The last few days have seen a bit of open warfare on the "open access" frontlines, surrounding a bill currently being reviewed in the house, H.R. 801, the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act", which rescinds the NIH's open-access mandate. That mandate requires authors of papers on research funded by the NIH to make a copy of their article publicly available 12 months after publication, and has been in place for a few years now. I haven't heard that the mandate has done any significant harm to science publishers, or made much difference to accessibility of scientific research articles, but I haven't really been following closely and the bio-medical literature is not my speciality, certainly.
Climate scientists and those who understand the threat from global warming have long been puzzled by the apparently limited concern among average members of the public for the issue. That has started to improve in the last few years, particularly in response to Al Gore's efforts. Oil and coal companies have long funded efforts to confuse the issue, but recently claimed to have reformed. The media has frequently been inadequate to the job, we know that. But the most important reason for public confusion on global warming seems to trace not so much to the influence of money, corruption, or incompetence, but ideology.
One of my purposes in starting this blog was to have a place to put bits and pieces of my own thoughts on philosophical, moral, and religious questions; things which didn't fit in with some of the more topical (science and energy) pieces I had written previously for other websites. I've read the principle texts of most of the major religions, and reread and studied more carefully those of my own. I've dabbled in reading philosophy from a variety of sources, but I am sure there is much that I have missed, and I couldn't specifically cite a source for most of what I consider to be settled within my own mind. Some of what I've concluded is based on purely subjective personal experience that I find utterly convincing, to myself at least.
I really didn't want to say anything about George Will's recent Washington Post columns - RealClimate has links to the relevant discussions. I haven't read Will's columns for years, since before we canceled our Newsweek subscription. I had found his frequent clear misstatements annoying, and decided I was learning nothing from reading his opinions. So I've not made an exception in this case, I still haven't read what he actually wrote.
However, over at Andy Revkin's Dot Earth blog there have been several comments on the question of whether one or two (or 10) years of data can be considered strong evidence for a warming or cooling climate, and I thought I would add my own thoughts on that topic, somewhat relevant to the claims in Will's case.
In a draft paper posted at the NSS blog, Buzz Aldrin and other members of the Aerospace Technology Working Group take on NASA's current direction, and propose substantial reforms in US space policy. Interestingly, their proposals seem not entirely unlike what I recommended to the Space Studies Board recently, in answer to their request for comments on the rationale and goals of US space efforts. NewScientist did a substantive review of Aldrin's proposal, with some positive comments, but also quoting Lou Friedman of the Planetary Society's criticism that "I don't know that rearranging the federal bureaucracy is the solution to any problem NASA is encountering right now."
In a fascinating interview preliminary to the upcoming ETech conference, John Wilbanks of Science Commons expounds on some of his ideas on the future of scientific information. Science Commons is an offshoot of Larry Lessig's Creative Commons, where Wilbanks works (as VP for Science). As such, part of their focus is on the legal barriers (copyright in particular) to sharing of scientific information - both publications and data. They are big fans of the existing open-access journals like Public Library of Science, but they have a much grander vision than that. Some of my favorite quotes from the interview follow.
Wilbanks on why science will naturally move in this direction:
Somehow or other the stimulus bill that came out of the House/Senate conference and was passed and signed by the president included $8 billion for high-speed rail, among many other transportation and energy-related measures. This is, in principle, a very good thing: rail, as long as the train cars are sufficiently occupied, is far more efficient than any other mode of transportation. Rail also lends itself particularly well to shifting from oil to electricity, the primary form of new energy from renewables. As the Energize America summary I was involved in putting together says:
At work we've been trying to learn how to do Behavior-Driven Development (BDD), which seems to be greatly encouraged in the ruby world. We've just gotten down to installing Cucumber (mostly Lenny's doing) and getting into the question of at what level we actually want to write the features and scenarios it expects. The choice under discussion is whether to put a lot of detail into the scenario definitions and drive the development from there, or to make them closer to something the users would understand - but in that case the detail has to be somewhere, and so it gets a bit hidden in custom step definitions. Which may be a good thing - anyway, we were pointed to this nice analysis of what is useful in writing scenarios, strongly favoring the "declarative" style, i.e.
Former Commerce Department Deputy Under-Secretary Derek Shearer has an interesting solution for problems (including finding a secretary) with his former department - get rid of it! The commerce department as it stands doesn't fit together well at all - there's the Patent Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST - formerly National Bureau of Standards), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Census Bureau, and more bits and pieces.
The sustainable energy transition blog has a brief summary of prospects for solar photovoltaic prices over the next couple of years - basically that they're headed down. As this graph from SolarBuzz shows, prices have been pretty much stagnant in the $4 to $5/watt range for about the last 6 years, in spite of exponential growth in production.
It looks like we'll have the huge stimulus package passed very shortly, and it appears to include $400 million for the new ARPA-E program at the Department of Energy, for advanced energy projects, among many other good energy-related programs in the stimulus bill. I find the ARPA-E piece of interest because the other day I happened to run into this report from the Brookings Institution, part of their Blueprint for American Prosperity project.
Eli Rabett writes some thoughts on open access for the scientific literature, presumably spurred by the RealClimate discussion on making data and code available. Eli's comments center around the 2004 Wellcome Trust report on costs of academic publishing.
This spurred my own recollections of old discussions on the topic at the still-running American Scientist Forum on Open Access, going back 10 years now. Not much has really changed...
Thanks to a link (twice removed) from Tim Lambert, I just discovered a wonderfully cogent summary of the common characteristics of (professional?) anti-evolutionists, global warming "skeptics", medical cranks, and many of the other purveyors of anti-science or unhistorical illogic in our modern world. The Hoofnagle's and co-writers for the past couple of years have been pointing out the foibles particularly of medical cranks. As they write on some of the latest examples:
Cranks believe in something contrary to observable reality. They will do anything to prove it. When reality gets in their way, they ignore, subvert, lie, cheat, or obfuscate to create confusion. And when it's proven beyond all doubt they're wrong? That's when the conspiracies come out.
The NY Times' Green Inc blog highlights several plans to introduce feed-in tariffs in various locations around the US. One of the comments led to an interesting article with a slightly lengthier argument for this policy approach, from the Renewable Energy Policy Project.
My sister's family gave Ben a 2000-piece puzzle for Christmas, a 1770's map of the world (words in French and Italian). We finally finished it. Some of us are slightly obsessive about such things. Actually this one was quite fun - the colors and rough patterns didn't tell you much about where any given piece would fit in, but the detail (words, detailed pattern) did, if you looked closely at the box and piece. A little different from many such puzzles.
So, at the Chinese buffet last night, Zeke (3) points at various dishes saying "I want dat". Then he points to the Chinese noodles labeled "Mai Fun", and says, "I want spaghetti" (taking his time to get the 's' sound at the front right). Dad answers: "It's not spaghetti, it's Chinese noodles". "I say it s...spaghetti!" he insisted. Ok, have it your way. Maybe we will talk about spaghetti on here too, depending on your definition :-)
Excessive executive salaries are in the news, especially with the moves by the president and congress to limit salaries in companies receiving bail-out money. Devilstower at Daily Kos writes that CEO pay is the problem - echoing comments by Roger Lowenstein in an NPR interview. The basic argument is that, when somebody makes a lifetime's worth of money in a year or two, they have little incentive to do things that are of long-term value. Actions that are high-risk and of short-term benefit are taken regardless of possible long-term calamities they may cause.
Over at Lucia's blog on an essentially open thread, there was some back and forth on peer review, the merits and barriers to formal publication vs blogs, and so forth. My old friend Joel Shore responded to a comment on science journals expanding faster than the speed of light with a possible source, and mentioned the size of the Physical Review journals doubling every decade.
Since I work there, I thought I'd respond with more up to date data, and also added some thoughts on peer review related to some commentary on a simple diagrammatic explanation of journalistic practice, recently posted by Jay Rosen. My comments follow.
For what it’s worth, Physical Review publication statistics are available online here (2007 numbers):
The Space Studies Board of the National Academies recently posted a call for public comment on the rationale and goals of the US space program, as part of a study they are developing on the topic. The open comment period is now closed, but according to Karen Shea at the NSS blog, Neil deGrasse Tyson at their recent meeting strongly urged that "NASA should get out of Low Earth Orbit". What should they do instead?
Below are the comments I submitted to the SSB on the topic, identifying 3 specific goals for US government-sponsored space activities, some of which certainly would continue to include low earth orbit activities for some period of time into the future.