Edge @ SciFoo 2011

For a number of years now, the awesome Edge (twitter) has posted their take on SciFoo, which I attended in August this year. This year’s review was posted just last week. On the site is an interesting video with short interviews they recorded with a number of Foo campers, including Martin Rees, Frank Wilczek, George Dyson, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Tim O’Reilly and a bunch of other smart people, about the questions that puzzle them today.

In addition, three contributors (Frank Wilczek, Jennifer Jacquet and Timo Hannay) have written some words on their SciFoo experience.

If you’re in need of some food for thought about science, humanity, the world and the future, go check it out.

SoLo11: Change Can Happen

A couple of weeks ago I attended Science Online London, where I heard lots of great talks and discussions on communicating science, open access, open data and other pet subjects. My favourite talk of the conference was Michael Nielsen‘s keynote on the topic of Open Science. Michael was a keynote speaker at the 2009 edition of .Astronomy in Leiden, where he told us about some exciting demonstrations of science research being done entirely openly on the web, rather than in closed collaborations. He gave a nice TED talk on this subject too.

Projects like Polymath and Galaxy Zoo do make people very excited about open science. But in reality bringing such innovative methods into the mainstream of research requires quite a dramatic change in culture amongst researchers; anyone who’s ever tried to introduce just one new research tool to even a small team of scientists knows what a quixotic exercise that can be.

So to address this much-raised issue, Michael gave a great talk, not about traditional open science topics, but about how wide-spread change can be effected in a community, or in societies as a whole. Many smart people in the political sciences and economics have thought, spoken and written about this very topic, and it was great to get this broader perspective on a problem we tend to see as quite narrowly applicable to science.

I like that his talk was really aimed at moving the discussion forward. I’ve been attending these Science Online-type conferences for some time now, and while I always meet interesting people and have a good time, the ideas tend to get recycled from year to year with little real progress in the arguments. Michael’s talk gives no answers, but it addressed the criticisms his ideas tend to get in a very direct way.

The video of the talk is now available online, watch it below or on YouTube.

 

Open Data Quandary

Every now and then, it’s good to read stories that force me to challenge my own opinions. This week, I read in the news that Philip Morris (PMI), the tobacco giant, have requested primary data from the University of Stirling from a research project into teenagers’ attitudes to smoking. That feels very wrong.

As regular readers of this blog will know, open access to scientific datasets is something I’ve long preached the benefits of. It allows scientists to reuse data in new and unpredicted ways, and underpins the culture of openness and trust that’s essential for fruitful engagement with a broad audience beyond the scientific community.

I think that being open and upfront about our data and methods, and willing to share these with the world, will foster trust in science at a time when science is crucial to addressing the mountainous challenges we face as a society.

[Read more...]

3 Quarks Daily Science Prize

Somewhat legendary science and culture blog 3 Quarks Daily has just announced the 3rd instalment of its science blogging prize. This year’s competition will be judged by physicist and writer Lisa Randall, which is awesome, and I hope to see some good physics writing given the nod.

All details are here, and you have until 31 May, 11:59 pm EST, to nominate your favourite online science writing in the comments of that same post.

 

“Where did the women go?” – Comments

I’ve followed with interest the discussion on Amanda‘s astropixie blog following her post “Where did the women go?”. She wrote the post after attending a Women in Astronomy workshop in Sydney and summarises the problem (–> women underrepresented in astronomy) and her thoughts. She also gives a list of action point for individuals and for institutes, which are useful to remind ourselves of.

I wanted to post some comments of my own, and after Blogger ate my carefully thought out words, I thought I’d write something here instead. In brief, I find myself siding more and more with the comments made by Rita Tojeiro on Amanda’s post. I find the many discussions of “women in astronomy” issues polarising and not very constructive. While it’s important to raise awareness about unconscious bias, which I do believe exists,  creating an “us vs. them” atmosphere only makes the problem worse.

Personally I want to stand out from all my peers, including those of the XY conviction. As Rita says, we don’t give awards to the best black astronomer, or the best muslim astronomer. Imagine! I don’t want to be a great female astronomer, or a great female science blogger for that matter.

We need to talk openly about the reasons that many scientists, male or female, don’t stick with a career in science, with everyone involved.”Women in science” meetings, to which often men aren’t (made to feel) welcome, tend to revolve around work-life balance issues, such as childcare and dual careers. These issues affect men too. Stronger even: in many cases, the men are the women scientists’ partners! They are the work-life balance, the problematic second body.

I won’t go on too much, as I’ve said it all before, and it’s all been repeated in Amanda’s comments section. I’d like to stress that I do think there are unconscious bias effects at work, and some of the reasons why people leave science affect women more than men. I don’t debate those things. But I think the way we discuss them, the way we try to address them, is not always the best.

And hey, it’s not all bad being a woman in astronomy. Here’s why:

  • No queues in the ladies’ loos at conferences. Where else can you get 2000 people together and only have lines at the men’s bathrooms? Makes me smile every time.
  • It’s far easier to make an impression: you are the albino chimp at the zoo! Who do you the important people will remember in a week – the 50 regular chimps or the one weird albino?

I don’t mean to belittle the issue – but you have to let yourself laugh about it too. Got any others?