The stated mission of 314 Action, a group that supports scientists in their bids for U.S. congressional seats, is laudable. Among its objectives is a desire to "elect more leaders ... from STEM backgrounds." However, if you're a Republican don't expect much action at all.
A grassroots science movement has amassed a gigantic following on social media, which in turn has resulted in substantial mainstream media coverage. The site, still in development, states that "anyone who values empirical science" can participate. That's good. Unfortunately, other statements are sending mixed messages.
A high-profile paper published in Science earlier this year is in jeopardy because of events that started out with a theft of a laptop may end up being a big enough transgression to have it erased from the scientific literature. Meanwhile, the paper on microbeads has a major problem, one that the journal is taking its time dealing with.
Unbeknownst to David Seidemann, a Brooklyn College geology professor and ACSH scientific advisor, he was placed on a "hit list" by the academic politically-correct mafia. In an article for Minding the Campus, Prof. Seidemann recalls a chilling tale in which he was investigated by the administration for alleged misconduct.
How should scientists respond to the rising tide of anti-scientific sentiment in the world? The backlash against modern technology is widespread: Protests against genetic engineering, vaccines and "chemicals" are just some of the areas of concern. What can scientists do to address this problem?
Claims that the “the science isn’t settled” with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works. So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong? The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general. Science and reasoning
The world of journalism and science are interwoven which has led David Corcoran, the editor of the New York Times' weekly science section has compiled 125 of the most exciting and riveting scientific stories in the "Book of Science: More than 150 Years of Groundbreaking Scientific Coverage."
A new study finds that men's and women's hearts age in very different ways. The study may some day lead to new ways to treat heart failure in both sexes. But until that time these findings once again call attention to the fact that research and clinical trials are far too male centric.
A lot of what is published is incorrect. Quite an assertion, since it refers to medical progress as a swamp of distortions masquerading as fact, evidence, peer-reviewed science. Who says so? Why, none other than the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, among others.