If you ever think science is the almighty answer to all things ever, just remember that we still don’t know why ice is slippery. That’s just not how science works:
New approaches to the mystery of why ice is slippery
Dec 2022, phys.org
Image credit: AI Art - Old Couple Performing Esoteric Ritual - 2022
How Science Also Doesn't Work
Shark Week sucks and media consumption beats education every time. But don't blame the drop in funding for public broadcasting, the market will provide everything we need:
202 Shark Week episodes found to be filled with junk science, misinformation and white male 'experts' named Mike
Dec 2022, phys.org
202 episodes coded on more than 15 variables, including locations, which experts were interviewed, which shark species were mentioned, what scientific research tools were used, whether the episodes mentioned shark conservation and how sharks were portrayed.
- Out of 202 episodes that we examined, just six contained any actionable tips-Half of those simply advised against eating shark fin soup, but finning is not the biggest threat to sharks, and most U.S.-based Shark Week viewers don't eat shark fin soup.
- "No scientific research at all"
- Some episodes focused on alleged risk to the scuba divers shown on camera, especially when the devices inevitably failed, but failed to address any research questions.
- Real science may not be as exciting on camera as divers surrounded by schooling sharks, but it generates much more useful data
- "Experts" are interviewed on many Shark Week shows. The most-featured source was an award-winning underwater photographer.
- More white male non-scientists named Mike than women of any profession or name.
via Departments of Biology & Geology at Allegheny College, University of New Hampshire, Florida Atlantic University, University of Miami, and Arizone State: Lisa B. Whitenack et al, A content analysis of 32 years of Shark Week documentaries, PLOS ONE (2022). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256842
I hear artificial intelligence to the rescue:
Rate of scientific breakthroughs slowing over time
Jan 2023, phys.org
They gave a disruptiveness score to 45 million scientific papers dating from 1945 to 2010, and to 3.9 million US-based patents from 1976 to 2010, and called disruptive discoveries those that "break away from existing ideas" and "push the whole scientific field into new territory."
The biggest decrease in disruptive research came in physical sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Here's a couple theories why:
The Burden of Research - scientists must learn to master a particular field they have little time left to push boundaries causing them (and inventors) to "focus on a narrow slice of the existing knowledge, leading them to just come up with something more consolidating rather than disruptive"
Publishing Pressure - it's the metric that academics are assessed on, but makes academics "slice up their papers" to increase their number of publications (which leads to a dulling of research)
The researchers called on universities and funding agencies to focus more on quality, rather than quantity, and consider full subsidies for year-long sabbaticals to allow academics to read and think more deeply.
via University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management: Michael Park et al, Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time, Nature (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
No comments:
Post a Comment