|
Read about things we find interesting. Hear from scientists doing research in China. Learn about science communication. Watch this space. Educating China's Innovators
Posted by Ben Bravery and Tim O'Mahony 20 June 2011
If you found science classes stressful in high school, spare a thought for Chinese students. Long studying hours, private tutors at night and weekends and a rich range of science and mathematics are standard fare for China’s youth.
While this workload may seem excessive, there is little doubt that it achieves results. For example, a 2009 study of 15 year-old students across 60 countries, conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment, found that Shanghai topped rankings in mathematics, science and reading, while American students were 30th for mathematics, 23rd for science and 15th for reading.
The report concluded that “high-level skills are critical for innovation and, as such, are key to economic growth and social development.” After the release of the OECD’s findings, Stuart Kerachsky, head of the US National Center for Education Statistics, told Science magazine that Shanghai is "an educational mecca."
Unfortunately, students who achieve high test scores do not always go on to become innovative thinkers. Mr. Ou Jiancheng, director of the Exhibition Education Center at the China Science and Technology Museum says Chinese students are often more advanced in math and science than
their counterparts abroad, but “when it comes to applying creativity and imagination, Chinese students are usually at the bottom, even though they often get high grades on science
tests.
“The Chinese science education system places too much emphasis on theory and textbook knowledge to the neglect of the fundamental understanding of subjects. To make matters worse, almost all teachers rely solely on test scores to gauge student understanding.
“Under such circumstances, students use rote memory instead of practical experience, resulting in learning without real comprehension,” he said.
However, a number of national initiatives are now seeking to address this innovation gap. The “Bridging Science and Technology Museums with Campuses” program (jointly developed by the Ministry of Education and China Association for Science and Technology) seeks to introduce educators to informal education theories and inquiry-based learning. The program organizes student visits to science museums, where they interact with science and technology through exhibitions, science shows and hands-on experiments facilitated by trained science communicators.
Since its inception in 2007, 48 science museums across 23 provinces have participated in the program. These museums have been tasked with building science education capacity in some of China’s poorest rural regions. While ambitious for such a large and diverse country, the program will eventually pool, coordinate and draw-upon resources from all of China’s 280 science and technology
museums.
In addition to connecting students with science centers, a number of cities have local programs aimed at linking students to professional researchers to inspire innovation. One recent result of these enrichment programs made headlines around the world when an 11 year old Beijing student partnered with an agricultural scientist and tested mushrooms for toxins.
Hao Zhang designed an experiment under the guidance of Dr. Gao Ruifang, a researcher from China Agricultural University, to test the safety of one of his favorite foods, the mushroom. Zhang found that 93 percent of mushrooms he bought from his local market tested positive for a toxic whitening chemical. While foreign media focused on the food quality control issues of this story, Zhang’s innovation is an interesting tale. Zhang is 11 years-old, had a question about a food he likes, and asked, “Are mushrooms safe for me to eat?” and then approached his question following a rigorous scientific method. This kind of innovative thinking and application of scientific principles is exactly what China needs more of—students like Zhang and non-traditional science education programs can provide China with the innovative edge the country needs, to complement its political and economic might.
Kexue Kids: Beijing's premier science education program in EnglishPosted by Ben Bravery and Tim O'Mahony, Sunday 29 May 2011 Apologies for the delay between blog posts, we have been busy communicating science on Chinese TV, radio, in newspapers and magazines, and in front of school children, teachers and at birthday parties. We are proud of our education achievements, which include performances and workshops at the International School of Beijing, Western Academy of Beijing, Yew Chung International School, Dulwich College, Ivy Academy, The Family Learning House, House of Knowledge Kindergarten and many more. These performances could not have been possible without the hard work of our staff in Beijing. As schools across Beijing break for the summer the future of Kexue Kids is bright. We are planning for an increased presence in Beijing schools, science-themed events, and corporate partnerships with some of Beijing's largest companies.
We have spent a great deal of time raising our profile amongst the Beijing education community and want to build on this and continue to deliver programs across China.
Forget the Cinderella effect: stepparents are just as likely to kill their biological children as their stepchildrenPosted by Tim O'Mahony, Sunday 26 November 2010
Researchers have known since the early 1970s that children in stepfamilies are at greater risk of child abuse and murder. A team of Swedish researchers has found that parents in stepfamilies are equally likely to kill their biological children as they are to kill their stepchildren. Their findings are published in the journal Current Zoology.
Evolutionary reasons such as a lack of genetic relatedness and kin selection have previously been used before to explain the higher rates of child abuse and homicide observed in stepfamilies. The research team from Stockholm University and Mid Sweden University investigated whether an evolutionary explanation sufficiently explained this higher prevalence.
The research team analyzed records of child homicides where a parent or stepparent was the perpetrator for the period 1965–2009, and crime rates for all parents in Sweden in 1987, the midpoint of the study. There were 152 perpetrators of parental child homicide over the 45 year study period: 125 perpetrators were in families with two genetic parents and 27 were in stepfamilies.
Of the 27 stepfamily murderers, 13 killed their genetic children, 13 murdered their stepchildren, and 1 perpetrator killed both.
“Our study suggests that the risk of being killed is not associated primarily with the non-genetic relation stepparent and stepchild but rather by living in a stepfamily,” said the paper’s lead author, Dr. Hans Temrin from Stockholm University.
Dr. Temrin’s team also found that rates of crime were higher for adults in stepfamilies than in biparental families, with general crime 1.5 times higher, and violent crime twice is high. These findings agree with previous studies that found that there is a higher incidence of unemployment, psychiatric problems and anti-social behaviors for parents in stepfamilies than parents in families with both genetic parents.
“The Cinderella effect – the observation that adults are more likely to kill their stepchildren than their biological children – has long been a staple of evolutionary psychology-informed homicide research, and this study suggests that this explanation is likely too simple,” said Dr Damon Muller from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University.
Dr. Temrin explains that “most parental child homicides are not caused by conflicts with the child but rather by problems that parents have.”
“Giving help to people with psychiatric problems and to families with problems in my opinion is the only way to decrease child maltreatment and the risk of children being killed.”
The research team hopes to replicate their study in other countries to investigate whether their observations hold.
Scientists start young in ChinaPosted by Tim O'Mahony, Monday 6 December
We have a tradition in the Kexue Communications office of watching Blue Ocean Network (BON) while we eat our tofu and green beans for lunch. BON is a television network dedicated to presenting news about and from China to audiences in North America and the Asia-Pacific.
A story was presented on 2 December 2010 about a young boy named Zhang Hao. Zhang is a sixth grade student living in Beijing and he recently tested mushrooms for toxins with the help of Dr Gao Ruifang from the China Agricultural University.
Zhang and Gao found that 93% of the mushrooms they tested had been whitened by a fluorescent whitening agent that can compromise human immunity and cellular function. The whitener is usually used in the textile industry to make whites white and colors brighter, and it is thought that the chemical was used to make the mushrooms look fresher.
The bureau responsible for testing food stated that the study was not scientific, a claim that Dr Gao does not believe. Gao and Zhang used UV light to test for the presence of whitener, and found 13 of the 16 types of mushrooms they tested had been treated with the whitener.
While most netizens’ comments focussed on the food safety quality of food testing in China, the element of this story that I found most interesting was that a 12 year old boy is running science experiments with a major university. It’s an amazing story that the findings of a young boy went viral and provoked discussion amongst the world’s largest group of internet users and then with AFP. Here’s hoping that Zhang’s passion for science remains into adulthood.
Writing papers that sellPosted by Ben Bravery, Thursday 18 November
Writing a good scientific paper is hard, and even harder when the language you have to write is not your first. Today we started a series of workshops on writing scientific papers in English for Chinese research labs. China is second to only the USA in the volume of English scientific papers published each year and academic promotion here is tied to publishing in international journals.
I see my role as a holistic one, editing not just language but the scientific message presented in a paper. I help authors to sell their papers, because scientific papers must be packaged in a way to attract Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, peer reviewers and finally the wider scientific population.
With this focus on selling in mind, our workshops start with a lengthy discussion on the role and structure of the title of a paper. This is really the most important aspect of the final product. I apply the rules used in devising newspaper headlines and book titles. Titles from these sources are short, sharp and as general as possible (without losing detail).
Some authors state that the title of a scientific paper does not need to 'catch the reader's fancy', but why else would you bother writing a title? Scientific papers compete against other papers on a contents page, just like stories compete on the pages of a broad sheet newspaper. Plus, more journals exist now than ever before and some researchers don't even go looking for papers anymore, but wait for papers to find them via social networking feeds. With scientific competition as intense as it is now, the titles of papers must be as carefully crafted as the titles of books, movies and newspaper headlines.
Blue sky science
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Friday 12 November
During a recent radio interview the program’s host asked me whether the research I was discussing (waist and hip measurements and their relationship to attractiveness) was ‘trivial’. This is a fair question, as scientific research requires funding, often from governments or philanthropists, and there is a tendency to focus on practical results.
Pharmaceutical companies have huge research and development teams, as do computer and petroleum companies. They invest vast sums of money into research, patent their results, and use them to make a profit. Once the patent expires the science is accessible to everyone.
Government-funded scientific agencies such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) or Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) have specific issues they focus on, such as agriculture, pest control, renewable energy, mining and medicine.
It makes sense to fund research solutions to problems or ways to make a profit. There is, however, a place for science that may appear ‘trivial’.
‘Blue sky science’ is a term used to describe research that has no immediate real-world application. The name comes from the question “why is the sky blue?” Examples include research into string theory, ugly animals, and human attractiveness.
The argument against blue sky science is that funds used for this research could be used for more practical research such as cures for diseases or solutions to climate change. I argue that we should constantly be asking questions about the world around us, and any results that help us understand it are valuable.
Humans are curious, and the pursuit of knowledge is a noble and necessary cause. By allowing researchers to think outside the square and explore their ideas we also open up the possibility of new technologies, like Quantum computing.
We fund artists to create art that serves no ‘practical purpose’, along with actors and musicians. This is one of the gifts of civilization: creative people have the opportunity to create and think, instead of having to hunt and gather for their survival.
Aristotle, Archimedes and Einstein all explored new ideas, and helped shape science as we know it. We need to continue to allow some of our greatest minds to explore their ideas without the pressures of profit or tangible results. What seems ‘trivial’ now may change the way we look at science.
Sometimes great minds just need to run free.
Science shows in Chinese schools
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Friday 29 October 2010
Ben and I recently performed science shows in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou schools. We were representing Questacon - Australia’s National Science and Technology Centre, and worked closely with Chinese science centers and their staff.
The shows that Ben and I perform are designed to be entertaining rather than just educational. We want students to find science fun and exciting. Most Chinese classrooms use a didactic model of teaching, so I was concerned that our method wouldn’t work.
Language was obviously the largest barrier, so we performed bilingual shows with Chinese counterparts from local science centers, China Science and Technology Museum, Shanghai Science and Technology Museum, and Guangdong Science Center.
I quickly found that my initial concerns about ‘Australian’ humor not translating well to a Chinese audience were unfounded. Chinese kids find toilet humor just as hilarious as Australian kids do. They were in hysterics when we pretended a boy and girl were in love (to demonstrate the attraction between negative and positive charges). And of course they loved references to our height, body hair and big noses.
I was surprised by how receptive the Chinese audiences were: they were possibly more engaged than Australian audiences. Chinese classrooms use a lot of group ‘chanting’, with students repeating (loudly) what their teachers tell them. This works perfectly in shows; having 100 students repeat your message in perfect unison is pretty amazing.
Our ‘tour’ took us to some diverse schools in the three different regions. We’ve visited farmers’ kids (all sporting matching crew-cuts, boys and girls) in schools in the middle of cornfields. In contrast to this we visited schools with projectors, LCD televisions and smart boards.
It was tiring work entertaining shouting hordes of children, but we love it. We’ll be clowning around in the name of science again soon.
Takin and eathquakes
Posted by Ben Bravery, Friday 15 October 2010
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote how male toads don’t like to have sex before and during earthquakes. I have come across a Chinese study published by Ecological Research, conducted by Song Yanling of the Institute of Zoology and others, on the movements of takin (pronounced tah-kin) before and after the massive earthquake of May 2008.
First, what is a takin? Most people don’t know that the most dangerous animal in China is actually a shaggy cow that lives in the mountains and hides out in forest. They are big, fast, and can be aggressive. They will charge you if you stumble across one, and this means big trouble as they are faster than you.
Song was recording the location of four takin using satellites and transmitters fitted to the takin. In May, takin normally undergo an elevation migration, which means they move to higher and cooler ground; in May 2008, a gigantic earthquake ruined their plans.
Data from 13 days before the quake and 13 days after showed two things: takin did not act strange before the quake, but they moved around a lot less after the quake.
They still made for higher ground as they would have around that time every year, but they did so at a slower rate, and generally used less space. Exactly why the earthquake made them more cautious is unclear. However, this study adds to our understanding of how earthquakes can affect the behaviour of animals.
Science showsPosted by Tim O'Mahony, Thursday 7 October 2010
I have a confession to make: I like to dress up and talk in foreign accents. No, I am not a spy, and I don’t live in an asylum. I do it all for science communication.
Kids often have a suppressed love of science. They might see it as nerdy, or too hard, but if you surprise and excite a kid using science you see their passion rise.
Teachers have a hard job: they need to teach to a prescribed curriculum, and their students need to learn. Science lessons are about passing on principles and knowledge that will help kids become scientists, or just help with everyday life.
Science shows are different. Ben and I are science presenters and have performed for audiences across all age groups, from infants to grandparents. I believe that the use of dramatic and theatrical techniques is an effective means of communicating science. Characters, costumes and accents can disguise and simultaneously reinforce a scientific message.
Liquid nitrogen is cool, but even better when handled by a crazed Siberian ice dragon hunter. Slime is great, but more fun when a pirate throws it across the room at an apron-wearing teacher. The possibilities are endless: an eccentric French aviator talking about flight, Frankenstein’s monster discussing electricity and a superstar basketball player talking about forces…
Kids are spoiled for choice with video games, lightning-fast internet and interactive classrooms. There is still a place for a bit of theater though. Real people, slapstick and crass jokes will always interest kids. Throw in some science, and you’ve got the perfect combination.
Worried about earthquakes? So are toads
Posted by Ben Bravery, Wednesday 15 September 2010
Earthquakes hurt. They are nasty aspects of our Earthly system and large ones have recently affected Chile, Haiti and China. In fact, China has been the site of three of the top five deadliest earthquakes on record.
Humans aren’t the only species worried about earthquakes; other animals become concerned too. Shaking ground, rattling trees, falling rocks, quake lakes, floods and landslides affect both people and animals during and after earthquakes.
Studying the effects of earthquakes on animals before an earthquake actually hits is problematic because we don’t know when an earthquake is going to strike. And that makes setting up the right kind of experiment before and after the earthquake quite difficult.
Most people seem to think animals can predict earthquakes. While some type of paranormal ability has yet to be ruled out, a recent paper in the Journal of Zoology explains that animals aren’t predicting earthquakes, but are probably just responding to cues that we are unable to sense.
Grant and Halliday happened to be studying some animals during an earthquake and found an interesting pattern.
For years the researchers have been studying toads that get together at a lake to breed. They were counting the number of active males and number of mating females and males at the lake around breeding time when a 6.3 magnitude quake hit nearby. They watched the lake for several days until after the earthquake and aftershocks stopped.
The authors found that male toads stopped coming to the lake to breed five days before the quake, and the number of mating females and males declined to zero three days before the quake. Toads didn’t meet up at the lake again until several days after the quake.
Once toads start breeding they don’t stop, so the fact they stopped here, and so suddenly, is unusual. The study claims that changes to the ionosphere before an earthquake minutes to a week before the quake actually hits may have affected toad behaviour and explain changes in other animals long before a quake.
While not all animals, when studied, react to earthquakes before they hit, it seems these toads may be sensitive to certain changes before an earthquake and will move to higher and safer ground.
Since I live in the country that has had three of the five worst earthquakes in known history, I may need to start keeping a closer eye on my amphibian friends.
The battle between science and journalism
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Friday 27 August 2010
I am often in the very dangerous position between warring tribes of scientists and journalists. Both groups (with some notable exceptions) seem to fear each other greatly. The cultural differences in both industries are vast and can lead to tension.
The average timeframe for a scientific paper from initial idea to publication is one year. A typical news story is written in hours. Scientific journals and the peer review process can take months, so ‘new’ research was actually completed months in the past. Journalism is about news as it happens. Day-old news is dead news.
Scientists often spend their entire lives dedicated to a very specific subject. In one day a journalist may cover judicial reports, sports results, and a story on stem cells. Dedicated science, environment and health reporters are becoming more common, but they may have started off reporting celebrity gossip. Journalists work on topics they are assigned to and their assignments change regularly.
As I mentioned before I am brave enough to put myself between journalists and scientists, to assist both in their work. Scientists usually dislike having five years of work condensed into a single column, while journalists resist having their copy edited by a non-journalist.
My work is interstitial, and I facilitate effective communication between both parties. It is a type of diplomacy, giving both groups what they want without causing tension. I have access to some of the best science coming out of China, and have no problem finding newsworthy content.
I sit on the edge of the scientific and journalistic professions. I understand the language of each industry, and help translate the needs and concerns of one group to the other.
The strangest thing about science journalism is that the best stories may be buried deep within a scientific paper. An unexpected finding that may only take up one paragraph in a scientific paper could be a leading story in a newspaper.
My challenge is to find the weird, the wacky and the enlightening. I just have to avoid the battle.
What is a Chinese scientist like?
Posted by Ben Bravery, Friday 20 August 2010
I asked this question of some Chinese colleagues after reading an article in the journal Public Understanding of Science on the stereotypes about scientists held by American adults.
Susan Carol Losh studied two datasets from 1983 and 2001 that asked people what they thought of scientists, science stereotypes and whether they would be happy if their children became scientists. The results are not surprising: attitudes towards scientists and careers in science have become more positive, but significant minorities still think scientists are odd, too focused and do not have as much fun as non-scientists. For example: 25% of US adults said scientists are odd and peculiar (down from 33% in 1983) 52% said scientific research was dangerous 19% said scientists do not have as much fun as others Things are getting better for the image of the scientist, but there is still some way to go. Armed with this study I started asking my Chinese colleagues about their attitudes towards scientists. (This is qualitative only and not a robust assessment by any means, but interesting nonetheless.) The immediate difference between Chinese and Western views on scientists was where they sit in the social hierarchy. In China, scientists are regarded as knowledgeable, experienced and masters of their craft. They share the same high status and public wonder as painters, calligraphers, athletes and musicians. Just the word ‘scientist’ in Chinese invokes awe and admiration. Despite this elevated intellectual platform they still suffer from negative stereotypes. Concepts revealed by my small sample (after knowledgeable and expertise) were: slovenly, sometimes dishonest, harsh and very focused. Ouch. Scientists are valued in China and respected in a way that I believe other cultures have moved on from (but see this study from the UK), but even here stereotypes are eating away at their personas and perceived value in society (again, see the UK study). Long gone are the days when a scientist was always found in a lab coat, with markers in their breast pocket, under a large mop of eccentric white hair. Scientists are now found surfing, tracking giant snakes and being super models. The oracle octopus
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Saturday 14 August 2010
We tried to avoid the soccer, sorry, football World Cup entirely, but not just because it is a failsafe cure for insomnia. What really got us going was our cephalopod arch-nemesis: Paul the Octopus.
Science communication was hijacked during the World Cup by our eight-legged enemy. This oracle octopus is said to have predicted the result of eight world-cup games in a row (seven Germany games and the Final). Calamari-Paul was presented with two boxes containing team flags and food. According to one journalist, “[the] high predictive accuracy rules out pure chance or coincidence, statistically speaking”. This is completely incorrect, statistically speaking. The chances of predicting eight winners by flipping a coin is two to the power of eight, or for those of you not wearing pocket-protectors and sandals and socks, 1 in 256. Some of us have bet on horses with longer odds than that. If you flip a coin now and have someone guess the outcome, they have a 50% chance of getting it right. Now do it again; the odds are still 50%. Even after seven throws, the odds of getting it right are still 50%. One event does not affect the next event, and so on. Humans are obsessed with finding patterns, even when there aren’t any. In the case of Paul-O he may have been attracted to the colors on the flag, or the ‘researchers’ placed one box first, or one box had more food than the other. Plus they only used one octopus, albeit a ‘magical’ one. I’m guessing the ‘study’ (can you note the sarcasm from the abundance of inverted commas?) was not controlled and cannot be replicated. The real stars of this story are the publicity team at the German aquarium where Paul lives. They drummed up consistent and considerable publicity, and latched onto the World Cup bandwagon. Encouragingly, some real science has leaked into Paul-related stories as statisticians and marine biologists have been interviewed. It’s a shame that a rogue Octopus vulgaris (we didn’t make that up, its scientific name actually includes the word vulgar) and a bore-score game were needed to get so much science into the media. Jargon junkies
Posted by Tim O’Mahony and Ben Bravery, Saturday 31 July 2010
Scientific research is, and needs to be, highly specialised.
Researchers investigating one topic in such minute detail witness things that only they can describe. Often they do this by using acronyms, or building new words. This can be useful to describe a phenomenon or chemical concisely: DNA instead of ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’ or hibernaculum instead of ‘location chosen by an animal for hibernation over winter’, for example.
These terms are fine when specialists talk to each other, but if someone from outside their field wants to learn about it, they are confronted by a significant language barrier: jargon.
We believe that new terms should only be used when they aid the general reader by allowing a piece of writing to be more succinct. For example, long protein names can be condensed, saving space and time, as long as they are explained in full elsewhere.
A problem arises when scientists do not see the need to communicate their work outside their group. Scientists are required to publish in journals, and to do this they need their work to be approved by their peers, who understand the same technical language as them. Communicating to non-scientists is often seen as an unnecessary burden, which we think is fair enough – scientists have a particular skill set that allows them to conduct good science, and shouldn’t be expected to be polymath communicators too.
Enter the science communicator.
We often act as ‘translators’ for non-specialist audiences and it is inevitable that a small amount of detail and subtlety will be lost when removing technical terms. The benefits, however, outweigh this small cost if the public is as a result, more informed about research being conducted.
Jargon isn’t just confined to science; it is a sin of all specialist professions. The trick is to use acronyms and specialised terms only when they improve a piece of writing. Using jargon where a common word would suffice is elitist, and serves no purpose but to exclude people from knowledge acquisition.
Non-specialists are seeking more and more information. As science communicators we try to write as concisely and clearly as possible. We understand science, so can help craft a clearer message.
Curious kids
Posted by Tim O’Mahony, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Science is often seen as a ‘grown-up’ passion. Most scientists have spent over seven years at university studying Bachelor degrees and PhDs. I argue that we are scientists from birth.
Every kid goes through the stage of putting anything within reach straight into their mouth. My culinary trials included sand, rocks, snails and my own fist. Kids do this because they are experimenting, so I believe they are practicing science. Kids ask questions, usually “are we there yet?” but their curiosity makes them perfect scientists.
Sometime after childhood we have the curiosity trained out of us. “Stop fiddling, stop asking questions, eat your peas” was a common response from my father, but you can’t blame him for not knowing the GDP of Rwanda in 1995 (a very important question for a ten year old).
Science in schools is normally about reproducing a known result. See what colour this metal burns, watch the indicator change colour, and record how high this plant grows. These are all examples of reliability, an essential aspect of science, but they aren’t all that creative.
We need to nurture the curiosity and propensity to experiment. Yes kids need to learn, but let them do so by making mistakes as well.
This probably needs to happen outside school. My dream would be for kids to come up with an idea, and have the support to turn that into an experiment. There are programs around the world that do this, but more needs to be done.
So my advice to parents is to encourage their kids’ curiosity, try out experiments, and help them with research. Especially if it involves the GDP of Rwanda.
Fraud, plagiarism and envy
Posted by Ben Bravery, Wednesday 23 June 2010
If you listened to many media commentators and academic editorials you would be led to believe that China’s scientific community is staffed by a mob of fraudsters, copy cats, and cheaters. In 2010, Chinese science received some bad press because of a large number of retractions, mainly in one journal, resulting from fraudulent or misleading papers. This story was then picked up by The Lancet, a prominent medical journal, and popular press such as the BBC and Asia Times.
Bold calls were made for Chinese regulators to overhaul ethical frameworks, systems of academic advancement, and quality control procedures. Other commentators claimed that Confucius was crying in his grave because his paradigm’s virtues of honesty and knowledge rigour were being violated systematically.
I’m not Chinese, but I am a scientist and I work alongside them. A part of our business is to provide technical editing services, publication guidance and trend analysis for Chinese researchers wanting to transform research written in their native language into English.
I have worked with ecologists, chemists, hydrologists, public health researchers, glaciologists, epidemiologists and so on. I visit labs, attend lab group meetings, work closely with professors and their post-docs and students. I edit, advise, promote and market Chinese science.
Of course I have detected plagiarism amongst the work that crosses my desk, but it appears to be limited to particular research groups that have an established culture of cut and copy. After years of working in this sector within China, I am unable to generalise about fraud and plagiarism to any scientific field, city, institution or academic standing: because it isn’t general.
Fraud or fabrication is widespread around the world. A recent PLoS ONE meta-analysis showed that somewhere between 2–14% of scientists directly fabricate data. When asked about their peers though, the proportion of researchers that fiddle, manipulate or massage their science in a questionable way blows out to 75%.
This is an industry-wide challenge, and I will continue to defend Chinese scientists and their findings. China is a scientific heavyweight and in 2008 was responsible for 11% of published papers, second only to the USA. Each of those papers was peer-reviewed, edited and many were run through secondary computer-assisted checking protocols as is the standard for many journals and publishers.
I often wonder how much of the negativity surrounding Chinese science is the result of global envy of large science budgets (Chinese Academy of Science budgets go up, not down), huge numbers of scientific machines (some research institutes publish seven different journals of their own) and the ability of Chinese researchers to now study what they want, when they want to, while travelling the world to talk about it.
Joys of the jobPosted by Tim O'Mahony and Ben Bravery, Tuesday 8 June 2010 We have worked in fairly repetitive jobs before, where we felt as if we were channelling Bill Murray from Groundhog Day. The beauty about our job now is that we are not only learning something new every day, but we get to help others access that knowledge.
In a given week our work might involve giant pandas (we are somewhat obsessed with them), rain (more interesting than it sounds), deer mating patterns (three seconds in total), plastics making girl mice act more like boys, glacial retreat in the Himalayas, primate taxonomy and gut microbes.
We love the “oh, wow” feeling we get from reading science fresh out of the lab. A part of our work involves reading science before it is published, meaning we get to show off as ultimate science nerds. Research scientists tend to specialise on one area of research, yet we get to flit from biochemistry to zoology to engineering on a weekly basis.
A benefit of accessing so much science is that we are across the trends. We see patterns in research, publication, and science media and communication. From this, we are able to link scientists from different research institutions.
Something new every day, lifelong learning, and material we can use to show off. We think we have the perfect job.
Why communicate science in China
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Friday 28 May 2010
Ben and I are both trained science communicators, which basically means we are passionate about sharing our love of science. I’ve been working as a science communicator for five years, and I see China as a country where my experience and skills can really make a difference. China is big: 1.3 billion people; soon to be the second largest economy, amazing history and double digit economic growth. What really excites me though is China becoming a scientific superpower:
1. In 2008 China produced over 280,000 research papers, which is 11% of all papers published. This is 60 times more papers than 12 years ago. China trails only the United States in the number of papers published.
2. China is an industrial colossus, and this is reflected in China’s contribution of 20% of all material science research, including engineering and the physical sciences.
Chinese science is expanding and is built on a history of innovation and scientific achievement. The four great inventions of ancient China include the compass, gunpowder, papermaking and printing.
Of all countries, China sees the need for R&D as important for prosperity. High-yield crops, renewable energy, medical advancement and environmental protection are high on the agenda for the world’s most populated country. The rest of the world can get on board or be left in the dust. The dragon has not only awoken, it is busy in the lab. The importance of science communication
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Wednesday 19 May 2010
Science communication is easily explained as communicating science, but why should we communicate research? Scientists come up with cures for ailments, reduce our greenhouse emission, and help produce the latest Playstation, but why do we need to know about the science?
One thing I love about science communication is the pure trivia involved. Seemingly useless facts about pandas, astronomy, microbes in our gut and primate behavior engage people, but they serve a larger purpose: that of knowledge and lifelong learning.
By being aware of scientific issues and new findings we can make informed decisions. Understanding why a V8 engine is more environmentally damaging than a hybrid helps us to make an educated choice.
We must also communicate the work of the scientists themselves. In most nations, rock stars and sporting heroes are instantly recognizable, and now scientists are increasingly being acknowledged in the mainstream. Although I celebrate a Kobe Bryant roundhouse dunk like any other basketball fan, I believe a lifetime of research leading to clean energy or a vaccine for disease should be celebrated too.
Science communication should start in childhood. For many kids science is seen as off-limits, and not as rewarding as economics, law or medicine. Children can learn early on how cool, fun and rewarding science can be. Scientists will play a critical role in our future, so we need to recruit kids now.
I need an app that trades my knowledge
Posted by Ben Bravery, Sunday 25 April 2010
In a recent review published by the journal Science Communication, Morgan Meyer discussed the domain of the knowledge broker. Most people are actually brokers of knowledge, and don't know it: but try and introduce yourself as a knowledge broker at a bar and you will find yourself alone, in the corner, and wishing the drinks were stronger.
What is it about the term that makes people cringe? I agree, it does sound post post-modern (how many 'posts' are we up to now?) and a lot like corporate-speak. But as humans living in the information age, are we not all brokers of information, and therefore of knowledge? We all want to know everything, and now smart phones have allowed us to know everything all the time. They have the word smart in their name, could it be any more obvious?
A knowledge broker is anyone that transforms, communicates, packages or distributes knowledge. Note here the emphasis on knowledge, not just information. This emphasis means that the broker needs to be sure what they are brokering is trustworthy, testable, and falsifiable. People who communicate science are brokers of this knowledge: they connect the knowledge being discovered and described by scientists with users that want it, need it, and want it and need it but don't know it.
We are interstitial, flexible, creative and dependable; we write, talk, perform and draw science so it is accessible, interesting and of value to anyone and everyone that wants knowledge. Start collecting knowledge, there are now people that will buy it off you.
Hello panda
Posted by Tim O'Mahony, Monday April 12 2010
Welcome to Sino Science Snapshot, Kexue Communications’ blog. Check back regularly to find out what cutting edge scientific research has piqued our interest. Expect the weird, wonderful, gross, and inspirational. Here I focus on giant pandas: possibly the cutest animals on the planet.
Pandas spend most of the life eating, munching down 8–12 kg of bamboo a day. Some Chinese researchers recently discovered microbes living in the gut of pandas that help break down bamboo. As far as efficiency goes, it doesn’t seem to ‘slow the flow’, with pandas defecating on average 40 times a day! Giant pandas are highly endangered, due to a combination of factors, but humans are mostly to blame. Dr Fuwen Wei and his team from the Institute of Zoology found that a population of giant pandas in the Xiaoxiangling (XXL) Mountains in south-western China has decreased from over 2500 to an estimated 42 in the past 300 years. During this time period the human population in the area skyrocketed and agriculture increased. The pandas’ natural habitat in the XXL Mountains is now only 5% what it was before humans begun to populate the area in earnest. The Chinese Government has responded to the imminent extinction of pandas in the XXL mountains and has begun moving animals between reserves to ensure their survival. That’s all the panda facts for this week. |
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
