scholarly journals Animal rights extremists: The public is waking up

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-34
Author(s):  
Simon Festing
Keyword(s):  
Animal Rights ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Waking Up

Despite the menace of the animal rights extremists, the scientific community are becoming more confident at explaining the need for animal research. A co-ordinated approach to communications, together with cautious moves towards greater openness, should allow us to keep the public on our side.

The Fight Against Doubt

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
False Beliefs ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Scientific Claims

Current debates about climate change or vaccine safety provide an alarming illustration of the potential impacts of dissent about scientific claims. False beliefs about evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are commonplace, as is corrosive doubt about the existence of widespread scientific consensus. Deployed aggressively and to political ends, ill-founded dissent can intimidate scientists, stymie research, and lead both the public and policymakers to oppose important policies firmly rooted in science. To criticize dissent is, however, a fraught exercise. Skepticism and fearless debate are key to the scientific process, making it both vital and incredibly difficult to characterize and identify dissent that is problematic in its approach and consequences. Indeed, as de Melo-Martín and Intemann show, the criteria commonly proposed as means of identifying inappropriate dissent are flawed, and the strategies generally recommended to tackle such dissent are not only ineffective but could even make the situation worse. The Fight against Doubt proposes that progress on this front can best be achieved by enhancing the trustworthiness of the scientific community and being more realistic about the limits of science when it comes to policymaking. It shows that a richer understanding is needed of the context in which science operates so as to disarm problematic dissent and those who deploy it in the pursuit of their goals.

scholarly journals The OpenRadiation project: monitoring radioactivity in the environment by and for the citizens

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.F. Bottollier-Depois ◽  
E. Allain ◽  
G. Baumont ◽  
N. Berthelot ◽  
G. Darley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Emergency Situation ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
Fukushima Accident ◽  
The Public ◽  
Collaborative Tools ◽  
Share Data ◽  
Project Monitoring

After the Fukushima accident, initiatives emerged offering the public the possibility to realise measurements of the radioactivity in the environment with various devices and to share data and experiences through collaborative tools. The objective of the OpenRadiation project is to offer the public the opportunity to perform measurements of the radioactivity using connected dosimeters on smartphones. The challenge is to operate such a system on a sustainable basis in normal situations and in order to be useful in an emergency situation. In normal situations, this project is based on a collaborative approach including pedagogical activities. In case of emergency situation, data from the field will be available in “real time” providing an opportunity for the emergency management and the communication with the public. The practical objectives are to develop i) a website centralising measurements using various dosimeters, providing dose rate maps with raw and filtered data and offering dedicated areas for specific projects and exchanges about data and ii) a dosimetric app using a connected dosimeter. This project is conducted within a partnership between organisms’ representative of the scientific community and associations to create links with the public.

scholarly journals A Risk-Based Strategy for Evaluating Mitigation Options for Process-Formed Compounds in Food

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Hanlon ◽  
Gregory P. Brorby ◽  
Mansi Krishan
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Decision Tree ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Technical Committee ◽  
Global Approach ◽  
Chemical Safety ◽  
The Public ◽  
The North ◽  
The Impact

Processing (eg, cooking, grinding, drying) has changed the composition of food throughout the course of human history; however, awareness of process-formed compounds, and the potential need to mitigate exposure to those compounds, is a relatively recent phenomenon. In May 2015, the North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI North America) Technical Committee on Food and Chemical Safety held a workshop on the risk-based process for mitigation of process-formed compounds. This workshop aimed to gain alignment from academia, government, and industry on a risk-based process for proactively assessing the need for and benefit of mitigation of process-formed compounds, including criteria to objectively assess the impact of mitigation as well as research needed to support this process. Workshop participants provided real-time feedback on a draft framework in the form of a decision tree developed by the ILSI North America Technical Committee on Food and Chemical Safety to a panel of experts, and they discussed the importance of communicating the value of such a process to the larger scientific community and, ultimately, the public. The outcome of the workshop was a decision tree that can be used by the scientific community and could form the basis of a global approach to assessing the risks associated with mitigation of process-formed compounds.

scholarly journals Conservation of white uacaries in Amazonian várzea

Oryx ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Márcio Ayres ◽  
Andrew D. Johns
Keyword(s):  
Field Study ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reserve Area ◽  
The Creation

Until two decades ago, the only reference to the white uacari of the upper Amazon, known locally as the ‘English monkey’, had been provided by the British naturalist Henry Walter Bates, who saw captured animals during his sojourn in Amazonia in the 1850s. A major Brazilian initiative led us to the first intensive field study of the species, which was carried out in 1983 and 1984 by one of the authors, J. M. Ayres, with the participation of a large number of Brazilian scientists and a few from overseas. The study illustrated the uniqueness of the várzea habitat in which the animals live and the threats it currently faces. It also captured the attention of both the Brazilian scientific community and the public. Possibilities for the creation of a reserve area within the várzea are now being implemented.

Scenarios as Tools of the Scientific Imagination: The Case of Climate Projections

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-61
Author(s):  
Michael Poznic ◽  
Rafaela Hillerbrand
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
The Other ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Public Realm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One ◽  
Scientific Imagination

Climatologists have recently introduced a distinction between projections as scenario-based model results on the one hand and predictions on the other hand. The interpretation and usage of both terms is, however, not univocal. It is stated that the ambiguities of the interpretations may cause problems in the communication of climate science within the scientific community and to the public realm. This paper suggests an account of scenarios as props in games of make-belive. With this account, we explain the difference between projections that should be make-believed and other model results that should be believed.

scholarly journals Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM

2012 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-7 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
New Combinations ◽  
Original Publication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Taxonomic Changes ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Evolutionary Microbiology

The Bacteriological Code deals with the nomenclature of prokaryotes. This may include existing names (the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names) as well as new names and new combinations. In this sense the Code is also dealing indirectly with taxonomic opinions. However, as with most codes of nomenclature there are no mechanisms for formally recording taxonomic opinions that do not involve the creation of new names or new combinations. In particular, it would be desirable for taxonomic opinions resulting from the creation of synonyms or emended descriptions to be made widely available to the public. In 2004, the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) agreed unanimously that it was desirable to cover such changes in taxonomic opinions (i.e. the creation of synonyms or the emendation of circumscriptions) previously published outside the IJSEM, and to introduce a List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion [Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM; Euzéby et al. (2004). Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54, 1429–1430]. Scientists wishing to have changes in taxonomic opinion included in future lists should send one copy of the pertinent reprint or a photocopy or a PDF file thereof to the IJSEM Editorial Office or to the Lists Editor. It must be stressed that the date of proposed taxonomic changes is the date of the original publication not the date of publication of the list. Taxonomic opinions included in the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion cannot be considered as validly published nor, in any other way, approved by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes and its Judicial Commission. The names that are to be used are those that are the ‘correct names’ (in the sense of Principle 6) in the opinion of the bacteriologist, with a given circumscription, position and rank. A particular name, circumscription, position and rank does not have to be adopted in all circumstances. Consequently, the List of Changes in Taxonomic Opinion must be considered as a service to bacteriology and it has no ‘official character’, other than providing a centralized point for registering/indexing such changes in a way that makes them easily accessible to the scientific community.

scholarly journals Accelerating Scientific Publication in Biology

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D Vale
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Postdoctoral Training ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Information ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Catalytic Effects

Scientific publications enable results and ideas to be transmitted throughout the scientific community. The number and type of journal publications also have become the primary criteria used in evaluating career advancement. Our analysis suggests that publication practices have changed considerably in the life sciences over the past thirty years. More experimental data is now required for publication, and the average time required for graduate students to publish their first paper has increased and is approaching the desirable duration of Ph.D. training. Since publication is generally a requirement for career progression, schemes to reduce the time of graduate student and postdoctoral training may be difficult to implement without also considering new mechanisms for accelerating communication of their work. The increasing time to publication also delays potential catalytic effects that ensue when many scientists have access to new information. The time has come for life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and the scientific community.

scholarly journals Acceptance of animal research in our science community

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 282
Author(s):  
Konstantin Bergmeister ◽  
Bruno Podesser
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Single Center ◽  
The Public ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
University Of Vienna ◽  
Single Center Study ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Medical University ◽  
Center Study

Animal research is debated highly controversial, as evident by the “Stop Vivi-section” initiative in 2015. Despite widespread protest to the initiative by researchers, no data is available on the European medical research community’s opinion towards animal research. In this single-center study, we investigated this question in a survey of students and staff members at the Medical University of Vienna. A total of 906 participants responded to the survey, of which 82.8% rated the relevance of animal research high and 62% would not accept a treatment without prior animals testing. Overall, animal research was considered important, but its communication to the public considered requiring improvement.

scholarly journals Teaching reproducible research for medical students and postgraduate pharmaceutical scientists

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas D. Meid
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Pharmaceutical Sciences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Academic Settings ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Good Research

AbstractIn medicine and other academic settings, (doctoral) students often work in interdisciplinary teams together with researchers of pharmaceutical sciences, natural sciences in general, or biostatistics. They should be fundamentally taught good research practices, especially in terms of statistical analysis. This includes reproducibility as a central aspect. Acknowledging that even experienced researchers and supervisors might be unfamiliar with necessary aspects of a perfectly reproducible workflow, a lecture series on reproducible research (RR) was developed for young scientists in clinical pharmacology. The pilot series highlighted definitions of RR, reasons for RR, potential merits of RR, and ways to work accordingly. In trying to actually reproduce a published analysis, several practical obstacles arose. In this article, reproduction of a working example is commented to emphasize the manifold facets of RR, to provide possible explanations for difficulties and solutions, and to argue that harmonized curricula for (quantitative) clinical researchers should include RR principles. These experiences should raise awareness among educators and students, supervisors and young scientists. RR working habits are not only beneficial for ourselves or our students, but also for other researchers within an institution, for scientific partners, for the scientific community, and eventually for the public profiting from research findings.

Endangered Science: The Regulation of Research by the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection and Endangered Species Acts

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Etienne Benson
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Marine Mammal ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Autonomy ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Biological Research ◽  
The Public

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act have been cornerstones of federal wildlife conservation policy in the United States since their enactment in the early 1970s. These laws prohibited the taking of members of protected populations without a permit, where “taking” was defined so broadly as to include harassment or disturbance, as well as capture or killing. Because most forms of biological research on protected species involved some sort of taking, and because such research was deemed vital to the achievement of conservation goals and the advancement of human knowledge, the laws established procedures under which proposed scientific takes could be permitted after review by federal regulators, scientists, the public, and, in some cases, the courts. Although there was relatively little controversy over the need for or nature of these permit procedures during the debates leading up to the enactment of the laws, they became the source of concern on the part of many zoologists, biologists, and ecologists as soon as federal agencies began to implement them. From these scientists’ perspective, certain forms of environmental regulation undermined their professional autonomy and threatened to hamper the production of the very knowledge necessary for effective environmental protection. Their efforts to block, weaken, or work around such regulation brought them into conflict with environmental and animal rights activists, regulators, and other members of the scientific community and resonated with a broader backlash against environmental regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document