Entries from September 2009
A PLoS article this week puts some numbers (small, though they may be) on how truly free and open scientists are in sharing their data. For the article, the authors sent information requests for data previously published on in PLoS journals. The thing about these journals is that they have an explicit data sharing policy, which makes it clear that the raw data sets they use in their analyses must be made available to other researchers.
Just a little history about the PLoS journals: they were originally set up with the ideal of Open Access as a founding tenet. This included not only sharing your data but making the journal itself freely accessible to anyone, free of subscription.
But back to the article itself. THe authors found that out of 10 requests for data, they recieved only one dataset. In fact, some of the data holders seemed rather indignant in the thought that someone might actually want to look at THEIR data, as I’m sure they thought the only reason why would be for the requesters to scoop the next big story to come out of these datasets.
In the end, this study only really serves to emphasize the fact that science is still a very closed (and I would say, closeminded) place to work in.
Categories: Uncategorized
A great summary on Ars Technica about 5 essential things that most people don’t understand about evolution. It’s a good read even if you do think you know a lot about evolution, as it emphasizes some points that I think are often muddled in a lot of scientific discussions (subobtimal solutions being better than no solution, for example).
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: evolution
Ars Technica has a story about how Microsoft tried to patent clustering phylogenetic methods. If the patent would have gone through, it could have meant that anyone who wanted to use a phylogenetics clustering program (PAUP, Mesquite, etc) would have suddenly found themselves unable to do so, at least not without paying Microsoft first the associated fees for licensing their patent (or else by pirating the software, which seems to be a common theme in cash strapped labs). Luckily, there is plenty of prior art (meaning, Microsoft was obviously not the first person to do it), so they won’t be granted the patent in the end. Something like this makes an (arguably) good case for scientists to release any code and programs they produce under an Open Source license, which in effect would preserve their work in the public domain for future scientists to use.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: evolution, opensource, patent
If you happen to take William Dembski’s course on ‘Intellient Design’ at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, you will be pleased to know that you can get an easy 20% of your mark from simply posting replies defending creationism ‘Intelligent Design’ on ‘hostile’ websites (presumably, that means ANY scientific website). Richard Dawkins (who is very intelligent while simultaneously arrogant, or at least so he seemed from the talk I saw) mentions this as well as plucking out some other gems from the course, such as a question from the Christian Faith and Science module which reads:
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
Remember kids: don’t evolve.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: creationism, evolution
