science

I have earlier written about the increasing use of metric methods to evaluate the quality of scientists (see Is it possible to measure the quality of a scientist? ), where I discussed the consequences of more and more relying on these methods exclusively for evaluating scientists applying for funding or tenure.

In the past years it has become very popular to use metric data to evaluate the quality of science. England, for instance, has for several years used a complicated RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) system, where an expert panel evaluate the quality of a research institution (typically on the department level) based on the number of publications, citations and the quality of the publications.

2007 is almost gone and like in many other areas, it is popular in science to look back at the things that stood out in the year.

There is a list of the most best papers in 2007 in the latest issue of the science magazine Nature. The magazine asked its editors to pick their favourite

papers from two categories. Their favourite papers from other scientific journals and their favourite Nature papers.

In the first category they highlight among others the following papers. View the full list here (Notice that you need access to read the full artcile).

Most people that have studied a science subject at university, has had the pleasure of reading scientific papers and despair over these papers rigid structure and uninspiring language. All of us probably agree that the majority of scientific papers are not pleasurable reading.

The biologist Kaj Sand-Jensen has written an entertaining and ironic little (scientific) paper on the matter, where he gives advice to scientists on how to write consistently boring scientific literature.

He gives the following 10 recommendations

(1) Avoid focus. Try to hide the aim of the research by asking a multitude of questions and introducing several ideas scattered around the text.

No. I am not talking about the fact that she is a professor in history (or is it herstory in this case?)

I am talking about her views on gender.

Asked whether her appointment signified the end of gender inequality at Harvard, Prof Faust said: "Of course not. There is a lot of work still to be done, especially in the sciences."

So only the areas still dominated by male students, however slightly, are interesting from a gender perspective?

What about other areas more heavily dominated by women than sciences are by men?

Her background as a women's studies professor does not deny itself.

The eminent communicator of science, Richard Dawkins, has very strong opinions on religion. So strong, it seems, that they blind him of the wider perspectives.

He hosted and wrote the TV program 'The Root of All Evil' in which he presents his view that the world would be better of without religion.

Why the need to teach intelligent design in science classes? Because some sects of the religions in the United States feel that they have lost power and control over thier followers minds! This is a way to regain that control. It has very little to do with science, or spirituality. It is simply that someone feels that thier view point is not the top dog on the block.

Science is only one means of trying to explain the how and why of this reality, through observation of the machanics of the physical world. So we have science classes in school, to provide students with workable tools for a physical world.

Today's criticism aimed at Charles Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' is mostly religiously motivated.

So called Intelligent Design is not by any stretch of the imagination Science. Intelligent Design is the heir to Creationism sometimes, oxymoronically, referred to as Scientific Creationism.

Intelligent Design proposes that Science is not able to sufficiently explain the organisms we find in the Natural World using the data available under materialism and naturalism.

Symbiont Jens Åkne has asked me to announce the following event which will take place in Oslo, Norway.