about the sometimes funny-sounding scientific projects that get funded. Because it's easy to criticize, and say "come on, why on earth do we need to pay good money to research the effects of turpentine on amphibians?"

Fun, too!

Little do we know that in fact, amphibious turpentine could totally cure cancer if we'd only bothered to fund the research.

The point is, everything sounds stupid if you don't know anything about it. And some things are certainly stupid even when you do know something about them. Probably including some scientific research.

But you can't necessarily assume that because you don't understand something, it's not worth anything. Sadly, this means that you have to know at least a little about things before you can scornfully dismiss them, which believe me I know is a huge hassle and eats up a lot of precious time.

This did remind me, though, that I often find that even subjects I assumed were horribly boring (possibly useful, but dull) are actually pretty interesting once you start to understand them.

For example, speaking of research, I really did not think I cared at all about research methods, but then I took a required class in library school, and hey, that stuff is kind of fascinating!

A lot of goofy research projects also turn out to have pretty interesting things going on.

In short, cut stupid ideas some slack, at least to the point of figuring out exactly what is the point of the turpentine and the amphibians. You can always scornfully dismiss it later, and with an extra sense of righteous glee because you looked into it and you know that plan to make frogs fly by scaring them into emitting bursts of anti-gravity energy with paint thinner is just not based on sound reasoning.

Because that would never work. You need toads for anti-gravity energy. Maaaaaaybe a salamander.

.

It's Pure Chemistry

For everyone who's ever wondered why having salt poured on them is bad for slugs and snails, see this detailed explanation from a chemist, on Adventures in Ethics & Science. It is a fitting celebration of National Chemistry Week.

I confess I have never actually poured salt on a slug or snail, though I have accidentally stepped on them, which is also messy. I'm rather fond of snails in the abstract, slurming along in their handsome curled shells with their little waving feelers, but I'm sure they're much less charming if they're eating the lettuce in your garden.

Mice are pretty cute too, unless they're chewing up your bread and leaving little mouse droppings in your silverware drawer.

It's all a matter of whether or not something is competing with me for food.

.

Just Guess. But You Better Guess Right!

Ben Goldacew at Bad Science has news of an alarming legal issue in Italy in the wake of the tragic earthquake in L'Aquila in April last year.

The L’Aquila Prosecutor’s office have now leapt into action. They have a Commissione Grandi Rischi, after all – a “Commission on Big Risks” – and it’s full of seismologists. If these people can’t predict an earthquake, then what’s the point of them? And so these seismologists are now being indicted and investigated for manslaughter, on account of their failure to warn the population that an earthquake was coming.

Yikes. Talk about a chilling effect. Thinking about going in seismology? Maybe don't work for the Commissione Grandi Rischi.

I mean, yes, if there's any way that they could reasonably have known there was an earthquake coming, and they just neglected to check, or to tell anyone--that would be bad.

But as the post also notes, "It would be great if we could have firm predictions about every risk whose rare but tragic outcome cannot be accurately predicted, whether it is a flu outbreak, a murder, an illness, or an earthquake. Most of us recognise that this is impossible."

There are things you just can't see coming. Blaming people for not seeing things coming that they couldn't have seen coming really seems like scapegoating.

Also, it encourages people to make things up "disaster, right here, on this day!" and then when they're wrong, as they usually will be, it makes everything they say (even the not made up stuff) seem worthless. So there's really a limited benefit, beyond making (some) people feel better, I suppose.

.

Lunchtime Notes

I'm on lunch break at the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services pre-conference before ALA Midwinter, and so far I have learned the following things:

1. Gee whiskers, I wish I'd had a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-focused education! I'm sort of lurking on the edges of the science world as an English major in a medical library (I have no idea what you're talking about!--but I can find some information on it for you), and now I feel as if I've missed out.
2. I feel a strong desire to get into the Gaming in Libraries trend (largely because I want to play games), but need to think about how to make it work for our particular audience. (I didn't actually just learn that, I've known it for a while.) Also, I think of myself as a gamer, but since I've mostly done pencil-and-paper roleplaying games, I'm not really part of the larger gaming culture in the U.S., in which video games rule. I feel as if I've missed out.
3. These delicious clementines plus a scone I saved from the breakfast array makes a perfectly good lunch that I don't have to go outside for. Nevertheless, I feel as if I've missed out...on spending money. Not all missing out is bad.