The goal of the Science Game Center is to demonstrate to teachers, scientists, museums, and parents the myriad ways games can be used to improve education in math and science. The Science Game Center will provide a place where users can describe their experiences with math and science games, gather information on game strengths and weaknesses, and share tips on how to use games to help students reach their educational goals.
The Science Game Center will have
a curated List of Science Games searchable by platform and by curated list of concepts public reviews for each game with 5 star ratings for Fun, Science, and Teaching Effectiveness ability to search for reviews by Teachers, Scientists, or by age of reviewer long form authoritative discussion by FAS, teacher and scientist for each game
Synthetic Genetic Polymers Capable of Heredity and Evolution Vitor B. Pinheiro1, Alexander I. Taylor1, Christopher Cozens1, Mikhail Abramov2, Marleen Renders2,*, Su Zhang3, John C. Chaput3, Jesper Wengel4, Sew-Yeu Peak-Chew1, Stephen H. McLaughlin1, Piet Herdewijn2, Philipp Holliger1,†
EUROPEAN DEBT CRISIS Research Cuts Will Cause ‘Exodus’ From Spain Elisabeth Pain Last week's announcement that the long-delayed 2012 national budget would slash funding for science by more than 25% surpassed the worst predictions of Spanish scientists. According to the Confederation of Spanish Scientific Societies's (COSCE's) analysis of the budget, the cut is "the most drastic cut known" since national research programs were put in place in the late 1980s. COSCE is also concerned because in recent years the government has not even paid the full amount allocated in the science budget.
This talk by Gerd Gigerenzer is about heuristics, and why they are often superior to the more formal methods of analysis and decision-making fetishized by economists. He argues that one of the big things that economists miss is how to approach decision-making under conditions of risk (when probabilities of outcomes can be estimated with some accuracy) versus uncertainty (when you can’t estimate the odds of outcomes and/or may face unknown unknowns).
The Scientific Electronic Library Online - SciELO is an electronic library covering a selected collection of Brazilian scientific journals.
The library is an integral part of a project being developed by FAPESP - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, in partnership with BIREME - the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information. Since 2002, the Project is also supported by CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.
The Project envisages the development of a common methodology for the preparation, storage, dissemination and evaluation of scientific literature in electronic format.
As the project develops, new journal titles are being added in the library
Plant science has never been more important. The growing and increasingly prosperous human population needs abundant safe and nutritious food, shelter, clothes, fibre, and renewable energy, and needs to address the problems generated by climate change, while preserving habitats. These global challenges can only be met in the context of a strong fundamental understanding of plant biology and ecology, and translation of this knowledge into field-based solutions.
Plant science is beginning to address these grand challenges, but it is not clear that the full range of challenges facing plant science is known or has been assessed. What questions should the next generation of plant biologists be addressing? To start to answer this question we set out to compile a list of 100 important questions facing plant science research.
An experimental drug to treat multiple sclerosis developed by Ono Pharmaceutical Co. (4528) reduced the number of lesions in the brain, a study to be presented at the American Academy of Neurology showed.
A progressive global increase in the burden of allergic diseases has affected the industrialized world over the last half century and has been reported in the literature. The clinical evidence reveals a general increase in both incidence and prevalence of respiratory diseases, such as allergic rhinitis (common hay fever) and asthma. Such phenomena may be related not only to air pollution and changes in lifestyle, but also to an actual increase in airborne quantities of allergenic pollen. Experimental enhancements of carbon dioxide (CO) have demonstrated changes in pollen amount and allergenicity, but this has rarely been shown in the wider environment. The present analysis of a continental-scale pollen data set reveals an increasing trend in the yearly amount of airborne pollen for many taxa in Europe, which is more pronounced in urban than semi-rural/rural areas. Climate change may contribute to these changes, however increased temperatures do not appear to be a major influencing factor. Instead, we suggest the anthropogenic rise of atmospheric CO levels may be influential.
We sometimes measure the caliber of a researcher by how many research papers he wrote. This is silly. While there is some correlation between quantity and quality — people like Einstein tend to publish a lot — it can be gamed easily. Moreover, several major researchers have published relatively few papers: John Nash has about two dozens papers in Scopus. Even if you don’t know much about science, I am sure you can think of a few writers who have written only a couple of books but are still world famous.
A better measure is the number of citations a researcher has received. Google Scholar profiles display the citation record of researchers prominently. It is a slightly more robust measure, but it is still silly because 90% of citations are shallow: most authors haven’t even read the paper they are citing. We tend to cite famous authors and famous venues in the hope that some of the prestige will get reflected.
But why stop there? We have the technology to measure the usage made of a cited paper. Some citations are more significant: for example it can be an extension of the cited paper. Machine learning techniques can measure the impact of your papers based on how much following papers build on your results. Why isn’t it done?