View allAll Photos Tagged SCIENCE
i've known of this building for 6 years. but i didn't get around to giving it the "dk treatment" until today. meh. the lighting was horrible so i did the best i could.
Photos from the March for Science in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2017. Definitely the smartest signs of any protest I've ever seen.
Photos taken for work of the 12th annual Science & Engineering Fair at Des Moines Public Schools. I always enjoy how earnest the students are in explaining their work to the judges.
Science Saturday: Anatomy - Sat 18 February 2017
This brilliant anatomy themed Science Saturday was a celebration of all things scientific, it was held at the National Museum of Scotland in collaboration with the University of Edinburgh.
Photographs by Andy Catlin www.andycatlin.com
The daily grind of a science and engineering career can leave little time to inquire how colleagues in the very next office have been spending their days and months. Toward remedying that, employees at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center emerged from their cubicles and offices on June 2 and mingled outdoors, Cajun style, at the center’s second annual Science Jamboree.
Congregating under tents on the Goddard campus lawn, everyone from scientists to secretaries and engineers to interns browsed the nearly 40 tables displaying the latest projects in earth science, astrophysics, heliophysics, and solar system science at the Mardi-Gras-themed event.
Credit: NASA/GSFC
To learn more go to: blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_12756816359...
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is home to the nation's largest organization of combined scientists, engineers and technologists that build spacecraft, instruments and new technology to study the Earth, the sun, our solar system, and the universe.
From the Gulf Stream Aquarium to the Frost Planetarium, visitors will be dazzled by Miami's new science museum.
The highly anticipated Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science in downtown Miami’s Museum Park overlooking beautiful Biscayne Bay officially opened on May 8th, 2018. The museum rests on four acres of land with four state-of-the-art buildings across a 250,000 square-foot campus that includes a world-class planetarium and aquarium.
The North Wing and West Wings provide six floors of interactive exhibitions dedicated to the ecosystem of the Everglades, the evolution of flight, human biology and more, with rooftops boasting both a lunar terrace with a telescope for stargazing and a solar terrace with an urban farm.
Source: Shayne Benowitz Miami Greater Miami and Beaches
My kiddos we're seeing the destruction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) as they were poured into a beaker of acetic acid to produce oxygen. I hope this helps maintain the scientific curiosity all kids are born with.
When I was a kid I found a long narrow stone in the Conodoguinet Creek. I was sure it was an Indian spearpoint. I showed it to a neighbor, Mr. Weaver, who knew about such things. It wasn't a spearpoint. It wasn't anything fashion by humans.
What you see in the image is my seventh grade science notebook cover. On top of it is a collection of small stones. Most can look like humans had a hand in their appearance - as tools or art objects. Only one of them is actually likely to have been worked by human hands - the one on the lower right. It's probably a pebble someone worked to make it into a fishing weight. But I'm not qualified to make that claim with authority. If something is blatantly obvious in its human connection, no problem. Otherwise, forget it. I leave it to the folks who have training and experience to identify the one from the other.
That brings me to the point of this image, arranged and shot early this evening. There was an archaeology blog entry posted a few days ago entitled ”Why 50000 bp is a 'Crazy Date' for Topper”. After reading the entry and all the comments, I posted my own comment. After another two comments by others, I felt I had to post one more in response. That's the last for me, as I say in the second comment. The text of those comments follows (with typos corrected - at least those I've identified).
Essentially, if you don't feel like checking out the article and comments at the link above, all you need to know before reading my comments included here is that the subject of the blog entry is an archaeological site in South Carolina where the principal archaeologist has an established date of about 50,000 years BP for a layer where he suggests the stones he's found are crude man-made tools - that they were worked by people, not just chipped that way by nature. It relates to a debate - sometimes contentious - over the "peopling of the Americas", particularly the date of the earliest migration from the Old World. (If you want more background on that, go here). Most of the comments were rational and displayed a mutual understanding of what science is and what it isn't. It was a pleasure to read those for the clarity - individuals weighing in on the topic with an understanding that issues were ones within the framework of the archaeological and scientific method - that the difference of professional opinion related to the sufficiency of evidence which needed to be resolved before going any further in making a case for people being in the Americas 50, 000 years ago. And then there were the other posters whose comments were about what's true, what's a "fact", using shaky logic based on questionable conclusions, and/or simply not understanding that the issue wasn't about whether or not people were possibly or even probably here 50K BP - it was about getting to that conclusion according to the rules of archaeology and science that are necessary to transition something from objects found, and inferences made regarding them, to a consensus-accepted "knowledge" - and that that was not evident in the case of the 50K BP human presence at the Topper site.
So I weighed in on that point... Here are my comments:
kawkawpa says:
Thanks to the scientists who have contributed thoughtful, grounded comments here, and have included links for others to make their own assessments.
After having read the discussion, I only want to offer what seems clear to me... When a scientist says "crazy date", it's in reference to current scientific consensus of a reasonable theory - a theory based on (1) available evidence - and that evidence has also been assessed by peer review using the scientific method; and (2) the accumulated assumptions of the scientific community that can be applied to the evidence. A "crazy date" remark may be considered a challenge, more than anything else, for someone to provide more to back up the proposed theory with evidence and arguments solidly based in evidence and accumulated assumptions (knowledge that has been built through years by careful peer review) that can measure up to the criteria of the field that the proposer's peers have to adhere to as well. That's the crux of it. Nothing would delight us more than to have evidence that stands up to scientific criteria. Scientific criteria are absolutely essential in order for any science to be science. Without such criteria, it's not science. If you argue against the importance of science, then that's another debate.
The best scientists have no lack of imagination. They're not stuck in accepted theories and that's that. It's only about convincing them within the framework of rigorous application of the scientific method. Evidence that does not have what it takes to conclusively qualify will have to have a footnote saying "possible" or "probable" with a long string of references attached for other scientists to scrutinize and make up their own minds on the validity of the evidence. That's how it works in order for it to be science. Anything less is great for imagination and discussion, but is not eligible to be added to the pool of "what we know" (physical evidence) or "what we can conclude based on evidence" (our theories that are always subject to change - if verifiable evidence can be found and/or a new way of interpreting it can be successfully argued) .
More importantly, such footnoted "possible" evidence is also vital to proposing what we should keep in mind or be on the look-out for when doing research from that point forward- something out of the paradigm - like an archaeologist of 50 years ago deciding to dig deeper than a Clovis layer instead of stopping at Clovis because "since Clovis was the first, there's no point to digging deeper". That's the way the best scientists operate. Even if someone's evidence doesn't make the grade conclusively according to the required criteria applied, if there's enough about it that sparks a possibility in a scientist's critical evaluation, s/he will have that in the back of his/her mind. If there's validity to the possibility, history has shown that other evidence will turn up. Some of it may not make the grade either. Some might. And there's something to be said for the preponderance of evidence even if none of it stands up to scientific criteria that indicates something conclusive.
Ok, I've said enough. Just wanted to weigh in on the matter. Thanks for listening...
Keith
[There were two comments after this that I responded to.]
kawkawpa says:
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” (attributed to Voltaire)
Tay, I’ve found that most arguments (of the round and round kind, not the making of cases) are ignited and fueled by imprecise & ineffectual communication - communication between individuals where a word is understood/conceptualized differently enough between them that everything that follows is out of sync with agreement - the basis of the argument was a flawed mutual understanding of what each alone never doubted was mutually understood.
That takes me to a primary point of my comment - one touched on by Charlie Hackett’s comment after yours. You start with the ground rules - science. If we can agree on using the scientific method (a big “if”), we can move on. The scientific method is defined - it has rules. It’s dependent upon a logical sequence of steps, each building on the previous one. If at any point in the step process the rules of the scientific method are not precisely followed, then everything that follows and that depends on that step being accurately done is flawed as far as the whole process is concerned - I mean the accuracy of the final conclusion derived from the whole process, although any following step itself may have scientific merit within its own component part if it was done according to the scientific method.
But let’s get back to that - the scientific method. If you don’t agree to the rules of the scientific method, strictly defined, then you aren’t agreeing to the scientific method. Every step builds to a conclusion in a logical sequence. Each step must be precisely completed according to the agreed-upon rules of the scientific method. Any one that doesn’t flaws the whole. Charlie Hatchett pointed out something (that I didn’t know, btw) that calls the conclusions of the Topper issue into question. My point is, according to the scientific method, there is insufficient agreement among peers (a vital part of the process) that the oldest stones were made by intelligent beings (which covers humans and other species in human evolution). Without that consensus agreement, which is based upon each peer applying his/her own reasoning resources while using the mutually agreed-upon scientific method, then every step that follows - while obviously intriguing, and that as a subset of steps may be without flaw in logic and application of the agreed-to rules - is necessarily logically “false” in regard to the whole argument (the “making a case for” kind, not the round and round sort). (Look up deductive reasoning on Wikipedia.) Classic examples of this happening are many in the history of the world. And in those tests we had in grade school that demonstrate with gusto just how imprecise a kid (or adult) can be in applying the rules for getting from point A to point Z (the very first instruction says: “Read all the instructions carefully before you begin” and the last reads: “Put your name on the paper and turn in without answering any of the previous questions.”)
Nothing less than the accuracy of what we tend to refer to as “knowledge of our universe” is at stake - that is, knowledge accrued through science (there are many ways of “knowing”, “faith” being the first one that comes to mind). One error accepted as accurate and repeated ever after, others building upon it, can skew whole worlds of what we can be said to “know”. We base our mutually acknowledged understanding of reality on accumulated and culturally-transferred knowledge. The empirical and deductive nature that’s the basis of the process must be of utmost importance, the inherent principles followed to the letter. Wanting something to be a certain way is entirely human, however when it’s something to which science is applicable, and applying science to it - and all the ramifications of that… the scientific world-view - is something you value, then it must be done in accordance with the rules of that valued system.
Science isn’t Truth. It’s a sometimes painful, sometimes plodding, often elegant way to build a body of information capable of being gotten by a process by which we can all agree, and by which anyone - if they choose to repeat the process - can arrive at the same results. Done right, it’s always approached with focus and thoroughness… Hard science is closer to the basis of this than soft science. Precision in applying the rules of the scientific method, including practically accounting for all factors influencing the result, ensuring that each step of the way is done accurately, and vetting the whole thing in an accredited publication for your peers to assess its validity, is the key.
“Facts” are not “facts” unless we first agree on the definition. Lets start there…
Thanks for your thought-intensive comment, Tay; and thanks, Charlie, for adding your point to what I was trying to get at. All this stuff I’ve written isn’t a demonstration that I am infallible in following it myself. I likely used incorrect terms for things in this comment, and made other mistakes. I’ve consciously chosen not to refine this piece - it’s not a high priority. I’ve taken short cuts. What gets across has to be enough for me. Oh, and what I’ve written here will even sound pedantic to somebody, I figure. From my perspective, it’s a necessary self-refresher of these principles. I have to continually reinforce them (and other concepts I feel are of value).
I write these things regarding the scientific method because I value clarity in purpose and (to the best of a chosen level of systematic exactitude, time being a big factor) communication. I’m not a scientist, not a logician. I admire those who have the wherewithal to maintain precision of focus over long periods, with no appreciable error as to follow-through on purpose and method. My concentration isn’t what it used to be. Well… it never was, I suppose… I was one of those kids tooling away at that first-read-all-the-directions test till the class bell rang.
Lastly, I’m not looking for an argument - of any kind. No time to follow through. I’ve said what I intended to say. A significant motivation for my saying any of this at all is a fascination for the peopling of the Americas, as it’s often known. Another is my valuing of the usefulness of knowledge of the universe honed through science and logic. The results of other people’s diligence in those methods is a body of knowledge I can rely on. (Because it’s too often not the case that such knowledge was added to the pool with thoroughness, I must also rely on my own critical thinking to verify “knowledge” - that’s just the way the universe is. Scientifically speaking.) If what I’ve written here helps in any way to add to a refinement in scientific thoroughness in relation to Topper, and to others’ critical assessment of the findings from Topper, then I’ll have helped myself as well.
Nuff said. Some might say more than enough… :)
Keith
Science World and Cambie Bridge in Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Out-of-focus image overlayed with focused image
Taken with Canon EOS 100D (identical to Rebel SL1) using EF 40 mm f/2.8 STM Pancake lens
In my "Design: Critical Issues" course, we spent most of the semester collaborating with the Marine Biology department to translate scientific information to the general public. This particular group studied hermit crab clusters; I used the actual data from their findings to create the poster. The shapes on the top represent the measurements collected during the day, the bottom being the same clusters during the night.
Kelly Benoit-Bird
Associate Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University
Kelly Benoit-Bird applies acoustics to the study of ecosystems in the open ocean. She has helped develop several new optical and acoustical instruments and has made fundamental acoustical measurements of species ranging from zooplankton to fish, squid, and marine mammals. Benoit-Bird has been named a MacArthur Fellow, has received the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, and has published in Nature, Marine Biology and the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Through her research into how predators target their prey, Benoit-Bird is creating a new understanding of key ecological processes in the ocean.
Flaminia Catteruccia
Associate Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard School of Public Health
Flaminia Catteruccia is a molecular entomologist specializing in the reproductive biology of Anopheles mosquitoes, the only mosquitoes capable of transmitting human malaria. Searching for a more effective way to reduce the incidence of malaria, Catteruccia is exploring how disruptions to the mosquito mating process could cause them not to successfully reproduce. Her work has received funding from the Wellcome Trust and has appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature Biotechnology and Malaria Journal. Her focus on the reproductive biology of mosquitoes seeks keys to fighting a disease that still affects hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Sriram Kosuri
Postdoctoral Fellow, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School
Sriram Kosuri is developing next-generation DNA synthesis technologies for use in bioengineering. Prior to his work at the Wyss Institute, Kosuri was the first employee at Joule Unlimited, a biofuel startup company working to develop fuels from sunlight using engineered microbes; and co-founded OpenWetWare, a website designed to share information in the biological sciences. He has authored several patents and patent applications related to both biofuels and DNA synthesis technologies, and has published in journals such as Nature Biotechnology and Molecular Systems Biology. The potential applications of the engineered biological products Kosuri is working on span realms from medicine to environment to energy and materials.
Thaddeus Pace
Assistant Professor, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine
Thaddeus Pace explores endocrine and immune system changes in people who suffer from stress-related psychiatric illness or who have had adverse early life experiences. His investigations have highlighted the potential of compassion meditation and other complementary practices to help individuals exposed to trauma, including patients with PTSD and children in state foster care programs. Pace’s work has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and has appeared in Neuroscience, The American Journal of Psychiatry and International Immunopharmacology. His research aims to contribute new approaches to the long-term health and well-being of children and adults in challenging circumstances.
David Rand
Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, Yale University
David Rand focuses on the evolution of human behavior, with a particular emphasis on cooperation, generosity and altruism. His approach combines empirical observations from behavioral experiments with predictions generated by evolutionary game theoretic math models and computer simulations. Rand has been named to Wired magazine’s Smart List 2012 of “50 people who will change the world” as well as the AAAS/Science Program for Excellence in Science, and his work has been featured on the front covers of both Nature and Science and reported widely in the media. Rand seeks answers to why people are willing to help others at a cost to themselves, and what can be done to help solve social dilemmas when they arise.
Giuseppe Raviola
Director of Mental Health at Partners In Health, Director of the Program in Mental Health and Social Change at Harvard Medical School, and Medical Director of Patient Safety and Quality at Children's Hospital Boston
Giuseppe “Bepi” Raviola works to more fully integrate mental health services into global health care efforts. Through research, clinical practice and training in places ranging from Haiti to Rwanda, Raviola is building teams and bridging disciplines to address this critical and previously neglected issue. His ideas and findings have appeared in The Lancet, the Harvard Review of Psychiatry and the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Raviola’s work on behalf of local mental health team leaders aims to build lasting, community-based systems of mental health care.
John Rinn
Assistant Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University and Medical School and Senior Associate Member of the Broad Institute
John Rinn takes an unconventional approach to the way biologists think about the human genome. Focusing on large intervening non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs), his work suggests that so-called “junk genes” may actually play a key regulatory role in cell function. Rinn’s finding have been published in Nature, Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and he has been named to Popular Science’s “Brilliant 10.” By identifying thousands of new RNA genes in the human genome, he is working toward a better understanding of their importance for human health and disease.
Leila Takayama
Research Scientist, Willow Garage
Leila Takayama studies how people perceive, understand, feel about and interact with robots. What can robots do? Better yet, what should they do, and how? Takayama has been collaborating with character animators, sound designers, and product designers to work toward making both the appearance and behaviors of robots more human-readable, approachable, and appealing. Her findings have appeared in the International Journal of Design, Neural Networks and IEEE Pervasive Computing. Through her research, Takayama is leading the way toward robots that serve their purposes more effectively and intuitively.
Tiffani Williams
Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University
Tiffani Williams explores new ways to use computation in helping to reconstruct the phylogenetic ways that all organisms are connected. A specialist in bioinformatics and high-performance computing, she is working with a multidisciplinary team to build the Open Tree of Life, showing the previously established links among species and providing tools for scientists to update and revise the tree as new data come in. She has been a Radcliffe Institute Fellow, has been funded by the National Science Foundation, and has published in Science, Evolutionary Bioinformatics and the Journal of Computational Biology. By helping identify how species are related to each other, Williams is providing a framework for new understanding in realms such as ecological health, environmental change, and human disease.
Benjamin Zaitchik
Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
Benjamin Zaitchik’s research is directed at understanding, managing, and coping with climatic and hydrologic variability. He looks for new approaches to controlling human influences on climate and water resources at local, regional and global scales, and explores improved forecast systems and methods of risk assessment. His work has received funding from NASA, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, and appeared in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and Water Resources Research, among others. Zaitchik is interested in helping provide new insights in such crucial areas as transboundary water management, climate-informed disease early warning systems, and adaptation strategies in subsistence agricultural communities.
I was struggling with this one and then remembered that my daughter has one of those kitchen science kits that someone bought her for a present once. Shes never got round to using it thankfully!
An experiment Sam was doing for school to see how the density of the number of seeds planted affected the growth of the plant.
Science World at Telus World of Science, Vancouver is a science centre run by a not-for-profit organization in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It is located at the end of False Creek, and features many permanent interactive exhibits and displays, as well as areas with varying topics throughout the years.
One of the attractions of the Hall of Science is a lamp worker who fashions hot glass tubing. The Glass Center is open Tuesday through Sunday. 9:30 A.m. to 5 p.m., Admission Free.
S-31399-3
CAPA-002740