Sentences with phrase «science paper talking»

It's a focused and technical climate science paper talking about a seasonal mechanism.

Not exact matches

Using their star power and connections, the foursome have pushed their ideas on conspicuous occasions, a number of which they created themselves: a session at the National Academy of Sciences» annual meeting that Varmus described as «heated;» a briefing by Krischner, Tilghman, and Varmus at the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; a meeting at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that «brought together some senior... influencers to talk about the problem;» a new paper about that meeting that will soon appear in PNAS; and a presentation by Kirschner at the Future of Research symposium organized by Boston - area postdocs in October.

You start to see how science really works when you're in a big lab: You get to referee papers your boss hasn't time to read, you are suddenly invited to give talks instead of posters, and everyone has heard of your lab, even the Yanks.

They've presented their results at invited talks, most recently the 2016 Gordon Research Conference on Tribology, and in peer - reviewed papers, including a recent Journal of Materials Science article.

You can smell it if you talk to any industrialist about the White Paper on science and technology being prepared by William Waldegrave, the science minister.

Jennifer R. Grandis, a professor of otolaryngology and pharmacology and chemical biology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and a senior author of one of the Science papers, bemoaned the dearth of genetic information about head and neck cancer several years ago at a conference where Garraway had given a talk about the genomic landscape of melanoma.

I'm doing a clinical research, writing grants, writing papers, and going down the academic route, but I care so much about the world that I'm also teaching the public, doing TED Talks, creating a website, writing books, and giving the public the same tools that I'm researching and letting them know, «Here's the science behind why I've designed it this way and why I'm doing the science this way.»

That is why Campbell talks about «protein deficiency» in his papers, that is in the context of rats, but as he points out into his book «Whole: rethinking the science of nutrition», rats are not human beings, and rats are not even mices, as there are already great differences of toxicity between rats and mices.

But is a science paper the best place to «not» use scientific language, or maybe it's okay in science papers to be scientific and then to have folks such as yourself, talking to a non scientific audience, explain what it means using relatable percentages, such as the «roll of the dice» analogy (which really isn't that bad because it is relatable).

So, not to blow sunshine up anyone's kilt, but, basically, this is science working as it should: 1) A crappy paper gets though the peer review process and gets published 2) Its subject matter is of sufficient general interest that it attracts the attention of experts who actually know what they are talking about.

The decision of the NCDC Talking Points to ignore these papers illustrates the state that NCDC is in with respect to Climate Science.

Observer bias is serious indeed in science, and the fact this is never talked about in papers is very telling.

There is a post by England, on the un-skeptical site Skeptical Science where he talks about that paper and says:

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American's Michael Lemonick in «Science Talk», said:

I think it's important to communicate to people what the science is showing and that's why I'm talking about this paper.»

In contrast, when the media, politicians and many many academics talk of «science» they mean a group of people, almost entirely academics and the rules of this club is that you can only get in if submit to other members of the club and get them to sanction your membership (which comes by getting papers and grants).

«I don't like to claim that I am an expert on anything, but I have enough knowledge about climate science and climate system to be able to write scientific papers and go to meetings and talk about monsoon systems and talk about any other things that you want to discuss about climate science issues.

It's a gut feeling but I like the idea of keeping hard sciences and soft sciences at a distance from one another in such a talk / paper.

However, the question asked by Brey is a very ambiguous one (which may be one of reasons the paper was rejected from Science), because the answer depends greatly on what timescale one is talking about.

The ethics of science that this paper is talking about is a different ethics than moral or cultural ethics.

I guess it was originally expected that «long term» meant over say the next 20,000 years (as Shackleton et al talked about in their classic 1976 paper in Science)... although some of the latest work predicts this interglacial period would (even in the absence of human interference) be expected to last longer, as I recall perhaps another 50,000 years.

Remember also we are talking about a 1990 paper; anyone relying on a 20 - year - old paper that has not stood up to subsequent follow - up studies is doing very poor science.