My Photo


  • Jen-Luc Piquant sez: "They like us! They really like us!"

    "Explains physics to the layperson and specialist alike with abundant historical and cultural references."
    -- Exploratorium ("10 Cool Sites")

    "... polished and humorous..."
    -- Physics World

    "Takes 1 part pop culture, 1 part science, and mixes vigorously with a shakerful of passion."
    -- Typepad (Featured Blog)

    "In this elegantly written blog, stories about science and technology come to life as effortlessly as everyday chatter about politics, celebrities, and vacations."
    -- Fast Company ("The Top 10 Websites You've Never Heard Of")
Blog powered by Typepad
Bookmark and Share

« the gift of science | Main | two magesteria In the courtroom »


Interesting article, thanks Diandra. I agree that Hind's suggestions are naive - can you imagine? There could be a science shopping channel where science salespeople are pitching science 24/7 on cable with the number of the granting project flashing across the bottom of the screen 'call now and vote to fund this project' ! But why stop with science? I'd like to vote on military spending and research too! The DOD spends more money researching new weapons technologies than the NSF funds science so let's democratize the DOD (even just some of it)!!! We have the technology to democratize EVERY expenditure - start up a GOOGLE VOTE alert and every time an issue of interest comes up, I can vote on it. We can eliminate the house and the senate. We have the technology to remove representative government. Why don't we? Can you imagine????

Hey Diandra! So funny to see you mention Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece" awards--my father worked for the Senator for 30 years and was in fact responsible for the name "Golden Fleece" (check out page 3 of Prox's book, "The Fleecing of America.") I had to drive Prox home from National Airport one time and scared the crap out of him!

One thing Proxmire had in spades, something that his self-styled heirs sorely lack, was integrity. Here is a man who gave a speech on the floor of the US Senate every day it was in session--every day--as long as the United States failed to ratify the genocide treaty. (Yes, my dad wrote a lot of those too.) Proxmire was a politician, to be sure, but he was nothing if not sincere in his desire to save the taxpayer money, and not to blindly run up the deficit and attendant national debt by avoiding tough decisions. My father worked for years on the Senate Appropriations Committee staff, helping to fund thins like NASA, HHS, NSF, etc. I'm fairly confident that were he in office today, Proxmire would not be attempting to demonize science and would be focusing on the large, structural problems (tax policy, entitlement spending, military spending) that are saddling us with all this debt. These imposters strike me as either hypocritical or ignorant--or both--attempting to score cheap political points while doing nothing of any real value, and indeed taking funding away from those who are.

And if you ever feel like talking NASCAR again, let me know. We miss your insight!

Not that the "science is too important for people to mess with" is a popular slogan, but science is about reaching out for new borders. You just don´t know what lies beyond, and somebody´s no-practical-application discovery is somebody else´s business line, or lifesaver, or economic-downturn-buster. And there´s wrong bad about scientists trying to become rock stars. America is a place where cult to the hero rules. If some of them can jump into people´s TV sets and open people´s minds to a bright, fascinating new world, so much the better for us all. Hey, Mr. Sagan, we still miss you!

As for the Golden Fleece Awards, some of them are perfect examples of why science should NOT be driven by public vote or popularity: attempts to contact intelligence elsewhere in the Universe; a system that predated Google Street View by 30 years; a package to teach chidren how to use (wisely, I guess) TV ... I´m so glad this man was not born in XV Century Spain:

"Let´s see this new applicant ... some Chris Columbus, claiming he can get to India and obtain spices, gold and new souls for Christendom. What the heck! We´ve just finished that damn war in Granada, moorish terrorists, ahem, infidels are on the loose in Northern Africa, the king of France is breaking into Italian territory, and this Italian guy wants to boldly travel to where no European has gone before? He´d better put his expertise to better use, like driving pirates off our coast, instead of wasting government funds trying to find new lands nobody ever heard of!"

And yes, I´m a Spaniard (from Granada!) and only too happy that Italian guy went over to your homeland and made us the big cheese for the following 150 years.

"And there´s wrong bad about scientists trying to become rock stars"

Uups! I meant "And there´s NOTHING wrong about scientists..."

The study on modeling of sounds will most likely also be used, in a "reverse engineering" sense, to develop computer models for RECOGNITION of specific sounds. Security agencies will certainly find a use for that. Just one more example of the point made in this excellent article, that you have to understand something in order to criticise it intelligently.

Speaking of rock stars, Hinds would be better off taking those pots of money and running a "Science Idol" competition on national TV. Each competitor could try to sell their grant proposal, including "behind the scenes" interviews with lab members (at least, the young and attractive ones), shots of fancy high-tech equipment, and pie-in-the-sky benefits to society (we'll all have jetpacks tomorrow, folks!). There could be a panel of "judges" (not sure whether it would be better to have Nobel laureates or actual rock stars) but the awards would be based on text messages by the American People sitting at home. If they managed to make it glitzy enough, they'd probably get better voter turnout than your average off-year election. And the rest of the scientific establishment could go on its merry peer-reviewed way.

Good article. I do think the move to opening access to government funded data is, on balance, good. I don't think we should react to poorly informed criticism by blocking accessing (not that you've proposed that), but simply ignoring it (and yes this opens a whole can of existential questions about democracy).

One statement I would take issue with: "[opinions acquire] value because of the qualifications of the person putting it forward." There is some merit in this, people can take qualifications as a shorthand to identifying who are the people who know a lot about a topic. In contrast, Feynmann defined science as "the absence of experts." Opinions should acquire value because they are well-supported. If someone is highly qualified, they ought to be able to explain why their opinion on an issue holds merit.

In your oncologist example, you should use qualifications to quickly identify who may be the best informed about an issue. But no matter how specialized, an oncologist who based their medical advice solely on their qualifications (or "gut feelings") is a liability if they refuse to correct their views when good science finds new results. If you're oncologist couldn't explain what evidence is behind their decisions you ought to be afraid.

The example of the economic science community at large failing to see the crash coming is an interesting choice, because it doesn't seem to support Hind's ideas. I personally don't have a big problem with the notion that economics' embrace of neo-con ideology is a failure of the system. But does Hind really believe that putting economic science research up to a vote will remedy this? After neo-cons won the most recent elections?

I'll play the devil's advocate here, which means I'll be a little exaggerated. You are using MY MONEY - MY MONEY to do things. Get it? Science for good or ill is funded almost totally by taxes in the US. It is institutionalized today such that I have about zero input into how those government dollars are spent. I might even support more taxes for science but as long as this type of funding is the norm, I understand the feeling of annoyance.

Now these (R) folks even pay lip service to current structures, but what if someone came along as a libertarian and said - let us zero out the entire NSF?

I don't think people in science realize how good they have it from a historical perspective. We are still in the golden age of professional science. I for one don't think it will be here in this country much longer. Especially if the ivory tower gets built higher to keep out the riffraff's opinions on how to spend taxes. Scientists take their money and spend it on trips to conferences in exotic places to whine about how the little people don't understand their money problems.

Guess what? I bet most people if given a vote would let experts decide what to do with their money anyway ... yes some part would be wasted but so what? I can see the whole institutional structure falling down in a few years or a decade when things get really bad if institutional science doesn't seem immediately relevant to people.

By the way, I shook hands and talked with with Proxmire many times - he was at the state fair every year outside greeting everyone who came by. He is not like the current Republicans at all - just the opposite - he thought you could have efficient government and tried to create it, whereas these folks do not seem to believe efficient government is possible.

Markk: It is a fine line we have to tread. The arrogance of 'hey, who are you to tell me, brilliant scientist, what to do?' isn't appropriate either. And I just spent a week at a conference sponsored primarily by the government, with my attendance paid by the government in a very fancy hotel in the DC area where we talked about the energy crisis and then went for drinks in an 11-floor atrium that had to cost a lot of heat.

The solution is that we have got to fix the education system. We have got to produce people capable of thinking independently, basing their decisions on facts and not which celebrity supports a cause, or which pundit shouts more loudly. In an information technology world, the absolute last thing we should be doing is encouraging kids to memorize things they can Google in microseconds. We need to teach critical thinking and leave room for how people factor in their personal contexts (religion or lack thereof) to decisions that affect many other people.

Your last comment reminds me of one of the last outings I had with my Dad before he became sick and ultimately passed away. Herb Kohl was running for senate for the first time. It was amazingly hot for Milwaukee - I remember beer getting warm before you could finish it, which doesn't happen easily in Milwaukee. Nonetheless, all the candidates were at the state fair. My Dad announced that he would be voting for Kohl - which shocked us all. His rationale: Of all the places to stand at the Fair, Kohl picked the Rose Judging Pavilion: the one place on the entire fairground that was air conditioned at the time. Dad told us that sometimes, it was more important that you pick a person who demonstrates that he is a person of sound judgment so that he will choose the right side when an unknown question arises. Thank you for reminding me of one of the last really good memories of my Dad.

A very interesting article. It seems like I've seen this issue of science funding in a lot of places. After having watched the video, I have to agree to feeling a little irked when taxpayers money go to "waste", but I do realize the value in funding science. I clearly remember how in Carl Sagan's Cosmos he explained how research done by scientists about Venus' atmosphere was later used to help fix the ozone (or something along those lines). I also remember that the reason I went into engineering rather than the sciences was because I didn't just want to know why something worked or happens. I wanted to be able to use that phenomenon to help people. I understand that certain research topics may not be motivated by application to society and that these can't be identified as "wasteful" right off the bat (like the Venus example), but I would expect from scientists who do these kinds of research to value every penny of their funding. Weirdly enough, this article reminded me of a previous post on Cocktail Party Physics of how Einstein (and another person) worked to design a better refrigerator. It was nice that a man who worked in theoretical physics (which I think generally doesn't have immediate benefits) also showed concern for such simple issues that people face (at least that was how I saw it).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Physics Cocktails

    • Heavy G
      The perfect pick-me-up when gravity gets you down.
      2 oz Tequila
      2 oz Triple sec
      2 oz Rose's sweetened lime juice
      7-Up or Sprite
      Mix tequila, triple sec and lime juice in a shaker and pour into a margarita glass. (Salted rim and ice are optional.) Top off with 7-Up/Sprite and let the weight of the world lift off your shoulders.
    • Listening to the Drums of Feynman
      The perfect nightcap after a long day struggling with QED equations.
      1 oz dark rum
      1/2 oz light rum
      1 oz Tia Maria
      2 oz light cream
      Crushed ice
      1/8 tsp ground nutmeg
      In a shaker half-filled with ice, combine the dark and light rum, Tia Maria, and cream. Shake well. Strain into an old fashioned glass almost filled with crushed ice. Dust with the nutmeg, and serve. Bongos optional.
    • Combustible Edison
      Electrify your friends with amazing pyrotechnics!
      2 oz brandy
      1 oz Campari
      1 oz fresh lemon juice
      Combine Campari and lemon juice in shaker filled with cracked ice. Shake and strain into chilled cocktail glass. Heat brandy in chafing dish, then ignite and pour into glass. Cocktail Go BOOM! Plus, Fire = Pretty!
    • Hiroshima Bomber
      Dr. Strangelove's drink of choice.
      3/4 Triple sec
      1/4 oz Bailey's Irish Cream
      2-3 drops Grenadine
      Fill shot glass 3/4 with Triple Sec. Layer Bailey's on top. Drop Grenadine in center of shot; it should billow up like a mushroom cloud. Remember to "duck and cover."
    • Mad Scientist
      Any mad scientist will tell you that flames make drinking more fun. What good is science if no one gets hurt?
      1 oz Midori melon liqueur
      1-1/2 oz sour mix
      1 splash soda water
      151 proof rum
      Mix melon liqueur, sour mix and soda water with ice in shaker. Shake and strain into martini glass. Top with rum and ignite. Try to take over the world.
    • Laser Beam
      Warning: may result in amplified stimulated emission.
      1 oz Southern Comfort
      1/2 oz Amaretto
      1/2 oz sloe gin
      1/2 oz vodka
      1/2 oz Triple sec
      7 oz orange juice
      Combine all liquor in a full glass of ice. Shake well. Garnish with orange and cherry. Serve to attractive target of choice.
    • Quantum Theory
      Guaranteed to collapse your wave function:
      3/4 oz Rum
      1/2 oz Strega
      1/4 oz Grand Marnier
      2 oz Pineapple juice
      Fill with Sweet and sour
      Pour rum, strega and Grand Marnier into a collins glass. Add pineapple and fill with sweet and sour. Sip until all the day's super-positioned states disappear.
    • The Black Hole
      So called because after one of these, you have already passed the event horizon of inebriation.
      1 oz. Kahlua
      1 oz. vodka
      .5 oz. Cointreau or Triple Sec
      .5 oz. dark rum
      .5 oz. Amaretto
      Pour into an old-fashioned glass over (scant) ice. Stir gently. Watch time slow.