Reading assignments, vol. 6

First week of 2013 has rolled in. Some news from the week:

Public health

• Lead has received its due this week. In light of a MotherJones article by Kevin Drum correlating lead exposure with violent crime, Chemjobber has posted his questions and comments on the matter. Meanwhile, Deborah Blum writes an engaging account of the interplay between industry, science, and public health workers over the century in regards to lead exposure and toxicity. Of course, crazy-blog Age of Autism has found a way to turn this into chemophobic shrill regarding vaccines (it's like how everything turns into a Hitler argument on the Internet). 
• Maybe not exactly public health, but close: A lot of people suffer from celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder resulting in intolerance to gluten. It's an inherited disorder and has significant consequences for dietary choices. I thought this report in C&EN was interesting; researchers have engineered bacteria to display peptides randomly, then selected for peptides which bound hitherto-unknown antibodies in celiac patients. Read about it in the original article!
• This article at ScientificAmerican highlights an interesting find related to drug resistance.

Social media and science

• In what I call "Blog Syn" (after "Org Syn", aka Organic Syntheses, the journal that ensures procedures are reproducible before publication), the blogging/Twitter community has engaged in a sort of post-publication peer review of a recent JACS article. The original paper, which describes the deceptively simple use of Fe-S clusters in the synthesis of heterocycles, is currently an ASAP in JACS. See Arr Oh drew attention to the paper; subsequently, another chemist tried the procedure, giving only traces of the desired product. After a JACS editor noticed, See Arr Oh contacted the authors, and as of the time of this writing, no response was given. All this before the article was assigned a page number! This is closely reminiscent of the NaH oxidation post-publication headscratching a few years ago. It'll be interesting to watch; this kind of stuff has important implications for modern publication and peer review.
• Razib Khan, of Discover's Gene Expression, opines that the blogroll is dead and/or useless, having been functionally supplanted by readily available RSS readers. Meanwhile, at Collide-a-Scape, Keith Kloor highlights a revealing finding, published in Science, that readers of science writing are increasingly influenced as much by article comment sections as by article content. Concerning, given the number of crazies who like to troll the science. Note that the intro to the Science paper reads like it was written in 1994. 
• Not exactly science, but still interesting: Scott Huler notes the increasing use of Twitter and other social media outlets in disaster relief efforts and emergency scenarios.
• In a New York Times piece, Mary Ann Giordano notes that scientific topics have recently been popular on scientific media. This is probably due in part to excellent outreach efforts by NASA and other groups. Good news for scientists, and encouraging: outreach is worth it.

Public perception of science

• Genetically-modified crops are controversial in the public eye. William Connolley responds to what he sees as some besides-the-point or obvious questions posed last week by anti-GMO activists. The GMO dialogue never really seems to change (much like the autisim/vaccine dialogue). Meanwhile, Keith Kloor weighs in on the public misinformation about GMOs.
• Keith Kloor writes of a surprising similarity between the Republican Party and environmentalists: a lack of diversity. This obviously hurts public perception of the environmental movement, which is often seen as a mouthpiece of the well-off who don't understand the needs of the impoverished people who depend on natural resources (i.e. Appalachia, much of Africa, etc.).
• Both Keith Kloor and Derek Lowe discuss the recent turnabout of prominent environmentalist Mark Lynas, who for a long time fought GM technologies in agriculture but now is in favor of them.
• This excellent Q&A between Keith Kloor (a lot of him this week) and Daniel Sarewitz touches on a key issue in the science/politics/culture intersection. Sarewitz urges that while scientists should participate in political processes, transparency on clearly political issues is vital. 
• A Guardian column by Dean Burnett discusses the negative reaction by many to a childrens' TV show that portrayed vaccines as the safe and necessary public health measures they are. It's a really entertaining (and frustrating!) read.
• See this guide (as described by Justin Gillis) to the current state of climate change science. Useful for scientists to have; inevitably you'll have the climate change talk with a non-scientist friend.

Academia

• A recent commentary on Forbes describing being a professor as the least stressful job has drawn criticism. The article is pretty myopic, honestly. But it's refreshing that the author, upon receiving numerous contrarian comments, posted an addendum. However, there's still been a sustained social media response, including this detailed "real look" as well as this excellent analysis. Additionally, a list adapted by HuffingtonPost from CareerCast describes what they say are the least stressful jobs. This illustrates a cultural stereotype of professors that probably stems from the humanities.
• Interestingly, Bengu Sezen (who will be described in research ethics courses for decades as a shining example of what not to do) has secured a university position. What.
• Over at ScientificAmerican, Hada Shema discusses the numerous problems with using citation analysis and related metrics in evaluating influence of researchers. Of course, this doesn't stop meaningless lists such as this from being published. Citation analysis will probably remain quite popular, because it's easy.
• This still counts as academia (just not university): last week I mentioned Indiana Senator Dennis Kruse's push to allow creationism in Indiana schools. Now he's pushing to make recitation of the Lord's Prayer a part of the school day.

Other

• Everyone stay tuned; this week Chemjobber and I will be having a dialogue exploring whether or not graduate school in chemistry is bad for your mental health. It starts tomorrow (Monday) over at Chemjobber. 
• Derek Lowe discusses a recent paper on the nature of high-throughput screening collections. Not surprisingly, HTS collections are often narrow and biased; is this just because of synthetic tractability or is it also peacocking by the suppliers? Not surprising; HTS can be controversial, as some people think it hasn't nearly lived up to its promise, but others say it's vital. 
• This is cool for the art-inclined: some surrealist illustrations from 1970s textbooks by artist Karl Nicholason. Biochemistry figures still look like that.
• See Arr Oh points out some delightful chemophobia you can buy at Target
• Photographer and scientist Alex Wild points out why photographers shouldn't pretend to be biologists (click through!).  It's facepalm-worthy here, but also concerning: so much research is denounced publicly as "obvious" because people are willing to assume they know things based on "common sense". This kind of illustrates the concept.

Reading assignments, vol. 4

The following are some interesting topics and posts from the last week or so. A lot of links, but they're pretty good.

Online education (i.e. MOOCs)

• At the Chronicle of Higher Education, George Washington University Dean Doug Guthrie criticizes Coursera, a for-profit company that partners with universities to offer massive online open courses (MOOCs). Guthrie insists that Coursera is a fad; "thoughtful interactions" do not occur; and educators are frequently creating a crowd, not a community. It's a valid point; online education has promise but very often falls short, even with the best of intentions. See also this other criticism/analysis of MOOCs.   While we're at it, if you really want to read more about MOOCs check out this year-in-review about MOOCs.
• In the midst of the recent surge in MOOC popularity, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is running an online Intermediate Organic Chemistry course, taught by educational specialist Michael Evans and Dr. Jeff Moore.
• Dayna Catropa and Margaret Andrews compare MOOCs to MOCCs (midsized online closed courses), predicting that MOCCs will replace MOOCs, as they provide an opportunity to monetize the online experience and deliver it to smaller groups.

Public health

• Antibiotic resistance is a serious public health concern, but a potential new class of antibiotics that take advantage of the dependence of certain pathogens on the thioredoxin system is displaying promise against MRSA, drug-resistant TB, etc. Malaria is also notoriously drug-resistant, and this press release details a surprisingly simple whole-plant antimalarial strategy that may be effective and cost-effecient. This stands in contrast to the widespread practice of synthetic, pure drugs.
• While we're on the subject of antibiotics, Katherine Harmon at ScientificAmerican writes on recent findings that amoxicillin is not only overprescribed but is ineffective compared to a placebo for most of its common applications. Add another one to the "no, seriously, stop giving out antibiotics like candy" file.
• Antibiotic use in agriculture is controversial, and Maryn McKenna at WiredScience writes on the FDA's reluctance to compel companies to disclose farm antibiotic use. On a related note, The Pump Handle criticizes a recent USDA decision to "modernize" poultry inspection; the author says that the new guidelines, which aim to speed up the inspection process, would threaten food safety.
• Personalized medicine has gotten a lot of recent attention as a strategy for fighting disease (particularly cancer). The general strategy is to target therapeutics based on a patient's genome. However, personalized medicine has its skeptics, and a commentary by Sharon Begley examines recent evidence that this approach may never be effective.

Scientific communication

• Terminology and jargon is integral to scientific communication and has traditionally been an obstacle to deaf and hearing-impaired people. Douglas Quenqua writes about crowdsourcing-oriented efforts at creating a sign language scientific lexicon.
• Both Chemjobber and Derek Lowe comment on a perplexing press release about Parabon's drug delivery technology that sounds more like a Michael Crichton novel. The press release's author has responded, as well, with a degree of consternation at the press release's negative reception. I think this exchange really highlights some concerning issues about scientific communication to a broad audience.
• University librarian Barbara Fister comments on how undergraduates struggle to learn how to do literature-based research. She posits that how we frame/present the task influences a student's perception of their own ability to complete it (just call it Finding Stuff Out). It's an interesting read; the philosophy is familiar to me from when I tutored writing. I think we can draw some parallels to how we teach scientific thinking and how the public perceives scientific writing.
• At ScientificAmerican, Khalil Cassimally lists some good practical guides for developing science journalists. There's about 11 of them listed; read and bookmark them! On a related note, see this post by Khalil about how science writers keep their notes organized.
• Chemist Phil Davis has listed his 17-years-deceased PhD adviser as a co-author on a paper. While it's good to give credit where it's due, don't all authors have to consent to publish? This just generally seems weird given the elapsed time.

The F word (funding)

• At the Chronicle of Higher Education, Indiana University president Michael A. McRobbie warns that the fiscal cliff may spell out serious damage to research universities. He makes the case that this would be perilous to the economy, as research drives innovation in engineering/manufacturing.
• The United States is not the only place where scientists are feeling the squeeze of a scant funding environment. Nature gives an account of Spanish scientists who protested their government's reductions in science funding (39% drop since 2009).

Scientific philosophy

• On HuffingtonPost, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake writes a commentary on the arrogance of modern science, criticizing materialism and insisting that dogmatic thinking is "crippling" modern science. I disagree with most of what he says; it's overly dramatic, simplistic, and feels like it's pandering to the pseudoscientist crowd (as well as an advertisement for the author's new book). But it's worth reading; is this a pervasive viewpoint?
• For the philosophically inclined, read this. (tl;dr = is science tool-driven or idea-driven??).

Other

• B.R.S.M. has a good post examining a recent essay by Kappe in Angewandte regarding "non-thermal microwave effects" (spoiler: they probably don't exist). See also a simultaneous piece by Tom W. Phillips over at A Chemical Education.
• A criticism on reaction norm about feeble efforts by departments to insist they're preparing students for "alternative careers". The author states that departments and faculty are not in touch with or interested in actually preparing students for non-traditional careers.
• P.Z. Myers gives an account of a saddening (and infuriating) case of a biologist illegally baiting and killing an aging jaguar, then covering it up.
• Really cool guest post at Scicurious about the basics and history of X-ray crystallography.
• STEM education has gotten a lot of attention and advocacy recently, but Gwenn Schurgin O'Keeffe touts the arts as essential to fueling creativity and cross-fertilizing other skillsets.
• Deirde Lockwood, a chemical oceanography graduate student discusses the increasing time-to-degree for chemists at CENtral Science. She thinks four years is too short, and limiting programs to shorter periods of time would breed easier projects and softer chemists.
• Ronald Breslow dancing to Gangnam Style? Yes, please.