I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –
If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
· attention soda drinkers - 9 Updates
· Latest on retraction of Chines papers - 13 Updates
· DORA - 1 Update
· GitHub for academic research - 3 Updates
· Latest on retraction of Chines papers - 1 Update
· about scholcomm - 1 Update
· FW: [SCHOLCOMM] hybrid oa monographs was RE: OA funds (Re: a meta moment: ...) - 1 Update
· OSI2017 summary - 1 Update
"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 01:40PM -0700 |
Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>: Apr 27 08:46PM |
Angela Cochran <acochr...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 05:19PM -0400 |
John W Warren <jwar...@gmu.edu>: Apr 27 09:33PM |
Jo De <dnn...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 05:35PM -0400 |
Hillary Corbett <h.co...@northeastern.edu>: Apr 27 02:48PM -0700 |
"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 02:57PM -0700 |
Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>: Apr 27 06:03PM -0400 |
"Barrett, Kim" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 28 01:10AM |
David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 08:14AM -0400 |
<Bev.A...@f1000.com>: Apr 27 01:27PM |
David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 10:08AM -0400 |
<Bev.A...@f1000.com>: Apr 27 05:39PM |
Kim Barrett <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 27 12:44PM -0500 |
Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>: Apr 27 05:46PM |
David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>: Apr 27 02:05PM -0400 |
Laurie Goodman <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>: Apr 27 02:09PM -0400 |
Peter Potter <pj...@vt.edu>: Apr 27 02:44PM -0400 |
Angela Cochran <acochr...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 03:11PM -0400 |
"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 12:43PM -0700 |
Laurie Goodman <lau...@gigasciencejournal.com>: Apr 27 04:35PM -0400 |
Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com>: Apr 27 06:01PM -0500 |
"Plutchak, T Scott" <tsc...@uab.edu>: Apr 27 10:08PM |
Christopher Erdmann <christoph...@ncsu.edu>: Apr 27 07:56AM -0400 |
Eric L Olson <eol...@gmu.edu>: Apr 27 05:35PM |
The Winnower <jnich...@thewinnower.com>: Apr 27 04:35PM -0400 |
"Barrett, Kim" <kbar...@ucsd.edu>: Apr 27 07:49PM |
"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 10:05AM -0700 |
"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: Apr 27 08:47AM -0700 |
"Susan Fitzpatrick" <su...@jsmf.org>: Apr 27 10:40AM -0500 |
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. |
Ew, but yes---an interesting angle. Does this argue against scientists getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there? Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles are promoted to and received by the public.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I believe openness could help with the “eggs in ; eggs out” issue – in the sense that people could easily look at the studies being quoted in the paper --- such access might also make both the scientist and the reporter a bit more careful about breathless claims and reporting tiny changes in the variance as some big deal. The other issue – I think scientists should contribute information to all kinds of civic discussions. But once you begin to act more like a lobbyist and cherry-pick data and findings – then I believe you lose your scientific authority and become one more ax-grinder. There is a lot that needs to be fully explored about the “rightful place of science” and scientists in politics - But this latter conversation is more approporiate to SciSIp I agree.
It’s probably also worth noting that being a scientist does not make you less likely to have personal opinions, but being a scientist—especially a famous one—does makes it more likely that people will listen to your personal opinions, regardless of how well-informed they are and whether they have anything to do with areas in which you actually have expertise.
I call this the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:04 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
I believe openness could help with the “eggs in ; eggs out” issue – in the sense that people could easily look at the studies being quoted in the paper --- such access might also make both the scientist and the reporter a bit more careful about breathless claims and reporting tiny changes in the variance as some big deal. The other issue – I think scientists should contribute information to all kinds of civic discussions. But once you begin to act more like a lobbyist and cherry-pick data and findings – then I believe you lose your scientific authority and become one more ax-grinder. There is a lot that needs to be fully explored about the “rightful place of science” and scientists in politics - But this latter conversation is more approporiate to SciSIp I agree.
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 9:38 AM
To: 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
Ew, but yes---an interesting angle. Does this argue against scientists getting more politically involved? That is, if scientists aren’t perceived as neutral arbiters of truth but instead as smart folks with an axe to grind, does this hurt science or help? Or are we already there? Sorry---this might be a question for the Science of Science Policy listserv but it does seem apropos to the question of how journal articles are promoted to and received by the public.
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Susan Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:11 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –
If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Well the crumbs in the sheets are just annoying if nothing else.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
Yes---the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon is incredibly important---yet another tangent (thanks Rick). I’m not sure what this means, though---that the public values scientists and the scientific method but not necessarily the science itself (or not as much)? Sorry---this is disappearing quickly down the rabbit hole but maybe following this trail might help out the Culture of Communication team….
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
I think it means that the public has a tendency to generalize from deep and narrow expertise to broad and general expertise. If someone knows a lot about, say, linguistics, we too often assume that he or she must also be able to speak authoritatively about, say, economics or foreign relations. (We might also call this the “My Cousin the College Professor” phenomenon.)
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Organization: National Science Communication Institute
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:12 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>, 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>, "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
Yes---the Noam Chomsky Phenomenon is incredibly important---yet another tangent (thanks Rick). I’m not sure what this means, though---that the public values scientists and the scientific method but not necessarily the science itself (or not as much)? Sorry---this is disappearing quickly down the rabbit hole but maybe following this trail might help out the Culture of Communication team….
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Susan Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:11 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
I think it is also a problem that scientists typically are OK with “science” perhaps being reported in ways that are not always best practices if the end result is to support agendas that are popular among scientists (like soda is in general just bad) –
If the studies in the article had gone the other way – drinking soda decreases your chances of getting in grown toenails ( I am sure a negative correlation with something could be found) – there would be all kinds of righteous indignation (spurious correlations, errors in population sampling, lack of agreement on what constitutes “ingrowness”, and so on).
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:15 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 30 updates in 8 topics
Yes – I am my family’s expert on nutrition, health issues, exercise, wildlife, cleaning products, and Mars. And I believe the data (if you take out climate) is that the public highly values both science and scientists.
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog www.scientificphilanthropy.com
The Halo effect, right…? – Jeff Tsao