Nautilus

Life in the twenty-first century requires an understanding of science and technology (see Nature Geoscience 1, 635; 2008) Students, educators and scientists will be celebrating the eleventh annual Earth Science Week from 12 to 18 October, with the theme 'No child left inside'. The event, organized by the American Geological Institute, aims to bring to life the relevance and importance of the science of the Earth and engender a lifelong interest in the topic.
According to Nature Geoscience, "the goal of this event is to engage students and their families in the geosciences, which are all too often relegated to early school years or removed from elementary and secondary school curricula entirely. The lack of exposure to the Earth sciences in school may be partly to blame for shrinking numbers of graduates with concentrations in geology, and it is probably compounded by the increasing tendency to rely on PowerPoint lectures and mail-order mineral kits instead of field experiences.
But the need for outreach goes much further than convincing the best students to take up a career in the geosciences. Earth science issues ranging from climate change to earthquake risks and from ocean acidification to sinking coastal cities confront politicians and voters alike. The science underlying these questions is complex, the impacts are potentially devastating and there are no quick fix solutions. It is impossible to make rational decisions on any of these issues without at least a basic understanding of the science behind the problems.
Unfortunately, the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) suggests that many young people advancing through the educational systems of their countries are essentially scientifically illiterate. The report shows that almost 20% of 15-year-old students, distributed equally across industrialized and developing nations, do not understand the most basic science."
.....
"In addition to the occasional open days offered by more and more universities and research institutions, much can be done by individual scientists. Local and national programmes such as TRIO and Upward Bound are looking for volunteer scientists to host secondary level students in their lab for a few weeks during summer. Meanwhile, programmes like ScienceQuest need scientists and graduate students to be interviewed, or to provide materials and guidance for projects and experiments. Secondary and elementary school teachers are often pleased if researchers bring experiments into their classrooms or offer to guide field-trips for a day. Your child's teacher is a great place to start. You could also volunteer to give a presentation at a museum or a school's career day, or spend an afternoon with a scouting troop earning their geology badges."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 07, 2008
Categories: Communication, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

A recent Nature News story highlights efforts to create a free digital library of mathematics (Nature 454, 263; 2008). From the Nature report:

All the mathematical literature ever published runs to more han 50 million pages, with around 75,000 articles added each year. Over the past decade there have been several attempts to make this prodigious body of work accessible in a single digital archive, but so far none has succeeded.
A group of mathematicians intends to change this. They have started small, with a handful of digitization projects in Poland, Russia, Serbia and the Czech Republic. In a few years they hope to unite these repositories with their western European counterparts in an archive to be hosted by the European Union, according to the organizer, Petr Sojka, an informatics scientist at Masaryk University in Brno in the Czech Republic. Eventually this pan-European archive could be expanded globally, he says.
To make such an archive easier to search, researchers have found ways to guess the subject of a paper on the basis of the frequency of symbols in it. But there will be many more-practical challenges, such as finding the funds to scan millions of old papers and striking deals with publishers who hold rights to them.
It may already be too late to build a single free mathematical archive, according to John Ewing, head of the American Mathematical Society, which maintains a list of more than 1,500 journals whose archives have already been digitized. “A few years ago, this model had the potential to change the mathematics journal literature in profound ways,” he says. But most publishers have rushed to scan their own archives in order to lock them up and sell them to libraries.
“While the effort to digitize the smaller collections is admirable, and it's certainly worthwhile, it's unlikely to effect a larger change,” says Ewing.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 06, 2008
Categories: Access, Communication, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am on holiday, so instead of the usual weekly round-up, I am highlighting a Nature Network forum discussion of interest. The regular Nature Network round-up will return on Friday 15 August.

What’s both radical and incremental? Aimless and goal-oriented? Process and product? Innovation, which is the subject of a monthly series of Nature Commentaries. Specialists from business, economics, law, policy and research are contributing to the series in an attempt to define innovation, explore how it arises, and how it can be managed, encouraged and facilitated. The commentaries reveal that the idea of a single innovator or inventor is fading, and probe how innovation is increasingly the product of an entire ecology which includes both basic and applied research but also the venture-capital system and external motivating forces coming together in the right mix. Each of these Commentaries is being discussed at the Nature Network Opinion forum, so please join the conversation there about the Rochester Institute of Technology's plan to foster innovation through academic-industrial partnerships. Do you think such partnerships will work? Future installments will be featured as they are published, so keep an eye on the Nature Network forum.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 01, 2008
Categories: Education, Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s baffling to many that education reform has been so absent in the campaigns of US presidential candidates. In the 1 May issue of Nature (453, 28-30; 2008), Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell of the Urban Institute provide their take on US competitiveness in science and technology. Every time international testing of students on science and technology is done, pundits fret over what it means for the United States’ ability to compete. But while the mean scores place the United States as underachievers, no one seems to be paying attention to the long tails of distribution: the impressive number of high performing students and the equally impressive and dismaying number of low-performers. What do you think needs to be done? The time for discussion is ripe as the National Academies convened this week to refocus congressional attention on their clarion call for change, Rising above the Gathering Storm. Join our online forum at Nature Network and let us know whether you think we are training too many scientists.

In another Commentary in the same issue of the journal (Nature, 453, 31-32; 2008), Andrew Moore of the European Molecular Biology Organisation chides the European education system for not including more instruction on molecular evolution. Are students being shortchanged by not seeing the bioinformatics-based evidence supporting Darwin’s theory? Do you think molecular evolution should feature more extensively on the curriculum in high schools? Please join our discussion at Nature Network, which includes a lively response to Moore's piece at End of the Peer* Show blog.

*apologies, this word should be "Pier". Thank you to rpg (see comments) for pointing this out. Maxine.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 01, 2008
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

Amyloid-β and tau in Alzheimer's disease, by Frank M. LaFerla, May 2008.
Poster from Nature Reviews Neuroscience, available free online (PDF).
Alzheimer's disease is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder with a relentless progression. Its pathogenesis is believed to be triggered by the accumulation of the amyloid-β peptide, due to overproduction and/or the failure of clearance mechanisms. This peptide, together with the microtubule-associated protein tau and their associated signalling pathways, represent important therapeutic targets for Alzheimer's disease. The pathogenic mechanisms are described in more detail here, and are shown graphically in the Nature Reviews Neuroscience high-resolution poster.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 23, 2008
Categories: Communication, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

From a recent Editorial in Nature (451, 869; 2008):
"Seven years ago, Mitiko Go, a biophysicist then at Nagoya University, told Nature about a disturbing experience she had had at a meeting of the university's Division of Biological Science (see Nature 410, 404–406; 2001). The academics were considering a female applicant for a vacant chair, and one male member said: "I'm sorry to have to say this in front of Dr Go, but one woman is enough."
Go thought she might be scolded for relating the story (and indeed she says she was accused of "tarnishing the honour of the university"), but she was about to retire from the university and felt the time had come to say something radical.
Times have changed. Far from retiring, Go is now president of the prestigious Ochanomizu University in Tokyo and a member of the Council for Science and Technology Policy, the country's highest science body, which is chaired by the prime minister. Go and others have implored the government to do more in support of women. The science and education ministry has responded."
Read the rest of this free-access Editorial here, which addresses the questions of why, when Japanese science needs its women more than ever, it does not treat them accordingly.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 05, 2008
Categories: Careers, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two scientists writing a Commentary article, "Professor's little helper", in the current (20 December) issue of Nature (450, 1157-1159; 2007) want to stimulate your brains – in more ways than one.
Barbara Sahakian and Sharon Morein-Zamir from the Department of Psychiatry at Cambridge University argue that the increased usage of brain-boosting drugs by ill and healthy individuals raises ethical questions that cannot be ignored. An informal questionnaire Sahakian and Morein-Zamir sent to some of their scientific colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom revealed fairly casual use by academics, and we now want to hear your views on the topic.
The authors' arguments can be read in more detail in their Commentary at Nature (450, 1157-1159; 2007). A Nature editorial in the 15 November issue (Nature 450, 320; 2007) also discussed some of the ethical issues surrounding drug-based enhancement in healthy individuals inspired by a longer discussion paper from the British Medical Association.
To trigger broader discussion of these issues Sahakian and Morein-Zamir propose the following questions:
> Should adults with severe memory and concentration problems be given cognitive enhancing drugs?
> If such drugs have only mild side effects, should they be prescribed more widely for other psychiatric disorders?
> Do the same arguments apply for young children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric disorders, such as those suffering from ADHD?
> Would you boost your own brain power?
> How would you react if you knew your colleagues – or your students – were taking cognitive enhancers?
> How should society react?
Please contribute to this online discussion. We especially want to hear from you if you’re already using these drugs – or if you know people who are. What are your reasons for taking, or not taking, them?
For the next two weeks, the authors of the Nature Commentary will be joining in the conversation at the Nature Network forum: we look forward to meeting you there.
See also the related post, Brain doping, over at Action Potential.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on December 20, 2007
Categories: Disciplines, Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Nature Network: On Friday 16 November at 1230 GMT, there is a virtual online tour of the Darwin Centre, the newest addition to London's Natural History Museum. Opened in 2002, the Darwin Centre contains more than 22 million specimens and is home to more than 70 scientists. From a giant squid and a Komodo dragon to sharks, worms, corals and snails, the tour will allow you to take a closer look at the museum's specimens as well as to see the work of some of the scientists.
Details of the museum's talks programme for real visitors can be found here. Virtual visitors can go here to see the range of online talks and other events.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 12, 2007
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

It can take twice as long to get a PhD in biomedical sciences in the United States as it does in other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. This month's Editorial in Nature Medicine (13, 1265; 2007) asks whether US PhDs are worth more, or whether there are advantages to a speedier system.

Which is the better system probably depends on who you ask. Ask the students and they would probably prefer the short PhD, as it allows them to try out research within a shorter time frame and get out early if they decide it's not for them. And if the purpose of a PhD is not simply training for a life in academia, but also training in the sort of intellectual discipline that can be used in activities aside from the bench, there are clear advantages to not lingering around. Even for those students who are keen to continue on in research, completing a PhD in three years allows them to pursue the next step in a different, perhaps more successful lab if they are not happy with the lab they chose as green, inexperienced novices. Principal investigators might have a different viewpoint: why should they spend three years training a student, only for that student to leave the lab and pursue a postdoc elsewhere as soon as he or she becomes competent enough to do experiments without close supervision? It's only natural for researchers to want to maximize the return on their investment.

Read the full Editorial at Nature Medicine's website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 07, 2007
Categories: Careers, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Washington University, St Louis' Biology Library News, I read that the National Academy of Sciences has made its entire historical collection of biographical memoirs freely available online, as PDFs. Fom the National Academy website:

Published since 1877, Biographical Memoirs are brief biographies of deceased National Academy of Sciences members, written by those who knew them or their work. These biographies provide a personal and scholarly view of the lives and work of America's most distinguished scientists and a biographical history of science in the United States.
Over the next several months, the entire collection of Biographical Memoirs will be available online as PDFs. Although memoirs published since 1995 have been freely available online, more than 900 memoirs published prior to 1995 were available previously only through archives and libraries. Among the 500 memoirs published recently online are those of famed naturalist Louis Agassiz; Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; Thomas Edison; Alexander Graham Bell; noted anthropologist Margaret Mead; and psychologist and philosopher John Dewey.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 30, 2007
Categories: Careers, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A few years ago I took part in a debate at the Royal Institution on ‘who was the first scientist?’ ", writes Brian Clegg in the science writers' forum on Nature Network. Brian continues: "Lewis Wolpert championed Archimedes, I stood up for Roger Bacon ....and Frank James spoke for James Clerk Maxwell. Archimedes won, with Bacon a close second. The arguments were loosely that Archimedes was the first to use maths in science, Bacon the first to emphasise the importance of experimental verification, maths and the communication of results, and Maxwell because the word ‘scientist’ wasn’t invented until his time.................I know it’s a very arbitrary point, but who out of all scientific history would you call the first, and why?"
Predictably, there is a bit of an argument among the replies about the terms of the question, but remarkably few suggestions other than a first-removed nomination of Galileo (attributed to John Gribbin). Here is my contribution: "Eve is my vote. She was the person who did the first scientific experiment, isn’t she? If you won’t count her, I suggest the unnamed man, woman or ape who first worked out how to make fire by rubbing two sticks together. I believe that suggestions such as Galileo and Bacon far too late to be considered “first” (and also show a bit of cultural influence, perhaps?)." Pierre Lindenbaum has helpfully responded with a link to a YouTube clip of the fire experiment (but not Eve's).
What are your thoughts? (Bearing in mind Brian's exhortation: "Come on guys, lighten up! I know it’s not possible to really say who the first scientist was, any more that it’s possible to say what was the best scientific idea – but we still have a Nobel Prize. The idea of this exercise (more contributions, please!) is to nominate the person you would like to be thought of as the first scientist and to give a reason.")

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 25, 2007
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the recent Wikimania conference, coordinators of Wikiversity, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki-based education project, said that they believed the project would really get off the ground in the next two to three years. Wikiversity is a community where free educational content can be created and hosted: this content includes multimedia learning materials, resources and curricula for all age groups in all languages.
A major part of Wikiversity learning is being organized around Learning Projects and Learning Groups. Wikiversity explains that it has adopted a "learn by doing" model for education. Editors are encouraged to provide learning activities for Wikiversity "students" (participants). Wiki technology promotes collaborative webpage editing, so Wikiversity collaborative wiki editing projects can be thought of as "learning projects" -- participants learn while they edit wiki pages and explore topics of interest.
Wikiversity is not going to become an officially sanctioned service recommended by schools or universities, because no-one has control over the content. But college students in the United States and elsewhere are already keen users of online educational resources (see this survey, for example), so there are certainly opportunities for educational publishers and Wikipedia to create links between online learning resources and textbooks, and for educators to consider these collaborations in choosing which learning sources to recommend.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 20, 2007
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

Scientists tend to complain that Congress rarely pays heed to what they have to say. But the issues are often as much about values as they are science, says David Goldston in his monthly Nature column Party of One (Nature 448, 119; 2007) .

"For many US scientists, the demise of the OTA [Office of Technlogy Assessment] has taken on inordinate symbolic significance. Scientists often suggest that in eliminating the agency, Congress chose a path of wilful ignorance that has led to poor decisions over the past decade. But has the absence of the OTA really hampered policy-making? Not particularly. Congress is awash with information provided by scientific groups, and it still formally seeks scientific guidance — particularly from the National Academies, which arguably have more prestige and credibility on Capitol Hill than the OTA had. And reports from the academies can make a difference. For example, the 2006 report on the palaeoclimate record, specifically on the 'hockey-stick' graph (see Nature 441, 1032–1033; 2006), helped quieten congressional debate over whether recent decades have been unusually warm.
Other reports have been equally prominent, if less decisive. The academies' 2002 report on fuel-economy standards has become the bible on that subject, although, like the Bible, it is quoted by all sides. That's partly because of the report itself — it concluded, for example, that the standards had cost lives in the past but that, because of new technology, they needn't in the future — but it is also because scientific information does not usually point ineluctably to a single conclusion on policy.
Policy-making needs to be informed by both science and values. Is stem-cell research ethical? That's not a science question, although one needs to understand the potential of stem-cell research to answer it. Should clean-air standards be strengthened? That is not a science question, but one needs to know what researchers think the health impacts of dirtier air would be."

See here for the full article (subscription or site licence required).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 26, 2007
Categories: Communication, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Robert J. Birgeneau, the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, writes about the challenge for universities in a Commentary in the current issue of Nature Matierials (6, 465 - 467; 2007).From his article:

As information technology fuels the expansion of knowledge at an ever-accelerating pace, universities everywhere are confronting the question of how a successful university should be structured in the next century. In the past decade, changes have swept European university systems from Britain through Switzerland to Germany. In the United States, publicly funded universities are facing a growing gap in trying to remain at the forefront of higher education and research while competing with private universities with wealthy endowments. My own institution, the University of California Berkeley, widely regarded as one of the world's leading public universities, must consider how to maintain and enhance its success as a pre-eminent academic leader while still retaining its distinct public mission and character. This is our challenge for the twenty-first century.

Read on at the Nature Materials website (subscription or site licence required).

A related Editorial in Nature Materials (6, 463; 2007) can be read here.

Frank Gannon, in the current issue of EMBO Reports (8, 7, 611; 2007), looks at different countries' ways of funding scientific research, and asks whether the "pinnacle" or "plateau" model is optimal.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 03, 2007
Categories: Careers, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)