Sentences with phrase «scientific interest because»

Resume: During the last decades, depositions with reversible properties have attracted the scientific interest because of the large number of technological applications that they can be used, such as sensors, detectors, switches and smart windows.

The Juan de Fuca Ridge has garnered a lot of scientific interest because it runs roughly parallel to the northwest coast of the United States only 300 miles offshore, making it relatively easy to get to.

Nili Fossae trough is already of scientific interest because the crust in the region is thought to date from when Mars was a much wetter place.

Not exact matches

I read an interesting article today written by a quantum mechanic claiming that the new direction in such scientific studies is that we can't be sure there is an objective reality but can only hope so, because what we perceive as reality is shaped by the observer.

I pointed it out as an «interesting scientific theory» because you didn't know that the great flood actually did occur.

Another man went to Los Alamos because of technical scientific interest in what he thought of as exciting pure research with excellent equipment.

I would be interested in anything that you, as a 21st century member of the religious cult, might have to say, but am not interested in anything written so long ago by bronze age or iron age cult members because they really knew nothing about the world and believed in gods the same way any primitive man did... through scientific ignorance.

Because scientists and philosophers abstract data based on particular interest, the objective philosophical and scientific precision craved by the rationalism of modernity is impossible.

[I find the questions about the advertisement interesting, because there are no questions about whether it provides sufficient scientific and factual information, and whether the references are clear (actually, it does not give any references).

I find it very interesting that you imply that because you have been published in medical journals that means that your scientific data is the one that is correct, if public media attention on your research is what you feel solidifies it as «right» then wouldn't you have to say that scientific data on the other end of the spectrum that has been published is «right» as well.

The real scientific reason is because freedom of speech is not toward the king's best interests.

In an Oct. 17 letter to President Trump, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and dozens of prominent scientific and engineering societies said the president's Sept. 24 proclamation on visa and immigration policies poses «serious implications for diplomatic, humanitarian and national security interests in part because it weakens our U.S. science and engineering capacity.»

News articles about scientific publishing are rarely subject to the same forces simply because relatively few people are interested.

Alda: Yeah, but it is a really interesting subject and I am very glad that he claims we had these conversations, because what we are able to do on these shows [that] we were never able to do on Scientific American Frontiers is to devote three hour -LSB-- long] programs, three one - hour length programs, to one subject and not do, you know, a five - minute subject and then follow up with a completely different question.

I find these kinds of rule - challenging researchers inherently interesting because of the stark way they illuminate the process of scientific progress.

From a scientific perspective, it's very interesting because one of the great limitations we have in meteorology is that we're not a laboratory science.

But these days, of course, people are increasingly turning to the Web first for sort of fast - breaking news about science and technology — and there are wonderful things about the Web because, of course, it's a highly interactive media and it is one where it's a really very well suited for letting people explore their interests in whatever level of depth that they have, which is perfect for something like Scientific American.

Inline advertising — links to scientific companies within methods sections — are also ethical considerations because conflicts of interest may be perceived.

We feature a small number of dissenting voices in our coverage, not because we seek to be impartial between «scientific fact and sceptic fiction», as Bob Ward suggests, but because reflecting the different sides of an ongoing debate is very much in the public interest.

Being a researcher doesn't mean that you follow what is publicly appealing, because public interest generally lags scientific understanding.

Cellular senescence has garnered significant scientific interest of late because it may be one key to prevent the initiation of cancer.

Whether this is because they have complete confidence in my scientific approach or they really aren't interested remains to be ascertained.

In response, Holdren said, scientists are already an interest group, one that happens to be devoted to its interest in scientific inquiry; science is already politicized because federal funding decisions governing research programs take place in a political arena in which Congress, the executive branch and stakeholders from all sides play leading roles; and, finally, scientists are most worried about the results of their work being lost, not their jobs.

There is an interesting saying that the laowai (foreign scientists) dig holes, but Chinese investigators fill them with papers, which is because in the scientific research system of China, the amount of papers is a key indicator of performance assessment of an investigator.

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

«That's interesting from a scientific point of view because it likely preserves in tiny bubbles a record of the atmosphere of Mars hundreds of millions of years ago.

The asteroid was discovered in 1999 and has been studied intensively partly because of the potential threat it poses to earth and also due to its huge scientific interest.

This study was very interesting, and not just because I'm a nerd who loves reading scientific studies.

«Blue Zones» by Dan Buettner is less scientific but really interesting because it focused on what different populations who live the longest around the world eat (I'll give you a hint, there wasn't a ton of meat, cheese or milk in those diets!).

This is a topic that has attracted considerable scientific interest, 1 2 3 in large part because of uncertainty regarding whether MUFA or carbohydrate should be substituted for saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and the desirable quantity of MUFA to include in the diet.

You are correct that the numerical slowdown has been acknowledged by the scientific community, because it does exist and is of some scientific interest, so I understand.

You now say that these answers don't count because they're too scientific and you're not interested in learning the science.

It is noteworthy that in the recent campaign of libels against him there has not been, as far as I know, a single suggestion that any particular result or conclusion was reached in part or in whole because either that particular research project or his scientific work in general was funded by fossil - fuel interests.

The information that Dr Soon had truthfully disclosed to the Center for its internal purposes has now been made public and has been unfairly exploited by external vested interests to launch attacks on him, his colleagues, and the Center because the interests of these outside groups are threatened by his scientific findings.

Models indicate that cloud - feedback would not substantially slow global warming, but because of the uncertainty, it has been an area of significant scientific interest.

Given your interest in the state of climate science, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to better understand your perspective and rationale for the proposed activity; and to discuss climate science, including which areas are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge and which are well - established because of thousands of studies from multiple lines of evidence.

The short answer: In practice, anyone (scientists and non-scientists) can comment on the articles undergoing public discussion, but we mention «the scientific community» in the guidelines because typically scientists (in the broadest sense of the word) are the ones interested in commenting on the articles.

I think you should start doing scientific research first of all because you are interested in the topic, not because you want to save the world.

The faux pause has nonetheless been used by political partisans like Senator Cruz to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing rapid global warming, simply because they find the political implications of that scientific reality inconvenient â $» to their ideological views and the views of the special interests who fund their campaigns.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

And the problem is exacerbated because to the extent that there is a viable scientific community that presents «skeptical» science about climate change, the lines between that community and the community driven by partisanship, religious doctrine, or corporate interests is very blurry indeed.

All that are left are the hypocrites who have a vested interest in continuing the lie because their jobs depend on it, the uneducated who do not have the scientific or logic training needed to see the lie and the fanatics to whom lying for the «Cause» is justified.

Your question is worth responding to because it highlights two major problems in the public climate discourse: (1) lack of scientific knowledge and (2) the disinformation campaign by interest groups.

Interesting to note overall, scientists and statistical analysis experts who dispute the validity of the «overwhelming scientific consensus» in lengthy detail would be barred from testifying about it because there is an «overwhelming scientific consensus.»

The strategy to avoid this seems to have been 1) make a correction as quietly as possible; 2) deny the importance of the issue (no scientific interest before 1500); 3)(to come) claim there is no need to issue a formal corrigendum because of 1 and 2.

Just because you are only recently interested in climate change does not mean that it is a new scientific endeavor.

In June, EELI's request for financial disclosure statements from members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was denied because «the harm to the individuals... clearly outweighs the public interest in such disclosure.»

A quick visit — and it needs to be quick because I suspect this feature will disappear very soon — to the «borehole» at RC will confirm to any interested party that there is a «consensus» of scientific opinion at odds with the «team» in various regards.

Those of us who have none of your financial or political interests in this question and are merely trying to find out whether and to what extent there really is a «climate crisis» are taken seriously by everyone except the climate extremists, who are increasingly ignored precisely because they will not engage in calm, rational, and above all scientific argument.

Frederick was interested in Taylorism not because she wanted to help people shovel coal faster; she had the radical idea of applying scientific management to domestic situations.