Galileo and the Science Deniers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Mario Livio: “Galileo’s story may be more relevant today than ever before. At present, we face enormous crises—such as the minimization of the dangers of climate change—because the science behind these threats is erroneously questioned or ignored. Galileo encountered this problem 400 years ago. His discoveries, based on careful observations and ingenious experiments, contradicted conventional wisdom and the teachings of the church at the time. Consequently, in a blatant assault on freedom of thought, his books were forbidden by church authorities.

Astrophysicist and bestselling author Mario Livio draws on his own scientific expertise to provide captivating insights into how Galileo reached his bold new conclusions about the cosmos and the laws of nature. A freethinker who followed the evidence wherever it led him, Galileo was one of the most significant figures behind the scientific revolution. He believed that every educated person should know science as well as literature, and insisted on reaching the widest audience possible, publishing his books in Italian rather than Latin.

Galileo was put on trial with his life in the balance for refusing to renounce his scientific convictions. He remains a hero and inspiration to scientists and all of those who respect science—which, as Livio reminds us in this gripping book, remains threatened even today….(More)”.

Quantitative Description of Digital Media

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction by Kevin Munger, Andrew M. Guess and Eszter Hargittai: “We introduce the rationale for a new peer-reviewed scholarly journal, the Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media. The journal is intended to create a new venue for research on digital media and address several deficiencies in the current social science publishing landscape. First, descriptive research is undersupplied and undervalued. Second, research questions too often only reflect dominant theories and received wisdom. Third, journals are constrained by unnecessary boundaries defined by discipline, geography, and length. Fourth, peer review is inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome for both referees and authors. We outline the journal’s scope and structure, which is open access, fee-free and relies on a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) model. Quantitative description can appeal to social scientists of all stripes and is a crucial methodology for understanding the continuing evolution of digital media and its relationship to important questions of interest to social scientists….(More)”.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Kate Flemming and Jane Noyes: “Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided….(More)“.

Algorithmic thinking in the public interest: navigating technical, legal, and ethical hurdles to web scraping in the social sciences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alex Luscombe, Kevin Dick & Kevin Walby: “Web scraping, defined as the automated extraction of information online, is an increasingly important means of producing data in the social sciences. We contribute to emerging social science literature on computational methods by elaborating on web scraping as a means of automated access to information. We begin by situating the practice of web scraping in context, providing an overview of how it works and how it compares to other methods in the social sciences. Next, we assess the benefits and challenges of scraping as a technique of information production. In terms of benefits, we highlight how scraping can help researchers answer new questions, supersede limits in official data, overcome access hurdles, and reinvigorate the values of sharing, openness, and trust in the social sciences. In terms of challenges, we discuss three: technical, legal, and ethical. By adopting “algorithmic thinking in the public interest” as a way of navigating these hurdles, researchers can improve the state of access to information on the Internet while also contributing to scholarly discussions about the legality and ethics of web scraping. Example software accompanying this article are available within the supplementary materials..(More)”.

The power of words and networks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to Special Issue by A. Fronzetti Colladon, P. Gloor, and D. F. Iezzi: “According to Freud “words were originally magic and to this day words have retained much of their ancient magical power”. By words, behaviors are transformed and problems are solved. The way we use words reveals our intentions, goals and values. Novel tools for text analysis help understand the magical power of words. This power is multiplied, if it is combined with the study of social networks, i.e. with the analysis of relationships among social units. This special issue of the International Journal of Information Management, entitled “Combining Social Network Analysis and Text Mining: from Theory to Practice”, includes heterogeneous and innovative research at the nexus of text mining and social network analysis. It aims to enrich work at the intersection of these fields, which still lags behind in theoretical, empirical, and methodological foundations. The nine articles accepted for inclusion in this special issue all present methods and tools that have business applications. They are summarized in this editorial introduction….(More)”.

Shape: The Hidden Geometry of Information, Biology, Strategy, Democracy, and Everything Else

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Jordan Ellenberg: “How should a democracy choose its representatives? How can you stop a pandemic from sweeping the world? How do computers learn to play Go, and why is learning Go so much easier for them than learning to read a sentence? Can ancient Greek proportions predict the stock market? (Sorry, no.) What should your kids learn in school if they really want to learn to think? All these are questions about geometry. For real.

If you’re like most people, geometry is a sterile and dimly remembered exercise you gladly left behind in the dust of ninth grade, along with your braces and active romantic interest in pop singers. If you recall any of it, it’s plodding through a series of miniscule steps only to prove some fact about triangles that was obvious to you in the first place. That’s not geometry. Okay, it is geometry, but only a tiny part, which has as much to do with geometry in all its flush modern richness as conjugating a verb has to do with a great novel.

Shape reveals the geometry underneath some of the most important scientific, political, and philosophical problems we face. Geometry asks: Where are things? Which things are near each other? How can you get from one thing to another thing? Those are important questions. The word “geometry,” from the Greek for “measuring the world.” If anything, that’s an undersell. Geometry doesn’t just measure the world—it explains it. Shape shows us how….(More)”.

Need Public Policy for Human Gene Editing, Heatwaves, or Asteroids? Try Thinking Like a Citizen

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nicholas Weller, Michelle Sullivan Govani, and Mahmud Farooque: “In a ballroom at the Arizona Science Center one afternoon in 2017, more than 70 Phoenix residents—students, teachers, nurses, and retirees—gathered around tables to participate in a public forum about how cities can respond to extreme weather such as heat waves. Each table was covered in colorful printouts with a large laminated poster resembling a board game. Milling between the tables were decisionmakers from local government and the state. All were taking part in a deliberative process called participatory technology assessment, or pTA, designed to break down the walls between “experts” and citizens to gain insights into public policy dilemmas involving science, technology, and uncertainty.

Foreshadowing their varied viewpoints and experiences, participants prepared differently for the “extreme weather” of the heavily air conditioned ballroom, with some gripping cardigans around their shoulders while others were comfortable in tank tops. Extreme heat is something all the participants were familiar with—Phoenix is one of the hottest cities in the country—but not everyone understood the unequal way that heat and related deaths affect different parts of the Valley of the Sun. Though a handful of the participants might have called themselves environmentalists, most were not regular town-hall goers or political activists. Instead, they represented a diverse cross section of people in Phoenix. All had applied to attend—motivated by a small stipend, the opportunity to have their voice heard, or a bit of both.

Unlike typical town hall setups, where a few bold participants tend to dominate questioning and decisionmakers often respond by being defensive or vague, pTA gatherings are deliberately organized to encourage broad participation and conversation. To help people engage with the topic, the meeting was divided into subgroups to examine the story of Heattown, a fictionalized name for a real but anonymized community contending with the health, environmental, and economic impacts of heat waves. Then each group began a guided discussion of the different characters living in Heattown, vulnerabilities of the emergency-response and infrastructure systems, and strategies for dealing with those vulnerabilities….(More)”.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most impactful technologies of the twenty-first century

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Lynne Parker at the AI.gov website: “Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most impactful technologies of the twenty-first century.  Nearly every sector of the economy and society has been affected by the capabilities and potential of AI.  AI is enabling farmers to grow food more efficiently, medical researchers to better understand and treat COVID-19, scientists to develop new materials, transportation professionals to deliver more goods faster and with less energy, weather forecasters to more accurately predict the tracks of hurricanes, and national security protectors to better defend our Nation.

At the same time, AI has raised important societal concerns.  What is the impact of AI on the changing nature of work?  How can we ensure that AI is used appropriately, and does not result in unfair discrimination or bias?  How can we guard against uses of AI that infringe upon human rights and democratic principles?

These dual perspectives on AI have led to the concept of “trustworthy AI”.  Trustworthy AI is AI that is designed, developed, and used in a manner that is lawful, fair, unbiased, accurate, reliable, effective, safe, secure, resilient, understandable, and with processes in place to regularly monitor and evaluate the AI system’s performance and outcomes.

Achieving trustworthy AI requires an all-of-government and all-of-Nation approach, combining the efforts of industry, academia, government, and civil society.  The Federal government is doing its part through a national strategy, called the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 (NAIIA).  The National AI Initiative (NAII) builds upon several years of impactful AI policy actions, many of which were outcomes from EO 13859 on Maintaining American Leadership in AI.

Six key pillars define the Nation’s AI strategy:

  • prioritizing AI research and development;
  • strengthening AI research infrastructure;
  • advancing trustworthy AI through technical standards and governance;
  • training an AI-ready workforce;
  • promoting international AI engagement; and
  • leveraging trustworthy AI for government and national security.

Coordinating all of these efforts is the National AI Initiative Office, which is legislated by the NAIIA to coordinate and support the NAII.  This Office serves as the central point of contact for exchanging technical and programmatic information on AI activities at Federal departments and agencies, as well as related Initiative activities in industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, State and tribal governments, and others.

The AI.gov website provides a portal for exploring in more depth the many AI actions, initiatives, strategies, programs, reports, and related efforts across the Federal government.  It serves as a resource for those who want to learn more about how to take full advantage of the opportunities of AI, and to learn how the Federal government is advancing the design, development, and use of trustworthy AI….(More)”

Citizen science is booming during the pandemic

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sigal Samuel at Vox: “…The pandemic has driven a huge increase in participation in citizen science, where people without specialized training collect data out in the world or perform simple analyses of data online to help out scientists.

Stuck at home with time on their hands, millions of amateurs arouennd the world are gathering information on everything from birds to plants to Covid-19 at the request of institutional researchers. And while quarantine is mostly a nightmare for us, it’s been a great accelerant for science.

Early in the pandemic, a firehose of data started gushing forth on citizen science platforms like Zooniverse and SciStarter, where scientists ask the public to analyze their data online.It’s a form of crowdsourcing that has the added bonus of giving volunteers a real sense of community; each project has a discussion forum where participants can pose questions to each other (and often to the scientists behind the projects) and forge friendly connections.

“There’s a wonderful project called Rainfall Rescue that’s transcribing historical weather records. It’s a climate change project to understand how weather has changed over the past few centuries,” Laura Trouille, vice president of citizen science at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago and co-lead of Zooniverse, told me. “They uploaded a dataset of 10,000 weather logs that needed transcribing — and that was completed in one day!”

Some Zooniverse projects, like Snapshot Safari, ask participants to classify animals in images from wildlife cameras. That project saw daily classifications go from 25,000 to 200,000 per day in the initial days of lockdown. And across all its projects, Zooniverse reported that 200,000 participants contributed more than 5 million classifications of images in one week alone — the equivalent of 48 years of research. Although participation has slowed a bit since the spring, it’s still four times what it was pre-pandemic.

Many people are particularly eager to help tackle Covid-19, and scientists have harnessed their energy. Carnegie Mellon University’s Roni Rosenfeld set up a platform where volunteers can help artificial intelligence predict the spread of the coronavirus, even if they know nothing about AI. Researchers at the University of Washington invited people to contribute to Covid-19 drug discovery using a computer game called Foldit; they experimented with designing proteins that could attach to the virus that causes Covid-19 and prevent it from entering cells….(More)”.

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Holly Else & Richard Van Noorden at Nature: “When Laura Fisher noticed striking similarities between research papers submitted to RSC Advances, she grew suspicious. None of the papers had authors or institutions in common, but their charts and titles looked alarmingly similar, says Fisher, the executive editor at the journal. “I was determined to try to get to the bottom of what was going on.”

A year later, in January 2021, Fisher retracted 68 papers from the journal, and editors at two other Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) titles retracted one each over similar suspicions; 15 are still under investigation. Fisher had found what seemed to be the products of paper mills: companies that churn out fake scientific manuscripts to order. All the papers came from authors at Chinese hospitals. The journals’ publisher, the RSC in London, announced in a statement that it had been the victim of what it believed to be “the systemic production of falsified research”.

What was surprising about this was not the paper-mill activity itself: research-integrity sleuths have repeatedly warned that some scientists buy papers from third-party firms to help their careers. Rather, it was extraordinary that a publisher had publicly announced something that journals generally keep quiet about. “We believe that it is a paper mill, so we want to be open and transparent,” Fisher says.

The RSC wasn’t alone, its statement added: “We are one of a number of publishers to have been affected by such activity.” Since last January, journals have retracted at least 370 papers that have been publicly linked to paper mills, an analysis by Nature has found, and many more retractions are expected to follow.

Much of this literature cleaning has come about because, last year, outside sleuths publicly flagged papers that they think came from paper mills owing to their suspiciously similar features. Collectively, the lists of flagged papers total more than 1,000 studies, the analysis shows. Editors are so concerned by the issue that last September, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a publisher-advisory body in London, held a forum dedicated to discussing “systematic manipulation of the publishing process via paper mills”. Their guest speaker was Elisabeth Bik, a research-integrity analyst in California known for her skill in spotting duplicated images in papers, and one of the sleuths who posts their concerns about paper mills online….(More)”.