Science and Inquiry discussion

This question was asked first in another thread, and I thought it warranted it's own thread.

For myself, I get some from the New York Times, and from other news aggregators in Protopage.com. But I also get a lot from posts on Google+.

A great place to get new medical news is from Journal Watch, which is a website, biweekly pamphlet that is put out by the same company that publishes "The New England Journal of Medicine" (by far the best medical journal). Here is the website, http://www.jwatch.org/ -- you need a subscription to see the articles (which are more like paragraphs), but you can often get the gist just from the title, which anyone can see. These guys review about 60 journals and publish on the highlights.

Another great source for new medical news is www.uptodate.com, which is probably what your doctor is looking at if he says he needs to look something up on his computer during an appointment (unless he's looking at your past records). This is another paid site, but it is free through the libraries of most major universities.

I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from www.sciencedaily.com to get a daily update of science-related news.

That's a really neat site, David. Thanks!

My answer from that thread.
I have my browser homepage set to GoogleNews (which you can customize if you like) and to the science category in particular.

I also regularly check Science Blogging Aggregated:

This has now become: ScienceSeeker:
http://scienceseeker.org/


Which always has something of interest.

I also have a news aggregator that gets a 'feed' from the scienceDaily site mentioned above.

I like the science pages on NYT and NPR. Scientific American & Eurekalert.org are good too.

Thanks for the info on Journal Watch, that will be helpful when writing papers that require recent sources.

A couple of other sites:

http://www.sciencenews.org/

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.nature.com/news/index.html

Thanks, Kenny! Sure thing, Amanda!

Thanks everyone for the information! :))
I live in Paris and there are two magazines that I like very much!

For those who speak french:

Science et vie http://www.science-et-vie.com/

Science et avenir (you can read it on android, maybe iPad too) http://sciencesetavenir.nouvelobs.com/

New York Times Science page.

"Anthropology in the News": http://anthropology.tamu.edu/html/in-...

National Geographic Daily News for Science & Technology: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...

David wrote: "I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from www.sciencedaily.com to get a daily update of science-related news."

Thanks David, I signed up. And thanks, Betsy, for the useful topic.

I have subscribed to Science News on my Kindle for a few years now. It comes out every two weeks which makes it perfect for reading between my last book and the next one. And living in Mexico most of the time it's hard to buy science mags or get subscriptions by mail, so Science News on the Kindle is great.

For space and and astronomy news my favorite source is:

http://www.universetoday.com/

David wrote: "I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from www.sciencedaily.com to get a daily update of science-related news."

This is a good site. Space.com is another. I have a whole range of space companies bookmarked including SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace, JP Aerospace and a dozen others.

David wrote: "I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from www.sciencedaily.com to get a daily update of science-related news."

Holy Moly you can really get stuck on that site !

Thanks for the links, everyone :) I will probably be addicted to these sites very soon.
Is it okay to share links of foreign science websites? I have a few, but I don't know if it would pose a problem.

If you like science blogs, then http://scienceseeker.org/ is one of the best science blogging aggregator sites that I've come across.

And I'd like to point out that the Science Daily "news" site is actually a compilation of press releases from different universities and research groups; so be aware that these pieces are from the public relations side of things and not the newsroom side of things.

I also like the Yale e360 site: http://e360.yale.edu/ for environmental news, and the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog for a general awareness of the big stories and what's right and wrong about them: http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker.

Martina wrote: "Thanks for the links, everyone :) I will probably be addicted to these sites very soon.
Is it okay to share links of foreign science websites? I have a few, but I don't know if it would pose a prob..."

I don't understand. Why would that possibly be a problem? We have members from around the world.

A couple I use as an interested and very general reader:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/

Fascinating site and arguably the doyen of all things science: http://royalsociety.org/news/

People may also be interested in The New Scientist which is subscription based: http://www.newscientist.com/

Geevee wrote: "A couple I use as an interested and very general reader:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/

Fascinating site and arguably the doyen of all things science: http://royalsoci..."

Stan wrote: "David wrote: "I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter from www.sciencedaily.com to get a daily update of science-related news."

This is a good site. Space.com is another. I have a whole range of spa..."

I agree. Sciencedaily.com keeps me updated on the latest science news. Very informative

Betsy wrote: "Martina wrote: "Thanks for the links, everyone :) I will probably be addicted to these sites very soon.
Is it okay to share links of foreign science websites? I have a few, but I don't know if it w..."

Well, since this group is primarily English-speaking, I thought English was the preferred language too :)

Those who speak/understand Croatian might find interesting:

- a portal with open access scientific journals: Hrčak

- a site with mostly news about biology: Biologija

- a popular science site: Čuda prirode

http://www.newscientist.com/

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/

http://www.archaeology.org/news/

http://www.techreview.com/ (MIT)

I usually check these daily.

Martina wrote: "Betsy wrote: "Martina wrote: "Thanks for the links, everyone :) I will probably be addicted to these sites very soon.
Is it okay to share links of foreign science websites? I have a few, but I don'..."

Hvala Martina

Gregor wrote: "Martina wrote: "Betsy wrote: "Martina wrote: "Thanks for the links, everyone :) I will probably be addicted to these sites very soon.
Is it okay to share links of foreign science websites? I have a..."

Nema na čemu :)

I just had classes, we learned about Drosophila melanogaster, a model organism, and our teacher showed some very intriguing articles from PNAS.
It looks interesting - www.pnas.org :))

Well, MIT News http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/ , Science and New Scientist magazines are my favourites.

Thanks for this thread:) I did not have a good source before.

The Infinite Monkey Cage podcast by Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince. It's good!

Two podcasts not yet mentioned
Twis: this week in science - which is current and used to run a science book club.
Naked scientist - sometimes basic science and sometimes topical but well presented from the UK

Also agree,that The infinite monkey cage is good, except that it's not really science News.

Scitechdaily.com is a good aggregator site though it's format changed in recent years.

There's also two newish science magazines out: Nautlius and Quanta, links for each are http://nautil.us and https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta.

American Al Jazeera site recently launched too, and they have a "Science" tab all by itself (not with Health or Tech), will be interesting to see over time if it's any good: http://america.aljazeera.com/topics/t...

And I can't help but point out that some of the sites mentioned here (Science Daily, university news offices) are technically public relations sites, where reseasrch institutions push press releases of their own researchers' news. Just keep that in mind when reading as PR material is not unbiased.

Thanks, DeLene. That's good to know.

DeLene wrote: "And I can't help but point out that some of the sites mentioned here (Science Daily, university news offices) are technically public relations sites, where reseasrch institutions push press releases of their own researchers' news. Just keep that in mind when reading as PR material is not unbiased. "

Thanks for pointing that out, DeLene. I have become somewhat disappointed with ScienceDaily.com, partly for the reason you mention. Every article states that the new research has great potential for future breakthroughs. This past week, for example, I read that copper has been identified as the "cause" of Alzheimer's disease. In another article--the same week!--I read that iron is definitely the cause of Alzheimer's disease. It seems like a lot of self-serving non-reproducible results. And, to top it off, many of the articles aren't about science at all. More like technology, and sometimes simply the results of opinion polls. Blahh.

David wrote: "It seems like a lot of self-serving non-reproducible results. And, to top it off, many of the articles aren't about science at all. More like technology, and sometimes simply the results of opinion polls. Blahh. "

Science Daily is simply an aggregator site for press releases of universties and other research institutions. There is no fact checking, no vetting, anything that is issued as a press release ends up on their pages. If there is something incorrect in the press release, you will never see a correction posted (to my knowledge).

It's useful in terms of knowing what research is being conducted and what journal papers have been published; but I think it is much less useful as a reliable news source. Just my opinion.

I enjoy Phys Org (http://phys.org/) which, despite its name, covers all of the sciences. I think it has something for everyone. You can choose to receive newsletters on topics of interest and there are apps to download.

Roger wrote: "I enjoy Phys Org (http://phys.org/) which, despite its name, covers all of the sciences. I think it has something for everyone. You can choose to receive newsletters on topics of interest and there..."

Thanks for the link, Roger. I've checked it out--it's very nice!

I go to national news sites pick something I find interesting and investigate it further, going to the research lab site, that sort of stuff. Or my friend sends me random links that he thinks I'd find interesting.

Science: https://www.sciencemag.org
Nature: http://www.nature.com
NYT Science: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/...
NASA Breaking News: http://www.nasa.gov/rss/dyn/breaking_...
ArXiv: http://arxiv.org
Many alerts that go to email.
Listserv subscriptions that go to email.
SciLogs blogs (hover over blogs tab to see individual blogs): http://www.scilogs.com/mission-statem...
Facebook groups: [Hidden]
Following some 2,000 scientists, science libraries, science journalists and publishers on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SciMedLibraries

Great list by Shannon! I also want to give a big thumbs up to DeLene's comments (#30, #33). Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people in the general public know the difference between PR and reporting. One thing to look for: Does the article have just one source, or does it give comments by outside experts who were not involved in the research? I used to write for Science NOW (sciencenow.sciencemag.org, see message #21) and they would never publish anything if you didn't have two sources.

True Dana, but some stories only have one source....in particular newly published research studies. :)

Also multiple sources sometimes agree but are still wrong or intentionally deceptive.

One of my main concerns these days is with proper science reporting and communication.

Kenny, in one sense I completely agree. The consulting a second source sometimes became just a ritual. The outside expert's comments were of necessity superficial sometimes. I would send them a copy of the research article (reporters can get advance copies before the publication date) and ask them what do you think? Actually, I would send it to three or four people, and the one(s) who replied first would be the ones whom I would call up and interview. Very unscientific.

Nevertheless, the principle of getting an outside opinion is one thing that defines the difference between journalism and not journalism. The embargo system (where the journals provide advance copies to reporters) is specifically designed so that a reporter *can* talk with somebody who wasn't involved with the research. So I disagree with your first sentence. If you see a story with no second source, even if it's about a newly published research article, it's either PR or it's a lazy journalist.

Dana, I just checked out your profile. I have been waiting to read a book like this for a long time! I read Hawkings' God Created the Intergers (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...), and it was too dry for me. Hope The Universe in Zero Words: The Story of Mathematics as Told through Equations similar book is livelier. I just bought a Kindle copy: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

Sorry Dana i understand that is your opinion but it's far from strictly true. My statements are correct and true. We must do all we can to protect the integrity of science communication. We agree on that but it takes much more than didactic rules or guidelines.

Oh and consulting someone by having them read a peer reviewed research article does nothing that has not already been done by tbe peer review process. It is still a single source until the research is replicated independently.

Since Kenny brought up reproducibility of science research and problems in the peer review system, I'm going to mention this petition. (I hope it is not out of place in this conversation):

In 2013, Dr. John Holdren, the director of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued a science policy memorandum (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defau...) requiring free public access to the published journal articles of scientific and medical researchers in the United States who received funding from agencies that receive over $1M from taxpaying citizens. This mandate was written in response to an initial online petition on the very same We the People website, called “Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research” (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/peti...).

The petition requests changes that would improve the ability of scientists to verify results published in academic journals. Right now, this is a very large problem. Studies published in top journals, like Nature, Science, as well as the Annals of Applied Statistics, have pointed out serious errors in a number of published papers that have presented, false, misleading, or simply non-reproducible claims. With an estimated spending of $1.5 trillion USD spent globally on research and development, irreproducible results become a serious problem (http://www.scilogs.com/scientific_and...). When those researchers are funded using U. S. taxpayer dollars, it is important that their results are presented fully, in such a way as to meet the scientific “gold standard” of reproducibility. Despite the good efforts of peer reviewers used by journal publishers, journals must issue retractions when articles fail to meet this standard. An article in The Economist pointed out serious flaws in today’s non-reproducible science journal articles and the role that virtual laboratory notebooks could play in monitoring experimental studies:

"Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication … Ideally, research protocols should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks … A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties" (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders...).

One major cause of this problem is that when journal articles are published and patents are reviewed, the scientists’ laboratory notebooks are rarely consulted. It is usually only in cases where a litigant challenges a patent that laboratory notebooks have historically held sway. However, the fact that the companies have held the notebooks in their possession, rather than the USPTO, might introduce the possibility for tampering with the evidence should notebooks be required during litigation. It seems to me a much better idea that a neutral third party, the USPTO, would hold a digital copy of these notebooks when a patent is filed in case the need would arise to consult them to prove reproducibility or validate a patent’s claims.

The USPTO already maintains a historical database of full-text US patents to fulfill its Constitutional duties to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries… Under this system of protection, American industry has flourished. New products have been invented, new uses for old ones discovered, and employment opportunities created for millions of Americans. The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. The continued demand for patents and trademarks underscores the ingenuity of American inventors and entrepreneurs. The USPTO is at the cutting edge of the nation's technological progress and achievement” (http://www.uspto.gov/about/index.jsp).

Of course, there is a need to protect the intellectual property rights of patent holders for the duration of the patent. Nevertheless, should the product or process described in a patent come under official scrutiny, notebooks should be on hand for official review. Just as articles and data covered in the 2013 OSTP memorandum, the production of research notebooks were also funded by taxes of the American people. These notebooks should, after the life of the patent (usually 17 to 20 years), also become open and freely accessible as part of the public domain and be sustained as part of a U. S. scientific and medical heritage preservation effort. There are a few exceptions wherein material should be restricted—such as national security or technology export limitations— but these materials could instead be transferred at the end of the life of the patent to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), where similar documents are housed and accessed through FOIA requests.

How could such a digital notebooks repository database be funded? A financially sustainable project could be achieved through a small filing fee for submitted notebooks, like other fees that fully finance USPTO’s operations (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/q...). Unlike other federal agencies, it is a "100%-user fee funded agency" (http://www.ipo.org/index.php/advocacy...), operating without additional taxpayer costs.

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

Help ensure good science and medicine by signing the petition: http://wh.gov/l5gv0.

Thanks Shannon!!

Kenny, We could agree to disagree... except I'm not sure that we really disagree! The process of science reporting is far from perfect. Getting a second opinion doesn't really mean a lot if the opinion is rushed and ill-informed. And absolutely, the truth or falsehood of a scientific paper must ultimately come down to replication by other scientists, which will happen on a time scale of weeks to years -- not hours, which is what the media news cycle needs.

The only place where we slightly disagree is that I think there is a sniff test the average citizen can use if they want to know whether a news story might be legit or whether it's PR. If the writer has taken the trouble to locate another expert and interview them, they're at least trying to do their homework. You should still take the story with a grain of salt. If the writer has not done so, you should take the story with a bigger grain of salt.

You're right also that if an article comes out in a reputable journal like Science, Nature, or PNAS -- the big three of science reporting -- then it has certainly been through a peer review process that is much more trustworthy than any journalist. So this is another test that the average citizen can use. The trouble with this test is that the average citizen is not in a position to know what the reputable journals are. The "second source test" is easier to apply, and is pretty effective at weeding out PR and a lot of starry-eyed alt-journalism as well. (IMHO)

Shannon wrote: "Since Kenny brought up reproducibility of science research and problems in the peer review system, I'm going to mention this petition. (I hope it is not out of place in this conversation):

In 201..."

Shannon, I wonder if it would be appropriate for you to move/or copy your long post above to the following thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/....

Dana, I think we agree more than not....the devil is always in the details as I'm sure you know. The issue with the average citizen reader is the same in science, politics, agriculture or sports. :D Most are happy to be spoon-fed by the media unfortunately. With science communication there are both those issues, and the issues of legitimate science reporting. There are many bogus 'journals' out there as I'm sure you know as well as less than reputable 'scientists' and those are probably the bigger issue but also it is important to both educate the public and to provide interesting science for them to read.

Shannon wrote: "Dana, I just checked out your profile. I have been waiting to read a book like this for a long time! I read Hawkings' God Created the Intergers (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2......"

Hi Shannon, Thanks so much! I hope you enjoy my book. I certainly tried to make it lively -- but you can tell me what you think after you're done!

I agree with most of what you've said in your long post (#44), but I think Betsy wants that discussion to take place on another thread, so I won't say more here.

Dana, Thanks :)
I copied it there.

Betsy, sorry for the potentially off-topic stuff, but I think these points are import in order to evaluate sources of science news.