More often then not, we are trained to write for our peers. Journal articles and grant proposals are reviewed by our peers. Now, I am not advocating here for a change in the peer review process, today infact, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, had a subcommittee review NSF’s Merit Review Process. Which should be an interesting read.
Sure, there are requirements (especially in NSF grants) for applicants to consider the broader impacts of their work; but is there any commitment or study to follow up on those impacts? I would like to see more than just published reports on the science that are a means of illustrating productivity but to perhaps also see progress on the broader impacts that are outlined.
Among all the disagreements and lack of compromise in sight at this time, I realize that from my colleagues there will be arguments against needing to provide evidence for broader impacts is that the general public will not understand. They will pick the most obscure projects (robots folding laundry), advocate to cut the funding because they do not really understanding why it is important (to teach uncoordinated tasks). But I think that we should do a better job of trying. In the era in which the sharing of information could not be any more instant or easier that perhaps scientists can do a better job at conversing through twitter* or to have a hand at editing Wikipedia entries. Through these things we can only help the general public understand our science better. And therefore really let them experience our dreams and aspirations that inspire us to do the science that we do.
*David Waldock wrote an excellent post back in May? about how scientists can ask each other questions through twitter. I think that also perhaps this might be a way for the general public to get a glimpse at the process of research. That statements are not absolute. That when new data and instrumentations come along, it changes our perspective.
Here is a “links and will get back to these in more detail soon” post!
The month of June disappeared incredibly fast…
A lab-mate of mine showed me this site today and basically, we need more websites like this to help students learn how to solving mechanisms! Even if you haven’t taken an organic chemistry course, but are curious about what organic chemists think about when we talk about “mechanisms”. I think that this website would still be a great way to pick up what a mechanism might be about! (although, an understanding of functional group and basic rules about electron pushing is needed, but nothing that perhaps quick google search can’t help you with!)
Named Organic Reactions: An Interactive Guide http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrchemistry/NOR/default.htm
this is definitely excellent work by Matthew Smith and Chloe Yu at the University of Oxford.
A few other things that came out last week or in the past couple of weeks or actually perhaps this past month that I have been interested in:
A new initiative out of the White House: Materials Genome Initiative. This combines the advantages in computational modeling with experimental tools to decrease the time for materials to move from lab to market. It is meant to create a new culture of a more cohesive field of Materials Engineering so that predicative models can be more accurate and resonate with experimental results. It is exciting to have this new era of materials development.
House passes H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. Hopefully this will revamp the patent system so that the patent process is no longer a barrier and a burden to go through. Something that I am interested in learning more about is the process of tech transfer. To get a better understanding for the process of moving findings in to lab out to the consumer.