Sentences with phrase «taken against scientists»

We also serve as a clearinghouse for information related to legal action taken against scientists, which can inform strategies for — and outcomes of — future cases.

• Educate researchers about their legal rights and responsibilities on issues surrounding their work; • Serve as a clearinghouse for information related to legal actions taken against scientists; and • Recruit and assist lawyers representing these scientists.

Narasimha wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the «actions taken against the scientists could demoralize the Indian Space Research Organization's scientific community, and adversely affect its ability to take the kind of technological initiatives — not always without risk — that are the hallmark of an innovative organization.»

Not exact matches

Mr. Hawking wins easy battles against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack of proof and evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas of God, and this is very common in all scientists.

This is popular ply by the anti science / antievolution crowd, take a quotation by a reputable scientist out of context, or leave out the salient parts, and use that as a weapon against evolution.

The difficulty was, that to say so, even for a scientist with the factsat his fingertips, was to go against a powerful and intolerant conventional wisdom: «We liberals», he wrote, «who work in the fields of global HIV / AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this.

It's the life sciences, like evolutionary biology and genetics that are often stuck in the intellectual quicksand of ill - informed, knee - jerk atheism, while the hard sciences are bumping up against boundaries beyond which their methodology can't take them — boundaries that may define the meeting ground between scientists and theologians.

Perhaps a disadvantage of the probability argument is that, unless one is a high - powered scientist, the arguments for and against can take on an aspect of the anecdotal: scientist A says X and scientist B says Y.

Scientists across 50 cities took to the streets against funding cuts and government leaders» anti-science rhetoric

In 1976, the AAAS Board and Council jointly created a permanent Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to develop policies and procedures to protect scientists, engineers and health care professionals against infringements of scientific freedom and responsibility, to monitor policies and actions taken by governments that might affect their professional rights and duties, and to promote attention to scientific freedom and responsibility within AAAS, its affiliated societies, and the general public.

In «Against the Grain,» a political scientist claims early states took a toll on formerly mobile groups» health and happiness.

In the past, scientists have tried to determine therapeutic effectiveness by separating patients into groups based on their clinical parameters such as what antibodies they are producing against themselves, how swollen their joints are and medications they are taking.

In the film Contagion, it takes just a few months for scientists to make a vaccine against a deadly virus.

An environmental modeler presents how the science works, but a decision scientist uses decision theory to take into account both the scientific information in a model and its uncertainty, and to help policymakers weigh that information against other factors, Crawford - Brown says.

Taken together, this suggests that SRP - 6 protects worm cells against lysosome rupture and necrosis, the scientists conclude in the 21 September issue of Cell.

Such outreach takes time and effort, which scientists need to weigh against the modest dollar amounts they are likely to raise.

► «Frustrated scientists in Chile have taken to the streets to protest against low research spending, frail science institutions, poor career prospects — and what they see as the government's overall disregard for science,» Tania Rabesandratana wrote in another Monday ScienceInsider.

The advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has taken up Monnett's cause, calling the apparently criminal investigation a politically - motivated «witch hunt» against a scientist whose research threatens the government's ability to drill in the Arctic.

We regard them as unfalsifiable, and so, as scientists, we take no position for or against them.

Frustrated scientists in Chile have taken to the streets to protest against low research spending, frail science institutions, poor career prospects — and what they see as the government's overall disregard for science.

The risk of legal attack on any individual scientist is small, but there are actions researchers can take to protect and defend themselves against politically - motivated attacks.

With us or against us I was going to follow - up on the last post with a few more comments about scientists taking policy positions but sometimes events and even scientists speak for themselves.

In a letter posted on PubPeer, President Daniel Zajfman describes some of the disciplinary measures taken against an unnamed scientist, including also retracting or correcting all affected papers.

Using a good sunscreen definitely helps to protect against skin damage, although scientists from the University of British Columbia are taking things a step farther.

But for today, we'll leave all that aside and take a look at McKitrick's hasty attempt to buttress his weak case against IPCC scientists by quoting from the latest dump of stolen emails.

Marine scientists from Australia and the USA today called for global efforts to protect deeper coral reefs as insurance against the widespread destruction of shallow reefs and their fish stocks now taking place around the world.

He took the petition and he tried to have Science publish the petition to show that scientists were on record as saying that this should not be used against a non-atomic enemy as it had been planned to be used against an atomic enemy, Germany.

Only 1 in 3 Americans says that protecting against mosquito bites is a step that scientists think people can take to avoid the negative health effects of Zika virus, an Annenberg Public Policy Center survey found.

«Some scientists believe there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking a daily multivitamin, because there isn't yet enough data from randomized controlled trials.

The sharks take a turn for the worse and go against the scientists, leaving a deadly outcome.

Up against far superior competition for the «Pirate of the Year Award», he is desperate for a get - rich - quick scheme when he boards the bootyless HMS Beagle and takes young scientist Charles Darwin captive.

Board Certified Animal Nutritionist, registered Feed Microsopist and certified Professional Animal Scientist Dr. Gary Pusillo is available to discuss the warning signs of food illness in your pet, what steps to take if you suspect your pet is sick, how pet owners can safeguard against food illnesses, and what to look for when selecting pet foods.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

it's just sad how an administration thats taken such an active stance against any attempt to tackle climate change in a comprehensive fashion now lamely complains when scientists and advocates employ the other regulatory tools available to address the problem.

But momentum is sustained through fine performances, particularly by Jeff McCarthy as the Hansen - like scientist and George Bartenieff as the aging uncle who is the steward of the family estate and takes up arms against the fracking plan.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

Unfortunately, these scientists at NASA have taken a well entrenched adversarial role against Steve, and the «discourse», such as it is, has to be pursued far more in the mode of political disputes than of scientific inquiry.

Judith Curry has taken up Sir John Beddington's challenge to scientists to stand up and be counted in the battle against pseudoscience, with a long post on the subject of the Trick to Hide the Decline.

I didnb» t mention it, because the odds are so much against it, but Vaughn might be taking a break to do what scientists are supposed to do and attempt to falsifiy his own hypothesis.

As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also climate «skeptics» have published an opinion - editorial (op - ed), trying to make the case against taking action to address climate change.

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

That they take such a cavalier approach to any form of Quality Control, an aggressively hostile stance against any outside review of their work and refuse to seek any advice from those with relevant professional expertise, speaks to me of a closed and inward - looking group of «scientists» with a siege mentality.

That said, I don't retract my main point which is that the Academy needs to take a much more vigorous line against the attacks on science and individual scientists which have become a pervasive feature of Australian political commentary.

Jacobson has even suggested that he might take legal action against NOAA scientist Christopher Clack and twenty coauthors whose critical evaluation of his work was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June.

Rob I think the difference is that the real scientist takes on board the evidence presented against his theory and either adjusts the theory or abandons it.

The accusation of criminality against leading climate scientists takes the denialist campaign of harassment and intimidation to new depths, and immediately conjures up images of McCarthyism.

It was even more wonderful to take away one of their favorite arguments that they were using against me at the meetings that scientists still in disagreement about climate change.

People have every right to take issue with the inane and offensive things you have said on blogs, your innuendo, your unsubstantiated claims, and your uncritical and unskeptical acceptance of all sundry of accusations put forth by so - called «skeptics» against climate scientists.

You took something I expressed no opinion on whatsoever (Feynman quote) made up an opinion for me (grudge against scientists) and then expressed shock («Wow.»)