SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Land Shark who wrote (28891)5/1/2010 10:04:07 AM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
The importance of stupidity in scientific research

I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years.We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else.

I had thought of her as one of the brightest people I knew and her subsequent career supports that view. What she said bothered me. I kept thinking about it; sometime the next day, it hit me. Science makes me feel stupid too. It's just that I've gotten used to it. So used to it, in fact, that I actively seek out new opportunities to feel stupid. I wouldn't know what to do without that feeling. I even think it's supposed to be this way. Let me explain.

For almost all of us, one of the reasons that we liked science in high school and college is that we were good at it. That can't be the only reason - fascination with understanding the physical world and an emotional need to discover new things has to enter into it too. But high-school and college science means taking courses, and doing well in courses means getting the right answers on tests. If you know those answers, you do well and get to feel smart.

A Ph.D. in which you have to do a research project, is a whole different thing. For me, it was a daunting task. How could I possibly frame the questions that would lead to significant discoveries; design and interpret an experiment so that the conclusions were absolutely convincing; foresee difficulties and see ways around them, or, failing that, solve them when they occurred? My Ph.D. project was somewhat interdisciplinary and, for a while, whenever I ran into a problem, I pestered the faculty in my department who were experts in the various disciplines that I needed. I remember the day when Henry Taube (who won the Nobel Prize two years later) told me he didn't know how to solve the problem I was having in his area. I was a third-year graduate student and I figured that Taube knew about 1000 times more than I did (conservative estimate). If he didn't have the answer, nobody did.

That's when it hit me: nobody did. That's why it was a research
problem. And being my research problem, it was up to me to solve. Once I faced that fact, I solved the problem in a couple of days. (It wasn't really very hard; I just had to try a few things.) The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn't know wasn't merely vast; it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating. If our ignorance is infinite, the only possible course of action is to muddle through as best we can.

I'd like to suggest that our Ph.D. programs often do students
a disservice in two ways. First, I don't think students are made to understand how hard it is to do research. And how very, very hard it is to do important research. It's a lot harder than taking even very demanding courses. What makes it difficult is that research is immersion in the unknown. We just don't know what we're doing. We can't be sure whether we're asking the right question or doing the right experiment until we get the answer or the result. Admittedly, science is made harder by competition for grants and space in top
journals. But apart from all of that, doing significant research is intrinsically hard and changing departmental, institutional or national policies will not succeed in lessening its intrinsic difficulty.

Second, we don't do a good enough job of teaching our students how to be productively stupid - that is, if we don't feel stupid it means we're not really trying. I'm not talking about `relative stupidity', in which the other students in the class actually read the material, think about it and ace the exam, whereas you don't. I'm also not talking about bright people who might be working in areas that don't match their talents. Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity'. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown. Preliminary and thesis exams have the right idea when the faculty committee pushes until the student starts getting the answers wrong or gives up and says, `I don't know'. The point of the exam isn't to see if the student gets all the answers right. If they do, it's the faculty who failed the exam. The point is to identify the student's weaknesses, partly to see where they need to invest some effort and partly to see whether the student's knowledge fails at asufficiently high level that they are ready to take on a research project.

Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being
ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it
allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. No doubt, this can be difficult for students who are accustomed to getting the answers right. No doubt, reasonable levels of confidence and emotional resilience help, but I think scientific education might do more to ease what is a very big transition: from learning what other people once discovered to making your own discoveries. The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.

deanradin.blogspot.com



To: Land Shark who wrote (28891)5/5/2010 2:15:43 AM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Canadian David Suzuki wants to peek into your bathroom.

In a new survey being conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation, the world-renowned environmentalist is asking Canadians to come clean on their personal-care products. The foundation is compiling a first-of-a-kind inventory of toxic ingredients in the products we use to appear appealing and smell swell.


"From shampoos, to soaps, to lotions, to makeup, it's not uncommon for a single person to use 10 or more personal-care products each day," the Suzuki foundation reports.

"But some of the ingredients in beauty products aren't that pretty," it says. "U.S. researchers found that one in eight of the 82,000 ingredients used in personal care products are industrial chemicals, including carcinogens, pesticides, reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors, plasticizers, degreasers and surfactants."

"The survey results will help advocate for stronger regulations on Canadian cosmetics to protect our health and the environment," says Lisa Gue, an environmental health policy analyst at the foundation dedicated to finding innovative solutions to help protect the planet.

“It is also to make companies that make these products step up the plate.”

The foundation will present the results of its survey in September.

"We'll also have recommendations for the government for strengthening laws to protect Canadians from harmful chemicals in their personal-care products," Gue says.

To take part in the survey, click here.

Meanwhile, Health Canada advises that, if you ever suffer an adverse reaction to a cosmetic, stop using the product immediately and call your doctor.

The dirty dozen cosmetic chemicals

The David Suzuki Foundation has compiled a list of 12 chemicals found in personal-care products that it recommends you avoid.

The foundation urges Canadians to check the ingredient lists on the products you purchase to scrub up and rub on and steer clear of those that contain the following "dirty dozen".

1. BHA or BHT: Butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene are used mainly in moisturizers and makeup as antioxidants and preservatives and are also a hidden ingredient in some fragrances. BHA is toxic to the immune system and has been classified as a possible human carcinogen. BHT may be toxic to the skin, lungs, liver and immune system. Both chemicals can cause allergic reactions, they might interfere with hormone function and may promote tumour growth.

2. Cyclomethicone and ingredients ending in "siloxane": Used in cosmetics to soften, smooth and moisten, these compounds can irritate the skin, eyes and lungs. They're suspected of interfering with hormone function and of liver toxicity. They don't easily degrade and can remain in the environment long after they're rinsed down the shower drain, possibly harming fish.

3. DEA and related chemicals MEA and TEA: DEA (diethanolamine) and DEA compounds are used to make cosmetics creamy or sudsy. They irritate the skin and eyes and may be toxic to the immune and nervous systems. DEA compounds can also react with other ingredients in cosmetics to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Some say cocamide DEA harms the environment because of its acute toxicity to aquatic organisms.

4. Dibutyl phthalate: Used mainly in nail products, phthalates are also unlisted fragrance ingredients in many other cosmetics. Dibutyl phthalate is absorbed through the skin. It can enhance the capacity of other chemicals to cause genetic mutations and interfere with hormone function causing reproductive and developmental problems.

5. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives: DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, methenamine, quarternium-15 and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate are used as preservatives in cosmetics. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen. DMDM hydantoin and quarternium-15 can irritate skin and eyes and trigger allergies.

6. Fragrance or parfum: The term "fragrance" or "parfum" usually represents a complex mixture of dozens of chemicals. Of the thousands of chemicals used in fragrances, most have not been tested for toxicity. Many of these hidden ingredients can trigger allergic attacks, migraines and chemical-induced nerve irritation. Individual fragrance ingredients have been associated with cancer and neurotoxicity. Dimethyl phthalate (DEP), used in cosmetics to make fragrances linger, is suspected of interfering with hormone function causing reproductive and developmental problems.

7. Coal tar dyes: Phenylenediamine, used in hair dyes, has been found to be carcinogenic in laboratory tests. Other coal tar-derived colours are used extensively in cosmetics, identified by a five-digit Colour Index (C.I.) number. The U.S. colour name may also be listed ("FD&C" or "D&C" followed by a colour name and number). Coal tar colours may be carcinogens. As well, colours may be contaminated with heavy metals and some contain aluminum (a neurotoxin), of particular concern in cosmetics that may be ingested, like lipstick.

8. Parabens: Used in cosmetics as a preservative, parabens easily penetrate the skin and are suspected of interfering with hormone function. Parabens may mimic estrogen, the primary female sex hormone. There's a possible association between parabens and breast cancer.

9. PEG compounds (e.g. PEG-60): Look also for related chemical propylene glycol and other ingredients with the letters "eth" (e.g., polyethylene glycol). PEG (polyethylene glycol) compounds are used in cream bases in cosmetics. PEG (and its chemical cousin propylene glycol) opens the skin's pores, allowing harmful ingredients to penetrate more deeply. PEG and other "ethoxylated" ingredients (which usually have chemical names including the letters "eth") may be contaminated with ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane. Both contaminants may cause cancer. Also, ethylene oxide may harm the nervous system and interfere with human development, and 1,4-dioxane can remain in the environment long after it's rinsed down the shower drain.

10. Petrolatum: This mineral oil jelly is used to lock moisture in the skin in a variety of moisturizers and in hair-care products to make hair shine. The petrochemical can be contaminated with cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

11. Sodium laureth sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate: Sodium laureth sulfate is used in cosmetics as a cleansing agent and to make products bubble and foam. This and other "ethoxylated" ingredients (which usually have chemical names including "eth") may be contaminated with ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane. Both contaminants may cause cancer. Also, ethylene oxide may harm the nervous system and interfere with human development, and 1,4-dioxane can remain in the environment long after it's rinsed down the shower drain.

12. Triclosan: Used mainly in antiperspirants/deodorants, cleansers and hand sanitizers as a preservative and an anti-bacterial agent, it may interfere with hormone function. It's potentially toxic to aquatic organisms, and and can build up in the environment after it's rinsed down the shower drain. The extensive use of this chemical in consumer products may contribute to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Source: David Suzuki Foundation

torontosun.com



To: Land Shark who wrote (28891)5/9/2010 12:24:41 AM
From: Peter Dierks3 Recommendations  Respond to of 36917
 
How are you coming on that project to post anything credible to support your pious belief in Mann-made Global Warming?

We await your evidence.