Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Simon Singh (and science) WIN!

Simon Singh has won his libel appeal.

This is an enormous victory for freedom of speech and science in the UK. British libel laws strongly favour the plaintiff, having a potential (or, in this case, very real) stymying effect on public scientific discourse—which may often be very critical.

the anti-vaccination crowd

It looks like the anti-vaccination crowd is starting to have the effect they want on public opinion. This article is not very encouraging.

"I don't believe in the flu shot," said a typical posting on a Canadian news website this week, which went on to suggest the vaccine could have the same effects on pregnant women as Thalidomide. "I refuse to be a guinea pig."

An Ipsos Reid survey for Canwest News Service released yesterday suggested that barely half of Canadians were even somewhat likely to get the shot.

At the same time, I'm a bit encouraged by the reporting in that article. I does not give any credible space to antivax lunatics. It does look to the 'other side' of the question of the H1N1 vaccines (or flu vaccines in general), by considering the opinions given by a team of university-based researchers—not Bill Maher, Jenny McCarthy, or Jim Carrey.

The opinions of these wack-o Hollywood types are winning the battle of public opinion, however, and more of this type of reporting is going to be needed. The article also has a list of figures at the end which, I think, also helps mitigate some of the over-the-top media hype about this flu, while providing evidence against the unfounded claims about the dangers of this new vaccine.

what's been happening in the past few days (weeks?) since I last posted? Well, autumn is setting in here, so it's not like I'm spending a lot of time

So, what's been happening in the past few days (weeks?) since I last posted? Well, autumn is setting in here, so it's not like I'm spending a lot of time outside right now. I've been focused pretty much on a few things: writing a manuscript, updating a dataset, writing a job application, and learning some programming skills.

One of the nice things about being a postdoc is the flexibility of your time. It is an important period in the life of a researcher where you not only apply those skills you already learned towards being productive, but you have the opportunity to learn new ones. I'm picking up where I left off early in my postgraduate education, learning new tools and tricks for the software environment R. This really is an indispensable tool for biologists, or anyone who applies statistics. I would hope that in the near future, R will become an integral part of undergraduate biology curricula. It combines the ability to analyze data with a programming environment.

As much fun as being a postdoc is, I really want a permanent job—a good one, with lots of interaction with enthusiastic and creative students. Being a postdoc can be limiting, too. There are lots of small cash funds for Ph.D. research projects from various scientific societies, institutions, or funding agencies. I've had a lot of success with these as a Ph.D. student, and I really think they are important in helping students b. On the other hand, faculty tend to operating grants: a fund that supports their research throughout the year or several years. Somewhere in the middle is the postdoc, who has to rely either on his host's grant (allusions to parasitism here may or may not be intended), or the very few small (and therefore competitive) external sources. Thankfully, my current project can make use of a lot of published data, as well as data existing within our collections at this museum. However, I certainly feel the need to grow and develop something much larger and sustained.

what's been happening in the past few days (weeks?) since I last posted? Well, autumn is setting in here, so it's not like I'm spending a lot of time

So, what's been happening in the past few days (weeks?) since I last posted? Well, autumn is setting in here, so it's not like I'm spending a lot of time outside right now. I've been focused pretty much on a few things: writing a manuscript, updating a dataset, writing a job application, and learning some programming skills.

One of the nice things about being a postdoc is the flexibility of your time. It is an important period in the life of a researcher where you not only apply those skills you already learned towards being productive, but you have the opportunity to learn new ones. I'm picking up where I left off early in my postgraduate education, learning new tools and tricks for the software environment R. This really is an indispensable tool for biologists, or anyone who applies statistics. I would hope that in the near future, R will become an integral part of undergraduate biology curricula. It combines the ability to analyze data with a programming environment.

As much fun as being a postdoc is, I really want a permanent job—a good one, with lots of interaction with enthusiastic and creative students. Being a postdoc can be limiting, too. There are lots of small cash funds for Ph.D. research projects from various scientific societies, institutions, or funding agencies. I've had a lot of success with these as a Ph.D. student, and I really think they are important in helping students b. On the other hand, faculty tend to operating grants: a fund that supports their research throughout the year or several years. Somewhere in the middle is the postdoc, who has to rely either on his host's grant (allusions to parasitism here may or may not be intended), or the very few small (and therefore competitive) external sources. Thankfully, my current project can make use of a lot of published data, as well as data existing within our collections at this museum. However, I certainly feel the need to grow and develop something much larger and sustained.