- Two books on Darwin. See "Darwin's Prenup" by Bruce Barcott in which he reviews Charles and Emma: The Darwins' Leap of Faith and Animals Charles Darwin Saw (Explorers (Chronicle Books)) Both sound good.
- Three books on the oceans and Jacques-Yves Cousteau. See "Undersea Pioneer" by Lawrence Downes who reviews Manfish: A Story of Jacques Cousteau (which my kids love), The Fantastic Undersea Life of Jacques Cousteau and Down, Down, Down: A Journey to the Bottom of the Sea all of which also sound good.
ART/SCIENCE FUSION STUDENTS EXHIBIT PHOTOGRAPHY AND A CERAMIC MOSAIC MURAL, THE FACE OF
The final student exhibition for "Photography: Bridging Art and Science," a Science and Society Program class taught by Terry Nathan as a part of the Art/Science Fusion series at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), will be held at the Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center on the University of California, Davis campus beginning June 3 and continuing through July 3. The exhibit features over 50 student photographs exploring the conceptual connections between art and science and the role of art and science on the UC Davis campus. The opening reception, which is free and open to the public, is June 4 from 3-5 p.m.
Also included in the exhibition is a ceramic mosaic mural, The Face of Darwin, created by students and community members in a special Freshman Seminar entitled, “The Face of Darwin: Exploring the Art/Science Borderland”. In recognition of
(this came in an email to me and am posting here)
In this case I am showing Nature Methods and the ASM Microbe and even the HHMI magazine wrapped in plastic. Bad Nature. Bad ASM. Bad HHMI. Sure there may be reasons for this (e.g., maybe they have an insert), but there must be non plasticy solutions. And fortunately the news from the JDRF has no plastic. Good JDRF. Here's to sciency publications getting a little greener.
BUILDING INSIGHTS; BREAKING BOUNDARIES
On behalf of all the Editors-in-chief of Elsevier Journals, we wish to Communicate to you that we are currently accepting manuscripts in all Fields of human Endeavour.
All articles published will be peer-reviewed. The following types of papers are considered for publication:
• Original articles in basic and applied research.
•Critical reviews, surveys, opinions, commentaries and essays.
Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting recent developments in their fields. Papers submitted will be sorted out and published in any of our numerous journals that best Fits. This is a special publication procedure which published works will be discussed at seminars (organized by Elsevier) at strategic Cities all over the world. Please maximize this opportunity to showcase your research work to the world.
The submitted papers must be written in English and describe original research not published nor currently under review by other journals. Parallel submissions will not be accepted.
Our goal is to inform authors about their paper(s) within one week of receipt. All submitted papers, if relevant to the theme and objectives of the journal, will go through an external peer-review process.
Prospective authors should send their manuscript(s) in Microsoft Word or PDF format to XXXXX and should Include a cover sheet containing corresponding Author(s) name, Paper Title, affiliation, phone, fax number, email address etc.
PS: Pls. show interest by mailing XXXXXX if your Manuscript is not ready but will be ready soon.
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, I, ___________________________ (“Subject”), hereby irrevocably grant
to XXXXXXXXXXXX, and YYYYYYYYYYYYYY , the absolute right
and permission to publish my name and/or photograph or likeness and/or statements
(either in part or in their entirety) in: (a) the publication, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, that ,
(including all print and digital versions), (b) reprints of the article, including excerpts thereof,
in which Subject’s name and/or photograph or likeness
and/or statements originally appeared (including all print or digital versions) and (c)
promotional materials relating to ZZZZ, YYYY, XXXXX, in any and all media.
In the event this Consent & Release cannot by signed by the Subject, the undersigned represents that
he/she is fully authorized by Subject to grant the rights herein.
Subject agrees that electronic signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.
he/she is fully authorized by Subject to grant the rights herein.
You see, a company called Advanced Biological Laboratories, S.A has been suing Shafer and Stanford over a patent dispute. The company seems to be trying to claim to have rights over many (or maybe they think all) uses of using computers to help doctors make medical decisions. And they have been trying to get people to license their IP/software for doing this and one way they appear to be trying to get "users" is by suing them. And Bob is one of the people they have sued.
Sadly, Stanford University appears to have given in to the lawsuits even though their validity is debatable (see The Fight of His Life which provides some of the details - Hat Tip to Bill Hooker and FriendFeed for highlighting this article) and Bob has been left hanging on his own. Instead of caving to the lawsuit and shutting down HIVDB or making it less openly available or requiring people to say they will give commercial rights to Advanced Biological Laboratories for anything they develop using the DB. And rather than cave to the lawsuits Bob is fighting back - with a website called harmfulpatents.org and with a set of letters and communications. Mind you, I know little about IP/patent laws or the legal issues behind this dispute. But if this lawsuit leads to the shutting down or restriction of HIVDB that would be proof enough to me that Advanced Biological Laboratories and the legal system that supports them is doing a disservice to the progress of science.
For his efforts in keeping HIVDB open I am giving Bob Shafer a Open Access Pioneer Award.
The whole thing is pretty sad. The head of Elsevier as well as multiple people that have worked at Elsevier seem to have not been aware of that these were being used to pretend they were real journals. But I think one this is abundantly clear - we can cross of the list of criticisms of Open Access publishing that the costly non open access journals and publishers are protecting the world from bad science. Instead, it seems like they are in fact explicitly and purposefully pushing bad science and medicine in order to make extra money. Lovely.
For more informaiton on the story see for example, Kate McDonald in the Australian Life Scientist (see Elsevier published fake medical journals - Elsevier Australia, Merck, Vioxx - Australian Life Scientist). In this article she reports:
The CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences division in the US, Michael Hansen, has now issued a statement admitting the company’s Australian office published six journals paid for by pharmaceutical companies.Also see for example Forbes (via AP). The best source on this has been the Bloggosphere where there were a large number of discussions including
- Nature's the Great Beyond
- Science Now,
- Peter Suber
- Janet Stemwedel from SciencBlogs
- Chris Patil at Ouroboros
- Laika's Media Blog
There also has been some other discussion on FriendFeed including the following from a Graham Steel posting:
The purpose of the study was to identify the effects and impacts of open access on publishing models and institutional repositories in light of national and international trends. This included the impact of open access on the quality and efficiency of scholarly outputs, specifically journal articles. The report presents options for the Research Councils to consider, such as maintaining the current variation in Research Councils’ mandates, or moving towards increased open access, eventually leading to Gold Standard.
In response to the study, the Chief Executives of the Research Councils have agreed that over time the UK Research Councils will support increased open access, by:
- building on their mandates on grant-holders to deposit research papers in suitable repositories within an agreed time period, and;
- extending their support for publishing in open access journals, including through the pay-to-publish model.
- MSU RO: Academic Programs: Genomics and Molecular Genetics
- PLoS Biology - The Undergraduate Genomics Research Initiative
- Meeting Report: Incorporating Genomics Research into Undergraduate ...
- MCB Undergraduate Program - Genetics, Genomics & Development
- Genomics/Bioinformatics :: New Option/Minor Proposal :: Curriculum ...
- Incorporating Genomics into Undergraduate Curricula at Wheaton College
- Phage Genomics Research Initiative - Division of Biological ...
- 123 Genomics - Bioinformatics and Genomics Courses
tlemberger omics mania: 'ethomics' http://is.gd/wOcg - should be added to http://omics.org/ but perhaps also nominated for this http://is.gd/g2Bc
That is from Thomas Lemberger and so I followed the last link first, since I thought I might be to, well me. And indeed it was a link to my "Worst new omics word award" for museumomics.
And so then I went to the link on ethomics: High-throughput ethomics in large groups of : Drosophila : Abstract : Nature Methods.
And indeed they use "ethomics" - what is clearly a quite new omics word (only 62 google hits as of this PM). I confess, I stopped reading at the abstract because it was just too much:
We present a camera-based method for automatically quantifying the individual and social behaviors of fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, interacting in a planar arena. Our system includes machine-vision algorithms that accurately track many individuals without swapping identities and classification algorithms that detect behaviors. The data may be represented as an ethogram that plots the time course of behaviors exhibited by each fly or as a vector that concisely captures the statistical properties of all behaviors displayed in a given period. We found that behavioral differences between individuals were consistent over time and were sufficient to accurately predict gender and genotype. In addition, we found that the relative positions of flies during social interactions vary according to gender, genotype and social environment. We expect that our software, which permits high-throughput screening, will complement existing molecular methods available in Drosophila, facilitating new investigations into the genetic and cellular basis of behavior.
For trying to extend omics to ethogram and beahvioral plots I am giving my second coveted "worst new omics word award" to Kristin Branson, Alice A Robie, John Bender, Pietro Perona & Michael H Dickinson. Here is a prediction - ethomics will not become widely used - not soon - not ever. Thanks for pointing this one out Thomas.
... we have a creationist (who holds to the 6-literal day creation and young earth 6,000 year position), (name deleted), coming on our campus challenging someone to debate him.
The issue is pretty simple to me. There is nothing really to debate. Creationism is not science. It is a religion driven position that pretends (and does so poorly) to be about science. I for one have perfectly pleasant interactions with many creationists and I understand their beliefs at least at some level. But just as I would not encourage physicists to debate with those who deny gravity, and just as I would not encourage chemists to debate with those who claim the periodic table is invented, I think it is inappropriate to evolutionary biologists to "debate" with creationists in this type of setting. Discussing creationism - fine. Discussing criticism of evolutionary hypotheses - fine. Having a reasonable panel discussion of science and religion - fine. Meeting with creationists to discuss their ideas about evolution - ok too. But engaging in a "debate" and thus even for a second implying that creationism stands on the same ground as evolution - completely ludicrous.SincerelyJonathan Eisen
You Sir, are a COWARD.I guess they did not get my point. But anyway - I am asking readers out there - what do you think one should do? Should one debate creationists/ID supporters?
If it is so easy in your mind to refute Creationist's arguments, why don't you do it publically? FOR MONEY?!
Your words do nothing to change the standing offer of $250,000 for evidence of Macro-Evolution. How about Actions, not Words only?
By denying there is a challenge, and at the same time refusing to accept the challenge you tell us that you're unable to defend your position.
We know why you are fine with a panel discussion: because there is no Looser or Winner, you are afraid to loose, that is the real reason behind your rhetoric.
your answer is a nonanswer
Some good lines from the article include
Rick Prelinger’s biggest thrill is “mainstreaming" historical documents for public consumption.
But getting history into the hands of the average citizen is no easy task, the archivist says.
Overbearing copyright issues and rampant commercialism, he argues, threaten the free exchange of information on which a knowledge society — especially its libraries — depends.
Rather than concern themselves with rigid lending policies or copyright protections, library systems should focus on “more product, less process” to better serve patrons, Prelinger said.
“If the Google book deal is approved without any changes, we could soon lose 100 million books that society doesn’t know what to do with,” said Prelinger, referring to “orphan works,” or works under copyright, but whose owner is not known.....
On the other hand, archives are empowering, Prelinger said. “Let’s open up the past. Interesting things happen when we do so.”
In general since Prelinger has been pushing for more openness in libraries and in images, I am giving him an "Open Access Pioneer Award". Sorry I missed the talk but glad I read the article.