Dear Daniel.
I really understand your point of view and I must say that I agree with it, at
certain extent. Science is all about evidence and not what we (sometimes) want
to see or want to believe. You are completely right when you say that, inside
academia, evidence should be always discussed by those who have deep knowledge
about the subject. Good science is based on good standards, and good standards
are exactly what make our science so robust.
While I must say that it bothers me when someone who is not an expert in "my"
field criticizes my job, I recognize that what makes what we do different than
any religion is exactly the possibility of being criticized, both by those
related to the field and those who might have a good point of view.
Also, we know the rules inside the academia, how to analyze data and we know
too that, in general, the population does not understand at all the meaning and
the methods inside science. If we try to explain any scientific data to these
people using our methods and standards it will be a huge failure (I can't even
change the mind of my nephews, which after a NatGeo show started to believe in
mermaids). When we deal with a non-academic public, we must emphasize how
important is to make science, the good things that came from it and, most
important, we need to be understood.
In fact, there is some discussion if the global warming is only natural or if
it has been happening because the human activity. However, it is pretty clear
that mankind is affecting the weather by the increase of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and the large impact caused by cattle. A five minutes search on
Google can give you back several papers, but I am going to present you only
this one, concerned in devaluation.
HTTPS://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/
As scientists, we are the ones who might have no knowledge in the field, but
the ones able to point out a critical view. When we refuse to talk to the
population cause we are not experts is that field, someone else takes our
place. And generally, they attack science and scientists, giving simple answers
for complex problems. That is because they know what the population wants to
hear. That is how Trump has become the USA president and Billboards did the
same here in Brazil.
When we refuse to look for information, refuse to spread it to the general
population and hide inside the academia, we must be aware that someone, for
sure, is taking our place. That is exactly why currently so many people believe
that the Earth is flat and that vaccines provoke diseases. That is also the
meaning why Greta Thunders, a sixteen years old teenager activist , is better
known than the experts in the field. If we want to be believed we must take
back our place. To hind is not an option.
Regards
Rafael Marques da Silva
Mestrando em Física Biomolecular
Universidade de São Paulo
Bacharel em Ciências Biológicas
Universidade Federal de São Carlos
phone: +55 16 99766-0021
"A sorte acompanha uma mente bem treinada"
________________________________________________
________________________________
De: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> em nome de Daniel M. Himmel,
Ph. D. <danielmhim...@gmail.com>
Enviado: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:23:05 PM
Para: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Assunto: Re: [ccp4bb] Problem in real space - please sign & invite other
scientists to sign this letter
Dear colleagues,
Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in climatology,
and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as
scientists
to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
research nor intellectual content of the manuscript? Are we now going against
the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable biological
journals normally hold us as authors? And doesn't it hurt the credibility
of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it
appears
if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear
without humility as authors to such an article?
Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and economic
theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?
Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that has
high
B-factors? So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an analogous
error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial
interpretation
of selected earth science data? See, for example,
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/ about the
ways
climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval, and
lets stick to
structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.
Respectfully,
Daniel M. Himmel
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
