Comments on: Cultural Collisions http://scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Patrick McCray http://scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/comment-page-1/#comment-2974 Patrick McCray Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:44:44 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/#comment-2974 Ooops...Amend that sentence to read: "In any case, the ITER project (over here in France) is about 50% more expensive than LHC in any case." Early early here... Ooops…Amend that sentence to read: “In any case, the ITER project (over here in France) is about 50% more expensive than LHC in any case.” Early early here…

]]> By: Patrick McCray http://scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/comment-page-1/#comment-2973 Patrick McCray Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:43:45 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/#comment-2973 Chris- Two points of clarification - one could argue that the Hubble Space Telescope is the most expensive science experiment to date (although one wonders whether it is appropriate to call megaprojects like LHC and HST experiments). In any case, the ITER project (over here in France) is about 50% more expensive than ITER in any case. Also - I'm not sure public "misunderstanding" is really at the heart of concerns about nanotech. From where I sit (and see my Science Progress piece), much of the debate seems to be generated from inside the Beltway and based on spurious comparisons to GMOs. The public surveys I've seen show the public is widely ignorant of nanotech and generally supportive when they do know what it is. Patrick...from Cassis, France Chris-

Two points of clarification – one could argue that the Hubble Space Telescope is the most expensive science experiment to date (although one wonders whether it is appropriate to call megaprojects like LHC and HST experiments). In any case, the ITER project (over here in France) is about 50% more expensive than ITER in any case.

Also – I’m not sure public “misunderstanding” is really at the heart of concerns about nanotech. From where I sit (and see my Science Progress piece), much of the debate seems to be generated from inside the Beltway and based on spurious comparisons to GMOs. The public surveys I’ve seen show the public is widely ignorant of nanotech and generally supportive when they do know what it is.

Patrick…from Cassis, France

]]> By: Laurel Kornfeld http://scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/comment-page-1/#comment-2969 Laurel Kornfeld Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:33:24 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/09/cultural-collisions/#comment-2969 The Pluto issue is not petty, and it matters to a lot of people, including many who are monitoring developments in this area. Many educated, informed people continue to rightly oppose the controversial IAU decision, which was made by four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in a process that violated the IAU's own bylaws and resulted in a nonsensical statement that dwarf planets are not planets at all. The decision was immediately rejected by 300 professional astronomers, led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, who decried the new definition as sloppy and affirmed they will not use it. Only this summer, a conference of about 150 scientists and educators, "The Great Planet Debate," which I attended, attempted to rectify this bungle by the IAU. One major problem is that most planetary scientists are not IAU members. Shouldn't experts on planets rather than other types of astronomers be the ones who define what a planet is? Additionally, when one examines the dynamics of the IAU vote, it becomes clear that the decision was based on politics, not science. Comparing opposition to the demotion of Pluto with irrational fears over the LHC is not useful or factual. The Pluto issue is not petty, and it matters to a lot of people, including many who are monitoring developments in this area. Many educated, informed people continue to rightly oppose the controversial IAU decision, which was made by four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in a process that violated the IAU’s own bylaws and resulted in a nonsensical statement that dwarf planets are not planets at all. The decision was immediately rejected by 300 professional astronomers, led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, who decried the new definition as sloppy and affirmed they will not use it. Only this summer, a conference of about 150 scientists and educators, “The Great Planet Debate,” which I attended, attempted to rectify this bungle by the IAU. One major problem is that most planetary scientists are not IAU members. Shouldn’t experts on planets rather than other types of astronomers be the ones who define what a planet is? Additionally, when one examines the dynamics of the IAU vote, it becomes clear that the decision was based on politics, not science. Comparing opposition to the demotion of Pluto with irrational fears over the LHC is not useful or factual.

]]>