Comments for Morgan On Science

Comment on NIH Grant Writing Tips – #1 by Yandong

Yandong — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:08:57 +0000

I want to know if there is a R15 pending and I want to use some parts for one of aims of my new R01? Is that possible for reviewing or will it be rejected to be reviewed by NIH?

Thanks a lot.

Comment on Science and Grants Podcast, Episode 2 by Manoj Khadka

Manoj Khadka — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:12:50 +0000

Sorry for some typos.

Comment on Science and Grants Podcast, Episode 2 by Manoj Khadka

Manoj Khadka — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:11:57 +0000

Hey Morgan,
I listened somewhat to you podcast despite my final exam on Wednesday. I think I need to listed the first half of it again but the second half of the talk was quite interesting. I agree with your opinion about group B student. But still it difficult to implement the idea you said in your talk. I think the first responsibility of creating interest in molecular biology in student is faculty. You are right we should focus on creating interest then just worthless talking on the topics. But do the faculties are ready to integrate such activities in their syllabus? Are they ready to reduce exams (MCQs or essays) to 20% and put some molecular biology related interesting activities that covers 80% of the grade? You are right if the students are not interested in the subject, then it lot of pain throughout the semester. Its kind of torture to the students and never think up making that field as their professional career.
I have seen some faculties who want to show their smartness making exam hard. They hardly care about what the students have learned or whether the students have understood the topics. Again my message is not about making exam easy and let student hanging out in bar for whole semester without doing nothing but what I want to say is- faculties should know how he/she have taught and to what degree the students are ready to bear the complication of the topics. It good to trick or brain strom the students in exam but it should be torture in the name of bold exam. This will just end up students without knowledge. What they come up with is disinterest in the subject and never think up his career in that field though they can be a good scientist and have skills to do good science.
I remembered a news which was published in nature. I searched it but couldn’t find. It was about the trainned students in genomics in China. I just wanted to know your opinion on that training. Anyway I will post it if I found that news.
Thank you for the nice talk.

Comment on Innovation and The Human Scientist by » The Importance of Innovation in 2009

» The Importance of Innovation in 2009 — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 02:58:45 +0000

[...] culture, entertainment and brazilian way of lifeWV OutpostBlogging the Debates at DickMorris.comMorgan On Science — "Get Recognized For The Great Science That You Do!"Black & Right XTop Equity News.com – The latest news on Stocks, Options, Forex, ETFs, and [...]

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by Adam Lucas

Adam Lucas — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:42:10 +0000

“I know this goes against the grain for most scientists, who would prefer to let the data speak for themselves, but we are not dealing with computers.”

You aren’t a computer. You don’t have to tell people what is and is not a computer. Data rarely, if ever, speaks for itself.

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by Pete Kissinger

Pete Kissinger — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:43:55 +0000

I am a conservative (which once was called liberal in the sense of the French revolution). Freedom from the King, whether we call him George, Mao, Bush or Obama is appealing. Science gets itself in trouble by overpromising (as do candidates for office). Much of what we do is speculative and we have to do it to find out what will happen, what will work, what will explain. Pushing very hard on the genome project’s implications for disease is an example. We will get there, but it will roll out over decades. The public is disappointed. Even scientists talk about “believing” in climate change. That’s the wrong word. the climate has changed and will continue to change. Doing something about that is not a scientific question, but rather an economic and political question. Science has a few doubters to contend with, but nowhere near the number who have doubts about various religions, political parties, health care reform, education reform, etc. We are lucky to be held in relatively high esteem.

(Making stuff up in published papers is not helping to reinforce the integrity of science. We look like Wall Street, the New York Times and politicians when we pull such stunts.)

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by Francisco del Castillo

Francisco del Castillo — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:48:50 +0000

I absolutely agree. Some fellow colleagues may not feel comfortable having to passionately defend facts, but humans do react to passion, not to reason. We have to be better at it: show that we are right and show it in a way that will make the point.

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by Sherif Morgan

Sherif Morgan — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:19:23 +0000

I totally agree that collectively scientists need to get much better about marketing the value of their science. However, the question that always resonates with me is “How?” Particularly, on the individual level, how would an academic scientist communicate/market the value of his/her research? Is it through community events or talks? Blogging? Social media? What are your thoughts on this?

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by Bob Hurst

Bob Hurst — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:43:23 +0000

Jonathan Haidt has a lot to say about the reasons for why passion beats facts and logic. Most people make decisions emotionally. If reason rules, it is only after the fact. Haidt frames his narrative in terms of liberal vs conservative political choices, but the applicability is wider. Many of the anti-vaccine people are liberals or environmentalists, so the anti-science divide transcends the political divide. You can hear Haidt’s theories in his TED talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Comment on Anti-science finger pointing leads right back where it began by JD

JD — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:13:03 +0000

I agree with both Morgan and Jonathan. It does a disservice to lump everyone that disagrees into an anti-science label. Having said that, there are many, many people who say they distrust science and scientists, yet happily partaking of the benefits that they want without ever seeing the contradiction. We also need to make sure we have the data and facts to support our positions. Spending our time blaming others is not productive either. Too often we waste time fixing blame when instead we should be more carefully identifying the real problem. Many people think these are part and parcel of the same thing, but as Morgan was saying, blaming others is a distraction from what really needs to be addressed.

However, it is perfectly justifiable, and Morgan’s point, that rather than blaming others, we look at ourselves to see if we are doing our part. If we aren’t, we have only ourselves to blame. We become part of the problem and we should be blaming ourselves for our failure to act.

It is also required, but not enough just to have the data and facts. You can tell people all the facts in the world, but unless you have gotten them to listen to you, they do no good. Many scientists start off antagonistic to other people’s views and thus have already lost because no one listens to a person they feel threatened by. There are a few things that have to be done before meaningful ialogue can be reached. 1) People want to be heard. If they feel their opinions are not heard, they will not listen to anyone else’s, no matter how much better supported the other person is. 2) An emotional appeal must be made, some connection, some commonality must be made because people do not seriously listen to the statements made by those viewed as outside their group. If they don’t connect with the speaker, they will not agree and support them.
I know this goes against the grain for most scientists, who would prefer to let the data speak for themselves, but we are not dealing with computers. We are dealing with people, which are inherently illogical, emotional, and tribal. This goes for the scientists too, however much we may try to deny it. If you can’t sit down with somone who doesn’t accept the science, discuss their beliefs with them in a nonthreatening way, convince them you understand their concerns, and only then ask them (not tell them) if they have thought about the problem from a different perspective, only then bringing all the data to bear, you have already lost. Yes, it takes time, but there is plenty of evidence to show it is a requirement.