As happy as I was with the Melendez-Dias decision, I am also bothered by some longer term implications for science, namely its credibility.
Being a scientist, I am fully aware of all its flaws and shortcomings. I know what they are and how to best deal with them. The general public is not. The most common perception, which is desirable to me, is that they look upon science as providing factual answers that are generally not be questioned. With every passing scandal however, this perception fades. The decision mentioned above adds to this. While I certainly have no problem with people understanding that science is not perfect, the attitude that is arising seems to be that science is just an opinion, and since it is an opinion, anyone can hold their own and they are all equally valid. (This is analogous to the people that downplay evolutionary theory by stating it is "just a theory", although that argument is fatally flawed for reasons that I won't get into here.)
"Voting" in science certainly doesn't help, such as when the IAU voted that Pluto was not a planet or when 1500 scientists formed a 'consensus' opinion on global warming. This continues to give the general public the perception that science is an opinion.
Add to that the endless "health" stories about how eating ___________(insert the food the day here) is prevents __________________ (insert the illness of the day here) only to be contradicted by a report next week that the same food actually causes that same disease and you have the makings of a immensely poor perception of that factuality of science.
I'm not sure what can be done. Education is desirable, but won't work. Newly minted scientists have a very poor understanding of the inner workings of science including the flaws that I alluded to above. It takes more than a few years to really see the true picture - some never do. There is no way we can expect better of the general public given that most of them thought their science classes were dreadful.
I wish I could think of something.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
We don't do logos
I often accompany our sales people on initial sales calls. Explaining what our company does is somewhat difficult, a challenge that I will leave for another post, but clearly we work in most areas of materials science. What I really enjoy is when the clients ask what we don’t do. If the atmosphere is light enough and I’m quick enough, I can interject: “We don’t do logos”. It always gets a good laugh.
Certainly we needed a new logo a few years ago, as our previous logo was clearly dated.
Can anyone guess what that large central section of the leaf is a portion of? (Answer at the bottom of this post). Hint: you need to be at least 30 years old or if not that, had access to a computer that’s at least 15 years or so. I don’t know why that was part of the logo, as we certainly didn’t develop computer software either.
We can’t do anything that looks like an aspen leaf, as the Aspen Medical Group in town already has a logo like that and our lawyer just doesn’t want to go anywhere close to that.
Being no longer closely linked with any piece of human construction, our new logo clearly will not become dated as technology advances, but we (i.e., most of my colleagues) still don’t like it. It’s not that we’re opposed to pentavalent compounds, as they clearly exist: PF5 and ClF5 to name a couple. It’s just the cartoonish nature of the logo, the green and the black, the distorted perspective. One former manager called it a squished turtle.
Answer: it’s part of a 5 ¼” floppy drive.
Certainly we needed a new logo a few years ago, as our previous logo was clearly dated.
Can anyone guess what that large central section of the leaf is a portion of? (Answer at the bottom of this post). Hint: you need to be at least 30 years old or if not that, had access to a computer that’s at least 15 years or so. I don’t know why that was part of the logo, as we certainly didn’t develop computer software either.
We can’t do anything that looks like an aspen leaf, as the Aspen Medical Group in town already has a logo like that and our lawyer just doesn’t want to go anywhere close to that.
Being no longer closely linked with any piece of human construction, our new logo clearly will not become dated as technology advances, but we (i.e., most of my colleagues) still don’t like it. It’s not that we’re opposed to pentavalent compounds, as they clearly exist: PF5 and ClF5 to name a couple. It’s just the cartoonish nature of the logo, the green and the black, the distorted perspective. One former manager called it a squished turtle.
Answer: it’s part of a 5 ¼” floppy drive.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Melendez-Dias v. Massachusetts - More Commentary
The Melendez-Dias v. Massachusetts case was decided. The heart of the issue before the Supreme Court was that whether or not the defendant had the right to cross-examine the analyst who had prepared a report identifying some drugs. The Sixth amendment states that defendant have the right to cross-examine their accusers. The issue was whether or not the report, and thereby the analyst was an accuser. The Court, by a 5-4 margin decided that indeed the analyst can be cross-examined in court. (It was an unusual split, with Scalia writing the decision and joined by Thomas, Stevens, Souter(!) and Ginsberg (!!))
My (non-legal) opinion of the matter is that being a chemist, I am too well aware that scientific measurements are not the objective and neutral procedure that nonscientific people think them to be. The neutrality is somewhat harder to argue against, but arguing against objectiveness is much easier. There are simply too many things that can go wrong with modern instrumentation to not question there results. I do that everyday here at Aspen Research. Not that we do poor work, but the question always arises “What are we really measuring?” Answering this makes our work that much better for the clients we serve. And as I’ve pointed our before, there is a huge gap between data and conclusion, one that requires human intervention. Given all of this, I do think there is sufficient doubt on any analytical test report that it should not just be taken as a matter of fact.
Many documents used as evidence in court are clearly not accusatory and that should not change. The most common example is bookkeeping records used in accounting cases. The difference here is that the bookkeeping records do not reach a conclusion – both sides are able to argue the evidence to support whatever conclusion they desire. In contrast, a lab report has already reached a conclusion,
I love reading Scalia's opinions as he has no problem with directly addressing what specifically is written in the dissenting opinion. (He was particularly vitriolic when he wrote the opinion on the recent 2nd amendment case.) This one wasn’t quite as pointed, but there are a few gems such as this:
“Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.” (page 12)
This comment from page 14 particularly struck me hard:
“This case is illustrative. The affidavits submitted by the analysts contained only the bare-bones statement that “[t]he substance was found to contain: Cocaine.”... At the time of trial, petitioner did not know what tests the analysts performed, whether those tests were routine, and whether interpreting their results required the exercise of judgment or the use of skills that the analysts may not have possessed. While we still do not know the precise tests used by the analysts, we are told that the laboratories use “methodology recommended by the Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs…At least some of that methodology requires the exercise of judgment and presents a risk of error that might be explored on cross-examination.”
A one line report with no basis for reaching the conclusion? Unbelievable.
My argument above is based on issues in the real world, but at least restrained by pursuing the “truth”. However, real world practicalities that do show up on page 20 are maddening:
”Perhaps the best indication that the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already. Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today, while many others permit the defendant to assert (or forfeit by silence) his Confrontation Clause right after receiving notice of the prosecution’s intent to use a forensic analyst’s report… Despite these widespread practices, there is no evidence that the criminal justice system has ground to a halt in the States that, one way or another, empower a defendant to insist upon the analyst’s appearance at trial.”
The dissenting opinion is loaded with even more “real world” practicalities. Since when do these matter in a legal decision on the Bill-of-Rights? All of the Bill-of-Rights makes life more difficult for the government. That should never be an issue.
I’m happy for this decision, as I think it is a right one, but that it wasn’t made for all the right reasons. There is that old saying that “Law are like sausages; people should not see them being made”, which I always thought applied to the legislative process. Now I see that it can apply to the judicial process as well.
My (non-legal) opinion of the matter is that being a chemist, I am too well aware that scientific measurements are not the objective and neutral procedure that nonscientific people think them to be. The neutrality is somewhat harder to argue against, but arguing against objectiveness is much easier. There are simply too many things that can go wrong with modern instrumentation to not question there results. I do that everyday here at Aspen Research. Not that we do poor work, but the question always arises “What are we really measuring?” Answering this makes our work that much better for the clients we serve. And as I’ve pointed our before, there is a huge gap between data and conclusion, one that requires human intervention. Given all of this, I do think there is sufficient doubt on any analytical test report that it should not just be taken as a matter of fact.
Many documents used as evidence in court are clearly not accusatory and that should not change. The most common example is bookkeeping records used in accounting cases. The difference here is that the bookkeeping records do not reach a conclusion – both sides are able to argue the evidence to support whatever conclusion they desire. In contrast, a lab report has already reached a conclusion,
I love reading Scalia's opinions as he has no problem with directly addressing what specifically is written in the dissenting opinion. (He was particularly vitriolic when he wrote the opinion on the recent 2nd amendment case.) This one wasn’t quite as pointed, but there are a few gems such as this:
“Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes.” (page 12)
This comment from page 14 particularly struck me hard:
“This case is illustrative. The affidavits submitted by the analysts contained only the bare-bones statement that “[t]he substance was found to contain: Cocaine.”... At the time of trial, petitioner did not know what tests the analysts performed, whether those tests were routine, and whether interpreting their results required the exercise of judgment or the use of skills that the analysts may not have possessed. While we still do not know the precise tests used by the analysts, we are told that the laboratories use “methodology recommended by the Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized Drugs…At least some of that methodology requires the exercise of judgment and presents a risk of error that might be explored on cross-examination.”
A one line report with no basis for reaching the conclusion? Unbelievable.
My argument above is based on issues in the real world, but at least restrained by pursuing the “truth”. However, real world practicalities that do show up on page 20 are maddening:
”Perhaps the best indication that the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already. Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today, while many others permit the defendant to assert (or forfeit by silence) his Confrontation Clause right after receiving notice of the prosecution’s intent to use a forensic analyst’s report… Despite these widespread practices, there is no evidence that the criminal justice system has ground to a halt in the States that, one way or another, empower a defendant to insist upon the analyst’s appearance at trial.”
The dissenting opinion is loaded with even more “real world” practicalities. Since when do these matter in a legal decision on the Bill-of-Rights? All of the Bill-of-Rights makes life more difficult for the government. That should never be an issue.
I’m happy for this decision, as I think it is a right one, but that it wasn’t made for all the right reasons. There is that old saying that “Law are like sausages; people should not see them being made”, which I always thought applied to the legislative process. Now I see that it can apply to the judicial process as well.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Melendez-Dias v. Massachusetts is overturned
A decision was finally reached, and it does appear that a written lab report is considered "testimonial" evidence, so that the person preparing can be brought to court to be questioned.
I'm short on time today, but will write more tomorrow. I agree with the decision, but am disappointed that it was only 5-4. Dissent is good, but this is too close for comfort.
I'm short on time today, but will write more tomorrow. I agree with the decision, but am disappointed that it was only 5-4. Dissent is good, but this is too close for comfort.
Formulations, insomnia and career paths
I'm finally getting to work on that UV-cured material after endless delays from the front office. It is a new area that doesn't seem to have any previous work done, so I'm flying by the seat of my pants, using only my intuition and experience. This is no time for a designed formulation scheme spit out blindly by a canned program devised by a mathematician (or worse yet, a statistician!). This is the time to take big broad swatches of color and go for it, guaranteeing equally big failures and maybe, just maybe, a spark of success that can be slowly fanned and improved to reach the ultimate success.
The first days are the worst as there are too many functional groups to look at (including the various remnants binding them together), too many photoinitiators, and too many other additives to include. My mind was non-functional yesterday after massing out all the ingredients. Letting things sit overnight, I can already see that there are issues of solubility between the components to address, premature reactions and a host of other problems too solve.
This is fun. These problems will keep me awake at night, but I'm energized in the morning about the new ideas to try. Had I'd gone to the dark side (management), I'd be awake at night too with problems in my head, but that would be a worry-induced insomnia, the kind that would leave me exhausted in the morning from a sleepless night. I've chosen my career path correctly.
The first days are the worst as there are too many functional groups to look at (including the various remnants binding them together), too many photoinitiators, and too many other additives to include. My mind was non-functional yesterday after massing out all the ingredients. Letting things sit overnight, I can already see that there are issues of solubility between the components to address, premature reactions and a host of other problems too solve.
This is fun. These problems will keep me awake at night, but I'm energized in the morning about the new ideas to try. Had I'd gone to the dark side (management), I'd be awake at night too with problems in my head, but that would be a worry-induced insomnia, the kind that would leave me exhausted in the morning from a sleepless night. I've chosen my career path correctly.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
If anybody dares quote Paul Simon...
...I'll instantly delete their comment. It's just too easy a target, given that Kodak is stopping production of Kodachrome.
I certainly appreciate digital photography - I wish I would have had it around when I was learning the art. It's so much easier to show someone the benefit of bracketing exposures (i.e., taking a series at different shutter speeds or f-stops so as to get a better picture than what the dummy automatic settings choose) as you get instant feedback at virtually no cost. And it's so easy to delete the bad exposures instantly to not fill up the memory.
Using film in the same manner was a time-extensive and expensive. Even if you developed the film yourself, it still was a good hour or more between pressing the shutter and looking at the proofs. It also explains why skilled photographers were happy to get 2 good shots from a roll of film. But because of the irreversible nature of film, all the shots had to be developed.
I've also always been impressed with the technology of photography, particularly color. Being a chemist, I understand the technology, but I still am awed that this was created decades ago. It's a pretty precise technology and it performs beautifully.
I certainly appreciate digital photography - I wish I would have had it around when I was learning the art. It's so much easier to show someone the benefit of bracketing exposures (i.e., taking a series at different shutter speeds or f-stops so as to get a better picture than what the dummy automatic settings choose) as you get instant feedback at virtually no cost. And it's so easy to delete the bad exposures instantly to not fill up the memory.
Using film in the same manner was a time-extensive and expensive. Even if you developed the film yourself, it still was a good hour or more between pressing the shutter and looking at the proofs. It also explains why skilled photographers were happy to get 2 good shots from a roll of film. But because of the irreversible nature of film, all the shots had to be developed.
I've also always been impressed with the technology of photography, particularly color. Being a chemist, I understand the technology, but I still am awed that this was created decades ago. It's a pretty precise technology and it performs beautifully.
Monday, June 22, 2009
It's finally time for bifocals
I've been fighting it too long, but this will most likely put me over the edge: The ACS is now rotating and condensing it's journals. The rotate I can maybe live with. Certainly it may appear at a distant that I would be looking at a solicitous image ("getta load of those hydrocarbons"), but that's o.k. It's the "condensing" that will cause me to concede defeat.
I certainly understand the move, although I had to smile at this comment in the announcement: "At ACS, demand for our print-based offerings has declined significantly—down over 50% in the last 2 years. Ironically, despite pre-emptive moves to digital presses, this has had the impact of increasing ACS’ own print-cost per copy, given the economies of scale in printing process." I'm sure other publishers will follow as well.
A transition to online is inevitable for all these publications. The issue I find with online access is that it is only temporary access, and when the fees are no longer paid, all access is lost even during the periods when full access was available. Meanwhile printed journals are permanent.
I certainly understand the move, although I had to smile at this comment in the announcement: "At ACS, demand for our print-based offerings has declined significantly—down over 50% in the last 2 years. Ironically, despite pre-emptive moves to digital presses, this has had the impact of increasing ACS’ own print-cost per copy, given the economies of scale in printing process." I'm sure other publishers will follow as well.
A transition to online is inevitable for all these publications. The issue I find with online access is that it is only temporary access, and when the fees are no longer paid, all access is lost even during the periods when full access was available. Meanwhile printed journals are permanent.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Buckyball polymers
This one has me a little bit puzzled in a number of ways. A paper at the physics arxiv discusses the polymerization of buckyballs (fullerenes)using 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene (TMB) as a comonomer. The resulting polymer then was an alternating copolymer.
From page 9:"However, the solubility of the material was found to change with time. Unlike raw C60 powder, well known to be highly soluble in aromatic solvents, the as-made nanowires were only partially soluble in these solvents, and this solubility decreased further with time." This is doubly puzzling, not only because of the change over time in solubility, but also because I would expect the TMB to have only a minor change on the over interactions between solute and solvent. There are 60/9 more carbon-solvent interactions with the buckyballs than with the bridge.
All of the easy explanations are not available: "We noted that the resulting nanowires were highly stable, as indicated by the fact that there was no detectable alteration in either their crystalline morphology, crystal color, or sample weight as a function of time." It's problem that will have to wait for someone else to solve.
From page 9:"However, the solubility of the material was found to change with time. Unlike raw C60 powder, well known to be highly soluble in aromatic solvents, the as-made nanowires were only partially soluble in these solvents, and this solubility decreased further with time." This is doubly puzzling, not only because of the change over time in solubility, but also because I would expect the TMB to have only a minor change on the over interactions between solute and solvent. There are 60/9 more carbon-solvent interactions with the buckyballs than with the bridge.
All of the easy explanations are not available: "We noted that the resulting nanowires were highly stable, as indicated by the fact that there was no detectable alteration in either their crystalline morphology, crystal color, or sample weight as a function of time." It's problem that will have to wait for someone else to solve.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
At least here the Editor loses his job
Following up on last week's post about the nonsensical research article that was accepted in an open access journal after being "peer-reviewed", the editor of the journal has resigned his position.
What really gets me is the gaul of the publisher to state "In a statement, Mahmood Alam, director of publications at Bentham Science Publishing, told Nature in an e-mail that "submission of fake manuscripts is a totally unethical activity and must be condemned.""
But it appears that I am too quick to judge. Alam was actually the good guy here, actively purusing the criminals: "Alam claims that those behind the fake paper "had also tried to do this earlier [sic] in a different journal, but failed in their attempt due to our peer review system. Our suspicions were aroused this time and in an effort to unmask their identities the normal publication process was carried out on the second fake article. When they received repeated requests from us for more information and their credit card and other payment details they withdrew this paper.""
Way to go! A publisher trying to out the fakes, tracking them by their credit cards numbers. Too bad that the general public doesn't know about this stuff; I'd love to see the talk show hosts get some mileage out of this situation (and Conan needs a lot of mileage).
What really gets me is the gaul of the publisher to state "In a statement, Mahmood Alam, director of publications at Bentham Science Publishing, told Nature in an e-mail that "submission of fake manuscripts is a totally unethical activity and must be condemned.""
But it appears that I am too quick to judge. Alam was actually the good guy here, actively purusing the criminals: "Alam claims that those behind the fake paper "had also tried to do this earlier [sic] in a different journal, but failed in their attempt due to our peer review system. Our suspicions were aroused this time and in an effort to unmask their identities the normal publication process was carried out on the second fake article. When they received repeated requests from us for more information and their credit card and other payment details they withdrew this paper.""
Way to go! A publisher trying to out the fakes, tracking them by their credit cards numbers. Too bad that the general public doesn't know about this stuff; I'd love to see the talk show hosts get some mileage out of this situation (and Conan needs a lot of mileage).
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A sign of economic turnaround?
Being the economic forecaster par excellence that I am, please be assured that you can invest your entire life savings on the following sign of the imminent economic turnaround: next year's K-show is already sold out. This years NPE has been hurting in every possible way - attendance by both exhibitors and attendees is off.
The K-show is the Kunststoff show which is held every three years, Kunststoff being the German world for plastics. I used to think that "Kunststoff" was an inferior word to use, as the origin of "plastic" to describe polymers arose from the plastic deformation that they commonly underwent. But given that most people aren't aware of what "plastic deformation" is (i.e., they think that any deformation (including an elastic strain) of a plastic is a plastic deformation), maybe it is a better term after all.
The K-show is the Kunststoff show which is held every three years, Kunststoff being the German world for plastics. I used to think that "Kunststoff" was an inferior word to use, as the origin of "plastic" to describe polymers arose from the plastic deformation that they commonly underwent. But given that most people aren't aware of what "plastic deformation" is (i.e., they think that any deformation (including an elastic strain) of a plastic is a plastic deformation), maybe it is a better term after all.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Front row seat to a horse race
Just in my RSS feeds, I ran across two papers (1, 2) that made me think "deja vu" until I realized that no, these were two nearly identical papers. Both were using azobenzene derivatives, which have been known for decades to undergo a reversible cis/trans transformation under UV light,
and both groups have now been able to demonstrate reversible bending of thin polymer films as a result of this. The first paper listed above was done by the Koshima group at Ehime University, while the second above was done by researchers at in the Yu group at Fudan University and others at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Both groups have videos of the results. The JACS publication was received December 22 of last year, while the other paper was received March 11 of this year. That doesn't really clarify who was the originator though. Lastly, the JACS paper does cite earlier work of the Chinese, but the Chinese don't mention the work of the other group.
Coincidence? Academic spying? Is Hollywood calling for the movie rights?
and both groups have now been able to demonstrate reversible bending of thin polymer films as a result of this. The first paper listed above was done by the Koshima group at Ehime University, while the second above was done by researchers at in the Yu group at Fudan University and others at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Both groups have videos of the results. The JACS publication was received December 22 of last year, while the other paper was received March 11 of this year. That doesn't really clarify who was the originator though. Lastly, the JACS paper does cite earlier work of the Chinese, but the Chinese don't mention the work of the other group.Coincidence? Academic spying? Is Hollywood calling for the movie rights?
Guar Gum - It's not just a thickener anymore
This research has it all: ionic liquids, unusual thermorheological behavior, and is based on renewable resources. How cool is that?
Ionic liquids are a rather sexy research area these days. These materials are simply salts that are liquid at or near room temperature. Unlike the more common salts made from column 1 and 2 cations and column 7 anions which have very high melting points, both of the ions in ionic liquids are made of numerous atoms, often organic, and are able to spread the electric charge around rather than concentrating it on a single atom. This dispersion results in a weaker ionic bond which can then "melt" at lower temperatures. Most commonly, the vapor pressure of the liquids is quite low.
The researchers used an ionic liquid to dissolve guar gum and make a make a film that is conductive (no surprise there) but also hardens when heated and softens when cooled. All told, that is quite a package of unique properties to have.
Ionic liquids are a rather sexy research area these days. These materials are simply salts that are liquid at or near room temperature. Unlike the more common salts made from column 1 and 2 cations and column 7 anions which have very high melting points, both of the ions in ionic liquids are made of numerous atoms, often organic, and are able to spread the electric charge around rather than concentrating it on a single atom. This dispersion results in a weaker ionic bond which can then "melt" at lower temperatures. Most commonly, the vapor pressure of the liquids is quite low.
The researchers used an ionic liquid to dissolve guar gum and make a make a film that is conductive (no surprise there) but also hardens when heated and softens when cooled. All told, that is quite a package of unique properties to have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
