The Salamanders that Refuse to Grow Up | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

In a Wisconsin reservoir, these normally terrestrial animals have managed not only to survive but to thrive underwater

via The Salamanders that Refuse to Grow Up | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine.

Magnetic Nanoparticles Fry Tumors – ScienceNOW

Any parent fretting over a child’s fever knows that temperatures just a few degrees above normal can kill. But cancer researchers have now found a way to make high temperatures heal. In a new study, a team found that injecting mice with tiny magnets and cranking up the heat eliminated tumors from the animals’ bodies with no apparent side effects.

via Magnetic Nanoparticles Fry Tumors – ScienceNOW.

Bi-y’all-ogy: A Manifesto for Public Schools

As a college professor I am often shocked by the behavior of my students. Worse, they are shocked by my response to it. When I toss them out of class they ask, “Really?” Yes, really. Get out. A classroom is no place for bullies, cheaters, vandals or slackers. Somehow the public school system is rampant with all of these and not until they go to college do they see real consequences for their actions. Not until they fail a college course and can’t complain their way out of it do they realize they may lack talent, discipline, or both. And even in college, parents demand grade changes for failing students and administrators pressure professors to give out more passing grades. This has to stop. It’s crazy. It’s not okay!!

via Bi-y’all-ogy: A Manifesto for Public Schools.

Why Science Struggles to Correct Its Mistakes – NYTimes.com

ONE of the great strengths of science is that it can fix its own mistakes. “There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong,” the astrophysicist Carl Sagan once said. “That’s perfectly all right: it’s the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process.”

If only it were that simple. Scientists can certainly point with pride to many self-corrections, but science is not like an iPhone; it does not instantly auto-correct. As a series of controversies over the past few months have demonstrated, science fixes its mistakes more slowly, more fitfully and with more difficulty than Sagan’s words would suggest. Science runs forward better than it does backward.

Why? One simple answer is that it takes a lot of time to look back over other scientists’ work and replicate their experiments. Scientists are busy people, scrambling to get grants and tenure. As a result, papers that attract harsh criticism may nonetheless escape the careful scrutiny required if they are to be refuted.

In May, for instance, the journal Science published eight critiques of a controversial paper that it had run in December. In the paper, a team of scientists described a species of bacteria that seemed to defy the known rules of biology by using arsenic instead of phosphorus to build its DNA. Chemists and microbiologists roundly condemned the paper; in the eight critiques, researchers attacked the study for using sloppy techniques and failing to rule out more plausible alternatives.

via Why Science Struggles to Correct Its Mistakes – NYTimes.com.

Long-Dead Cane Toads Continue to Haunt Australian Wildlife – ScienceNOW

In their relentless invasion of Australia, poisonous cane toads often hop along roads, where their flattened, desiccated husks are a familiar sight during the long dry season. Nobody gave much thought to the fate of the little mummies’ toxic compounds—months baking in the sun should render them harmless, researchers assumed. Not so, according to a new study, which shows that, like murderous ghouls, road kill cane toads can haunt the wilderness long after death.

..

via Long-Dead Cane Toads Continue to Haunt Australian Wildlife – ScienceNOW.

‘Belief’ in evolution? It may be the wrong word | Philly | 06/26/2011

When the contestants in the Miss USA pageant last week were asked whether evolution should be taught in schools, many volunteered that they either “believed” or “didn’t believe” in the concept.

….

Some scientists were not impressed, saying the use of the word belief as applied to evolution confused science with faith and discounted evolution’s central role in biology.

via ‘Belief’ in evolution? It may be the wrong word | Philly | 06/26/2011.

Science, Sacred, Spiritual: What Is In A Word? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Science, Sacred, Spiritual: What Is In A Word? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR.

“Spiritual But Not Religious” is the way many people describe themselves these days. It’s a term that drives a lot of others crazy. For those who happily describe themselves as religious, “Spiritual But Not Religious” can imply a dilution of faith and a rejection of the creed and doctrine which, for them, is an essential aspect of spiritual life.

Yet for people who happily describe themselves as atheist, “Spiritual But Not Religious” is a dodge — an attempt to get “the warm cozy feeling” of religious life without making the intellectual commitment to what they see as the central question: Does God exist?

Where should science lie on this spectrum of debate? Can someone still call themselves “spiritual” and hold fast to the principles of science?

..

Leaky genes put evolution on the fast track, researchers find

ScienceDaily June 15, 2011 — Small genetic mutations that add up over time could create an evolutionary express lane that leads to the rapid development of new traits, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Wisconsin at Madison have found.

The team reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that slight changes in segments of DNA known as transcriptional enhancers — which determine the when, where, and how much in gene production — can activate dormant genetic imperfections. These alterations awaken specific genes to low-level activity, or “leakiness,” in developing tissue different from the genes’ typical location. Just a few subsequent mutations build on that stirring to result in a new function for an old gene — and possibly a novel trait.

via Leaky genes put evolution on the fast track, researchers find.

Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Is Accepting Evolution ‘Optional’ For Christians?

What I want for religious believers is what freshman critical writing instructors want for their students — proper appreciation of sources. Invoking the consensus of the scientific opinion is not restricting “thinking” at all. It is encouraging critical thinking and the pursuit of genuine knowledge.

via Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Is Accepting Evolution ‘Optional’ For Christians?.

EARTH Magazine: Creationism creeps into mainstream geology

It was easy to miss the part where the field trip leader said the outcrop formed during Noah’s Flood. After all, “During these catastrophic flood flows, turbulent, hyperconcentrated suspensions were observed to transform laminar mudflows” sounds like a reasonable description of alluvial fan processes. And “massive marine transgression” sounds scientific enough. But when creationist geologists use those phrases, they take on a very different meaning.

In almost every way, the “Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs” excursion at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) last year was a normal — even enjoyable — field trip. Standard geologic terminology was used in the accompanying field trip guide, and throughout the trip itself. The trip leaders discussed past events in terms of millions and billions of years. At each stop along the trip, the guides relied on orthodox geologic thinking, including a standard examination of sedimentary features and the nature of contacts between units.

But in reality, the trip was anything but a normal geology field trip. Instead, it was an example of a new strategy from creationists to interject their ideas into mainstream geology: They lead field trips and present posters and talks at scientific meetings. They also avoid overtly stating anything truly contrary to mainstream science.

But when the meeting is over, the creationist participants go home and proudly proclaim that mainstream science has accepted their ideas.

It’s a crafty way of giving credence to creationism. But is there anything mainstream scientists, or the conveners of meetings and field trips, can or should do about it?

via EARTH Magazine: Creationism creeps into mainstream geology.