Hi I hope those of you that went to see the play on Saturday enjoyed it. I actually saw four of you there or after. I thought that the play was really well done. A great experience. Remember next week an interview is due. There is one more thing and that is a very interesting investigating by an American newspaper the Toledo Blade about a terrrible event during the Vietnam war. The story is called Buried Secrets,Brutal Truths and is a brillant example of really good investigative reporting. The web site for the paper has audio as well as visual images and the regular reading material that a paper is expected to have. I'd like you all to look at it and try and read as much of it as you can. Good Luck. Clark
Here's the URL>http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Friday, November 14, 2003
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Note that the play will start at 5:00 PM -- not at 4:00 PM, as was previously announced. Please inform students of this. Here are the _correct_ details: The International Theatre Company (London) will be performing Paul Stebbings' adaptation of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" at Koudou Hall/ Shibuya Campus on Nov. 15 from 5:00 PM. The doors will open at 4:30 PM. The performance is free for all.
bless us every one,
Note that the play will start at 5:00 PM -- not at 4:00 PM, as was previously announced. Please inform students of this. Here are the _correct_ details: The International Theatre Company (London) will be performing Paul Stebbings' adaptation of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" at Koudou Hall/ Shibuya Campus on Nov. 15 from 5:00 PM. The doors will open at 4:30 PM. The performance is free for all.
bless us every one,
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Spy Chips' Tested on the Sly
The Chicago Sun Times reports that P&G and Wal-Mart did a secret test of RFID chips in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where Max Factor Lipfinity lipstick containers were equipped with RFID chips. "The shelves and Webcam images were viewed 750 miles away by Procter & Gamble researchers in Cincinnati who could tell when lipsticks were removed from the shelves and could even watch consumers in action," the article says.
This latest report "proves what we've been saying all along," says Katherine Albrecht, founder and director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN). "Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble and others have experimented on shoppers with controversial spy chip technology and tried to cover it up," Albrecht says. "Consumers and members of the press should be upset to learn that they've been lied to."
The Chicago Sun Times reports that P&G and Wal-Mart did a secret test of RFID chips in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, where Max Factor Lipfinity lipstick containers were equipped with RFID chips. "The shelves and Webcam images were viewed 750 miles away by Procter & Gamble researchers in Cincinnati who could tell when lipsticks were removed from the shelves and could even watch consumers in action," the article says.
This latest report "proves what we've been saying all along," says Katherine Albrecht, founder and director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN). "Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble and others have experimented on shoppers with controversial spy chip technology and tried to cover it up," Albrecht says. "Consumers and members of the press should be upset to learn that they've been lied to."
- FORUMS -
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
- FORUMS -
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
John Noble Wilford.
Submit a Question
Related Articles by John Noble Wilford
The Birth of Science Times (November 11, 2003)
U.S. And Soviet Astronauts Unite Ships And Then Join In Historic Handshakes (July 17, 1975)
Power Failure Imperils Astronauts (April 13, 1970)
Men Walk On Moon (July 20, 1969)
Astronauts Carry Out Early Maneuvers on 163-Orbit Journey (October 11, 1968)
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
ÊÊTopics
Alerts
Science and Technology
Archaeology and Anthropology
Space
News and News Media
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
John Noble Wilford.
Submit a Question
Related Articles by John Noble Wilford
The Birth of Science Times (November 11, 2003)
U.S. And Soviet Astronauts Unite Ships And Then Join In Historic Handshakes (July 17, 1975)
Power Failure Imperils Astronauts (April 13, 1970)
Men Walk On Moon (July 20, 1969)
Astronauts Carry Out Early Maneuvers on 163-Orbit Journey (October 11, 1968)
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
ÊÊTopics
Alerts
Science and Technology
Archaeology and Anthropology
Space
News and News Media
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
- FORUMS -
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
John Noble Wilford.
Submit a Question
Related Articles by John Noble Wilford
The Birth of Science Times (November 11, 2003)
U.S. And Soviet Astronauts Unite Ships And Then Join In Historic Handshakes (July 17, 1975)
Power Failure Imperils Astronauts (April 13, 1970)
Men Walk On Moon (July 20, 1969)
Astronauts Carry Out Early Maneuvers on 163-Orbit Journey (October 11, 1968)
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Science and Technology
Archaeology and Anthropology
Space
News and News Media
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
Questions for . . . John Noble Wilford
To mark the 25th anniversary of the section, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/readersopinions/questions-wilford.html?th
Here are some expamples of questions and answers in an interview from the above:
QUESTIONS FOR . . .
John Noble Wilford
John Noble Wilford.
Submit a Question
Related Articles by John Noble Wilford
The Birth of Science Times (November 11, 2003)
U.S. And Soviet Astronauts Unite Ships And Then Join In Historic Handshakes (July 17, 1975)
Power Failure Imperils Astronauts (April 13, 1970)
Men Walk On Moon (July 20, 1969)
Astronauts Carry Out Early Maneuvers on 163-Orbit Journey (October 11, 1968)
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Science and Technology
Archaeology and Anthropology
Space
News and News Media
This week, the reporter and former Science Times editor will answer questions about covering science over the years.
November 11
When you first covered the 1996 Mars meteorite story, were you more skeptical or more excited? Can you describe the arc of your own take on the likelihood that it provided evidence for real life on Mars, from Aug. 1996 until now? -- Dr. James Strick, Lancaster, Pa.
A. Dear Dr. Strick:
A very interesting question. For two or three days, as I tried to learn details about the rumored "life on Mars" rock, I was quite excited. Late one afternoon, when the embargo on the journal report was lifted, I read the paper and spoke with some of the authors and others familiar with the work. I was still excited. But I could see that the conclusion of a possible discovery of signs of past life on Mars was highly qualified at several turns. My story began by saying what the researchers thought they had discovered, but quickly raised questions and noted that the scientists would be defending their announced results at a news conference the following day. The story out of that conference was somewhat more skeptical, though one had to repeat what the researchers said they were claiming.
Two or three weeks later, I wrote a story that took a reverse tack. The skeptics and critics described their misgivings and reservations, and the original research team responded to their best defense. Four months later, I wrote a story that appeared on page one of The Times that cast strong doubt that the Mars meteoritic rock contained evidence of past life on Mars.
My view of Martian life (microbial or some such) has risen and fallen several times since the Viking landings in 1976. Martian life then looked extremely doubtful. Then in the 1980s, geologists studying the Viking orbital pictures saw so much evidence of erosion (water perhaps) that they developed scenarios in which Mars in its earlier history was warmer and wetter and life could have emerged, perhaps about the same time (3.6 billion years ago) that it apparently did on Earth and then it vanished as Martian conditions worsened. Or life emerged and still exists in some forms, presumably in subsurface watery layers or near the polar ice caps. To be honest, I hope that there is some simple form of life on Mars and that we detect it; it would make a great news story and stunning revelation in scientific and philosophical terms. We will have all the more reason to keep searching for the planets and moons of other stars, looking for cosmic companionship.
Best regards,
John Noble Wilford
Q. In your perception of the responses of readers to your journalistic work on science, have there been any significant changes regarding the attitudes and perceptions about science over the time?-- Rainer Kamber, Basel, Switzerland
A. Dear Rainer Kamber:
For the most part, readers of Science Times over the years tend to be eager to savor and learn about what is happening in science and medicine. A few occasionally object to the emphasis we give one line of research over another, or one scientific group over another. A few call our attention to omissions and mistakes on our part. But mostly they write in appreciation and with suggestions for other stories they would like to read.
But we do have some who write in with complaints that we misrepresent or overlook other theories and points of view. There are a few who reject the Big Bang, or the overall Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has certainly not resolved all issues regarding these two pillars of research, but a strong case has been made and repeatedly tested that the theories are the most reasonable explanations for cosmology and biological evolution.
For more observations on public perceptions of science today, you should take a close look at the lead article by Bill Broad and Jim Glanz in today's 25th anniversary issue of Science Times. Several polls and observations by specialists indicate a growing unease over science. The prestige of scientists has apparently slipped, though it remains relatively high. Irrational beliefs like miracles, ghosts and astrology are strong. And there's a nagging feeling that science is failing to solve social ills. Give the article a read; it goes to the heart of your question.
Regards,
John Noble Wilford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
