November 2011 Archives

Last January at least 36 highly paid administrators in the University of California system demanded more pension benefits than they were receiving at the time. The outrage that followed led to "a moment of bipartisan joy" when an assemblyman from San Mateo introduced a bill to cap those benefits. About a week after I wrote about those events, Chancellor Robert Birgenau announced that UC Berkeley would lay off nearly 150 employees. In August, I learned that UC San Diego was removing nearly 150,000 books and journals from its collections and closing four campus libraries. The UC system suffered a $650 million cut in state support this year, and tuition has tripled in the last ten years (source).

So why am I disappointed? I'm disappointed because at their meeting on Monday, the Regents of the UC system approved salary increases for a series of high-level administrators. The salaries of three vice chancellors and an interim dean will now range from $247,000-317,000 after raises of 7.5-9.9 percent.

"We consider these retention efforts to be essential," UC President Mark Yudof said during the meeting at which regents approved a budget request asking the state for an 18 percent increase in funding. "I understand it's not a great time, but we can't really close down shop and say we're not going to make any effort to retain our best people." (source)

I don't know the circumstances that brought these salary increases to the regents for approval, but it sounds as if the administrators involved had other offers. Those administrators are clearly within their rights to ask for salary increases, and the regents may be right to grant them.

Still, I am disappointed that these administrators would seek salary increases at a time like this. Granted, the money saved by not granting them these increases is hardly a rounding error in the budget of an institution as large as the UC system, but I find it unseemly that administrators would advance their personal interest at a time when their institution and their students are suffering.

Related articles

• UC regents' meetings disrupted by protesters (sfgate.com)
• UC board approves raises at disrupted meeting (mercurynews.com)

That's a screen shot of the BioOne home page on my iPad. Our mobile site went live yesterday. Now you can browse BioOne from your iPad, iPhone, Android, Blackberry, or other smartphone. Just point your browser to http://www.bioone.org and you will automatically be redirected to the mobile site. Enjoy!

Note: The location tag at the bottom of this post was inserted automatically by BlogPress on my iPad. I'm in DC for a BioOne Board meeting later today.

Location:New Hampshire Ave NW,Washington,United States

I mentioned Daniel Kahneman's new book, Thinking fast and slow, a few days ago. Jim Holt reviews it in the Sunday Book Review for the New York Times. His conclusion?

By the time I got to the end of "Thinking, Fast and Slow," my skeptical frown had long since given way to a grin of intellectual satisfaction. Appraising the book by the peak-end rule, I overconfidently urge everyone to buy and read it. But for those who are merely interested in Kahneman's takeaway on the Malcolm Gladwell question it is this: If you've had 10,000 hours of training in a predictable, rapid-feedback environment -- chess, firefighting, anesthesiology -- then blink. In all other cases, think.

There's a lot packed into that paragraph. To understand why he mentions a frown, overconfidence, 10,000 hours, and blink, you'll have to read the book. I've only made it through three chapters, but I overconfidently recommend it.

Related articles

• Thinking, Fast and Slow, By Daniel Kahneman (independent.co.uk)
• Bias rules the way we judge the world (newscientist.com)
• Daniel Kahneman: 'We're beautiful devices' (guardian.co.uk)

"Open your heart to these blessings. Then it will be a really good day." -- from Louie Schwartzberg at TEDxSF.


If you enjoyed this, please take a look at The hidden beauty of pollination.

Duarte.com has started a series, Duarte.com/edy, with their puppets Bob and Finn. I'm giving away the punch line, but the first lesson comes at 2:00: "Don't worry about your slide count, just make your slides count."

We all like to think that our decisions are rational, driven by data and logic, not by emotion or instinct. But as Daniel Kahneman explains, most of our decisions are instinctual. We immediately form a thought when someone says "2 plus 2", but unless we are very peculiar we don't immediately form a thought when someone say "17 times 24". The first is an example of what he calls "System 1" thinking, the second an example of "System 2" thinking. And it's a good thing that most of our thinking is System 1 thinking. If it weren't, we'd never get out of bed or drive a car. Unfortunately, System 1 thinking is also subject to biases, so our snap judgments may often be wrong.

Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is the next book on my reading list, and I'm really looking forward to it. In the meantime, here's a video from The Guardian in which he explains some of his ideas.

We all know that scientists don't communicate effectively. As Randy Olson would put it, we think too much, we're too cerebral, and we are too literal minded. But that's how we're trained. Science produces reliable, repeatable results precisely because the process forces us to justify our assertions to skeptical colleagues and to eliminate as much of our prejudices about the world as we possibly can. It's why initial reports of bacteria that could replace phosphorous with arsenic in their DNA and of neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light were met with enormous skepticism. It's why I've written before that

I'm fairly good at laying out facts and figures in a logical sequence. I realized long ago that I'd never be one of those professors who engages students with humorous anecdotes and memorable stories. I'm not funny, and I don't have any stories. I manage to be reasonably well liked¹ by my students, but no one's going to confuse me with Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Any success I've had as a teacher comes from being organized, not from any showmanship.²

Why do I bring this up now?

Because I've also written

Let's face it, Randy. We scientists are trained to collect and analyze data. We're not trained to be spontaneous and irreverent. And it takes training to do it well. You went to film school. We need people like you to put these things together. If we can do more than cheer when you pull it off, I'd be delighted to hear what it is.

Fortunately, there are professional entertainers who both understand how important science is and who use their talents on our behalf. We have Randy Olson, Baba Brinkman, The Hamster Wheel (the group who made the "Borat" version of an interview with Lord Monckton), and now we have Penn & Teller. The best role for us³ is to support their work in every way that we can.

Here's a clip from the new Penn & Teller series on Showtime (starting Wednesday, 30 November at 10:30pm EST). I encourage you to tune in.

Mark your calendar!

The first international "Fascination of Plants Day" will be launched under the umbrella of the European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO). The goal of this activity is to get as many people as possible around the world fascinated by plants and enthused about the importance of plant science for agriculture, in sustainably producing food, as well as for horticulture, forestry, and all of the non-food products such as paper, timber, chemicals, energy, and pharmaceuticals. The role of plants in environmental conservation will also be a key message. Everybody is welcome to join this initiative! (source)

Related articles

• Why we need plant scientists (zmarekhan.wordpress.com)

One challenge we all face as consumers is buying products that reflect our values. For me, that means buying products that are sustainably produced and have small impacts on the environment whenever I have the choice. I use the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch guide to seafood when I'm eating out to help me identify choices that are abundant, sustainably harvested, or farmed in ways that minimize environmental damage. But when I want to buy deodorant or toothpaste or cereal, I've had to trust the manufacturer's labeling and hope products that identify themselves as green really are.

Now there's an alternative.

GoodGuide is in business to provide authoritative information about the health, environmental and social performance of products and companies. Our mission is to help consumers make purchasing decisions that reflect their preferences and values. We believe that better information can transform the marketplace: as more consumers buy better products, retailers and manufacturers face compelling incentives to make products that are safe, environmentally sustainable and produced using ethical sourcing of raw materials and labor. (source)

There are even apps for iPhone and Android.



I just joined on Saturday, so I can't promise that it's going to be all that it's cracked up to be, but it looks promising so far.

Related articles

• 9 Sites That Measure Companies' Social Responsibility (mashable.com)
• How Green Is Your Gadget? (environmenteng.wordpress.com)

Life Technologies created this stop-motion video to advertise its new Veriti Thermal Cycler. Whether you're a PCR geek or not, the animation is fascinating. Enjoy.

Related articles

• Google Scholar "Citations" Launches & A Look at What Microsoft Is Up To With Academic Search " INFOdocket (infodocket.com)

The name Mike McQueary probably doesn't ring a bell, but how about Joe Paterno and Penn State? Mike McQueary was the graduate assistant coach who saw Jerry Sandusky in the showers at Penn State with a young boy in 2002. Paterno's firing at an emergency meeting of the Penn State Board of Trustees Wednesday night led to student riots.

McQueary, now the team's wide receivers coach, won't be present for the final home game of the season Saturday against Nebraska because of what the university said were "multiple threats." ("Paterno gone but questions at Penn State Remain", AP)

Sandusky has not been convicted of the charges against him, but even if he is not convicted, I am appalled that anyone would lash out at McQueary for reporting what he saw. As others have pointed out, if McQueary is to be blamed for anything, he's to be blamed for not calling police himself.

Related articles

• Mike McQueary Will Not Coach This Weekend After Multiple Threats (sbnation.com)
• Penn State's Mike McQueary won't coach ahead of threats (3news.co.nz)
• PSU: McQueary Won't Coach Saturday Due To Threats (npr.org)

In early September, Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands under suspicion of research fraud. Stapel is a social psychologist, and a preliminary report released a little over a week ago found that more than 30 papers in peer reviewed journals included fake data.

I take two lessons from this incident.

First, that a paper has passed peer review is not a guarantee that it's right. It's a guarantee that the authors have convinced an editor or two and a set of reviewers that the data and conclusions in the paper are sound and interesting, provided that the data on which those reports are based are sound. Peer reviewers can judge whether the experimental or observational design makes sense, whether appropriate protocols have been followed, whether known sources of error or bias have been accounted for, and whether the conclusions reached are consistent with the data. Rarely are they in a position to check that the data are reported truthfully.

Second, even the first tiny step makes a difference. From a commentary by Jennifer Crocker in Thursday's Nature:

To understand fraud in science, the useful lesson is the significance of that first tiny step. Every minor transgression -- dropping an inconvenient data point, or failing to give credit where it is due -- creates a threat to self-image. The perpetrators are forced to ask themselves: am I really that sort of person? Then, to avoid the discomfort of this threat, they rationalize and justify their way out, until their behaviour feels comfortable and right. This makes the next transgression seem not only easier, but even morally correct.

The well-being of science and our society requires that fraud be punished severely. But a heavy focus on fraudsters may also conveniently divert our attention from the fraudster within us all. Who cannot find places where they took a first step, or perhaps several steps, down one slippery slope or another? The road to fraud probably starts out with a step taken because of some egotistical fear or anxiety -- fear of losing someone's respect, for example, or of letting others down, the fear of being seen as a loser, of being a failure, or of not getting the job, the grant or the award that one covets.

Ouch! The fraudster within me. That's hard to admit, and while "fraudster" is harsh, I do have to confess that when writing papers, I often struggle with the paradox that I am looking for something "interesting" and "important" to say. For me and most other scientists, that means reporting strongly supported patterns and ignoring those that aren't. The worry comes that in examining my data thoroughly, I may look at it in hundreds of ways. This worry may not arise for those whose work involves simple, designed experiments.

My work, at least recently, involves detecting patterns in complex observational data sets. I feel pretty comfortable that the patterns my collaborators and I find are real. We don't make up data. But by looking so hard for a story that makes sense, am I imposing my preconceived notions of what's interesting or important on the data. I don't think so, but it's a worry that I always have in the back of my mind.

Related articles

• Dutch psychologist admits he made up research data (reuters.com)
• Dutch social psychologist found to have faked data (telegraph.co.uk)
• Report: Dutch 'Lord of the Data' Forged Dozens of Studies (news.sciencemag.org)

Graduate students in the Science Policy Initiative at MIT started Stand with Science, a call to Congress to protect science funding. They are collecting signatures on a letter to Congress, and when I checked the list of signatures, there were more than 1800 names. Here's how the letter begins:

America's science and engineering graduate students need your help. Our country is on the precipice: with US finances in a desperate position, upcoming decisions will determine the shape of our nation for decades to come. We urge you to seek common ground in Congress to preserve the indispensable investments in science and engineering research that will drive our nation's prosperity for generations. We urge you to avoid any cuts in federally funded research.

Head over to www.standwithscience.org to read the letter.

Related articles

• Dot Earth Blog: Students Press Congress to Sustain Investment in Science (dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com)

Ed Yong (@edyong) doesn't like Khalil A. Cassimally's recent post "What is the place of new science bloggers in today's science blogosphere?"

Here's where it loses me: the argument is that the stable size of science blogging networks is depriving new bloggers of "chances" and that "not only is this unfair but it's also unmeritocratic."

Ed's criticism is spot on -- for those science bloggers who are trying to make a career. But he also misses a few points I'd like to make.

1. Simply getting bloggers who are part of one of the big networks to link to independent blogs or smaller networks won't decrease the dominance of the networks. It will bring attention to a few bloggers who might not otherwise have been noticed, but it won't reduce the dominance of Discover or Scientific American as a "go-to" place for science blogs. If there dominance is a problem (and I don't think there is), Cassimally's suggestions won't solve it.
2. There will always be a small number of science bloggers who are relatively prominent and a much larger number (like me) who are barely noticed. It can't be any other way. There are only so many hours in the day and only so many readers. No matter how many "missing links" or "tip jars" Ed or other prominent science bloggers provide, only a tiny fraction of science bloggers will be widely read. Those links will bring a post or two to a wider readership, but few of those readers are likely to stick around. If you want to be in the tiny fraction that is widely read, read Ed's post and follow his advice.
3. Some of us are content to blog away at the margins of blogosphere barely being noticed. I get only about 60-70 unique visitors a day, and I doubt that I'll ever get many more. I blog because I know there are a few people who are interested in what I have to say and occasionally I can point them to something they find useful or interesting. Sure, I'd like to have a few thousand visitors a day. It would be a real kick. But I am also realistic enough to know that I don't have enough time to find that much interesting stuff to write. I have a day job (resarch and teaching). For me, blogging just a small way I can share some of what I learn with a few people who aren't my students.¹

Related articles

• Science blogs, beneficial for public engagement with Science, or not? (scienceandmedia.wordpress.com)
• An excellent example of how science blogging can (and should) work [Psychology] (io9.com)
• More than a Blog? (sandwalk.blogspot.com)

LAST FALL, President Obama threw what was billed as the first White House Science Fair, a photo op in the gilt-mirrored State Dining Room. He tested a steering wheel designed by middle schoolers to detect distracted driving and peeked inside a robot that plays soccer. It was meant as an inspirational moment: children, science is fun; work harder. ("Why science majors change their majors. It's just so darn hard," by Chrisopher Drew, The New York Times, 4 November 2011).

As Christopher Drew points out later in the article, about 40 percent of students planning to major in science or engineering switch majors before finishing their degree. Almost 60 percent switch if those who enter college hoping for a career in medicine are included. Why?

The bulk of attrition comes in engineering and among pre-med majors, who typically leave STEM fields if their hopes for medical school fade. There is no doubt that the main majors are difficult and growing more complex. Some students still lack math preparation or aren't willing to work hard enough.

Other deterrents are the tough freshman classes, typically followed by two years of fairly abstract courses leading to a senior research or design project.

Some research suggests that higher grades in non-science courses "pull" some students away from science and lower grades in science course "push" them away. The anecdotal evidence in the article, which is consistent with my experience, points in a different direction.

[S]ome of the best-prepared students find engineering education too narrow and lacking the passion of other fields. They also see easier ways to make money.

As a science professor, I can't do anything about it being easier to make money in other fields. I can do something about making my courses as useful and interesting as possible. That doesn't mean entertaining. It means sharing my passion and excitement and showing concrete examples of how the principles we study matter in my students lives.

I can't claim to be very good at it, but I hope my students at least know that I'm trying.

Now it's Big Bang Theory, or so The Guardian claims. I was only slightly aware of CSI,¹ and all I know about Big Bang Theory is that I've seen ads for it once or twice and that it's apparently a sitcom.

According to The Guardian:

Experts at the Institute of Physics (IoP) also believe the series is playing a role in increasing the number of physics students. Its spokesman, Joe Winters, said: "The rise in popularity of physics appears to be due to a range of factors, including Brian's public success, the might of the Large Hadron Collider and, we're sure, the popularity of shows like The Big Bang Theory."

If true, it would might show the power of projecting a positive image of scientists in popular culture. I say "might" because I've never seen the show, so I can't say whether or not the two young physicists who are apparently the focus of the show are portrayed positively.

Even I recognize the name "Joe Paterno."

The horrifying allegations of sexual abuse of minor boys by a former Penn State coach strike straight at the heart of the program legendary Coach Joe Paterno has led for 46 years.

Although Jerry Sandusky stands accused of multiple counts of sexual abuse of minor boys and two Penn State administrators have been indicted for perjury, Paterno is not expected to be indicted. He is, however, expected to be a witness for the prosecution. ("Jerry Sandusky indictment prompts questions about future of Penn State's Joe Paterno," by Cindy Boren, The Washington Post, 6 November 2011)

If the allegations are true they are sickening. Jerry Sandusky was defensive coordinator for Penn State until he retired in 1999, but he had access to athletic facilities there because of his work with the Second Mile Foundation, a non-profit serving at-risk boys. He was charged with "seven counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, eight counts of corruption of minors, eight counts of endangering the welfare of a child and seven counts of indecent assault" ("If Jerry Sandusky allegations are true, Penn State and Joe Paterno deserve part of the blame", by Mike Wise, The Washington Post, 6 November 2011).

Penn State's athletic director and vice president for finance and business have been charged with failure to report what they knew and perjury.

Related articles

• State lawmaker wants investigation of Penn State officials (collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com)
• A Guide To The Sexual Child Abuse Charges Against Jerry Sandusky, And To Penn State's Alleged Willful Ignorance [Penn State Scandal] (deadspin.com)
• Jerry Sandusky, Former Coach At Penn State, Is Charged With Abuse (nytimes.com)
• Allegations and sex-abuse charges stain PSU's clean image (pennlive.com)

You may have heard that Connecticut and the northeast got hammered by an early snowstorm. Accumulations around here weren't that great -- 6-8" (that's 15-20cm for our friends who use a proper measuring system), but it still did a lot of damage. Many trees still had their leaves, and the heavy wet snow brought many of them down. We've been without power at home since 11:00pm Saturday night, and Connecticut Light & Power now estimates that we won't get it back until late Sunday night.

At least my gym has power, so I can exercise and shower.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to limit the reach of the Endangered Species Act, turning away an appeal by three farms challenging the protection of a 2 1/2-inch long Northern California fish called the delta smelt. (Bloomberg)

If you've been paying attention to endangered species issues in the U.S. in the last several years, you've undoubtedly heard of the delta smelt. As the Bloomberg story says, it's a small fish, but a Federal judge ruled in 2007 that water diversion from the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta had to be reduced by up to 30% to prevent its extinction. As Gordy Slack put it in the LA Times, "California is a thirsty state. You don't mess with its water, even in a good year, unless you have an excellent reason."

Well, I guess the Supreme Court thinks the Endangered Species Act is a pretty good reason. Quoting Bloomberg again:

The justices today left intact a federal appeals court decision that upheld the law as a valid use of Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The rebuff marks the sixth time the nation's highest court has refused to question the Endangered Species Act. The latest challenge to the law had the backing of property-rights advocates, a group of California water districts and trade organizations representing farms and small businesses.

Score one for the delta smelt and the Endangered Species Act.

Related articles

• Smelt Supreme Court ruling goes against farmers (sfgate.com)
• Supreme Court declines to hear farmers' challenge to delta smelt protections (fresnobeehive.com)