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…

Read More

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…

Read More

(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…

Read More

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…

Read More

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 not yet answered.

The authors of Obama’s response are not…

Read More

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…

Read More

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…

Read More

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,…

Read More

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 …

Read More

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…

Read More

When the next administration takes office, reconstruction of the Food and Drug Administration should receive high priority and generous resources. That we’ve dodged a pharmaceutical catastrophe from neglect of this indispensable guardian of safe medicine is merely good luck. Fresh evidence of the FDA’s decline comes in a new report, FDA’s Oversight of the Promotion of Drugs for Off-Label Uses, by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s investigative agency.

“Off-label uses” is the descriptive term for one of the many slippery tactics employed by Big Pharma for evading FDA scrutiny while seemingly abiding by FDA’s strict, but poorly enforced, regulations for drug safety and efficacy. When a drug passes FDA’s muster, it is approved only for treatment of a specified condition, and for no other use. Look at the eye-straining type in drug advertising and package inserts and you’…

Read More

Is it necessary or advisable to read a book before providing a blurb for its jacket?

This question and others have arisen in response to my July 16 post, “Truth in Publishing: Curb Those Blurbs and Syrupy Acknowledgments.”

Answer: Custom dictates that blurbing may proceed without reading beforehand and even in complete ignorance of the book. Support for this principle can probably be found in what has widely been described as an authoritative work, How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read (Bloomsbury USA, 2007), by Pierre Bayard, a best seller in France, where it was originally published.

I haven’t read Bayard’s book, but, given the title, we can safely assume that since talk about unread books is permissible, blurbing is, too.

Next comes the question of whether reading a book is a prerequisite for reviewing it. Reviewing without reading does occur. I personally have…

Read More

Proposed here is the Truth In Blurbing and Author’s Acknowledgment Act of 2008. Enactment and enforcement may encounter First Amendment considerations, but that’s what lawyers are for. If the Supreme Court says the militia reference in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the right to pack heat, we’re bound to be okay with matters affecting only literary affairs.

On the backs of book jackets, I’ve blurbed and been blurbed many times. In either role, I used to draw guidance from Dr. Johnson’s assurance that “In lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath.” As the beneficiary of effusive blurbs— the only kind allowed — I figured that no one is fooled, and besides, blurbs might sell some books. When solicited for blurbs, I went along with the game, thinking that the accounts eventually even up. I blurb for you or your friend and you or your friend blurb for me, which leads to such…

Read More

It’s not always apparent what keeps colleges flying. But clearly, they perform with a time-tested safety net. (Photo by Flickr user blmurch.)

Over the past year, angry alumni and outraged faculty stirred wide attention to the tortuous demise of Antioch College, sunk by declining enrollments and insufficient resources. But another attention-raising factor was present, too: the rarity of an academic collapse.

Unlike poor Antioch, colleges and universities rarely die. In fact, the long-ago birth dates of many institutions of higher education indicate astonishing longevity, if not immortality. Bologna goes back to 1088. Harvard came along in 1636. The Morrill Act of 1862 spawned a nationwide system of land-grant universities. Occasionally, a sagging school will be absorbed by a healthy neighbor. But the rule holds true: Colleges and universities rarely die.

Moving on, the…

Read More

In many encounters with academe, in the course of journalistic duty, I have been told:

Morale here is low.

The president is a fool.

The administration is incompetent.

The faculty is weighted with dead wood.

The students are not held to high standards.

Hiring and tenure decisions are suspect.

It’s a rare campus that lacks at least one of these accolades, and there are more than a few that register all of them.

Given that there are more than 4,000 two- and four-year postsecondary schools in the country, some unworthiness is bound to flourish here and there. But the aforementioned laments, and others, occur too frequently to be written off as local peculiarities or wine-bar fulminations.

As sometimes manifested in Brainstorm posts and ensuing reader commentaries, bitterness among faculty and staff is no rarity in our institutions of higher education. It may be that…

Read More

“Say, shouldn’t there be some numbers on this blueprint?”

Pity the engineers. Kids regard engineering as nerdy and boring, dependent on inscrutable math. On top of that engineers suffer from low self-esteem. And all this despite great efforts and massive expenditures to decorate the image of engineering and draw youngsters to the profession. What to do?

Do what’s been done by other institutions and organizations concerned about public regard. Bring in the image meisters of public relations and marketing. Let these experts plumb the minds of the public, including young children, via focus groups and surveys. And “rebrand,” as others have done. The dairy industry boosted sales with “Got milk?” Pork has prospered as “The Other White Meat,” and commonplace cotton is “The fabric of our lives.” Don’t forget that orange juice “isn’t just for breakfast anymore.”

Traditionalists…

Read More

Partisan scoffing has inevitably greeted John McCain’s proposal for a $300-million prize for a super battery to propel cars.

It is kind of gimmicky, as Barack Obama says. The prize amount simply represents $1 per head of the American population, with no relation to the costs of research or the commercial, political, or social worth of success. Moreover, at present, there’s no lack of effort on battery research, given the bonanza that a winner will reap in the ordinary marketplace. Plenty of smart people and rich organizations have been working on the battery conundrum for years, with limited success in appealing the laws of physics.

On the other hand, history shows that prizes can fire up the creative neurons. Jim Watson was sniffing the Nobel Prize as he and Francis Crick doped out the double helix, a step ahead of Linus Pauling. In 1714, the British Longitude Act provided a…

Read More

Fraud, fakery, or larceny is what ordinary people would call it. But in the sciences’ refined venues the proper term is “misconduct,” and there’s a lot more of it than official figures show, according to a report in Nature (19 June), “Repairing research integrity.”

Perhaps it’s nostalgia for my journalistic apprenticeship as a police reporter that draws me to such publications. But as much as I relish a crackdown on miscreants in lab coats, I’m wary of this report, though it has impressive authorship: a University of Wisconsin official responsible for research policy, and a current and a retired official of the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which monitors scientific purity for the National Institutes of Health and other parts of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under ORI’s procedures, grantee institutions are the first line of defense against misconduct,…

Read More

Pharmaceutical firms are incorrigible in buying academic prestige to elude FDA scrutiny and push the sale of dubious drugs. Can they be prevented from inflicting danger on the public?

Not easily or directly, given the lure of Big Pharma’s money and the regulatory lassitude that prevails in Washington and on many campuses.

But a good weapon for promoting virtue remains underutilized: shame and embarrassment directed at complicit professors and the schools that tolerate their shady commercialism.

There’s an ample supply of big-name professors willing to do business with Big Pharma in return for generous payments. Some, perhaps many, operate above board in these relationships. Others allow their names to be put on the company’s ghost-written papers and hawk drugs without acknowledging their mercenary roles.

The latest scandal, revealed by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), …

Read More

Conclude there’s no crisis, and what do you get? Official Washington and the mainline press pass you by without a sniff.

That’s pretty much what’s happened with an intriguing report recently issued by the RAND Corporation, “U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology.” Contrary to establishment doctrine, RAND’s researchers concluded that the American scientific enterprise leads the world by a wide margin in expenditures and research output, continues to grow at a healthy pace, and is not slumping into decrepitude.

Piling on the heresies, they assert that the U.S. is not short of scientists or engineers, and U.S. expenditures per student on elementary and secondary education are on par with those of other rich nations.

There are problems, the report acknowledges, such as poor student performance in math and science and disruptive financial ups and downs in particular fields of…

Read More