A good sign

President Obama has chosen Oregon State Professor Jane Lubchenco to head NOAA.  She is a brilliant scientist and in my opinion her appointment is another great indication that not only did the country make the right choice this fall and that logic and science will have a place in this government, but also a sign that this country will change and better days will come.  And yes, I am totally biased because she is from my alma mater, and I have admired her since undergraduate school.  For the inadequately written story from our local paper click here.  For a slightly more informative article from the washington post try here.  Go Jane!

LHC - We're not dead yet!

Well, so far the LHC hasn't killed us all in our sleep (as far as I can tell).  The story is probably being told everywhere but I first heard the good news on NPR this morning.  Of course there isn't much to tell yet, just a lot of excited scientist who are basically saying: "we told you we wouldn't destroy everyone."  But here's a link to a NPR article on it, good stuff but I find it disturbing to think of a lab full of physicists having a pajama party.....

In case you're worried about the earths imminent destruction you can navigate to this webpage

where they bravely answer the question: has the lhc destroyed the earth?

Scientists, Atheists, and thoughts from childhood

After returning to school last fall I started reading a lot of science blogs.  The first, and probably still my all around favorite, was Living the Scientific Life.  I was drawn to a lot of other blogs about life as a scientist (especially blogs by women scientists), as well as blogs that discussed life science and evolution (which I tend think of as one and the same).  Without really intending to I also ended up reading many post about atheism (it sounds weird to call it an "ism" for some reason) and posts on the many problems with religion.  After reading so many of these posts, you can't help but wonder about what you "believe".  So this curiosity lead me listen to some old Dawkins lectures on the topics of religion and science, and watch some fantastic interview clips with David Attenborough discussing evolution and belief in the existence of god.  Their ideas are always so eloquent, insightful, and logical but I can never completely reconcile them with my own way of seeing the world. 

Today I read an intriguing post by GrrlScientist at the aforementioned Living the Scientific Life blog.  She discusses being raised to be a religious person , how this conflicted with her inquisitive nature and how this conflict lead her to become an atheist.  So that got me thinking about my childhood, and I wouldn't say everything clicked in to place but it has certainly helped me to make a little more sense of how I interpret the world and why.  

If my parents had a particular belief system in mind when they raised me I'm still not aware of it.  In fact if they raised me to be anything I would say it was to become a scientist.  Most people would say that's not surprising considering I was raised by an anthropologist and a biologist, but there was more to it than their own knowledge and interest in the natural world.  I think I was allowed to experience nature differently that many children are.  If I was curious I was encouraged, if I had questions they were answered and no answer was ever dumbed down (even if this meant teaching a very young child the details of how animals reproduce).  

One might expect such an upbringing to take away the mystery of life, but it did just the opposite.  For some inexplicable reason all these answers just made the world seem more mysterious and amazing, I was sure I would find something unexplainable if I just looked long and hard enough.  I never did, but I also never stopped looking.  Now I no longer seek the unexplainable with a belief it will remain unexplained, but instead seek the answers to the yet to be explained questions.

What more is a scientist than a child who was never taught not to ask questions? or at least never stopped questioning, even when told to.  And as a result of this childhood I am what exactly? certainly not religious, but not an atheist either.  I have a feeling that Professor Dawkins would tell me that to understand evolution, biology, and the origins of life on this planet and not proclaim oneself to be an atheist means that I am not following the scientific reasoning to it's logical conclusion.  Maybe that's true, perhaps there is a flaw in my primate brain that makes me perceive the natural world with too much awe causing me to believe there may be something beyond what I can see and know with the tools I have.  Perhaps it is a side effect of always being encouraged to question what I see and experience.  Maybe it's just the revolting nature of all the labels people assign themselves causing me to resist assimilation in to any belief or non-belief system.

It's strange to have enough scientific knowledge to explain most of the world I encounter, and yet be so incapable of explaining myself.

Pasteur's insight

Listening to the Science Friday podcast this morning I was drawn to a Louis Pasteur quote: 

"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Ira quoted Pasteur when introducing a story on recent amazing observation of the early stages of a supernova.  What a fantastic description of how most great scientific discoveries occur.  We train ourselves, believe in our instinct, and use science to discover the why behind our luck.  What a brilliant man Pasteur was.

Scientists and cats

I've been catching up on some of my favorite blogs this morning and came across a wonderful post from GrrlScientist with an adorable video about engineers and their kitties.  I had a really good chuckle and my husband and I are convinced that our young male orange-tabby guest starred in the video

Paul Dirac quote

A really great quote from my google quote of the day widget:

"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite."
Paul Dirac
English physicist in US (1902 - 1984)

The Scientists' Mantra

I've been thinking about mantras lately.

Something to say to myself when I need that extra push.  Something inspirational, motivational, something that helps me to focus.  Not being in a recovery program, not ascribing to a particular religious view, and being moderately poor at yoga, I don't know any mantras.  So, I did what any laptop dependent adult would do in my place, I googled it.  More specifically I googled the scientists' mantra, thinking I'd find a inspiring message floating about in cyberspace. Unfortunately we scientist apparently are rather uninventive when it comes to such things.  The motley crew of mantras that I found follow:

Scientists need freedom in pursuing their research.

-Well true, but I find this rather lacking in inspiration and motivation.

First learn what others have done.

-A good message, an especially important one for us young scientists venturing in to new territory, but still not very mantra-like.

Anything that can be measured by statistics or quantified is by definition the right way to do things. 

-Well, I'm fairly sure this was meant to be insulting to scientists.

More research is needed.

-Very Blah.

There is value in basic research.

-Hmmm, better.  Could be especially good if you thought your research was rather rudimentary in comparison to others work., but still no winner.

Discover, develop, deliver.

-Would appear to be a commercial catch phrase, which by definition eliminates it from mantrahood.

Science for scientists.

-I really hate this one, "Science for all" would be much better.

A scientist is an objective observer and interpreter.

-Now, this one has potential, still doesn't have that powerful mantra-feeling, but it's definitely growing on me. 

And that leaves me still searching for that inspirational, motivational scientists' mantra.  Hmmm, something about the value of our work, and changing the world..... I'm working on it.