You can’t barrack for scientists

Anubis says:

09:20am | 16/08/11

Really Fiddler - I would have placed you more as a Howard Wallowitz

Fiddler says:

10:57am | 16/08/11

I cry because people are stupid and that makes me sad.

Haha, Anubis, you aren’t the first to make that comparison

Cat says:

11:23am | 16/08/11

Bazinga!

acotrel says:

04:08pm | 16/08/11

I loved the movie where a comedian dressed up as a scientist and walked around with the group agreeing with them.  They hailed him as a genius!  Sorry I can’t remember the name of the movie, but I think Jerry Lewis was in it.  It was very true to life, in fact that’s how I got all of my promotions!

stephen says:

06:40pm | 16/08/11

‘The Nutty Professor.’
An all-time great comedy. Up there with ‘The Patsy’...another funny Lewis film.

Al rules says:

09:15am | 16/08/11

+1 Al.

I have a type-1 wife and a coeliac daughter.. both genetic (UNRELATED conditions!! There is a statistical convergence but thats all.. diabetes in parents does not *cause* gluten allergies in offspring).

While you’re throwing your cash… do us a favour and donate to anyone who makes gluten-free products that are only gluten free, and not flavour-free.
As I like to say - she’s not allergic to taste.

Cheers duder

Helen says:

12:07pm | 16/08/11

Actually Al there is a connection between Type 1 diabetes and Coelic disease - both are found in patients with an overactive thyroid (as a result of an autoimmune disease) and are a direct result of the original autoimmune disease.

Al says:

02:09pm | 16/08/11

Helen, I never mentioned Coeliac disease, that was ‘Al rules says’, I know almost nothing about Coeliac disease and as such would not use it in an argument.

Al rules says:

04:52pm | 16/08/11

Sure Helen.. diabetes and coeliac can both cause thyroid trouble… but thats like saying cancer and traffic accidents can both cause death.
You dont have to crash your car if you get cancer… and you dont get coeliac just because a parent has diabetes.

Al says:

09:09am | 16/08/11

It’s not just liberal policy, it is the ‘majority belief’ and policies of almost any government.
However the ‘majority’ just don’t understand that science is not a democratic process and no science has today claims to be 100% right, as that precludes the possibility of refinement or reconsideration.
‘common sense’ (i.e. what the ‘majority’ believe) has no place impacting on scientific findings or conclusions. And policies should be based on reason and/or logic, not pandering to the masses, but thats how they get re-elected isn’t it.

adam says:

09:51am | 16/08/11

but “truthiness” is so much easier to sell

Hmmm says:

09:52am | 16/08/11

Yeah but the particular one I had in mind is only pushed by one side at the moment.

What say you about Malcolm Turnbull coming out against coal seam gas mining? For mine… the size of the industry is irrelevant for this one. It poisons ground water. In Australia, that should be a clear “no thanks” for any continuance of the activity..

adam says:

10:58am | 16/08/11

two things re the Turnbull position,
the enviromental concerns are IMO a deal breaker, do we want some money or the usable arable land and potable water.
Turnbull is I feel still positioning himself as a viable Opposition leader. doing himself and his party no favours at the moment

JD says:

12:05pm | 16/08/11

Hmmm: you need to be careful when you use the term ‘liberal policy’. What I assume you meant is ‘Australian Liberal Party policy’ which is almost the complete opposite of liberal policy. I’ve always found it strange that the conservative party in Australia call themselves ‘Liberal’ when they are the opposite - it very often leads to confusion in debates and certainly any overseas commentator/observer would be very confused by it!

But, confusion aside, I completely agree with your point. The arrogance of so many politicians and members of the public is staggering - they genuinely believe they are more qualified to comment on a topic than scientists who have spent their lives studying that topic. They ridicule scientists but sit there happily typing away on their computer, using their microwave, flying in planes, using medicine - if they hate science so much, I would suggest that they are obliged to go and live in a cave!

Adam diver says:

12:42pm | 16/08/11

If two scientist has opposing views which one do you tools hail? Scientist are humans with the same weaknesses as everyone else including a livelihood of invested interest. When they base Thier science on empirical evidence and not computer modeling perhaps us mortals incapable of any logical intelligence might listen. He’ll even acotrel was a scientist.

Al says:

02:14pm | 16/08/11

Adam diver, thats fairly simple:
Whatever theory provides the best explanation of the outcome based on the observation, existing knowledge and understanding of the underlying issues. Which can be revised (or even abandoned) when evidence to the contrary has been provided.
Also known as the scientific process.

Al Chunk says:

10:11am | 16/08/11

You were too kind so I’ll say it - sport is for people to be able to have trivial conversation easily and for the dumb to have an interest outside eating, drinking, breathing, breeding.  Unfortunately sports fans breed more prolifically than scientists, so the future doesn’t look too good for the white coats unless they can develop some lab based sports. Any suggestions?

adam says:

11:01am | 16/08/11

chess boxing

Mike says:

12:45pm | 16/08/11

I’m a three time Golden gloves champion of chess boxing.

2 Knockouts and a resignation

Chris L says:

12:59pm | 16/08/11

syringe fencing?

Prof Sam Chowder says:

01:23pm | 16/08/11

How about:

Periodic Table Tennis
Universe Snooker (separate Newton and Einstein Leagues)
Mathletics
Track and Field studies  
Mass lifting
Motor Quark Racing
And everybody’s favourite - Accelerating dairy Centrifuge or cheese rolling (greatest sport in the world) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6_2cqVnI4

M says:

01:29pm | 16/08/11

@Jay - “The Australian Ridgey-Didge Oi Oi Oi Sports Bandwagon groans and strains under enormous parochial tonnage whenever a dinky-di “sportsperson” hovers into view away from their Bahamian tax haven brandishing the flag to bask in the glow of an adoring antipodean public.”

That is absolute classic.. love it.

I must admit that I’m a bandwagon Cadel and Tour de France supporter, insomuch as I’m stoked that he won it after so many years trying and also because I only really started showing any interest in the Tour because I went to a couple of stages (including the incredible Le Alpe d’Huez) when backpacking with a cycling-mad mate a few years back. I don’t think that makes my support any less genuine or valid.

I’m an evolutionary biologist by trade and I would like to think I do a reasonable job of communicating what I do to other members of the public. Certainly I’ve gotten the gist of it across to tradey mates and businesspeople family members. But I think it’s more a problem (at least in my field) of constantly being shouted down and demonised by certain other interest groups in society. Particularly because my specific area ties in with ecology and conservation, anything I say is instantly seen as coming from some tree-hugging hippy, rather than a rational scientist. It’s that trend that I believe has seen many scientists in my field almost give up trying to get their message across: they’re simply sick of the public backlash and the brick wall of governmental policy.

@Anubis - I can assure you that lab cricket has a huge following around the country in public and private labs both

Al says:

01:41pm | 16/08/11

What about ‘Science Wars’, make in opperable the oppositions device in the shortest amount of time with no limit on materials.
Just don’t be nearby when filming!

gobsmack says:

01:58pm | 16/08/11

With all the doping in cycling, they should just assign teams to pharmaceutical companies.

Mike says:

12:49pm | 16/08/11

So your happy to acknowledge Marshall but not his long time partner and fellow Nobel laureate Robin Warren.

I wonder why that is.

Fiona says:

09:50pm | 16/08/11

Let me guess, because marshall’s a medical Dr and Warren a pathologist? Or was it because Marshall was the one to ingest thhe helicobacter?

Paul J says:

06:43am | 17/08/11

@mike- poor Dr Warren has been totally overshadowed - Barry Marshall is a great scientist and doctor, but a total show pony who loves to bring up the Nobel Prize at every opportunity. @fiona, you perhaps need to know that a pathologist IS a medical doctor - Marshall specialised in gastroenterology, Warren in pathology. I am a medical student planning to specialise in pathology myself!

Michael says:

11:54pm | 17/08/11

Fiona pathologists are medical doctors, it’s just a specially like surgery, radiology, general practice or research are.

Anubis says:

10:54am | 16/08/11

Big Bang Theory - the Reality Show

Wynston Cruso says:

12:50pm | 16/08/11

Please don’t make a terrible show even worse…

Master Scientist Contestant #1 says:

01:51pm | 16/08/11

And Stephen Hawking can be a judge, and his voice synthesizer can says things like:

“Wow! Your cure for cancer is just… gorgeous.” 
“Bags of flavour!”
“What I like about it is, you take a dose and you’re waiting for it to cure your bowel cancer, and then BANG! you’re hit with a playful dose of chemo for your liver.  Top work.”

Al says:

10:42am | 16/08/11

Or as I saw advertised last night:
‘Cadel Evans biograghy being released chronicling his highs and lows in the tour de france’.

A bit quick for that to have actualy been written with any real research behind it, or was it pre-written just waiting for something like this to occur?

Tim says:

11:06am | 16/08/11

Yeah because all scientists do it for free.
They all work tirelessly to help humanity out of the goodness of their hearts.
That’s why drug companies are such good corporate citizens.
Anecdotes make for poor arguments.

marley says:

03:31pm | 16/08/11

@Tim - drug companies make big money.  I doubt the scientists doing the research make that kind of dough, unless they manage to patent something.  And if you’re working for a drug company, the company owns the patent, not the poor guy in a white coat in the lab.

The scientists I’ve met actually don’t really do it for money, nor for helping humanity, although that is a bonus.  Most of them do it because they’re intensely curious about how things work and they can’t help but try to find out.

Jay Santos says:

10:48am | 16/08/11

I’d rather watch the Curiosity Show with Rob and Deane than the execrable Before the Game.

Professor Julius your world needs you back.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:43pm | 16/08/11

The Curiosity Show was damn cool…...

Anubis says:

01:07pm | 16/08/11

Don’t forget the original - “Why is it so ?” with Professor Julius Sumner Miller.

bananabender says:

07:04pm | 16/08/11

“I find the problem with scientists and other “experts” is that they are pretentious and just can’t pass up the opportunity to lecture someone and tell people how good they are at their job.”

Do you personally know any scientists?  The vast majority are ordinary people.

“Dr Karl and that Adam guy with the eye are likeable, intelligent - why - because they talk to the average Joe in an understandable way.”
Neither of them is a practising scientist. They are science communicators.
’ Karl had a very brief career in biomedical engineering and medicine about 20 years ago.

Adam has an uncompleted PhD in maths (which isn’t a science).

Anubis says:

11:28am | 16/08/11

And again - they are not bloody heroes, champions maybe, but not heroes

Frank says:

12:07pm | 16/08/11

he won a race..get the f**k over it FFS, did u hear people tauting give Mark Webber a medal and name a bridge after him when he won a race no way get over it get a life, and more over respect those who dedicate their lives to saving others…not those who dedicate their lives to lycra and sweaty bike shorts

KJ says:

01:23pm | 16/08/11

What about ‘Catalyst’ I think it actually has some of those ‘Beyond 2000’ hosts. Plus there other more entaining loosly based science show such as “Myth Busters’(I know you’re not including that one but it is something) and others with names that escape me at the mo. You’ll probably find more science content these days then in the past.

KJ says:

01:23pm | 16/08/11

What about ‘Catalyst’ I think it actually has some of those ‘Beyond 2000’ hosts. Plus there other more entaining loosly based science show such as “Myth Busters’(I know you’re not including that one but it is something) and others with names that escape me at the mo. You’ll probably find more science content these days then in the past.

Al says:

01:38pm | 16/08/11

Yes catalyst is a good science based show, but as I said there is a general lack of such shows.
The majority that are on TV are very basic dealing with general scientific priciples aimed at children etc. without actualy providing any details as to what is occuring in science and development around the world.
Why do we then think it is surprising that many have little or no understanding when results are finaly released.

Al says:

12:42pm | 16/08/11

When you look at scientists who are not employees of large multinational companies you will find that they are paid a pitance for what they produce AND don’t generaly receive the money from the copyright/sale of their ideas (that goes to those who funded it either government or private companies).
As such, scientists tend to do the research for research sake, the grants they receive are to fund the research AND their wages and if they skim the money for research they can’t properly fund the research.
Check what Australian scientists in the public service (not just CSIRO but Defence, Department of Health and Ageing etc.) are actualy paid, it is not a large salary compared to the private sector but they CHOOSE to work in the public sector for the good of US, rather than make huge money in the private sector.
But obviously they have to do it for no money for it to meet your expectations right, they don’t have a right to earn a living wage?

Tim says:

01:44pm | 16/08/11

Al,
the vast majority of scientists I know, a lot of them who work for the government, do their research because they like it and they get paid.
Their motives are very rarely altruistic.
In fact most of them are normal people who do their job day to day to pay their mortgage and put their kids through school just like everyone else.
This idea of scientists toiling for very little pay to help humanity is just as false as that of sportsmen being heroes and role models.
Mike J is completely correct.

Al says:

02:02pm | 16/08/11

Tim,
And can you name ANY other field of work where people don’t do their work so they get paid?
The only ones I can think of are genuine voulenteers for charity organisations.
Did you read my last sentence:
“But obviously they have to do it for no money for it to meet your expectations right, they don’t have a right to earn a living wage? “
I was also refering to mike j’s statement “scientists do research because there’s money in it, and not because of their selfless benevolence, right?”
Wrong, they tend to do the research for the researches sake, it is not them who make the money, it is the government or corporation they work for.

Gamer says:

04:02pm | 16/08/11

“When they start doing research out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because they have a grant, you might be able to start calling them heroes. “

This statement bugs the hell out of me. Many scientists would love to be given a grant and told to go research whatever they want, but that’s not going to happen, so they have to do research that gets then a grant. Grants are the lifeblood of the lab, they pay wages, both for researchers and assistants, as well as supplying money for lab equipment and supplies. Unfortunately, most funding goes to “sexy” subjects, for example, in medical research, breast cancer gets alot of funding, while other diseases such as colon cancer, kidney disease, etc, miss out.

Godfrey Zohn says:

04:05pm | 16/08/11

Yes, Mike, it WOULD seem obvious to someone with half a brain.  Good to see the other half chipping in with some support for your post as well.  But Al, in fact, is the one who is more likely to be right here.

Try looking up where most scientists are employed and that will inform your argument.  Look at those who work in universities and have to balance their research efforts with a heavy teaching load as well - at a fraction of the income they would get elsewhere.  I think you would find most of them aren’t in it for the money as much as you might think.

It’s cool to hate scientists at the moment - just remember, the majority are not climate scientists - and if they didn’t contribute to the development of all your handy little modern devices, medical technoogy, food production etc., they probably taught those who did.

Overgeneralisation is one of the first things scientists are taught not to do.

When science people have their successes, the world is not watching them in a colourful sporting display beamed across the world - they are more likely to be looking at a computer screen in a basement lab in the middle of the night, with nobody else around, and in the heat of victory might punch the air and say “YES” to themselves, very quietly…

mike j says:

05:25pm | 16/08/11

Gamer: “Many scientists would love to be given a grant and told to go research whatever they want, but that’s not going to happen, so they have to do research that gets then a grant.”

I’d also love to get paid to do whatever I want, before I do it, but that’s not going to happen either. I guess scientists live in the real world, too.

But I agree with you that scientists only do it for the money. Otherwise, they wouldn’t sell out their principles for the cheap academic grants that you and Godfrey go on about.

Godfrey Zohn: “I think you would find most of them aren’t in it for the money as much as you might think.”

I think what I might find is you making stuff up, and generalising about what other people think.

I don’t hate scientists. On the contrary. But they’re clearly not ‘heroes’, by any objective definition.

Gamer says:

07:07pm | 16/08/11

mike j, I never said that scientists do it for the money, scientists need to earn a living just like anyone else, often working long hours, while earning far less then someone in a different field with similar qualifications. And cheap academic grant? Without a grant a researcher wouldn’t have a job. Most researchers aren’t paid by the company they work for, their entire paycheck comes from grants.

mike j says:

09:26pm | 16/08/11

Gamer: “I never said that scientists do it for the money, scientists need to earn a living just like anyone else”

Ahaha. Dude. You just said it again.

mike j says:

02:31pm | 16/08/11

“They are generally paid very poorly and generally seem to be motivated by a desire to do good, rather than gain money.”

For academics, they’re not very bright, then.

It’s easier to do good with a fucktonne of money than with good intentions alone.

And then there’s the small problem that no conscious act is ever committed but for oneself. No-one does *anything* out of a ‘desire to do good’.

Salk could have patented his vaccine, made those millions, and given it all to charity. Maybe he didn’t actually care about helping others. Maybe he just wanted to be remembered as the guy who said ‘Can you patent the sun?’.

bananabender says:

07:52pm | 16/08/11

“They are generally paid very poorly and generally seem to be motivated by a desire to do good, rather than gain money.”

A wonderful myth.

Tenured Australian academic or government scientists typically earn $100-200K a year including superannuation and perks. A senior researcher or academic may have a dozen fully paid overseas trips a year (business class).  Overseas salaries, particularly in the USA, may be far higher.

Very senior scientists in private enterprise can potentially earn multi-million dollar annual salaries.

There are many scientists who have made tens or even hundreds of millions or dollars from their discoveries.

Dr Craig Venter, a geneticist, is a multi-billionaire.

marley says:

08:26pm | 16/08/11

Yes, Salk could have patented the vaccine - and made it financially inaccessible to millions of people.  He chose not to do that.  So governments were able to deliver mass vaccinations programs cheaply and quickly, and people like me got the very first run of that vaccine back in 1955.  And, unlike people born a year earlier than I was, I didn’t end up in an iron lung or wearing braces on my legs.  Damn right Salk is a hero.

mike j says:

12:09am | 17/08/11

marley: “people like me got the very first run of that vaccine back in 1955”

Ah, a personal connection. I confess that I didn’t read this first, even though you told me to. I still think it was counterproductive to pass up a patent, or at least bad business. We can agree that it was generous, and a fine gesture, but I can’t meet you at heroic.

marley says:

08:58am | 17/08/11

@mike j - okay, we’ll settle for Salk having made a fine gesture.

marley says:

03:24pm | 16/08/11

Good points. I think one of the problems is the appalling level of scientific understanding amongst much of the population - and with that, the mistrust of “experts.”  I can’t explain such things as the anti-vaccination movement other than by attributing it to a lack of education and an unwillingness to learn.  I don’t know what happened to the age of enlightenment, or to scientific curiosity, but they seem to be getting rarer and rarer. 

The idea of someone actually reading an article in Scientific American about climate change, or in the New England Journal of Medicine about autism, in the interests of learning a few facts, seems to have disappeared.  Instead, so many of us prefer to rely on some manifestly underqualified twit with a title or on an ex-playboy bunny to explain it all in words of one syllable.  And that applies to both sides of the fence, as you say.  How many believers in climate change actually have a clue about the mechanisms involved, or about the legitimate questions which remain unanswered?

Fiona says:

10:20pm | 16/08/11

The anti vaccination lobby drives me insane. Vaccinations have been moved forward (only by 2 weeks), because of the rise of whooping cough cases. We recently had someone die of diphtheria in Qld, because she was unvaccinated and caught it from someone that had been to Africa.

Shifter says:

03:18pm | 16/08/11

Who uses that tag the most? The media. The Journos. The ones who are paid to sensationalise the most trivial things in the aim of selling magazines and papers, or reeling in the advertising dollars on TV and radio.

The hyperbowl (I love that mispronunciation) is even greater on the sporting field, where every player or participant is a star regardless of aptitude or recognition. You’ll see it every week where the headlines scream that a team’s star is injured/suspended/pregnant only to find that it’s a squad member who barely gets a game.

So I’m always bemused whenever a journo like Simon trots out an article bemoaning the over use of terms like hero.

marley says:

03:38pm | 16/08/11

That’s why Salk is a hero, and big Pharma isn’t.  And the same applies to those bio companies that have tried to patent human genes.

Shifter says:

04:26pm | 16/08/11

Salk is dead and big pharma are reaping the the benefits of hypochondria and monopolisation of health treatment. It’s a sucky way of looking at it, but unfortunately that’s the truthiness of the situation.

He may be a hero, but his and others of his ilk’s legacy lies in big business.

mike j says:

06:10pm | 16/08/11

Turning down, on principle, easy money you could otherwise use to help the disadvantaged doesn’t seem, to me, to be ‘heroic’ at all.

marley says:

06:55pm | 16/08/11

Yeah, big pharma is reaping the benefits of health treatment.  Would you prefer big placebo (aka the natural health spruikers) to reap the benefits instead? 

And, so far as I’m aware, the problems of septic infections, MS, malaria, HIV, whooping cough and polio are not related to hypochondria.

marley says:

08:29pm | 16/08/11

@Mike J - see my comment above.  Salk didn’t patent the vaccine.  Result:  the vaccine is cheaper.  Result: it’s rolled out faster in mass vaccination programs.  Result:  more people are protected, and fewer get polio.  Sounds like a pretty good result to me - and one that lasted one helluva lot longer, and had wider implications, than any charity donation would have done

mike j says:

09:16pm | 16/08/11

That chain of causality is sound. But there would have been profiteering off the vaccine, whether he was involved or not. By patenting it, the vaccine would have been more expensive only in direct proportion to his profits. He could have given free vaccinations to the needy, or otherwise redistributed that wealth directly to whatever cause he subjectively deemed worthy. We seem to have already established that he was a moral paragon and otherwise impeccable human being; surely this would have been a better result?

stephen says:

09:06pm | 16/08/11

Scientists aren’t that smart.
Good Gardeners are, or good mechanics are, or good parachutists.
Your hierarchy is wrong : what matters in work is conscience and teamwork.
Science is the personal… with your zipper done up.
(Kind of makes isolation that so much more exponential.)
What makes people smart is, in the end, what makes them interesting.
And I’d love you to explain your work, (but let me tell you, if you ride a bicycle behind another you save 30% of your energy.)
There’s your maths for you.
Get cracking.

ScienceGeek says:

12:22pm | 17/08/11

No, we aren’t that smart at all.  We just work damn hard, and never stop learning.  But there’s a perception of intelligence that makes a lot of people shut down. 
I’ve also noticed that other people find it quite threatening.  Say you’re a good mechanic, and people immediately ask for advice.  Say you’re a good scientist, and you’re more likely to get ‘Scientists aren’t that smart!’

stephen says:

04:56pm | 17/08/11

No Mr. Geek, I was referring to market-place valuationsof talent and labour, as distinct from personal qualities and social need.
Most tradesmen and women undervalue their importance. They are distinctly important, and a good worker is the same as a smart one.

I saw a kid on TV who can solve rubiks cube in a couple of minutes.
Good for Mr. Rubik ; not good for the rest of us, or himself, I suppose.
I still reckon this sort of intelligence - the professional puzzle solver - is out of favour, and should be.
Personality and good character can be a more effective problem-solver.
e.g. problems, as distinct from puzzles.

bananabender says:

07:11pm | 16/08/11

“Natural talent’  is the greatest myth in history. Every great athlete or genuinely talented musician in history has slogged their guts out for 10-20 years before reaching the very top.  There is not one exception to the rule. 

I suggest you read the Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell

marley says:

03:37pm | 17/08/11

@BB - Brittany Spears?  Justin Bieber?  I know you wouldn’t classify them as genuinely talented or great (and neither would I) but in the public eye they must be great because they are successful - they have reached the top of their particular tree. 

That’s the problem.  They have reached the “top” without being especially talented and certainly without slogging for 20 years.  But the top they’ve reached isn’t the top you’re talking about, which relates more to meaningful achievement than to money or status.  We’re to hasty to call the Spears and Beibers and Beckhams “heroes” when their heroism essentially consists of fame, not accomplishment.

stephen says:

10:30pm | 16/08/11

Germ theory is gum theory.
Nice try, darlin.

marley says:

09:01am | 17/08/11

I have no problem with your admiring Evans for his achievements or for trying to model aspects of your life on him.  That’s fair enough.  But I would have a problem were you to call him a “hero.”  Admirable, driven, accomplished - absolutely.  A hero?  Not in my book.