Speaking of Science

March 2012's selection of notable quotes

By | March 1, 2012

image: Speaking of Science Istockphoto.com, shmel

ISTOCKPHOTO.COM, SHMEL

The disaster at Chernobyl, and now Fukushima, provide unique opportunities to assess the risks and hazards of prolonged exposure to mutagenic contaminants that likely have relevance for other communities inhabiting the regions affected by these disasters.

A.P. Møller et al., “Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl,” Environmental Pollution, 164:36-39, 2012.

In the roughly 115 years since Roentgen discovered X-rays we have learned a lot about the values and hazards of exposure to ionizing radiation. But we still have a hell of a lot to learn.

William Schull, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, expert on the health effects of the atomic bombs, referring to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan (The Scientist, Mar. 22, 2011)

Both our life spans and our five senses are inadequate to the task of comprehension: The most powerful mechanism of organic change lies well beyond our everyday experience.

—Smith College evolutionary biologist Robert L. Dorit, in a recent American Scientist article entitled, “Rereading Darwin” (Jan.-Feb. 2012)

Although the scientific process tries to makes sense of problems by isolating every variable, reality doesn’t work like that. Instead, we live in a world in which everything is knotted together, an impregnable tangle of causes and effects. Even when a system is dissected into its basic parts, those parts are still influenced by a whirligig of forces we can’t understand or haven’t considered or don’t think matter. Hamlet was right: There really are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

—Science writer Jonah Lehrer in a Wired article entitled, “Trials and Errors: Why Science Is Failing Us” (Dec. 16, 2011)

Anyone who legitimizes the assassination of scientists in Tehran jeopardizes the personal security of scientists on the other side. The next phase of the assassination war is liable to turn international scientific conferences into arenas of assassination.

—Professor Avner Cohen of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, writing in the Israeli paper Haaretz about the January assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan (Jan. 16, 2012)

Why is self-organization so beautiful to my atheistic self? Because if complex, adaptive systems don’t require a blue print, they don’t require a blue print maker. If they don’t require lightning bolts, they don’t require Someone hurtling lightning bolts.

—Stanford University neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, in response to the question, “What is your favorite deep, elegant, or beautiful explanation?” posed by Edge.org (Feb. 9, 2012)

 

 

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Lurker

Lurker

Posts: 2

March 28, 2012

I followed the link for Sapolsky but couldn't find it.  I think the correct page number is 2863, not the 2824 you have.  http://the-scientist.com/2012/...

Avatar of: FJScientist

FJScientist

Posts: 52

March 28, 2012

Completely agreed with the comment by Avner Cohen "Anyone who legitimizes the assassination of scientists in Tehran jeopardizes the personal security of scientists on the other side." I would add that we also consider this not just from the desire to prevent a tit-for-tat feud, but also from a desire to express outrage at entangling any extrajudicial trial and murder of innocent scientists (or anybody) with any disagreement, be it international, internal or personal. Assassination is against international law (i.e. most agree it to be 'morally wrong'), regardless of one's justifications for doing so. My condolences to the families affected by these crimes. 

From the scientists murdered, it also appears that this unfortunate campaign might not even be targeted specifically to those leading a disputed project. Rather, it appears to be a terror campaign intended to discourage even more peripherally involved scientists from conducting their work. That is chilling.
 
I have heard insufficient outrage and indignation in the scientific community over the practice of targeting scientists. As with the grass-roots 'committee to protect journalists' that at least brings prominent attention the deaths, many targeted, of journalists in the field, can some scientific society start a 'committee to protect scientists'?

Avatar of: TheSciAdmin

TheSciAdmin

Posts: 56

March 28, 2012

Thanks very much, Lurker.

You were right, and the link has been fixed.

The Scientist

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 28, 2012

I followed the link for Sapolsky but couldn't find it.  I think the correct page number is 2863, not the 2824 you have.  http://the-scientist.com/2012/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 28, 2012

Completely agreed with the comment by Avner Cohen "Anyone who legitimizes the assassination of scientists in Tehran jeopardizes the personal security of scientists on the other side." I would add that we also consider this not just from the desire to prevent a tit-for-tat feud, but also from a desire to express outrage at entangling any extrajudicial trial and murder of innocent scientists (or anybody) with any disagreement, be it international, internal or personal. Assassination is against international law (i.e. most agree it to be 'morally wrong'), regardless of one's justifications for doing so. My condolences to the families affected by these crimes. 

From the scientists murdered, it also appears that this unfortunate campaign might not even be targeted specifically to those leading a disputed project. Rather, it appears to be a terror campaign intended to discourage even more peripherally involved scientists from conducting their work. That is chilling.
 
I have heard insufficient outrage and indignation in the scientific community over the practice of targeting scientists. As with the grass-roots 'committee to protect journalists' that at least brings prominent attention the deaths, many targeted, of journalists in the field, can some scientific society start a 'committee to protect scientists'?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 28, 2012

Thanks very much, Lurker.

You were right, and the link has been fixed.

The Scientist

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
BioTek
BioTek
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews