TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Mummy's CT scans show heart disease came before fast food Lady Rai, a nursemaid to an Egyptian queen who lived three centuries before the reign of Pharaoh Ramses I, suffered from heart disease. rssfeeds.usatoday.com |
Shared Supercomputing and Everyday Research A drop in the price of supercomputers and other advances are pulling down the high walls around computing-intensive research, possibly democratizing the field. feeds.nytimes.com |
Copenhagen clues First pointers to the compromises that may be needed bbc.co.uk |
Remains of early 1900s plane found in Antarctica ADELAIDE, Australia (AP) -- Remains of the first airplane ever taken to Antarctica, in 1912, have been found by Australian researchers, the team announced.... hosted.ap.org |
Sparks fly at the Royal Institution as Greenfield sacked In May 1802, three years after he led the foundation of the Royal Institution, the applied scientist Count Rumford left London under something of a cloud, never to return. Rumford – who gave the world the kitchen stove, the coffee pot and a wide-wheeled carriage, as well as a theory of heat – had brought together Britain's finest scientists in a state-of-the-art laboratory and lecture theatre in Albemarle Street. He believed the Royal Institution should turn science to industrial ends. Other members disagreed. Eminent scientists, such as that great Cornishman Humphry Davy, and later Michael Faraday, were drawn to fundamental research. "His high-handed and dogmatic ways provoked resistance," notes the Dictionary of National Biography, of Rumford's departure.Roll forward two centuries, and the Royal Institution is once again at the centre of an unhappy dispute. Last Friday its director, Susan Greenfield, was made redundant. On Saturday she responded with a statement announcing that she planned to take legal action. The mess pits one of Britain's most outspoken scientists – a sharp, quotable and persuasive media star – against one of the country's most venerable scientific institutions. Her critics claim she mismanaged the RI, committing it to an overambitious expansion programme that has wrecked its finances, and that her departure is a prerequisite to the institution's recovery. Supporters respond that, as a high-profile woman in a profession dominated by men, she was a victim of sexism. They deplore the lack of scientific expertise among the people who removed her.Lady Greenfield, garlanded with honours and made a people's peer by Tony Blair, is certainly the sort of scientist who makes other scientists jealous. The Fullerian professor of physiology at Oxford University has become a familiar media presence thanks to her worries about the effects of computer games and cannabis on human development. Her comments play along with popular anxieties about modern life. They go down badly with some scientists: the Guardian's Bad Science columnist Ben Goldacre has more than once called on her to publish her research, rather than use the authority of her position to make possibly unverifiable statements.The Royal Institution has always championed the popular understanding of science as well as research (its Christmas lectures are now in their third century). Lady Greenfield continued the tradition. Her profile and manner were the reasons the RI appointed her. It is unfortunate that they now seem to be part of the reason she was removed. Science should be a cause of controversy and debate, but not of this kind. The manner of her dismissal is inexcusable; blame for the RI's perilous position should be shared.Controversies in scienceWomenPeople in scienceguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |