Fake Banner
Blood Pressure Medication Adherence May Not Be Cost, It May Be Annoyance At Defensive Medicine

High blood pressure is an important risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease and premature...

On January 5th, Don't Get Divorced Because Of Hallmark Movies

The Monday after New Year's is colloquially called Divorce Day, but it's more than marriages ending...

Does Stress Make Holidate Sex More Likely?

Desire to have a short-term companion for the holidays - a "holidate" - is common enough that it...

To Boomers, An AI Relationship Is Not Cheating

A recent survey by found that over 28 percent of adults claim they have an intimate, even romantic...

User picture.
picture for Fred Phillipspicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for picture for Patrick Lockerbypicture for Ilias Tyrovolas
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll

In the United States, billions of dollars have been spent on marketing to convince people to go into science careers, despite the difficulty many PhDs will have finding jobs in academia. That, coupled with the fact that efforts are on to make funding more 'equal' and establish quotas for young researchers, minorities and female grant applicants means a finite funding pool could be even more limited. The best and brightest, regardless of demographics, could end up leaving to other countries where science is more of a meritocracy.

When fiscal hawk Sen. Tom Coburn set his sights on waste (funding humanities nonsense) and duplication at the National Science Foundation, there was outrage that a politician might actually look out for how taxpayer money was used.

Can anyone ever truly take credit for a discovery? Every researcher stands 'on the shoulders of giants', as Sir Isaac Newton said. Scientists talk to each other and argue and hone their thoughts based on the criticisms and reactions they get. No one lives in a bubble and great things happen when a lot of smart people know each other and debate as often as possible.

But when the debates are well-known, it's difficult to assign credit and far too easy to take it away. In modern times, tearing down statues of giants and standing on the rubble happens more often than standing on their shoulders and reaching new heights. And everyone wants to stand on the rubble of Albert Einstein.

We love our modern gadgets, so we sometimes forget we still have an energy problem our Founding Fathers faced - and it impacts everything from the usability of solar power to the uptake of electric cars also.
Some people believe in magic. In Science Left Behind, in the process of debunking claims that one American political party is overwhelmingly pro-science and one is anti-science,  we put a handy chart on page 213 itemizing the various anti-science positions of registered voters.  Sure, evolution and climate change was higher on one side but the list of anti-science beliefs by the other side was as long as your arm - astrology, psychics, ghosts, UFOs, homeopathy, you name it and that global-warming-accepting party is more anti-science - they just have better public relations.  
Two weeks ago I got a call inviting me to attend one of the inauguration balls for President Obama. But it wasn't to be held in Washington, D.C. it was in Texas.

Texas? you might think, but aren't Democrats irrelevant in Texas, almost as irrelevant as Republicans are in California?