Surface tension and biology

This blog has tended to focus on methodological issues in science and medicine, but occasionally I do want to lavish praise for substantive work.  Here I'd like to call readers' attention to the delightful article in Science a couple weeks ago by Elizabeth Pennisi, "Water's Tough Skin."  It is a feature article describing a number of ways that surface tension is important in biology, including for plants, animals, and microbes.  A number of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians are interviewed about their work.  This is the kind of article that reminds us of why we became interested in science, engineering, and medicine in the first place.  I won't review the content here, but I commend it to readers to enjoy for themselves.

Reference

Elizabeth Pennisi, 2014:  Water's tough skin.  Surface tension is a force to be reckoned with, especially if you are small.  Science, 343:  1194-1197.

The perils of sharing data

One of the cardinal principles of reproducible research is the sharing of data.  Making data (not just a summary of results) available is just as important for disclosure as the study design, and materials and methods.  Disclosure of the actual data permits others to confirm the analysis of the original authors, or conduct alternative analyses.

Last week's issue of Nature had an editorial outlining the perils of sharing data.  Of greatest concern:  once a data set is published, it is easy for an armchair analyst to take it and run with it, possibly depriving the original investigators the opportunity to publish findings based on a very hard won data set.  Publication of a data set does not have the same status and prestige as publishing scientific findings from the data.

I join with Nature in encouraging discussion and debate within the scientific community to resolve these issues.  The interests of the innovators -- those who design studies and collect the data -- need to be considered before rushing into a mandatory data disclosure policy.  The article talks about the possibility of inviting the original authors to be co-authors on works derived from their data by others.  This is one of many possible options.  The infrastructure of science, including funding, tenure, and promotion policies, needs to change to accommodate and encourage data sharing.  I don't have any answers, and I suspect each field will have to structure a customized solution to suit its own situation.

Welcome to Ioannidis & Goodman's METRICS

Last week's edition of the Economist carried an article announcing the creation of a new laboratory at Stanford University, called the Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRICS), founded by John Ioannidis and Steven Goodman.  It aims to promote reproducible research and shame non-reproducible research.  Of greatest note is its "journal watch" concept, which will monitor the quality of published research.  Such a watchdog has been badly needed for decades, although I wonder how the operation will be funded.

Other activities mentioned by the article include influencing policymakers to avoid relying on shoddy research, battling publication bias, organizing conferences of other meta-researchers, and evaluating the effects of encouraging reproducible research. In other words, they'd like to see if there is any evidence that evidence-based science is better science!

DTLR has long been an admirer of Ioannidis' work, and I welcome the new center and look forward to seeing its work.

This winter's weather does not reveal anything about global warming

Last month in Science, a group of five prominent atmospheric scientists from around the country published a letter cautioning us not to interpret this winter's severe weather through the lens of climate change (Wallace et al., 2014). This winter has witnessed the dip in the polar vortex over much of the U.S., resulting in all time low temperatures; there have also been a series of heavy snowstorms on the east coast. Speaking of these events, the authors write:

Some have been touting such stretches of extreme cold as evidence that global warming is a hoax, while others have been citing them as evidence that global warming is causing a “global weirding” of the weather. In our view, it is neither.

As climate scientists, we share the prevailing view in our community that human-induced global warming is happening and that, without mitigating measures, the Earth will continue to warm over the next century with serious consequences. But we consider it unlikely that those consequences will include more frigid winters.

Although such a hypothesis has been proposed, the authors do not find it corroborated with either “alternate observational analyses” nor climate model simulations. Moreover they “do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling.” The authors caution about mistaking coincidence for causation, and although they believe such hypotheses “deserve a fair hearing”, the authors seem to imply that this one is too half-baked to be made “the centerpiece of the public discourse on global warming.” They conclude:

Even in a warming climate, we could experience an extraordinary run of cold winters, but harsher winters in future decades are not among the most likely nor the most serious consequences of global warming.

Reference

John M. Wallace, Isaac M. Held, David W. J. Thompson, Kevin E. Trenberth, and John E. Walsh, 2014: Global warming and winter weather. Science, 343: 729-730.