I believe this is an April (?) 2024 newsletter and it’s definitely from Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI). Received via email, I was able to find this online copy (Note: I’m not sure how long this copy will remain online) and am excerpting a few items for inclusion here,
…
The current state of theoretical physics
Join the latest episode of Conversations at Perimeter as Neil Turok [director of the Perimeter Institute, 2008 – 2019] delves into the intriguing topic of the simplicity of nature.
Free tickets to attend the event in person will be available on Monday, April 22, at 9:00 AM EDT. Live-stream will also be available on the PI YouTube channel.
Hydrogen to Higgs Boson: Particle Physics at the Large Hadron Collider
Explore particle physics with Dr. Clara Nellist at the Perimeter Institute on May 8, as she discusses CERN’s groundbreaking research.
Date and time
Starts on Wednesday, May 8 [2024] · 6pm EDT
Location
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics 31 Caroline Street North Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5 …
Agenda
6:00 p.m.
Doors Open
Perimeter’s main floor will be open for ticket holders, with scientists available to answer science questions until the show begins.
7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Public Lecture
The public lecture will begin at 7:00pm, including a live stream for virtual attendees. This will include a full presentation as well as a Q&A session.
8:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Post-Event Discussion
Following the lecture, discussion will continue in the atrium, where you can ask questions to the presenter as well as other researchers in the crowd.
About this event
About the Speaker:
Dr Clara Nellist – Particle Physicist and Science Communicator, is currently working at CERN [European Organization for Nuclear Research] on the ATLAS experiment, with research focusing on top quarks and searching for dark matter with machine learning. Learn more about her work on her Instagram here.
About the Event:
Registration to attend the event in person will be available on Monday, April 22 at 9:00 AM EDT.
Tickets for this event are 100% free. [emphasis mine] As always, our public lectures are live-streamed in real-time on our YouTube channel – available here: https://www.youtube.com/@PIOutreach
…
The existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed (or as close to confirmed as scientists will get) in 2012 (see my July 4, 2012 posting “Tears of joy as physicists announce they’re pretty sure they found the Higgs Boson” for an account of the event. Peter Higgs and and François Englert were awarded the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics.
If you are planning to attend the lecture in person, free tickets will be made available on Monday, April 22, at 9:00 AM EDT. Go here and, remember, these tickets go quickly.
Science is one of the most highly regarded institutions in America, with nearly three-quarters of the public expressing “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of confidence in scientists. But confidence in science has nonetheless declined over the past few years, since the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, as it has for most other major social institutions.
In a new article, members of the Strategic Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] examine what has happened to public confidence in science, why it has happened, and what can be done to elevate it. The researchers write that while there is broad public agreement about the values that should underpin science, the public questions whether scientists actually live up to these values and whether they can overcome their individual biases.
The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), relies in part on new data being released in connection with this article by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. The data come from the Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey conducted February 22-28, 2023, with an empaneled, nationally representative sample of 1,638 U.S. adults who were asked about their views on scientists and science. The margin of error for the entire sample is ± 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. (See the paper for the findings.) The survey is directed by APPC director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a member of the Strategic Council and a co-author of the PNAS paper.
Decline in confidence comparable to other institutions
The researchers also examine trends in public confidence in science dating back 20 years from other sources, including the Pew Research Center and the General Social Survey of National Opinion Research at the University of Chicago. These show a recent decline consistent with the decline seen for other institutions.
“We’re of the view that trust has to be earned,” said lead author Arthur Lupia, a member of the NASEM’s Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust, and associate vice president for research at the University of Michigan. “We wanted to understand how trust in science is changing, and why, and is there anything that the scientific enterprise can do to regain trust?”
Highlights
“Confidence in science is high relative to nearly all other civic, cultural, and government institutions…,” the article states. In addition:
The public has high levels of confidence in scientists’ competence, trustworthiness, and honesty – 84% of survey respondents in February 2023 are very or somewhat confident that scientists provide the public with trustworthy information in the scientists’ area of inquiry.
Many in the public question whether scientists share their values and whether scientists can overcome their own biases. For instance, when asked whether scientists will or will not publish findings if a study’s results run counter to the interests of the organization running the study, 70% said scientists will not publish the findings.
The public has “consistent beliefs about how scientists should act and beliefs that support their confidence in science despite their concerns about scientists’ possible biases and distortive incentives.” For example, 84% of U.S. adults say it is somewhat or very important for scientists to disclose their funders and 92% say it is somewhat or very important that scientists be open to changing their minds based on new evidence.
However, when asked about scientists’ biases, just over half of U.S. adults (53%) say scientists provide the public with unbiased conclusions about their area of inquiry and just 42% say scientists generally are “able to overcome their human and political biases.”
Beyond measurements of trust in science
The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s ASK survey in February 2023 asked U.S. adults more nuanced questions about attitudes toward scientists.
“We’ve developed measures beyond trust or confidence in science in order to understand why some in the public are less supportive of science and scientists than others,” said Jamieson, who is also a professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. “Perceptions of whether scientists share one’s values, overcome their human and political biases, and correct mistakes are important as well.”
The ASK survey of U.S. adults found, for instance, that 81% regard scientists as competent, 70% as trustworthy, and 68% as honest, but only 42% say scientists “share my values.”
A more detailed analysis of the variables and effects seen in Annenberg’s surveys was published in September 2023 in PNAS in the paper “Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science.”
Confidence in science and Covid-19 vaccination status
The research published in PNAS was initiated by members of the NASEM’s Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust, which was established in 2021 to advance the integrity, ethics, resilience, and effectiveness of the research enterprise.
Lupia said the Strategic Council’s conversations about whether trust in science was declining and if so, why, began during the pandemic. “There was great science behind the Covid-19 vaccine, so why was the idea of people taking it so controversial?” he asked. “Covid deaths were so visible and yet the controversy over the vaccine was also so visible – kind of an icon of the public-health implications of declining trust in science.”
The article cites research from the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found important relationships between science-based forms of trust and the willingness to take a Covid-19 vaccine. Data from waves of another APPC survey of U.S. adults in five swing states during the 2020 campaign season – reported in a 2021 article in PNAS – showed that from July 2020 to February 2021, U.S. adults’ trust in health authorities was a significant predictor of the reported intention to get the Covid-19 vaccine. See the article “The role of non-COVID-specific and COVID-specific factors in predicting a shift in willingness to vaccinate: A panel study.”
How to raise confidence in science
Raising public confidence in science, the researchers write, “should not be premised on the assumption that society would be better off with higher levels of uncritical trust in the scientific community. Indeed, uncritical trust in science would violate the scientific norm of organized skepticism and be antithetical to science’s culture of challenge, critique, and self-correction.”
“Instead,” they propose, “researchers, scientific organizations, and the scientific community writ large need to redouble their commitment to conduct, communicate, critique, and – when error is found or misconduct detected – correct the published record in ways that both merit and earn public confidence.”
The data cited in the paper, they conclude, “suggest that the scientific community’s commitment to core values such as the culture of critique and correction, peer review, acknowledging limitations in data and methods, precise specification of key terms, and faithful accounts of evidence in every step of scientific practice and in every engagement with the public may help sustain confidence in scientific findings.”
“Trends in U.S. Public Confidence in Science and Opportunities for Progress” was published March 4, 2024, in PNAS. In addition to Jamieson and Lupia, the authors are David B. Allison, dean of the School of Public Health, Indiana University; Jennifer Heimberg, of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Magdalena Skipper, editor-in-chief of the journal Nature; and Susan M. Wolf, of the University of Minnesota Law and Medical Schools. Allison is co-chair of the National Academies’ Strategic Council; Lupia, Jamieson, Skipper, and Wolf are members of the Council, and Heimberg is the director of the Council.
I received an April 5, 2024 University of British Columbia notice (via email) about a public viewing of the upcoming solar eclipse,
UBC [University of British Columbia] department of physics and astronomy researchers will host a public solar eclipse viewing event outside the UBC Bookstore on April 8 [2024], weather permitting, or otherwise, in the UBC Robert H. Lee Alumni Centre lobby.
Members of the public can borrow eclipse-viewing glasses to safely view the eclipse. The event will also feature two solar telescopes, edible pin-hole cameras for children and a live feed of NASA’s eclipse coverage.
A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and Earth, completely blocking the face of the sun for viewers along a specific path, the path of totality.
Viewers in B.C. are not in the eclipse’s path of totality, which means it will not be safe at any point of the eclipse to look directly at the sun without special protective eyewear. People in B.C. are likely to see a crescent ‘cut out’ move across the sun, from about 10:40 a.m. PT, peaking at 11:40 a.m. and finishing about 12:20 p.m. The maximum ‘bite’ taken out of the sun will be 28 per cent of the solar disk.
…
Date/Time: Monday, Apr. 8 from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.PT
Location: UBC Bookstore exterior, 6200 University Blvd., Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 (map) or if weather is inclement, Robert H. Lee Alumni Centre lobby, 6163 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1 (map)
Parking: University Boulevard Lot, 6131 University Blvd., Vancouver, BC V6T 2A1 (map)
An April 5, 2024 posting by Rebecca Bollwitt on the Miss604 blog mentions both the UBC public viewing and one at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre, along with these viewing safety guidelines and other tips,
…
Safety is the number one priority when viewing a solar eclipse and NASA [US National Aeronautics and Space Administration] has issues these safety guidelines – eye protection being a top priority. Viewing any part of the bright Sun through a camera lens, binoculars, or a telescope without a special-purpose solar filter secured over the front of the optics will instantly cause severe eye injury.
* View the Sun through eclipse glasses or a handheld solar viewer during the partial eclipse phases before and after totality.
* You can view the eclipse directly without proper eye protection only when the Moon completely obscures the Sun’s bright face – during the brief and spectacular period known as totality. *NOTE we will not observe totality in Vancouver so do not do this!
* As soon as you see even a little bit of the bright Sun reappear after totality, immediately put your eclipse glasses back on or use a handheld solar viewer to look at the Sun.
This morning (March 26, 2024) a notice from the Science Media Centre of Canada (SMCC) arrived (via email) with two bits of news I’m including here.
A freshly launched online science magazine, Sequencer,
From the Science Media Centre of Canada’s March 26, 2024 notice,
Science journalists launch new online science magazine
Sequencer is a writer-owned, subscriber-based platform to explore the world’s weird, exciting, rage-inducing, or even hilarious phenomena.
There was more about this new science magazine in a March 21, 2024 posting by Neel Dhanesh for the Nieman Lab blog, (Note 1: The Nieman Lab appears to be an initiative of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University; Note 2: Links have been removed),
Last year, freelance journalist and National Geographic alum Michael Greshko predicted that a worker-owned science publication would be born in 2024. On Thursday, his prediction came true with the launch of Sequencer.
Sequencer is looking to fill a gap that’s been created by the withering of science desks at newsrooms across the country. The four founders — Max G. Levy, Dan Samorodnitsky, Shi En Kim, and Maddie Bender, all of whom are alums of Massive Science, which stopped publishing in 2021 — write that “traditional science media is broken” in a letter introducing the site:
…
Like its worker-owned brethren (see: Defector, 404 Media, Hell Gate, Aftermath, and more), Sequencer plans to be reader-supported, with subscriptions starting at $7 per month. I, like many others in the world of science journalism, am incredibly excited. …
There’s more about the cat called Masha, formerly known as Velveteen, and the author in a March 21, 2024 blog posting on Sequencer.
As for Sequencer and its founders, there’s the About Us webpage,
Sequencer is a place to decode our world with stories about science. It’s a venue for readers who care about pressing scientific questions and appreciate the weird, exciting, rage-inducing, spine-tingling, mind-bending, or even hilarious phenomena around us. It’s a platform for perennially curious journalists who don’t take themselves too seriously. It’s an invitation to discover alongside us.
We – Dan, Kim, Maddie, and Max [more about the founders later in this posting] – are not just the writers and editors, we’re also the founders and owners. We’re established science journalists and alumni of The Daily Beast, Scientific American, WIRED, Quanta, Smithsonian, C&EN, and more. We’re also all former scientists. Sequencer is our experiment.
Like any good experiment, Sequencer exists atop a heavily researched, rigorously tested, science-backed hypothesis: Traditional science media is broken, so it’s time for something new.
I found this bit particularly interesting,
This is typically how the sausage gets made in our industry: A scientist, usually someone who works at one of a handful of American or European universities, publishes their new work in a prestigious journal. Their well-funded institution’s PR team crafts a press release, puts the work under embargo, and emails it to journalists on their press list.
When it works, this model earns many important labs their 15 minutes of fame; millions of people learn about a breakthrough. But when it’s the governing model of science journalism, it constrains any content to bounds that are sterile and homogenous. There’s little room for analysis and perspective about the work that goes into doing science, let alone criticism or any reckoning with the future. At a time where climate change is laying waste to the planet and a historic pandemic trudges on and on, science journalism is too-often blank-faced and credulous.
That’s all assuming the model works. More and more, we’re realizing that it doesn’t. Bedrock science publications are dying. Or rather, they’re being actively killed by layoffs, predatory venture capital firms, and mega-conglomerates that keep inexplicably pivoting to video. It would be funny if it weren’t so bleak. [emphases mine]
…
My March 8, 2024 posting, “Science journalism … ch-ch-ch-ch-changes” provides more context for the phrases I’ve highlighted in the excerpt in the above,
Sequencer is subscriber-supported,
Sequencer is subscriber-supported. That means we are cutting out the middleman and going directly to the reader. We depend on your money to power us, and your feedback to shape our coverage. Do you like our stories? Are we missing something? What do normal people want to see in a science publication? Tell us! Email us at hello@sequencermag.com
We’re choosing $7/month because if you live in a major American city, $7 is the price of a latte. We deserve a latte, don’t you think?
Meet the founders,
Maddie Bender
Maddie is a science, health, and technology journalist. She has worked in print, digital, audio, and video media. Some reporting highlights include covering spotted lanternfly fetish content, brain-breaking pseudoscience, and metaverse fitness. She lives in Honolulu, HI, and deeply misses her cat (not dead, just in New York.)
…
Dan Samorodnitsky
Dan is a science journalist based in Minneapolis, MN. He’ll write about anything but specializes in biology, genetics, health, and the history of science. He has also written about Dairy Queens, church fish fries, and local politics. He has a cat, Masha, who will definitely appear in newsletters and posts.
…
Shi En Kim
Kim is a Malaysian-born, DC-based journalist whose writing spans the scientific gamut (please don’t make her pick a favorite beat). Outside of science writing, she dabbles in art, plans for backpacking trips faster she can go on them, and plots the next move against her imposter syndrome in a never-ending tussle.
…
Max G. Levy
Max is a science journalist whose favorite work tells the human stories behind discoveries in public health, climate change and tech. Max’s work appears in news outlets, magazines, and science videos on YouTube. He’s got sand in his hair as he writes this from his home in Los Angeles. If he goes a couple weeks without mentioning his late pet rats (R.I.P. Fiona, Syd, and Mouse) please call for help.
…
Storytelling grants and the National Geographic
This is the second item of interest from the SMCC March 26, 2024 notice,
National Geographic Storytelling Grants Submission deadline has been extended. New submission deadline: April 11, 2024 | 23:59 ET The grants fund individuals working on projects in science, conservation, storytelling, education, and technology that align with one or more of our focus areas …
I found the page where the grants are described to be confusing. First, storytelling grants are part of the National Geographic’s ‘Grants and Investments program known as ‘National Geographic Explorers’ and there are two levels of grant opportunities with ‘storytellers’ being at Level II.
If you scroll down the National Geographic Grants and Investments webpage about 80% of the way, you’ll find Additional Resources, which includes the Level II Grants Program Storytelling Application Template. Good luck!
Extra
In the next day or so (probably by March 28, 2024), you may be seeing some articles about moon-bound Canadian astronaut, Jeremy Hansen, He’s giving a virtual presentation at the University of British Columbia (UBC). From a March 26, 2024 UBC media advisory (received via email),
Hansen is one of four crew members for the Artemis II mission, which will send astronauts around the Moon on the first crewed flight of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, no earlier than September 2025. He has lived in a cave underground and on the ocean floor in space mission simulations, and will be the first Canadian to participate in a lunar mission.
I don’t believe this event is open to the public, which is why I haven’t included details but you can be on the lookout for articles particularly in local (Vancouver, Canada) publications over the next few days.
“Geist’s handmade robots made movements as simple as a ping-pong table flapping or coiling up to shoot, but the contact microphones and sound processing documented a percussive, electro, mini symphony.” – Austin Chronicle
There’s mystery in Geist’s music. It’s heady, ASMR-infused dance music — there’s something special happening here, but it’s not immediately clear what.” –– Engadget
“For Geist, the instruments represent not just a new way to make music, but a new way to experience it. The instruments each have a visual component, which makes it possible to watch the sounds as Geist creates them.” – Wired
The performance is fascinating and bewildering, but the music itself provokes one to want to dance in a dimly lit nightclub.” – MixMag
“It doesn’t get geekier than this” – New York Times.
“These robots play electrifying techno music.”– CNET
German sonic artist Moritz Simon Geist will showcase his latest work “Don’t Look At Me” at the Central Presbyterian Church March 15th. With his new robotic instrument Geist is presenting a contemplative ambient performance around the themes attention economy, spatial sound and sine waves. “Don’t Look at Me” was developed as an interactive installation in 2023 in South Korea and uses resonator tubes, light, and vibrato elements to create a fascinating ever-changing soundscape. For the SXSW event, Geist is showcasing his latest compositions with this instrument.
Moritz is returning to SXSW 2024 with a handful of performances and robotic interventions. His works and performances revolve around the questions: How do machines, algorithms and humans interact? How can we find a playful way to interact with non-human music players? And can robots play techno?
Moritz and his team have been developing sound machines and kinetic installations for more than 10 years already, and his works and performances have been shown at festivals and stages around the world. For this SXSW, Moritz is bringing both performances for several techno shows as well as a contemplative ambient show at the Central Presbyterian Church on March 15th [2024]. Here he will present compositions for his latest work “Don’t Look At Me”.
Geist is well known for his performances and self-developed instruments using robots and mechanics as the main sound source. His works have been shown internationally and have been awarded numerous awards in the last years.
Of his return to SXSW, Moritz says, “SXSW 2024 is only the second time I’m playing ‘Don’t Look at Me’ with my new robotic instrument! Playing with a new instrument this complex is always like this first walk outside with a toddler: You never know where you end up: manic laughter at the playground or existential crying in the supermarket.” Regarding his ongoing fascination with machines as instruments, Moritz muses, “When I was younger, I played in a punk rock band, but at some point, I got really annoyed by my fellow musicians, so I swore to myself that I would never play with human musicians again. Jokes aside, I think robotics is a wonderful tool to give a body back to the normally electronically generated sound of techno. The main reason why I’m using robotics as a musical instrument is that the computer is, in my opinion, not the best tool for creating electronic sounds.”
Should you be considering a ticket purchase for the April 15 – 19, 2024 TED event in Vancouver, the cheap ($6250 [USD?]) seats are sold out. Tickets at the next level up are $12,500 and after that, they are $25,000. Should you have more money to burn, you are of course free to become a patron.
A look at the 2024 list of speakers will tell you it is an eclectic list with a significant proportion of speakers focused on the topic of artificial intelligence/robotics.
The three speakers being highlighted here are not focused on artificial intelligence/robotics and have nothing in common with each other (topic wise).
First up, Bill Ackman, a very, very wealthy man, has a messy backstory. Here’s the short description followed by the long one,
Bill Ackman
Founder and CEO, Pershing Square Capital Management
TALK TOPIC
The activist investor playbook (in conversation with Alison Taylor)
Bill Ackman is founder and CEO of the hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management and a storied activist investor. He is the chairman of Howard Hughes Holdings, a real estate development and management company based in Texas, and a member of the board of Universal Music Group. He is also the co-trustee of The Pershing Square Foundation, a family foundation supporting those tackling important social issues worldwide. At TED2024, Ackman will be interviewed by business professor Alison Taylor.
Mr. Ackman is not entirely self-made, from his Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,
…
Ackman was raised in Chappaqua, New York, the son of Ronnie I. (née Posner) and Lawrence David Ackman, the former chairman of a New York real estate financing firm, Ackman-Ziff Real Estate Group. [emphases mine] [10][11][12] He is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent.[13][14][15] In 1988, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude in social studies from Harvard College. His thesis was titled Scaling the Ivy Wall: The Jewish and Asian American Experience in Harvard Admissions.[16] In 1992, he received a Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard Business School.[17]
As for the messiness, there’s this from from his Wikipedia entry, Note 1: Links have been removed, Note 2: All emphases are mine,
…
In October 2023, following the onset of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war after the October 7 attack, several Harvard undergraduate student groups signed a letter condemning the Israeli state. The statement held the “Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” declared that millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been “forced to live in an open-air prison,” and called on Harvard to “take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.”
In response, Ackman called for the publication of the names of all students involved in signing the letter so that he could ensure his company and others do not “inadvertently hire” any of the signatories. Ackman posted, “One should not be able to hide behind a corporate shield when issuing statements supporting the actions of terrorists,” and the names “should be made public so their views are publicly known”.[83] Ackman’s stance was supported by other CEOs such as Jonathan Neman, David Duel and Jake Wurzak.[84] Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, though agreeing with Ackman on the need to look at employees’ political views, called Ackman’s request for a list of names “the stuff of Joe McCarthy”.[85]
In November 2023, Ackman defended Elon Musk after the latter expressed agreement with a user who asserted that “Jewish communities” supported “hordes of minorities flooding their country” and pushed “dialectical hatred against whites”, describing it as “shoot from the hip commentary”.[86][87]
Ackman also engaged in a campaign to remove Claudine Gay from her position as Harvard’s president. He argued that her response to antisemitism was insufficient and amplified allegations by conservative media that she engaged in plagiarism.[88][89]
On January 3, 2024, Business Insider published an article alleging that Ackman’s wife, Neri Oxman*, plagiarized portions of her dissertation. A day after the article’s publication, Oxman apologized for plagiarizing portions of her dissertation.[90][91]Ackman, in response to the article, pledged to conduct a plagiarism review of all MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] faculty, including MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, who, alongside Gay, attended a congressional hearing on antisemitism in higher education.[90]
…
In 2018, Ackman became engaged to Neri Oxman.[94] In January 2019, Oxman and Ackman married at the Central Synagogue in Manhattan,[13] and they had their first child together in spring 2019.[95] In August 2019, Ackman wrote to MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito to discourage him from mentioning Oxman when discussing convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who had donated $125,000 to Oxman’s lab.[96]
…
*There are more complications where Neri Oxman is concerned. She is an Israeli-American who came to the US in 2005 where she commenced PhD studies at MIT. After graduation she became a professor at MIT, a position she has left to found Oxman Architects in 2020. Despite the company name, the business seems more focused on art installations and experimental work. (sourced from Oxman’s Wikipedia entry)*
I wonder how Mr. Ackman characterizes the difference between activism and actions, which result in the destruction of other people’s careers because you disagree with them.
Ackman’s interviewer, Alison Taylor is an interesting choice given that she is a business professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and author of a February 6, 2024 article (Corporate Advocacy in a Time of Social Outrage; Businesses can’t weigh in on every issue that employees care about. But they can create a culture of open dialogue and ethical transparency [emphasis mine]) for the Harvard Business Review, The article is excerpted from Taylor’s book, “Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World,” published by Harvard Business Review Press, Feb. 13 2024.
This talk looks like an attempt to rehabilitate Mr. Ackman’s reputation while giving Ms. Taylor publicity for her newly published book in an environment where neither is likely to be strongly challenged.
The two speakers I’m most excited about are Tammy Ma, fusion physicist, and Brian Stokes Mitchell, actor and singer.
As there is a local company known as General Fusion, the topic of fusion energy has been covered here a number of times including a relevant to Ms. Ma’s TED appearance December 13, 2022 posting, “US announces fusion energy breakthrough.”
Tammy Ma is the lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where she creates miniature stars in order to develop ways to harness their power as a clean, limitless energy source for the future. She was a member of the team at the National Ignition Facility that achieved fusion ignition in December 2022 — a reaction that, for the first time in history, released more energy than it consumed. [emphasis mine] A fellow of the American Physical Society, she serves on the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, advising the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science on issues related to fusion energy and plasma research.
Brian Stokes Mitchell is a Tony-winning actor, singer and music producer. A veteran of 11 Broadway shows and a member of the Theatre Hall of Fame, he has performed iconic roles including Frasier’s snarky upstairs neighbor Cam, Hillary’s bungie-jumping boyfriend on the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, The Prince of Egypt (singing “Through Heaven’s Eyes”) and, most recently, Stanley Townsend in the 2024 feature film Shirley with Regina King. He has performed twice at the White House, serves on the board of Americans for the Arts and is one of the founding members of Black Theatre United.
Stokes Mitchell performed at the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song ceremony in 2017 when Tony Bennett was the honoree. The performances were top notch but something happened when Stokes Mitchell took the stage for his first number. The audience was electrified as was every performer who came after him, some of them giving their second performance of the evening. There is no guarantee that Mr. Stoke Mitchell can do that at his 2024 TED talk but that is the blessing and the curse of live performances.
I received a March 1, 2024 announcement (email) from Sense about Science about a new lecture series starting in late March 2024,
Critical thinking, open inquiry and the freedom to question have been fundamental to the development of the scientific method and the expansion of knowledge. To explore these ideas further, we’re pleased to invite you to a series of lectures and discussions we are running in partnership with the Free Speech Union.
In Science, Scepticism and Free Speech, Professor Alan Sokal and Professor Paul Garner will make the case for why we should care about science but also question it, concluding with our director Tracey Brown and Toby Young discussing the relationship between science, the public and democratic decision-making.
Events will take place at 7.30pm on 27 March, 27 April and 29 May [2024] at the Art Workers’ Guild in central London. Tickets include a glass of wine, and each event will include plenty of time for audience questions.
f you can’t attend in person, we will send you a Zoom link to join online, free of charge, shortly before each event. Please put the dates in your diary now.
We are holding a series of three lectures and discussions in partnership with The Free Speech Union, a public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely.
Critical thinking, open inquiry and the freedom to question have been fundamental to the development of the scientific method and the expansion of knowledge. The ideal of objectivity and the goal of truth require the discipline to abstract itself from individuals, from interests and from sentiment, all of which may explain why science is always subject to pressures on its integrity.
SCIENCE, SCEPTICISM and FREE SPEECH is a unique series of three events – two lectures from eminent scientists and a final session bringing together public figures concerned with the relationship between science, the public and democratic decision-making. Each session will include plenty of time for audience Q and A.
You are welcome to attend the entire series or individual events. It will also be possible to join online for free – sign up to our mailing list and we’ll send you a link shortly before each event. Join our mailing list to watch online
In-person tickets for each event are £10 for FSU Members, £16 for members of the public, £12 for under-25s. Tickets include a glass of wine on arrival.
The individual events:
What is Science and Why Should We Care?
Wednesday 27 March, 2024, 7.30pm, The Hall, Art Workers’ Guild, 6 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AT.
With Professor Alan Sokal,Professor of Mathematics, University College London and Professor Emeritus of Physics, New York University.
Professor Sokal will draw out the unique contribution of the scientific method to human progress and address contemporary trends which threaten to undermine it, in particular, politicisation and censorship.
Wednesday 24 April, 2024, 7.30pm, The Hall, Art Workers’ Guild, 6 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AT.
With Professor Paul Garner, professor emeritus in Evidence Synthesis in Global Health at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.
Professor Garner will argue that scepticism is integral to good science and make the case for using the tools of science to hold authority to account. Building on the themes of Professor Sokal’s first lecture, Professor Garner will share noteworthy examples where an insistence on robust evidence and research has led not only to scientific breakthroughs but to the exposure of malpractice.
About our speaker
Professor Garner stepped back from full-time employment in 2022 but continues as emeritus. He supports academic staff carrying out systematic reviews on infectious diseases, developing further research on post-viral syndrome, and continued collaborative work in developing guideline methods. He was previously Coordinator of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, and Director of the Research, Evidence and Development Initiative. Professor Garner is also on the Board of Trustees of Sense about Science.
Science Under Pressure: Restoring Public Confidence
Wednesday 29th May, 2024, 7.30pm, The Hall, Art Workers’ Guild, 6 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AT.
In this concluding conversation, our two speakers, Tracey Brown, Director of Sense about Science, and Toby Young, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union and Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Sceptic, will reflect on the issues raised in the earlier lectures and debate how the relationship between science and the public might be improved. When does healthy scepticism become a refusal to accept well-evidenced truth? How can we uphold science without succumbing to ‘scientism’? How can the public distinguish between relevant expertise and those who merely have strong opinions and loud voices?
About our speakers
Tracey Brown OBE is the director of Sense about Science, where she has turned the case for sound science and evidence into popular campaigns, including AllTrials, a global campaign for the reporting of all clinical trial outcomes. Tracey leads Sense about Science’s work on transparency of decisions, to ensure the public has access to the same evidence as decision-makers. This has included drafting the Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, and the Transparency of Evidence framework, now internationally emulated. In 2022 she led the What Counts? inquiry, and a national survey of the public’s experience of policy information during the pandemic, calling for all policy announcements to meet an evidence transparency standard. Tracey is honorary Professor, Science, Technology and Engineering in Public Policy at UCL.
Toby Young is the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, a non-partisan, mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members. He co-founded four schools and a multi-academy trust in West London, served as a Fulbright Commissioner and is the author of four books, the best known of which is How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (2001). He is an associate editor of the Spectator, where he’s written a weekly column since 1998, and Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Sceptic. He was formerly an Associate Editor of Quillette and is the author or co-author of three peer reviewed academic articles.
As promised, here’s more about the hoax that Professor Alan Sokal perpetrated, from the Sokal affair Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,
The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal’s intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether “a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”[2]
The article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”,[3] was published in the journal’s spring/summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. The journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[3][4] Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.[2]
The hoax caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; and academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors or readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had abided by proper scientific ethics.
In 2008, Sokal published Beyond the Hoax, which revisited the history of the hoax and discussed its lasting implications.
Not much has changed (!) since Christmas when this December 19, 2023 article by Rae Hodge for Salon about changes where science journalism is concerned was published, Note; Links have been removed,
Advance Publications is owned by a couple of billionaire families. Condé Nast is owned by Advance Publications. Wired magazine is owned by Condé Nast. And this week — as the world reaches the hottest temperatures on record, as another deadly COVID-19 variant steals into the public’s lungs, as owners of unregulated artificial intelligence threaten to unleash mass unemployment with their article-generating internet toys and the whole world needs increasingly complex topics explained — the science desk at Wired got gutted.
It’s not just Wired, of course. Recurrent Ventures axed 151-year-old Popular Science magazine this year, and presumably the last 13 staffers to steward its cultural legacy, leaving only five editorial staffers to crew the online-only ship. There are no full-time staff writers left at National Geographic after this year, and The Washington Post took a tough hit too. Climate desks at CNBC and Gizmodo got cut down. As did the climate team remaining at CNN, the select beat preserved in 2008 after the outlet axed the general science desk.
Only a couple of years after buying it, billionaire-owned Red Ventures pummeled CNET with layoffs before making it one of the first major outlets to get caught pushing AI-generated articles. Short-sighted layoffs also hit the science desks at Inverse and FiveThirtyEight. Buzzfeed News, with its powerhouse science desk, was brought down. Fortress Investment Group laid off “under 100” Vice News staffers. And 74 journalists at the L.A. Times got the ax. Great Hill Partners owns G/O Media which burned Jezebel and its editorial staffers right when women’s health is facing greater attack in this country than it has since Roe v. Wade.
“We stand in solidarity with you. You are valued. Your work matters,” wrote Cassandra Willyard, president of the National Association of Science Writers, in a May release. “Only five months in, 2023 has proven to be a year of layoffs and shrinking budgets, threatening science journalists and editors whose expertise is crucially important.”
Private equity catastrophes, faceless hedges and trusts, unchecked conglomerates and the ongoing shell game of parent companies — the wealthy gutted US science journalism in 2023 through a number of opaque and convoluted financial vehicles. And there’s no evidence to suggest that trend will stop. Rather, ad-reliant revenue models of wealthy digital proprietors are now failing so hard that their slash-and-burn newsroom tactics are likely to get more aggressive as short-selling the news ramps up to a fire-sale finale. One recent report holds that news outlets saw 2,681 job cuts this year. That’s more than the totals in 2021 or 2022.
…
While it isn’t science-specific, the Canadian government has acted to funnel more money to traditional news organizations from digital platforms. The Canadian government passed the highly criticized Bill C-18, “Bill C-18: An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada,” also known as, the “Online News Act” in June 2023.
I have two explanations of the act, (a) the Canadian federal government’s Explanatory Note (updated November 27, 2023) and (b) CTV news online’s Rachel Aiello and Alexandra Mae Jones wrote this July 20, 2023 article, “Understanding Bill C-18: Canada’s Online News Act and its proposed rules, explained” (updated [coincidentally] December 19, 2023).
Hopefully, some of this money will find its way to science writing/journalism and the legislation will provide a way forward for legislation in other countries.
I can’t resist the dance. First, the submission for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Dance Your Ph.D. competition on Youtube and then, the video,
Science and Artistic Rationale:
In our 2024 AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science]/Science Magazine Dance Your Ph.D. Contest submission, we explore kangaroo behavior through dance and promote diversity. The performance, titled “Kangaroo Time”, is based on my [Weliton Menário Costa] Ph.D. field research at Wilsons Promontory National Park, Australia, conducted at the Australian National University in collaboration with the University of Sherbrooke, Canada. My thesis, “Personality, Social Environment, and Maternal-Level Effects: Insights from a Wild Kangaroo Population”, is accessible here: https://openresearch-repository.anu.e…. I am honored to have worked under the expert supervision of Prof Loeske Kruuk and Prof Marco Festa-Bianchet. We delve into animal personality, defined as consistent behavior that distinguishes individuals, and social plasticity, the extent to which behavior changes in response to the social environment. We explain how both personality traits and social environment influence kangaroo behavior, including responses to stimuli like a remote-controlled car, and we demonstrate the role of personality on social dynamics. The diversity of the dancers, ranging from classical to urban styles, reflects the variations in kangaroo personality, e.g. bolder to shier. These dancers, unchoreographed, improvise their movements, responding to cues and interacting with each other. The dance thus serves as a visual narrative, capturing how kangaroos react based not only on their instincts but also on their social context. This approach demonstrates that kangaroo decisions are a complex interplay of intrinsic tendencies (personality) and social awareness leading to adjustment (plasticity). I hope this performance makes the scientific concepts both accessible and engaging for the audience. I completed my Ph.D. at the Australian National University, Canberra, in 2021, and worked as a Research Officer. Now, I’m pursuing music, having released my debut EP “Yours Academically, Dr. WELI” and the single “Kangaroo Time (Club Edit),” featured in the video. This project represents a fusion of my scientific work and my foray into performance and creative arts, combining animal behavior with artistic expression.
Dr Weliton Menário Costa, a PhD graduate from The Australian National University (ANU), has been announced the overall winner of the 2024 global Dance Your PhD contest after wowing judges with his wickedly creative and quirky dance submission, ‘Kangaroo Time (Club Edit)’.
One of the world’s leading researchers in kangaroo behaviour, he is the first person from ANU to win the Dance Your PhD competition, and just the fourth person from an Australian institution to do so since its inception in 2008. Better known as ‘WELI’, the singer-songwriter, creator and biologist weaves together a funky beat, original songwriting, drag queens and Brazilian funk dancers to create something that’s both entertaining and educational; the final product is something that looks like it’s been plucked straight out of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.
WELI stars in and directs the music video, which draws on his Brazilian roots to illustrate the distinct and varying personality traits of kangaroos using the powerful mediums of song and dance. The original and club mixes have been played more than 7,000 times on Spotify, and the song has already featured in clubs, festivals, dance classes and radio stations.
“Winning this contest is the equivalent of winning Eurovision for me. I think it not only shows the incredible might of the research conducted here in Australia, but also how creative we are as a nation. Even us scientists!” he said.
Reflecting on the success of ‘Kangaroo Time’ and the global mark it’s made on the scientific community and further afield, WELI notes that at the core of his video is a message of inclusivity and diversity – something he hopes will be one of the main takeaways that viewers hold onto.
“As a queer immigrant from a linguistically diverse developing country, I understand the challenges of feeling disconnected in certain environments,” he said.
“One of the main messages I wanted to convey through this piece of work is that differences lead to diversity, and this is evident throughout the entire video. It’s evident with the different dancers that herald from various cultures and backgrounds.
“I think it’s extremely important that we celebrate diversity and creating a video explaining kangaroo personality was an excellent medium for me to do this.”
In 2017, WELI relocated from his home country of Brazil to Canberra to undertake a PhD in animal behaviour at the ANU Research School of Biology, which he finished in 2021.
Armed with a remote-controlled car, the ANU graduate spent more than three years studying the spectrum of behavioural differences of a group of more than 300 wild eastern grey kangaroos in Victoria.
“We found that kangaroos like to socialise in groups but prefer smaller social circles. Like humans, kangaroo personalities manifest early in life. Mothers and their offspring have similar personalities, and so do siblings,” he said.
“Kangaroos are very socially aware and will adjust their behaviour based off cues from other roos.
“The diversity of the dancers, from classical ballet to twerking, and the urban street dancers to the Brazilian dancing styles, reflect the variations in kangaroo personality across the full spectrum, from bolder types to shier roos.”
On the surface, ‘Kangaroo Time’ is an effective display of science communication that expertly utilises the creative arts medium. It’s engaging, quirky and niche. But WELI admits the decision to incorporate the words kangaroo time into the video’s title acts as a double entendre of sorts.
“The use of kangaroo time is not just to explain my research studying kangaroo personality – it’s also about my time living and studying in Australia as a whole,” he said.
“It’s been a time of exploration for me, a time where I’ve been able to reconnect with and grow my passion for music, dance and the creative arts.
“Working on this project was the spark I needed to encourage me to take that next step with my music. It’s made me realise I want to focus on my music for the next little while and put my scientific career on the backburner.
“Speaking of which, I’m about to release a new EP called ‘Yours Academically, Dr WELI’!”
WELI will continue working at ANU as a Visiting Fellow until early 2025.
The Dance Your PhD contest challenges researchers from across the globe to explain their PhD in a simple, effective and engaging way – bridging the gap between the scientific community and the general public.
There’s more about WELI in George Booth’s February 27, 2024 article (‘It’s like winning Eurovision’: an ANU graduate’s journey from kangaroo whisperer to global dance sensation) for ANU Reporter.
It was nice to stumble across a ‘Dance your PhD contest’ story. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen often. I have two previous postings (from 2011and 2018) about the contest. Strangely, both are Canadian-centric,
The Broad Institute of MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and Harvard is now accepting applications for its 2024 Media Boot Camp.
This annual program connects health/science journalists and editors with faculty from the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Harvard’s teaching hospitals for a two-day event exploring the latest advances in genomics and biomedicine. Journalists will explore possible future storylines, gain fundamental background knowledge, and build relationships with researchers. The program format includes presentations, discussions, and lab tours.
The 2024 Media Boot Camp will take place in person at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, MA on Thursday, May 16 and Friday, May 17 (with an evening welcome reception on Wednesday, May 15).
APPLICATION DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, MARCH 22 (5:00 PM US EASTERN TIME).
2024 Boot Camp topics include:
Gene editing
New approaches for therapeutic delivery
Cancer biology, drug development
Data sciences, machine learning
Neurobiology (stem cell models of psychiatric disorders)
This Media Boot Camp is an educational offering. All presentations are on-background.
Hotel accommodations and meals during the program will be provided by the Broad Institute. Attendees must cover travel costs to and from Boston.
Application Process
By Friday, March 22 [2024] (5:00 PM US Eastern time [2 pm PT]), please send at least one paragraph describing your interest in the program and how you hope it will benefit your reporting, as well as three recent news clips, to David Cameron, Director of External Communications, dcameron@broadinstitute.org
This lecture won’t take place until February 28, 2024 and these tickets are for the in person event, that said, here’s more from the February 9, 2024 notice (received via email),
Why We have not discovered Dark Matter: A Theorist’s apology WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28 [2024] at 7:00 pm ET FLIP TANEDO
Astronomical evidence suggests the galaxy is filled with dark matter, which we know little about and expect to be distinct from ordinary matter. Despite 30 years of research, we haven’t found a connection between dark matter and fundamental physics. Dark matter is incredibly elusive despite heroic experimental efforts.
On February 28 [2024], University of California Riverside faculty member Flip Tanedo will discuss how we got things so wrong, why we can be optimistic about the future, and what it means to “do physics” on something where the only thing we really know is that it probably exists.
Don’t miss out! Free tickets to attend this event in person will become available on Monday, February 12 [2024], at 9 am ET.
Speaker: Flip Tanedo, University of California Riverside
Biography: Flip Tanedo spends his time thinking about dark matter. He grew up in Los Angeles and fell in love with physics after reading The Physics of Star Trek. This carried into degrees in mathematics and physics at Stanford, Cambridge, Durham, and a Ph.D at Cornell. After a postdoc at UC Irvine, he is currently faculty at UC Riverside where he is often covered in a layer of chalk dust.
Reminder for those of us on the West Coast, subtract three hours from the time listed, i.e., 9 am at the Perimeter Institute is 6 am PT.
