Banner
Preventing Murder: 3 Ways To Predict Who Will Become A Killer

Right now, the police can't do much to help you until after a crime has been committed. In a science...

The Science Of Voodoo Dolls - Coburn's Annual Wastebook Released

Voodoo Dolls, Gambling Monkeys and Zombies in Love sounds like a 1980s B-movie title, along the...

I'd Put Warning Labels On Mutagenic Plants Before GMOs

Imagine we lived in a world where spontaneous mutations were caused by radiation and then released...

Science Left Behind: The Anti-Vaccine Update Update

Last week I did an update on the anti-vaccine situation in America compared to 2012, when my book...

User picture.
picture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Mi Cropicture for David Hallidaypicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Steve Schuler
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes. Probably no one ever said the WWW or Science... Read More »

Blogroll
The big war in science during this decade has not been Republicans against human embryonic stem cell research or Democrats against agriculture, it has instead been open access publishing versus subscription peer-reviewed journals.

Open access publishing of science results, freely available to all, would clearly kill subscription-based peer-reviewed journals.  Right now, those peer reviewed journals are terrifically profitable for multiple companies despite the fact that everyone is saying print is dead.   These companies add value to researchers, they say, by having a higher impact than other companies that do less marketing, etc.
The BP oil spill in the Gulf is doing unmeasurable damage to the local economy and ecology of the region.   Are government efforts geared toward making undersea oil extraction safer or cleaning up the damage done?

Not really.   Pres. Obama's BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission instead seems primarily focused on ending America's "addiction to oil" and a disaster like this is a heel-clickingly delightful way to frame the debate to advance that agenda.  
If you've watched any World Cup matches at all (and statistically, if you have not, you are not reading this article) you have been aware of an omnipresent drone in the background - and you might believe it is the biggest swarm of mutant bees you ever imagined or perhaps South Africa's revenge for Apartheid-based boycotts in the 1980s.  

Instead, it is a horn South African fans like to use.  They call it a vuvuzela - I call it a B flat plastic trumpet from hell.   And I am not alone.   
In team sports it is often difficult to determine the value of an individual.   Some sports can do it easily enough, like baseball(1) or basketball, but during the World Cup, casual fans who hear commentators talk about the quality 'form' of a player are lost when the game is 0-0.

Jordi Duch, Joshua S. Waitzman and Luís A. Nunes Amaral of Northwestern University say they may have an answer.  
I have nothing against BP.  BP was our biggest advertiser last year.  I think BP is generally one oil company that generally cares about the future of energy and reasonable use of the planet's resources.

But it must be at the VP level and down that people have a clue.  Because at the top they are Klondike Kops.

BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, not learning any lesson at all from Tony ("I want my life back") Hayward's many public relations misfires, decided to rescue his company's reputation by responding to a reporter about President Obama's comments that BP should "keep in mind those individuals, that they are desperate, may lose business that have been in their families for two or three generations" by saying ...

"We care about the small people." 
People who have been around a long time know the somewhat convoluted history of Science 2.0 in general and Scientific Blogging in specific but the top question I get after people say, "Oh, you're that guy!" is "Why did you call it Scientific Blogging?"

Why not Science 2.0?   Well, there's a practical reason and a philosophical one.  The practical reason is that the way domain names work it isn't really possible.   In order to make Science2.0.com I would have to make Science2 a subdomain of 0.com and that has been in existence since 1985.   Yes, 1985, well before Tim Berners-Lee blessed us with an elegant way to make a World Wide Web.  VeriSign owns it and they are unlikely to give it to me.