| Podcast: Scientists slug it out What happens when fierce scientific rivals go head to head? Joel Levy discusses some of history's most epic battles to discredit the work of colleagues. Do these often petty quarrels help or hinder the progress of science?Joel's book Scientific Feuds: From Galileo to the Human Genome Project is out now. Museum director Tony Hill takes us on a tour as Manchester's Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) undergoes an £8m redevelopment. Peek behind the scaffolding on our video tour. The Science Weekly team question why Stephen Hawking's views on the existence or otherwise of God are making headlines, again; they discuss the Guardian's Bjørn Lomborg climate change exclusive; a stay of execution for Fermilab's Tevatron atom smasher; why the Higgs boson is causing a headache for the Nobel prize committee; and the problems of carbon emissions "embedded" in imported goods. Check out our shiny new science front page and meet our crack team of science bloggers:The Lay Scientist by Martin RobbinsLife and Physics by Jon ButterworthPunctuated Equilibrium by GrrlScientistPolitical Science by Evan Harris Follow the podcast on our Science Weekly Twitter feed and receive updates on all breaking science news stories from Guardian Science. Email scienceweeklypodcast@gmail.com. Join our Facebook group. Listen back through our archive.Subscribe free via iTunes to ensure every episode gets delivered. (Here is the non-iTunes URL feed).Nell BoaseAndy DuckworthRobin McKieIan Sample guardian.co.uk |
Surf’s Up Brainy scientists, extreme surfers and mountains of water mix it up in Susan Casey’s vivid, kinetic narrative about giant waves and the people who love them. feeds.nytimes.com |
China's space program launches lunar probe By 2010-10-01T12:16:11ZBEIJING (AP) -- China launched an unmanned lunar probe on Friday, the latest milestone for an ambitious space program that aims to put a man on the moon later this decade.... hosted.ap.org |
Mission to Mars – review Polka, LondonIf there's a sudden interest in science in the coming years among the children of south-west London and beyond, it may well be traced back to Unlimited's show for seven to 11-year-olds.This two-hander concerns the adventures of Gail and Stefan, two astronauts who set out on the first manned mission to Mars in 2035, having been inspired to become scientists at the age of 10 – the same age as many of the children in the audience. If the aim of Mission to Mars is to enthuse children about science, a subject that is often deemed dull in the classroom (at least until you get the chance to play with Bunsen burners), then it probably does the trick.The members of Unlimited have been pioneers in combining theatre and science for adult audiences, fearlessly going where few other companies have gone before in exploring the metaphysical and everyday impact of scientific advances on our lives, particularly the brilliant performance lecture, The Ethics of Progress.What I'm less sure about is whether this show, for all its smart use of aerial work to demonstrate gravity, and shiny futuristic design, will turn children on to the theatre. The show, despite some cleverly inserted filmed interludes, feels like a throwback to the children's theatre of a decade ago that was often simply a cunning way of delivering the national curriculum. It's big on facts, and rather short on feelings. I longed for a little less real science and a little more imagination.There's a terrific cliffhanger ending, but it's only in the final 15 minutes that this starts feeling less like a pep talk and more like a fully fledged piece of theatre. Until 6 November. Box office: 020-8543 4888.Rating: 3/5TheatreChildren and teenagersLyn Gardnerguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Leading scientists accuse thinktanks of being logging lobbyists Open letter accuses two 'independent' groups of distorting facts and having close associations with multinational logging corporations Twelve leading scientists, including the former head of Kew Gardens and the biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank, have written an open letter accusing two international thinktanks of "distortions, misrepresentations, or misinterpretations of fact" in their analysis and writings about rainforests and logging.The unprecedented attack on the tactics and objectivity of the two groups who claim to be independent is contained in an open letter sent to the Guardian. It accuses the Washington-based World Growth International (WGI) and Melbourne-based International Trade Strategies Global (ITS) of having close associations with politically conservative US thinktanks and advancing "biased or distorted arguments" on palm oil plantations and logging.The scientists claim that ITS Global is "closely allied with", and "frequently funded by" multinational logging, wood pulp, and palm oil corporations and lobbies for one of the world's largest industrial logging corporations which has has been repeatedly criticised for its environmental and human-rights records."WGI frequently lobbies public opinion on the behalf of Sinar Mas holdings, a conglomerate of mostly Indonesian logging, wood-pulp, and oil palm companies," added the scientists."These organisations portray themselves as independent thinktanks or NGOs, but are actually lobby groups that are aggressively defending and funded by some of the world's largest logging, oil palm and pulp-plantation corporations. These corporations are playing a major role globally in the rapid destruction of tropical forests," said William Laurance, research professor at James Cook University in Cairns and Prince Bernhard chair of the International Nature Conservation at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.The scientists include Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Thomas Lovejoy, chief biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank; Prof Omar R. Masera, director of the bioenergy lab at the National University of Mexico and Nobel laureate on behalf of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others from Oxford, Stanford and Imperial College, London. Together, they accuse the two organisations of promulgating "serious misconceptions" about tropical forestry and reaching conslusions that are "strongly at variance with refereed scientific matrial.""WGI and ITS have failed adequately to recognise that many forests of high conservation value are being destroyed and fragmented by plantation development —a process that is mostly driven by corporations, not small holders. While routinely accusing several environmental organisations and the IPCC of bias and scientific misrepresentation, WGI and ITS have, in our opinion, advanced a range of biased or distorted arguments themselves," says the letter.WGI has in the past launched fierce attacks on Greenpeace, whom it has accused of "falsifying data", as well as Rainforest Action and WWF over their analysis of deforestation in Indonesia. Earlier this year WGI attacked the IPCC over "glaciergate", when a mistake was found in the panel's 2007 report about the date glaciers in the Himalayas would melt. Yesterday it accused WWF, the world's largest conservation group, of "deceiving business", saying that "working with WWF ultimately harms business and economic growth".Environment groups have long been at war with US conservative thinktanks, but this is one of the few times that leading scientists have become involved in the debate.Alan Oxley, chairman and director of both groups, is a former Australian diplomat and corporate lobbyist for free trade agreements. He is a prominent climate sceptic who set up the now defunct denial website Climatechangeissues.com and runs the Asia-Pacific pages of Tech Central Station – a conservative website funded by ExxonMobil.Along with other directors of World Growth, he has worked with DCI Group, a leading Republican political lobbying firm that had close ties to the George W Bush administration. DCI specialised in setting up third-party industry groups which lobbied as independent NGOs.Oxley and both groups were contacted by the Guardian but have so far failed to respond to the allegations by the scientists.DeforestationConservationForestsEndangered habitatsJohn Vidalguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |