So there I was, desperately trying to get on top of my nuclear inbox (i.e. it had exceeded critical mass) when the head developer came up to me and says ‘Do we really need an evaluation of an 1866 paper, classed as a ‘New Finding’?’
I knew immediately which paper he was talking about, because I’d blogged about it previously. But this conversation was in the context of our hush rankings, and we decided that a paper in an obscure journal from a century and a half ago really wasn’t going to affect matters that much.
When I got home I checked the f1000 blog to see if there’d been any activity. And there, in the referrer list, was the search term “ber verh königl-sächs ges wiss, lovén c”. The first hit for that phrase on google is the f1000 Biology entry for the paper in question, by Wilfrid Jänig of the Christian Albrechts University in Kiel. The second hit is my blog entry.
The paper by Christian Lovén, written in German, is exciting since it formulated for the first time, based on experiments conducted on rabbits, that blood vessels involved in regulation of arterial blood pressure (that is peripheral resistance) and cutaneous arteries are differentially regulated and, therefore, also innervated by different types of efferent neurons. This important conclusion anticipated that the sympathetic nervous system is differentially organized according to the target organs.
Now, it’s possible that Phil searched for the journal, which means it’s not coincidence at all. And if I were Ben Goldacre I’d now swear a lot and say how this is an example of something or other that leads to bad reporting or death in baby rats, you bastards, but I’m sure you’re all smart enough to figure it out yourself.
I’ll instead close by saying that my flickr account also gets some strange referrer search strings. My current favourite is Gee spot, which finds two of my Flickr pictures, here on NN.
In my previous incarnation at a society journal we occasionally made historic articles available free for marketing purposes; included in this bunch was a chemistry paper authored by one M. Thatcher.
Heh, really? Got a citation handy?
(and please, don’t tell Henry)
Ah yes… Margaret Hilda Roberts’ sole piece of published work… I have a PDF somewhere. I was once rather smugly able to pass it on to a science historian who was developing the argument that Mrs T’s having been (albeit briefly) a scientist was critical to an understanding of her character and actions. Sample: Mrs T telling Ronald Reagan that she knew the “”Star Wars””:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative defence system wouldn’t work:
– is the (possibly apocryphal) line that gets quoted.
Aside from her brief working career as an industrial chemist, the other most interesting scientific fact about Margaret Hilda was that she did a kind of extended final year research project at Oxford supervised by Dorothy Hodgkin, though nothing was actually published.
Ah, now, Dorothy Hodgkin. There’s a hero.
Dorothy Hodgkin was the Chancellor of Bristol in my undergraduate days there. She actually attended my degree ceremony (1983) as it was the one for chemists and physicists. She was in her early 70s and rather frail, so she didn’t actually shake hands – we had to bow to her while she sat in a ceremonial chair. She did, though, give a rousing speech. I don’t remember the details, but the central point was definitely that it was up to scientists to take on the “wider challenge” of a world of increasing population (and inequality) and diminishing natural resources.
Scientists as superheroes. Now that’s something I can get behind.
Don’t scientists usually turn up in movies as super-villians, Richard? I can think of several examples. Though The Hulk) is a scientist superhero.
Given the preponderance of supervillains, perhaps we need a new PR agency…
Yeah. But we should be heroic! Stupid Hollywood.
Meantime, I’m thrilled to bits that Venki Ramakrishnan has just won (1/3 of) the Chemistry Nobel.
Probably Alan Moore got it right (and Hollywood preserved at least that much) with Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandians. Both of them super-hero and super-villain with the best of good intentions.
mmm… I dunno. As someone said at Fiction Lab last December, for the smartest man in the world, was wiping out NYC the best he could think of?
It wasn’t trite at the time.
But I agree. Cincinatti might have sufficed.
laugh
Hey, Heather, you dissing* Ohio?
Wanna come over here and say that to my face? Huh? Huh?
Not so hard now, are you?
*in addition to misspelling Cincinnati
eats popcorn
I thought Cincinnati was quite nice the one time I went there. Sort of… laid back.
And any city that makes Jerry Springer mayor has to have a helluva sense of humour.
Aaaaaand in the blue corner, we have Austin ‘the bruiser’ Elliot and Jenny ‘I heart Ohio’ Rohn…
Cincinnati is the hippest town in Ohio (quiet there in the back row, Gee and Grant). The natives call it “the Nat”. Unfortunately, I didn’t grow up anywhere near it – can you tell?
Sorry – I didn’t even know there was a fray. Next time I’ll pick, say, Woburn. And write some sort of disclaimer. And learn to spell.
Although what my husband had to say about downtown Indianapolis makes me think that perhaps if the nuclear warhead went off after about 8PM, there would be essentially material loss…
ducks
Sounds like Sydney.
geese