- Email: [email protected]
How many times?
For more letters and to join the debate, visit www.NewScientist.com/letters
part of it at first and then try applying any tentative model to the remainder. Somebody might be very lucky and discover an overarching theory in a matter of only months after the figures are released, and thus enable researchers to move on to bigger or alternative issues far sooner than if the data release is artificially slowed. Blisworth, Northamptonshire, UK Stuart Clark writes: ■ The goal is to extract the maximum information from a limited data set. Hypotheses are tested by their ability to predict. If all the measurements are used to form a hypothesis then there is nothing left with which to test it. A staged release of data, with competing hypotheses predicting what will be seen next, is the only way to extract the maximum amount of understanding.
Research agenda From Trish Glazebrook Any funding source, government or private, can co-opt research to its own agenda. Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley claim that the recommendations of their organisation, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), could remedy this problem through new processes of transparency and accountability (7 November 2009, p 32), but their article fails to detail how these processes will be managed. Leaving implementation to professional bodies or government agencies seems merely to displace the problem of special interests to a different level. Regulatory bodies can have agendas too. It is also not clear how the SGR’s approach will address the military’s appropriation of research. In the contemporary context of increasing militarisation – justified in democracies by perceived security threats – such research is often
kept secret, and may be exempt from regulatory processes. The SGR suggests the public should participate in setting the goals of science. Given the many complaints about the poor quality of science education, one must wonder how meaningful such public contributions would be. Public lectures, and publications like New Scientist, offer hope for the propagation of scientific literacy. At the same time, scientists may need to give up their coveted “cult of the expert” if things are to progress. Specialised conferences and journals are only part of the practice of science; scientists also have an obligation to communicate their results in a jargon-free, accessible form. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Bone-headed From J. David Archibald, San Diego State University In their article on discredited dinosaur hunter Nate Murphy, Jeff Hecht and Joe Iacuzzo state that: “for decades out-of-state palaeontologists had been coming to Montana to plunder its dinosaur fossils” (12 December 2009, p 42). This is unfair: there was neither the means nor motivation in many western states to preserve their palaeontological resources. Most of the important work in excavation, preservation and interpretation of fossils from the area has been carried out by just these obtruders – work that has not only resulted in scientific knowledge but also fuelled much of the interest shown by these states in dinosaurs and other fossils. While the media may be castigating Murphy now, we must keep in mind it was the same media that created his persona in the first place. Compared with this, I would take the principled plunderers any day. San Diego, California, US
Get off my land From John Woolliams Mark Davis suggests, in his article on invasive species (25 September 2009, p 26), that concerns over the fate of affected native species arise from prejudice. The article appeared to ignore the major policy driver in this area, which is the Convention on Biological Diversity. Supported by more than 190 governments, the convention recognises the increasing rate of extinction of species and loss of habitats, and a trend towards decreasing variety within habitats. It recognises the need to sustain existing diversity and reverse the loss of diversity. Even in developed countries, our awareness of trends in biodiversity and indicator species is often hard won and subject to substantial uncertainty. For example, in the UK the collection of such data is mainly carried out by NGOs and volunteers. Given the complex and subtle interactions between native and alien species, the precautionary principle should be applied to the introduction of alien species to an ecosystem. This will lead to native rather than alien species being favoured for protection. Peebles, Scottish Borders, UK
cannot be forced to do anything; rather, you must discover what the cat enjoys and encourage it to perform this action all the more. This explains why my cat is highly trained in eating and sleeping. London, UK
How many times? From Sven Taylor Feedback is too hasty to ridicule the News of the World newspaper for its questionnaire that caused contributor Michael Barraclough to puzzle between the first and second choices: “In a typical month, I buy the NOTW: never/less than once/1-2 times/3-4 times” (19 December 2009). If Barraclough bought a copy once every two months, he would of course have to choose “less than once”. Basel, Switzerland
Training cats and dogs From Richard Johnson Kate Douglas’s article on whether cats or dogs make the best pets was fascinating, but there is a small gap in her research (12 December 2009, p 32). Douglas claims that “no one has really tried training cats”; she should have visited the Popovich Comedy Pet Theater. One of the lesser-known shows on the Las Vegas strip, it involves some two dozen trained cats and dogs, performing a myriad of tricks and jumps. In conversation with Gregory Popovich after the show, he explained that you cannot train cats in the same way as you would train dogs. Cats
For the record ■ In our article on results from the Large Hadron Collider (12 December 2009, p 6) we said that a paper was accepted for publicaton in the European Journal of Physics. It will appear in the European Physical Journal C.
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
16 January 2010 | NewScientist | 23
part of it at first and then try applying any tentative model to the remainder. Somebody might be very lucky and discover an overarching theory in a matter of only months after the figures are released, and thus enable researchers to move on to bigger or alternative issues far sooner than if the data release is artificially slowed. Blisworth, Northamptonshire, UK Stuart Clark writes: ■ The goal is to extract the maximum information from a limited data set. Hypotheses are tested by their ability to predict. If all the measurements are used to form a hypothesis then there is nothing left with which to test it. A staged release of data, with competing hypotheses predicting what will be seen next, is the only way to extract the maximum amount of understanding.
Research agenda From Trish Glazebrook Any funding source, government or private, can co-opt research to its own agenda. Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley claim that the recommendations of their organisation, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), could remedy this problem through new processes of transparency and accountability (7 November 2009, p 32), but their article fails to detail how these processes will be managed. Leaving implementation to professional bodies or government agencies seems merely to displace the problem of special interests to a different level. Regulatory bodies can have agendas too. It is also not clear how the SGR’s approach will address the military’s appropriation of research. In the contemporary context of increasing militarisation – justified in democracies by perceived security threats – such research is often
kept secret, and may be exempt from regulatory processes. The SGR suggests the public should participate in setting the goals of science. Given the many complaints about the poor quality of science education, one must wonder how meaningful such public contributions would be. Public lectures, and publications like New Scientist, offer hope for the propagation of scientific literacy. At the same time, scientists may need to give up their coveted “cult of the expert” if things are to progress. Specialised conferences and journals are only part of the practice of science; scientists also have an obligation to communicate their results in a jargon-free, accessible form. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Bone-headed From J. David Archibald, San Diego State University In their article on discredited dinosaur hunter Nate Murphy, Jeff Hecht and Joe Iacuzzo state that: “for decades out-of-state palaeontologists had been coming to Montana to plunder its dinosaur fossils” (12 December 2009, p 42). This is unfair: there was neither the means nor motivation in many western states to preserve their palaeontological resources. Most of the important work in excavation, preservation and interpretation of fossils from the area has been carried out by just these obtruders – work that has not only resulted in scientific knowledge but also fuelled much of the interest shown by these states in dinosaurs and other fossils. While the media may be castigating Murphy now, we must keep in mind it was the same media that created his persona in the first place. Compared with this, I would take the principled plunderers any day. San Diego, California, US
Get off my land From John Woolliams Mark Davis suggests, in his article on invasive species (25 September 2009, p 26), that concerns over the fate of affected native species arise from prejudice. The article appeared to ignore the major policy driver in this area, which is the Convention on Biological Diversity. Supported by more than 190 governments, the convention recognises the increasing rate of extinction of species and loss of habitats, and a trend towards decreasing variety within habitats. It recognises the need to sustain existing diversity and reverse the loss of diversity. Even in developed countries, our awareness of trends in biodiversity and indicator species is often hard won and subject to substantial uncertainty. For example, in the UK the collection of such data is mainly carried out by NGOs and volunteers. Given the complex and subtle interactions between native and alien species, the precautionary principle should be applied to the introduction of alien species to an ecosystem. This will lead to native rather than alien species being favoured for protection. Peebles, Scottish Borders, UK
cannot be forced to do anything; rather, you must discover what the cat enjoys and encourage it to perform this action all the more. This explains why my cat is highly trained in eating and sleeping. London, UK
How many times? From Sven Taylor Feedback is too hasty to ridicule the News of the World newspaper for its questionnaire that caused contributor Michael Barraclough to puzzle between the first and second choices: “In a typical month, I buy the NOTW: never/less than once/1-2 times/3-4 times” (19 December 2009). If Barraclough bought a copy once every two months, he would of course have to choose “less than once”. Basel, Switzerland
Training cats and dogs From Richard Johnson Kate Douglas’s article on whether cats or dogs make the best pets was fascinating, but there is a small gap in her research (12 December 2009, p 32). Douglas claims that “no one has really tried training cats”; she should have visited the Popovich Comedy Pet Theater. One of the lesser-known shows on the Las Vegas strip, it involves some two dozen trained cats and dogs, performing a myriad of tricks and jumps. In conversation with Gregory Popovich after the show, he explained that you cannot train cats in the same way as you would train dogs. Cats
For the record ■ In our article on results from the Large Hadron Collider (12 December 2009, p 6) we said that a paper was accepted for publicaton in the European Journal of Physics. It will appear in the European Physical Journal C.
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
16 January 2010 | NewScientist | 23