Now that another round of Nobel prizes has been awarded, consideration should be given to abolishing these powerful but often misleading accolades to scientific and literary achievement. That’s not going to happen, since the Nobel brand brings international glory and attention to the homeland of the prizes, Sweden.

Nonetheless, the robotic-like reverence evoked by the prizes is strangely out of whack with the realities of the honored achievements. Among the thousands of prizes for intellectual accomplishments awarded annually, the Nobels alone command front-page, prime-time notice. Though they’re here to stay, the attentive world might usefully subject them to realistic understanding. Hard to believe, but take away the pomp of bestowal by the King of Sweden and the accompanying cash awards — now $1.4-million — and the prizes lose a lot of allure.

The odd exception is the...

The presidential candidates have declared their intentions on issues deemed important by the scientific community. And it turns out that there’s not much difference between them.

That’s not surprising, given the near absence of ideological controversy over scientific matters and the scientific community’s deliberate aloofness from partisan politics. But it is unfortunate that both candidates have essentially brushed off the scientists with syrupy assurances. There are many changes that would be beneficial for the support and utilization of science, but in the context of big-league politics, they’re small stuff, not worth precious time in the middle of a bitter election campaign.

The scientific community’s government wish list is small and tidy: Send more money, minimize regulations affecting research, and show us respect. And essentially, that’s what it got in Obama’s and...

(Photo from the, um, Daily Mail)

Strange things happen with mailing lists, as everyone with a mailing address already knows. Still, I wonder why the direct-mail industry—which I read somewhere remains a great prop of the economy, even in the Internet age—can’t get things right.

As a journalist, I receive complimentary subscriptions to various periodicals that want to spread the word on what they’re publishing. Useful for me, and for them. Last year, two identical copies of one of these comp journals began to arrive. I notified the journal of the surplus copy. Nonetheless, for months, the duet delivery continued, despite further reminders from me. Then all delivery of the journal ceased—from two copies to no copies. My pleas for help brought assurances that they’re working on it. A few months after the initial alarm, single copies returned. Then came a deluge of the copies I had...

It’s not customary for a philanthropic organization to confess that the bulk of its awards support unadventurous plodding and that creative ideas of potentially great value are routinely turned down.

So, let’s hand it to the National Institutes of Health. It has just issued such a confession in announcing a new and supposedly bold program of research grants designed to elude scientific conservatism and make big leaps in knowledge and health care. But don’t expect a fast track to biomedical nirvana. The new program at the $30-billion-a-year NIH “follow years of discussion as to how to encourage thinking outside the box,” according to a heavily involved NIH official, Alan Krensky, head of an internal think tank at the Bethesda behemoth. Budget plans call for a total of $250-million over five years—if money is forthcoming.

Intended to be “transformative”—i.e., make an important...

Though the Obama campaign is based on a promise of change, he apparently doesn’t plan to change much in government relations with the scientific enterprise.

There’s the customary assurance of more money for ever-insistent scientists and a pledge of bureaucratic shifts — rather minor ones — here and there. The unpopular federal restraints on stem-cell research would be lifted, but they have been crumbling anyway. Climate change would be recognized and confronted, but that too has been happening. And more honesty and less political spin would be mandated in scientific affairs, thus returning matters to the pre-Bush era.

That, in summary, is the Democrat’s response to 14 science and technology questions posed to both candidates by a group of scientists under the title of Science Debate 2008.

The McCain campaign has...

It’s reassuring to learn that some major institutions of higher education are getting their budget priorities right. Support for this conclusion comes in an article in the August 29 Wall Street Journal, headlined “A Saner Approach to College Football.”

The salute to mental health derives from the relatively modest salaries paid to the football coaches at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, though both are what is known as gridiron powerhouses. BYU’s Bronco Mendenhall, the Journal reports, “earned no more than $1-million” last year, while compiling an 11-2 record and a No. 14 ranking. His counterpart at Utah, Kyle Whittingham, did not fare as well in wins and losses, which perhaps accounts for his lesser recompense, “about $680,000.”

For the hired help in the classrooms and labs at these and other universities, the coaches’ pay is beyond munificent. In...

Following is an edited transcript of one of my periodic conversations with Dr. Grant Swinger, director of the Center for the Absorption of Federal Funds. Dr. Swinger, a longtime observer of the politics and economics of scientific research, is the recipient of many awards, including the Ripov Prize, for most grants concurrently held.

Greenberg: What’s new at your center?

Swinger: China. It’s promising. Ever since the Soviets collapsed, we’ve needed a menace. Welcome, China.

Greenberg: Please explain.

Swinger: Congress, the public, the press — they know very little about science. But you can always get them worried about who’s ahead. We tried using Europe after the Russians fell apart, warning that the Europeans were either catching up or getting ahead. But the Europeans were warning that we were ahead and getting further ahead. That’s not the way for allies to behave, but it’s...

It’s widely believed that researchers found guilty of scientific misconduct have no choice but to turn in their lab coats and look for other work. I’ve always assumed that was so, from what I’ve observed and what I’ve heard from scientists. And I think that opinion is generally shared throughout the scientific community.

But it’s not so, says a contrarian article based on research into the fates of researchers deemed guilty of scientific misconduct in recent years. The belief that misconduct invariably or usually leads to scientific oblivion is unfounded, say the authors, Barbara K. Redman, of Wayne State University, and Jon F. Merz, of the University of Pennsylvania, writing in Science of August 8 (“Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime?” subscription required).

They report that branding as a scientific miscreant can bring emotional and physical suffering,...

The rising information glut necessitates methods for people to receive news and analysis and avoid wasting time. Follow these principles and you’ll learn more in less time.

Skip articles under headlines that end with a question mark, e.g., “Can McCain Close the Gap?” or “Who’s in Charge in Moscow?” or “Where’s the Economy Going?” Articles that convey information are reflected in assertive headlines. Thumb-sucking ruminations lend themselves to question marks.

Shun writers who lean on fatigued word combinations to signify sophistication. Examples:

- “Across the pond,” to suggest intimacy with Anglo-American matters.

- “The devil is in the details,” to indicate deep knowledge of complex topics.

- “Between a rock and a hard place,” to indicate a difficult situation.

- “Cut to the chase,” to announce a focus on essentials.

These once were sprightly phrases, but over-use ...

In response to political surveys and polls, all good citizens should consider it their holy duty either to hang up or give misleading answers, i.e. brazenly lie. My rationale comes from a distaste for collaborating with people who aim to exploit me and others for their own goals — which is what these inquiries are for. In the midst of election season, it’s important to understand this.

Surveys seek to ferret out voter sentiments on issues that might affect voting. Polls seek voter intentions in order to determine who’s ahead and who will win. Let’s look at them separately.

The evils of political surveys are many, but biggest of all is that they turn the electoral process upside down. Instead of the candidate saying this is who I am and what I stand for and propose to do if elected, surveys plumb the electorate to identify what will sell on election day. As the campaigns proceed, and...