Posted by barb on Jan 17, 2005 in
Science Musings Just two days ago I was writing optimistically about the status of women in astronomy, and then I read these comments from the president of Harvard.
The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.
The article says that in this talk he was acting as a top ecomomist, and not as a Harvard official. If you’re the president of Harvard, you are always acting as a Harvard official. One has to wonder what kind of dumbass the president of Harvard has to be not to know that already.
He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.
The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. ”I said no one really understands why this is, and it’s an area of ferment in social science,” Summers said in an interview Saturday. ”Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren’t” due to socialization after all.
[…]
Summers’ third point was about discrimination. Referencing a well-known concept in economics, he said that if discrimination was the main factor limiting the advancement of women in science and engineering, then a school that does not discriminate would gain an advantage by hiring away the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere.
Point 1: It’s women’s fault that they don’t want to neglect their families by working 80-hour weeks? No. It’s the science culture that’s at fault for not shaming men for neglecting their families by working 80-hour weeks. No one should be working 80-hour weeks. Period. We need time to nurture our families, our friendships, our lives, and 80-hour work weeks are not a good way to do that — it just leads to burn-out. (And, apparently it leads to assholes getting to be president of Harvard.)
Point 2: Do we really need to go over this one again? Boys are encouraged by adults to explore their worlds; girls are encouraged to play house and learn to be mommies. Of course we are socialized to be good little boys and girls. I was fortunate that I got to play with my older brothers’ toys — I had Legos AND dolls AND action figures AND Lincoln Logs. Most girls get dolls and Barbies and stuffed toys.
Point 3: Discrimination is a huge factor in the problem. It’s not the only problem, but in seven hiring cycles at my university, the only woman who was hired was hired because the school mandated that a woman be hired.
The article reports that several women left Summers’ talk. He got off lucky. There should have been some kind of “storming the stage.” Our only hope is that this will be the impetus needed to oust Summers’.
[via Pharyngula]
Tags: science, women in science
Posted by barb on Jan 15, 2005 in
Science Musings I was asked to be the graduate student representative on a panel discussion today for the Committe on the Status of Women in Astronomy (CSWA). In 2003 they had held a meeting in Pasadena to discuss progress since the first Baltimore meeting in 1992. As a result of the Pasadena meeting, the CSWA has drafted a set of recommendations aimed at increasing the retention of women in astronomy.
Right now, over 50% of the American Astronomical Society members aged 18-23 are female. However, less than 20% of tenure-track positions in astronomy are held by women. The main thrust of the recommendations is that women advance in the same proportions as the enter the field. So that, for a class entering graduate school with 25% women, it would be hoped that of the members of that class graduating with a PhD, 25% would be female. This does not seem to be the case. Women are dropping out at a greater rate than men.
The Pasadena recommendations start with a few guiding principles. It’s somewhat embarassing that these principles need to be written at all. For example, the first principle is that men and women are equally capable of doing astronomy. The recommendations themselves range from sexual harassment awareness training to mentoring programs to active recruitment of women for open faculty positions.
Read more…
Tags: science, women in science
Posted by barb on Jan 13, 2005 in
Science Musings From CNN: Judge: Evolution stickers are unconstitutional.
In ruling that the stickers violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a “theory” played on the popular definition of the word as a “hunch” and could confuse students.
Finally a voice of reason….
Tags: science
Posted by barb on Jan 13, 2005 in
Science Musings From Preposterous Universe:
Lost in the confusion is the crucial point: that observations like these represent the first steps towards what will be a major project over the next couple of decades, mapping out the spacetime in the vicinity of black holes. Plans are in the works for ultra-high resolution X-ray satellites like Constellation X that will directly image the inner edge of accretion disks near black holes, and gravitational-wave observatories like LISA will open an incredibly precise new window on the way in which black holes curve spacetime. At least, if we can somehow find the money — and really good science stories have an important role in making that possible.
Here he is discussing some results from the AAS meeting that appeared in the press this week. I’m sitting behind the Constellation-X booth in San Diego as I write this, and it’s nice to see that someone understands the importance of these upcoming missions. In all the “Exploration” flap, HST has been the recipient of much sympathy and rallying. However, there are some important planned missions that are coming under the axe (or at least having their budgets hammered) that are not making it into the headlines. I’m not saying that we should let HST go, but it would be nice to find someone in the press fighting for us as well.
Tags: science
Posted by barb on Jan 12, 2005 in
Science Musings Deep Impact is scheduled to launch in about 80 minutes from now (at 1:47 PM, East-coast time). Deep Impact is a mission that will, for the first time, give astronomers a glimpse of the inside of a comet. Up to now, we have only been able to study the crust, but Deep Impact is sending a one-ton (or so) battering ram to Comet Temple I. They will then be able to study ejecta from the impact to see what’s under the surface.
You can follow the launch by following the links on the Deep Impact Homepage. Here’s wishing for a successful launch!
UPDATE: It launched at 1:47 Eastern time. Check out the NASA Deep Impact page for launch footage.
Tags: science
Posted by barb on Jan 11, 2005 in
Science Musings This morning’s invited session at the American Astrophysical Society meeting in San Diego was by Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, entitled “Intelligent Design and the Creation/Evolution Controversy”.
I have been following some of the Intelligent Design (ID) proponents’ efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution in our schools on Phayrngula’s weblog. This means that much of the talk was more of a review of the subject than completely new material.
For those of you unfamiliar with ID, it is the creationist’s sadly veiled attempt at cloaking “creation” into a science. The problem, of course, is that scientific theories, by definition, must be testable. ID is basically a process of elimination — we can’t currently explain some complex biological system, therefore there must be some designer of some sort that designed it that way. One thing that Scott brought up was one major problem with ID as a “scientific theory” is that it does not distinguish between the unknown and the unknowable. Just because we don’t understand the workings of a complex biological system doesn’t mean that we will never be able to understand that system. However, just because we start understanding that one system, we will not undermine or discorage the ID propoenents — there will always be something else that we don’t understand yet.
One telling illustration she made was how the science community deals with a new theory versus how the ID community would have us do it (I do not include ID in the scientific community — it’s not science). It looked something like this (though more spiffy in PowerPoint):
Science community:
Great Idea –> Research –> Peer Review –> [Feedback loop between Research and Peer Review until…] –> Scientific Consensus –> Classroom and Textbook coverage of Great Idea
ID community:
Great Idea –> Classroom and Textbook coverage of Great Idea
The ID community wants the scientific community to acknowledge the work of ID even though there has been no peer reviewed papers on ID in any respected scientific journal (the Stephan Meyer “peer reviewed” paper notwhithstanding). In fact, the ID community wants science classes across the US to include their “science” in the curriculum…without any credible research or peer review. Yeah. Right.
The fundamental problem, however, with ID and with scientists fighting ID is that the ID doctrine has turned the “belief” in evolution into the non-belief in God. People react strongly against being told that their God doesn’t exist, of course. However, the “belief” in evolution (there’s nothing to believe or disbelieve here, it’s a well-established scientific theory), does not have to be a disbelief in God…they just want everyone to think that.
Her suggestions for what we, the scientific community, could do:
- Explicity teach the nature of science
- Explicitly teach evolution (evolution of the stars, galaxies, as well as biological system)
- Keep up with local school board happenings
- Join the AIBS/NCSE list -serve for news on local ID/creationist/evolution news
Unfortunately, because ID proponents have turned this into an emotional and religious issue, these items will not ultimately work. ID proponents do not listen to logic; instead they spout the party line and ignore scientist’s refutations of their claims. Their main tactic is to shout louder. Sadly, I don’t know what can be done to prevent the ID attacks on our science education; right now we can only fight them as they come.
Tags: rant, science
Posted by barb on Jan 5, 2005 in
Science Musings Swift‘s first light!
NASA posted Swift’s first-light images today, along with a press release about a slew of bursts that the BAT (Burst Alert Telescope — Swift’s GRB watchdog) observed during instrument calibration last month.
The image is the BAT’s “first light” gamma-ray image showing Cygnus X-1 (top) and Cygnus X-3 (bottom).
Tags: science
Posted by barb on Dec 29, 2004 in
Science Musings A few more quick notes before the New Year:
- The Huygen’s probe is on its way to Titan. The probe was released from the Cassini spacecraft on Christmas day, and will encounter the Titan atmosphere on January 14. Go Huygen!
Space.com has several articles on Cassini and the Huygens probe: Cassini Releases Huygens Probe and Splash, Thud, or Whimper? Cassini’s Huygens Probe Rendezvous with Titan for a couple.
- Recent results from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) have found some nearby, massive, and young galaxies.
Why is this news? Since these galaxies are relatively nearby, that means that they have just recently (in cosmic-terms) formed. Current theory of galactic formation predicts that formation of such massive galaxies would have tapered off by now, and only smaller galaxies should be forming now. As the Universe ages, it expands, pulling material further and further apart. This would indicate that as the Universe ages, it would be more and more difficult for large pockets of material to be available for galaxy formation.
Galaxy formation is certainly still occuring, but the only young galaxies observed nearby prior to these results were small. This is an exciting step for researchers in galaxy formation and evolution!
- Perhaps this is old news by now, but Sean O’Keefe is leaving NASA. I’m not sure if this is a good thing or not — on the one hand, he did help wrangle NASA’s out-of-control budget problems; on the other hand, he was ready to just abandon the Hubble Space Telescope and trot happily along after Bush’s assinine Moon/Mars exploration plan. Of course, Bush is still in office, so whoever they replace O’Keefe with will certainly have a short leash from Presidential Policy. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what comes next.
Posted by barb on Dec 9, 2004 in
Science Musings I took a bit of a break from answering questions for Ask a High Energy Astronomer for the wedding, but now I’m back.
Let the crackpot science begin!
I’m not sure how, but every time I’m in the hotseat I find some of the wackiest web pages. Today’s candiate? Tachyonized Products.
I found this page by Googling for “tachyon interactions” — that seems like a harmless enough search, yes? Well one of the first results was this page [link no longer exists, as of 9/2015] talking about the physics of tachyons, Tachyon Energy (their term), and the healing power of the Tachyon Energy.
Tachyon Energy is omnipresent and limitless. It has all the potential information for creating perfect form in the universe.
Um. Right. But here’s the best gem from that page:
Everything that transpires in the human body, for example, already exists within Tachyon in perfect form. An excellent example of this is seen in the animal kingdom. It has been observed that animals which are not influenced in any way by human beings live completely healthy lives.
So, apparently animals that live lives completely un-influenced by humans only die from either old age or by the hand of another animal?
Even better, though, was the link to the catalog of “Tachyonized Products”*. The main difference between a tachyonized product and a non-tacyonized one is that the one on the left is $60 and the one on the right is $20. And frankly, if you’re dumb enough to fall for their spiel, you deserve to lose the money.
*You might wonder what Tachyonized products are, exactly. According to the web site, “Tachyonized materials are permanent antennas that are able to focus Tachyon Energy.” Oh. that explains it.
Posted by barb on Dec 3, 2004 in
Science Musings Wow! It’s taken me much longer to recover from the wedding than I thought. No one said it was going to take a couple months to retrain my brain, and, frankly, I’m still not up to par. However, let’s take a stab at including some real content in this blog again. Here’s some recent news from the Universe of Astronomy:
- As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, Swift launched in November. This is a mission to study gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; check out the text I wrote for the web site for more on what GRBs are).
The observatory is currently powering-on various instruments and testing them. The main web site has a daily log of Swift’s status you can check out.
- The Mars rover, Opportunity, has found proof that Mars once had water:
Researchers were able to determine – with the aid of Opportunity’s science package – that liquid water did flow on surface of Mars in the past, its currents etching ripples in stone as a calling card.
But it still seems unlikely that life arose on the Red Planet — the environment would have been very hostile. On the other hand, we have found life on Earth in environments that were once thought too hostile to foster life, so who knows?
- Just for fun, Space.com has a quiz to test your space IQ.