The Original Red Queen’s Hypothesis

ResearchBlogging.orgLeigh Van Valen (who died last month) is well known for being an original thinker. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the only way he could publish his most famous idea was to start a journal to print it in. Because of this, the paper is devilishly hard to get hold of: I managed to get a photocopy, with only one page of references missing.
This idea dates back to 1973, and is now called the “Red Queen hypothesis”: that fitness is constant over time because of continual changes in the environment. Although this is the way the hypothesis is stated, it is a subtle mis-representation of the original idea. This is because it has been morphed into something a bit different, when the idea was ripped from its palaeontological roots into the world of population and evolutionary genetics.

Continue reading

Posted in Research Blogging | 2 Comments

Rates of Scientific Fraud Retractions

ResearchBlogging.orgIvan Oransky on his Retraction Watch blog pointed to a paper by R. Grant Steen looking at numbers of retraction and whether they were due to fraud or error. Ivan pointed to a news item on The Great Beyond by Richard Van Noorden looking at one slightly surprising claim in the paper:”American scientists are significantly more prone to engage in data fabrication or falsification than scientists from other countries”. Van Noorden looked at the data in a bit more detail and wasn’t convinced, but didn’t fully run the numbers. So I thought I would.

Continue reading

Posted in Science Publishing, Statistics, The Society of Science | 11 Comments

(Ice) Hockey Pool, Week 6

Most of you can look away, either because you’re not involved in the Hockey Pool Cath Ennis set up, or because you’re below Cath in the standings.

Continue reading

Posted in Silliness | 6 Comments

Could Libel Law Stop Science?

So, this week some of us wrote about the problems of English (and Welsh) libel law. At the same time, a couple of new incidents of scientists falling foul of the libel laws were given publicity in the British press. If the scientists lose, it would signal that (until the laws are changed) we would be unable to make criticisms of other scientists, or those using science in their business.

Continue reading

Posted in The Society of Science | 10 Comments

Why Libel Needs to be Reformed

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics. This is why the law needs to be changed…

Continue reading

Posted in Silliness, The Society of Science | 3 Comments

World Statistics Day Today

The UN has declared that today is World Statistics Day. For some strange reason they’re more interested in Official Statistics, like GPD, and rates of unemployment rather than the interesting stuff to do with estimating the variation in weights of squrgles in laboratory populations.

Continue reading

Posted in Statistics | 2 Comments

Scientia Pro Publica 41: the IgNobel Edition

41? I always fall short when getting to the answer.

Continue reading

Posted in Science Blogging | Comments Off on Scientia Pro Publica 41: the IgNobel Edition

Scientia Pro Publica TOMORROW

I’ve been horribly remiss in advertising Scientia and other carnivals recently, but this one I can’t avoid. Scientia Pro Publica (Science for the People) will return to a weekly schedule (we’re getting enough submissions that every 2 weeks is a lot of work, and there are enough for one week). I was too close when she made this decision, so I was saddled with writing it: the carnival will thus appear here tomorrow. But it needs submissions!

Continue reading

Posted in Science Blogging | 5 Comments

Am I wasting my time?

ResearchBlogging.orgPhysicists have it easy. When they’re not talking about stuffing their hands into their equipment, they’re measuring their fundamental constants to 38 significant figures. Chemists too have a simple time – they get to make stinks and bangs with expensive toys. But at least they know exactly what they get. Even most biologists are lucky – the crowd who do the molecular stuff are like chemists, but a bit less stinky. But us poor ecologists, who have to work with the real world…

Continue reading

Posted in Research Blogging | 6 Comments

More Sea Ice

This is just too beautiful. From DenialDepot, my favourite climate denialism site (browse their archives to see what I mean), we get this graph, which is elegant in its use of detail.

Continue reading

Posted in Science Blogging, Silliness | 7 Comments