Search This Blog

Monday, December 23, 2013

Wondering About The Sky


starry night sky photo: starry night sky starryskynight.jpg
Starting at the beginning of our journey, I believe that the human child, looking at the world beneath his feet and the sky overhead, and wondering about it, is as good place to begin it as any. The child is not merely curious about the color of the daytime sky (see Appendix B) of course, but also the blackness of the night. But it is not just the blackness which attracts him but the things that shine within it and take that otherwise monotone of darkness away, revealing the full glory of the universe through the tapestry of night.

When the child gazes upwards at the night sky he sees not only the blackness but the many myriad of points of lights sprinkled against that inky backdrop. How many and how bright the points are depends upon from where he gazes, but they are spectacular nonetheless. Some of the lights stand out as special, or so he notices if he is keen enough an observer over many nights. They are generally brighter than the rest and appear to move slowly, thought stately, across the sky. Some appear only in the evening or the morning skies, while others traverse the entire arc of night, yet are not always there. They appear to ride, more or less, along a single line, which is known to astronomers as the ecliptic. The ecliptic, though our child does not know it, is simply the path the sun takes throughout the sky as a result of Earth orbiting her. The special lights seem to trail in her wake like fireflies.

These lights have special names. The ancient Greeks called them planetes, or wanderers, from which we derive the term planets. Of those visible to the naked eye, they include Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. One might add the moon and the sun to the list, and speak of the seven stars (although only one, the sun, is truly a star) as did the fool to the king in King Lear: (Fool: “The reason why the seven Starres are no mo then seuen, is a pretty reason”. King: “Because they are not eight.” Fool: “Yes indeed, thou wouldn’t make a good Foole.”).

What are these wandering “stars” that stand out so spectacularly in the night sky, and why do I begin my journey there? Certainly, they have piqued our curiosity as much as anything else in the natural world. The child eventually learns that the reason they wander against the seemingly fixed backdrop of stars is that they are members of our own solar system, planets in their own rights like our own, and so are relatively close by compared to the stars. He – by which, I mean I – also learns of two more planets, discovered over the last two hundred plus years, mighty in their own respects but too dim to be seen clearly from here on Earth: Uranus (which actually is just barely visible under the most optimum seeing conditions) and Neptune. And indeed, Earth we stand on is a planet as well, which we would easily see from the sky of any of the others should any of us be fortunate enough (and I believe some of us will have that fortune) to stand on one of them some day. But from whence does this knowledge come?

To the ancient Greeks and Romans the planets were the gods who inhabited Mount Olympus, but when people began in earnest to explore the natural world within the last few centuries, men like Galileo first pointed his primitive telescopes at them and discovered, lo and behold, that they were not the bright points of light the stars remained under even the highest magnifications, but showed clear discs which nobody, even the Catholic clergy of the day, could deny. Some of them even had small bright objects (which we call moons, or satellites) orbiting them, while others, such as Venus and Mercury, showed phases much like our own moon. The results of these simple observations was that the Earth-centered universe of Ptolemy was forever and at last obliterated and a new model of the heavens had to be found, one in which the Earth and the other planets circled the sun and not the other way around (though, as noted, some objects also orbited the planets themselves, such as our own moon or the four satellites orbiting Jupiter that Galileo discovered).

For me, the planets, and their moons, and the myriad other bodies of rock and metal and ice which form our solar system are such a marvelous beginning along our quest into curiosity, if only because so much has been learned about them in my lifetime. Also, as a boy it seemed my clear mandate to become an astronomer when I grew up (instead of the chemist and general scientific dilettante I actually became), so the night sky held a special fascination, perhaps because more than anything else it made me realize just how inconceivably vast the very concept of everything is.

In the early 1960s, when I was a small child just learning how to read and write, very little was known about the other worlds which inhabited our solar system. What was known was largely from the blurry images of ground-based telescopes and the simple spectroscopic and photographic equipment which was all that was available then. We also had some information from microwave and radio astronomy. So we knew some basic stuff; for example, that Jupiter and Saturn were huge gas giant worlds, Uranus and Neptune more modest gaseous worlds (still considerably larger than the Earth), that Mercury was almost certainly a sun-baked ball of rock as tidally locked to the sun as our moon is to Earth – indeed, it was probably a slightly larger version of our moon. Of Pluto, discovered only in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, virtually nothing was known for certain, even its mass and size. Finally, of all these worlds, only thirty two natural satellites were known, with essentially nothing known about any of them except that Titan, Saturn’s largest moon and probably the largest moon in the entire solar system, was the only one showing evidence of a substantial atmosphere, the nature of which was little more than speculation.

* * *

You could not fail to notice that I have overlooked two planets, the two of our most particular interest at that. Venus and Mars capture our imaginations and hopes precisely because they are the nearest worlds to our own, and thus, or so we thought / hoped, were also the nearest in their natures. Even without the benefit of interplanetary probes and the crude, atmosphere befogged instruments we possessed circa 1960, we could see how much promise they held. Rocky worlds like our own, with substantial atmospheres and possibly decent living conditions as good if not better than ours (albeit Mars probably on the cold side, and Venus a tad warm even for the hardiest frontiersmen), they invigorated our imaginations with tales of life and even intelligent beings which even the most skeptical could find believable. Percival Lowell could convincingly describe the “canals” he was certain he spied on Mars (a word which, in fact, is a mistranslation of the Italian word for channels, which their original, equally deluded, discoverer Schiaparelli called them), and the civilization which built them to keep their dying world alive was so believable that when Orson Welles broadcast H. G. Wells novel The War of the Worlds in 1938 thousands were panicked, convinced the invading Martians were all too real. Even well into the 1950s and 60s it was possible to populate the Red Planet with sentient beings with little in the way of scientific rebuke, as Ray Bradbury did in The Martian Chronicles.

Venus somehow inspired less creativity than Mars, perhaps because the dense foggy atmosphere that perpetually hid its surface from view made it seem less hospitable, at least to advanced, intelligent life such as our own. Still, and despite microwave measurements which suggested the planet too hot to be amenable to any life, legions of minds had no problem envisioning all sorts of exotic scenarios for our “sister” world (unlike the smaller Mars, Venus is almost exactly the Earth’s diameter and mass). From vast, swampy jungles, to an ocean-girdling world, to thick seas of hydrocarbons larger than anything on Earth, Venus was often envisioned as a planet as alive as our own.

* * *

All of these visions seemed plausible, even compelling, to imaginative minds right up until the 1960s, when the initial phase of the Great Age of Planetary Exploration blew them all into dust. We – or more precisely our robotic probes, launched into interplanetary space by Cold War ICBMs designed to drop nuclear bombs onto cities teeming with human life – learned that Venus was a searing carbon dioxide encased hell, hot enough to melt lead and with a surface atmospheric pressure equal to almost one kilometer beneath our oceans. Forget life: even our hardiest robots barely lasted an hour under such conditions. As for Mars, our smaller, brother world turned out to be positively welcoming in comparison to our sister, but Schiaparelli and Lowell were shown to be hopeless wishful thinkers; there were no civilizations, no canals, no sentient beings, no beings at all, not even simple plants.

Sometimes what curiosity discovers is that imagination has overreached itself. This is often considered to be curiosity’s downside; I suspect that much of the antagonism towards science comes from just this fact, that in collecting data about the universe we are to some degree destroying our creativity. Thinking about this complaint, I have come to the conclusion that it is not an entirely unfair one. Why do I say this? Because it is true, that in satisfying our curiosity we narrow the range of what “could have been” down into what is, and that is a real loss to real human beings in the real universe. There is no denying this.

At the same time, however, there is an opposite phenomenon which has to be added to the stew. In satisfying our curiosity, we just as often – indeed, perhaps more often – find that our imaginations have been in fact impoverished. It turns out that “there are more things in heaven and earth” than we ever came close to dreaming; that the ocean of actual realities extends far beyond the limiting horizons, out to lands and seas and possibilities we never suspected were out there. The reason I started this chapter with what the last forty years of planetary exploration has found is that nothing could be a better example of this discovery process in action.

Take Mars. The first Mariner photographs were crushing disappointments. Far from being a verdant world, the Red Planet looked more like our moon: crater-pocked, barren, lifeless. There were no signs either of life or any kind of intelligence. Even the atmosphere was less than what we’d hoped: a bare one percent of Earth’s surface pressure, and worse, composed almost entirely our of carbon dioxide, with no free oxygen or water vapor.

But those were just the initial impressions. More Mariner missions, two Viking orbiters and landers, and a slew of other robots hurled at Mars over the last twenty years, not to forget images from the space-based Hubble telescope, have shown it to be a world even more remarkable than we had thought. For one thing, there are amazing geological structures, some of the largest in the solar system: Olympus Mons, the giant shield volcano, is larger than any mountain on Earth several times over, and Cannis Marineris, a Grand Canyon like our own but which would stretch the entire breadth of North America. As for life, Mars now is probably (but not certainly) dead, but it once clearly once had all the elements for life, if several billions of years ago: a thicker atmosphere, warmer temperatures, flowing surface water, a likely abundance of organic or pre-organic molecules. The photographic and chemical evidence, returned from our probes and telescopes, have shown us this past and opened the door to our understanding of it. With some hard work and a little luck, in the coming decade or two we will finally have the answer to the question of whether life on Earth is unique or not, and, by implication, is common in the universe or not. Or if not, why not. Either way, at the very least the ramifications for our own existence are staggering.

This alone could justify the time and energy, and money, spent to satisfy our curiosity about other worlds. But this turns out to be just the beginning. The solar system’s biggest surprises have come in the exploration of the outer planets. It turns out that we knew pathetically little about these worlds and their moons, or the forces that have shaped their evolution. We had a few hints, but we mostly dwelled in ignorance and speculation. Starting in the late 1970s with the Pioneer 10 and 11 missions, then the Voyager and other probes, that ignorance was stripped away in the most spectacular fashion. Pioneer and Voyager returned pictures of worlds far more dynamic than what we had expected, in ways we had not foreseen.

Consider tides. Here on Earth the tidal effects of the moon and, to a lesser degree, the sun, make our oceans rise and fall in gentle cycles. The reasons for tides is a straightforward application of the inverse square law of gravity: the closer two objects are to each other, the more strongly they are pulled together, and so the faster they have to move in their respective orbits to avoid falling into each other. The net result of this dynamic is that the near sides of such objects are moving too slowly and try to fall together, while the far sides are moving too fast and thus want to pull away. On Earth, that means that the oceans on the side facing the moon fall toward it ever so slightly, while the oceans on the opposite side try to drift away. It is a very humble effect, just a few feet, or tens or feet, either way. Nothing to write home about.

Tides can do much than rock the seas of a world, however. The rock comprising Jupiter’s innermost large moon, Io, is largely molten, thanks to the heat generated by tidal forces by both the parent planet Jupiter and the other Galilean satellites. The result is the most volcanically active world in the solar system by far, not excluding Earth. Io’s surface is liberally pocketed by volcanic calderas of all different sizes, which spout sulfur and other molten minerals tens to hundreds of kilometers above and across its surface in a steady rain of debris; a surface so new that it contains not a single impact crater. If the tidal stresses in Io’s guts were just a smidgeon stronger than they are, the world would be literally torn apart by them. That indeed might be Io’s ultimate fate, to be fractured and rendered into a new ring for the giant planet.

The tides are cruelest to Io because it is closest to Jupiter, but they do not leave the other large moons at peace either. The next Galilean satellite, Europa, may prove to be the most intriguing place in the entire solar system outside of our own planet. I must make a brief digression to explain why. Most of the solar system’s matter does not consist of rock and metal but of light elements, such as hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, and their various chemical combinations – water, ammonia, methane and a variety of small hydrocarbons – chemicals composed of carbon and hydrogen. In the inner solar system these substances are largely in gaseous or liquid form, making it a challenge for the small worlds (including ours) inhabiting this region to even maintain a hold on them in the teeth of the sun’s fierce radiations and her perhaps fiercer solar wind (a steady stream of electrons, protons, and other particles constantly being blown out by the sun, which can easily blow away weakly held atmospheres) , but starting at the distance of Jupiter the sun’s output is diluted enough to let these substances condense into their solid phases: ices. Starting with Jupiter, ice is not merely a thin coating over rocky worlds and moons but comprises the bulk of these bodies. The most predominant of them is water ice, which at the temperatures prevalent in the outer solar system essentially is rock, albeit a low density kind.

The cores of three of the Galilean satellites, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, are normal rock like the inner, “terrestrial” planets’, but they are covered with mantles of liquid and solid water many tens to hundreds of kilometers deep. Europa in particular consists of a relatively thin skin of cue ball smooth water ice over an abyssal ocean far, far deeper than any sea on Earth. Again, it is the tidal kneading of Jupiter and its other moons which generate the internal warmth which keeps this ocean in a liquid phase.

Liquid water is one of the most important ingredients to life on Earth, so wherever else in the universe we encounter it we are also encountering the possibility of life. On Mars the presence of flowing water billions of years ago raises that possibility. What Pioneer and Voyager and later missions have done is show how parochial our thinking on this subject has been. The kilometers-thick water ocean beneath Europa’s and other satellites’ icy surfaces no doubt contain their share of organic and other pre-biotic chemicals, as well as free oxygen, and over the eons of being warmed and mixed in this lightless abode who can say what might have assembled itself? We know little enough about life’s origins here to make all kinds of speculation plausible, speculation that will be answered only by sending more and better probes to that world. By, in short, satisfying our curiosity.

Which leads me again to the most important lesson once again, which is in how in satisfying our curiosity we often broaden our perspectives, not narrow them as critics claim. In reaching out, we find more than we ever thought we would, and our lives become immeasurably richer. This is what our science, our passion to know, has given us.

* * *

The fundamental premise, and primary lesson, of science is that there are no magic fountains of truth. There are no books with all the answers, no machines to solve every problem, no authorities with all the answers, no voices in our heads, no golden compasses or other devices waiting to be opened to spoken to in just the right way. All we have are our own limited senses, our own seemingly unlimited minds, our own hard work and perseverance. And this we find true whatever our questions or whatever mysteries the universe puts before us. Actually, there are no mysteries either: there is only what we have not yet understood, because we have not yet figured out how to explain it.

So we press on resolutely, our feet on the ground and heads down but our eyes always facing forward. And we take the pleasure of learning what we learn, in the steps and pieces that we learn it. It is a process that is, at times, grim. But what it yields is pure treasure.

As amazing as the moons of Jupiter have turned out to be, you have to go out still further to find the most amazing moon of them all. The somewhat smaller planet Saturn and its entourage of satellites orbits the sun at a distance twice that of Jupiter’s and ten times further out than Earth’s from the sun. Still a glare too fierce to be gazed at directly, the sun only provides one percent of the warmth and light here that it shines down on us. Furthermore, the effects of tidal interaction between Saturn and its moons is not as potent a force as it is in the Jovian system: there are no raging volcanoes or vast underground oceans of liquid water (with one possible exception). If anything, compared to Jupiter, the Saturnian system would seem to be a quiet backwater where little of interest might be found. Yet something of the most enormous interest is found right here: Titan.

Titan was known to be unique long before we sent any robots to explore it. Unlike all other moons in the solar system, a star passing behind Titan (an “occultation” in astronomer language) will fade and twinkle briefly before disappearing completely, similar to the way the stars twinkle when seen from Earth’s surface. The reason for both phenomena is the same. Atmospheres will refract and scatter the light that passes through them. Titan is the only satellite in our solar system with a substantial atmosphere; one that is, in fact, considerably more substantial than our own.

This in itself would have made it an object worthy of our curiosity. Atmospheres are living things. They continuously grow and regenerate themselves lest they escape away into space, courtesy of the lightness of their molecules, the temperature, the strength of the solar wind, and other factors. They eventually dissipate when left on their own, though this may take billions of years. On Earth, for example, the nitrogen and oxygen which comprise ninety-nine percent of our atmosphere go through chemical and biological cycles which keep them ever fresh throughout geologic time.

Titan’s atmosphere is not only substantial, it is several times as dense as our own. Also, like Earth’s, it is largely nitrogen: ninety-eight point four percent of it is this gas, as compared to seventy-eight percent here. Even more interesting is the other one point six percent, which is largely hydrocarbons – simple, organic molecules – like methane and ethane. Thanks to the sun’s ultraviolet rays, which are still potent at this far reach in the solar system, these hydrocarbons have given rise to even more complicated molecules which comprise the orange smog which permanently hides Titan’s surface from all outside eyes. They also form the basis for clouds and various kinds of precipitation which rain down on this moon’s icy surface, forming the terrestrial equivalent of lakes and rivers.

As a possible womb for life, however, Titan has a problem. Its distance from the sun and shielding cover of hydrocarbon smog mean that the surface temperature here is almost three hundred degrees below zero Fahrenheit. This is so cold that even the nitrogen comprising the bulk of its atmosphere is on the edge of liquefying. Not only is the water so crucial to life on Earth completely frozen into a thick mantle as on other outer moons, but other molecules important to the life’s beginnings here, such as ammonia and carbon dioxide, would be rock-hard solids at these temperatures as well. Moreover, any chemistry which could happen would occur at a pace that would make a snail look like a jack-rabbit on caffeine. Looking over all these factors, biology would seem to be a non-existing subject on Titan.

We shouldn’t think so narrowly, however. Life does not require water so much as it needs some liquid medium, and as noted, compounds like methane and ethane, gasses on Earth, do exist in liquid form both on Titan’s surface and in its atmosphere. True, any biochemistry would proceed with agonizing slowness, but the solar system has been around for almost five billion years, and that might be just enough time for something to happen. We won’t find anything resembling a … well, even a bacterium is probably pushing it … on Titan, but some kinds of self-replicating entities – the most basic definition of life – might exist there. Or whatever could lead up to such entities under more favorable conditions. Either way, when we do find out, we will certainly learn some lessons applicable to how life came to exist on Earth, what that requires and what must be forbidden for that grand event to occur. All of which makes the time and energy and resources necessary to do the finding out worth it.

* * *

Our robotic exploration of the solar system has rewarded us with much more than volcanoes and canyons and possible new possible niches for life. For one thing, knowing about a place is often the first step to going there; it is certainly a necessary step. I call the last forty plus years the initial phase of the Great Age of Planetary Exploration, and there should be little doubt anymore that that is what it is. The twenty-first century will assuredly see us plant our footsteps on our neighboring worlds, the moon and Mars for certain, and the centuries to come will see their thorough colonization and exploitation.

What about beyond? We have come a long way in our travels in my lifetime, but at the same time, we have hardly begun to crack the door open. I loved astronomy as a child, but what excited me the most were not the planets but the stars. In reading about them, I learned that the stars were other suns like our own, possibly with their own worlds and God-knew-what on them, perhaps, one dared hope, some of them even people like ourselves: either way, it was and is an overwhelmingly staggering thought, especially when you contemplate how many stars there are.

Curiosity will eventually take us to the stars, but this is a journey that will take far longer and require much more resources than exploring our own solar system, because the distances involved are so much vaster, by a factor of a million and more. So much greater that it will change what it means to be human in some ways – though our passion to know will hopefully remain intact. We cannot travel to the stars yet, but their light comes to us, rains down on us in fact from every direction we look. And light is a code which, when unlocked, reveals a universe more amazing than dreams.

The six inch Newtonian reflector telescope I received for my eleventh birthday was a wondrous, magical device. With it, I could easily make out mountains and craters on the moon, view the planets as multi-colored discs along with their larger moons, resolve multiple star systems into their components, and in general enjoy many things of the nighttime sky which the naked eye alone can never see. And yet still the stars are so distant that they remained points of light in the blackness, brighter and more variously colored yes, but points nevertheless. Yet even had that telescope been more powerful a device, the miles of air and dust and water vapor I would still have had to peer through would have smeared my vision with unending twinkling and wavering, rendering it of maddeningly limited use. Even the simple question of whether other stars besides our own possessed planetary systems – and so, possibly, life and intelligence – would have been forever beyond its capacities.

The most powerful telescopes humans have ever built can collect a thousand times and more as much light as my childhood toy. They are perhaps the ultimate monuments to our lust for knowledge and understanding, sitting on their mountaintops above much of our world’s blurring atmosphere and now, in the form of the Hubble Space Telescope, even floating in space entirely beyond it. The ones on Earth wield corrective optics and sophisticated computer software to compensate for atmospheric disturbances. Not only do they gather much more light, but that light can be gathered it over hours, even days, of viewing times and stored it on sensitive electronics to be analyzed and manipulated using other ingenious software packages running on other powerful computers.

Light. It is a substance far more valuable than the most precious of metals (it is also far more mysterious, as Appendix A explains). It’s greatest value is not merely allowing us to see the universe around us, however. If you know how to decipher and decode it, and understand what comes out of doing so, light can tell you almost anything you could ever want to know about whatever you are gazing upon. I’m serious: it is that amazing a substance. For example, the science of spectroscopy, the analysis of light by wavelength, allows us to deduce the chemical composition of an object or substance simply by the light it creates, reflects, or transmits. This feature of light, discovered in the nineteenth century, has given us the elemental compositions of the stars and other astronomical objects, a gift we once thought we would never be granted. Light can also tell us the temperature of things and the ways its constituent atoms are chemically bonded together. Not a bad day’s work for something we take so much for granted.

Human ingenuity and the laws of physics are a dynamic combination which seems to have no limits. The question of whether life and intelligence exist elsewhere in the universe hinges partly on whether planetary systems are common or a unique aberration of our own star. Unfortunately, merely looking through our telescopes, or even recording what comes from them with our most powerful technology, can’t answer this most critical of questions: the light from even the dimmest star is so overpowering that it completely masks the feeble reflected glow of any planets it might own. It’s like trying to pick out a the tiny twinkle of a lit match sitting astride a lighthouse beacon’s full fury.

Until the 1990s, that would have been the beginning and end of the quest. But light holds other secrets for the mind clever enough and determined enough to pry them out and exploit them. One of those secrets, which Edwin Hubble used in the 1920s to show that the universe is indeed expanding as Einstein’s General Relativity (but not Einstein himself) predicted, is the ability to tell how fast an object is moving either toward or away from us. The so-called Doppler effect (see Appendix C for a fuller explanation) is easier described using sound rather than light, but the principle is the same: when a sound-emitting object is approaching us, the distance between sound wave peaks and troughs is shortened because the object has moved part of that distance toward us in the meantime; when moving away from us, the distance is increased for the same reason. Thus, in a standard example, a train whistle’s pitch drops suddenly as the train swoops by us.

The same modification of wavelength happens with light, although it is much smaller (because light travels so much faster). It is also trickier to use in an astronomical setting because, after all, we don’t know what the wavelength of the light is when the object is at rest! This is not a problem in planet-hunting, however, as we shall see. The other piece of cleverness in our scheme lies in the fact that, according to Newtonian physics, two gravitationally bound objects revolve around their common center of mass, a point not precisely at the center of either object; the common notion that the moon revolves about Earth, or Earth about the sun, arises because in these cases the larger object is so much more massive than the smaller that the center of gravity of the system is very close to the center of the larger object.

The basic picture starts to emerge: if a star has planets, then the star itself is revolving around the system’s center of mass. This causes the star to wobble about ever so slightly as its planet(s) revolves about it. We may or may not be able to detect this wobble; it depends on how large it is and, more importantly, the angle of the wobble with respect to us. If the angle causes the star to alternately approach and recede from us, this will give rise to a, albeit very small, Doppler shift of its light from our vantage point. It is this regular, cyclic change in the shift we are interested in, which is why the rest wavelength is not important; from its size and other details, we can infer not only the existence of planets, but their masses and orbits. This, needless to say, is where the main difficulty of the technique comes into play, in the “ever so slightly” aspect of the wobble. Only the most resourceful analysis of a sufficiently large enough set of observational data has a prayer of picking this wobble out from all the other motions of a star and everything else in its vicinity.

* * *

Resourcefulness is something Homo sapiens sapiens has never been in short supply of, and thanks to modern technology data can be almost as astronomical as the stars themselves. Assuming you can get enough time on the instruments, that is. The most powerful telescopes in the world are difficult to get that time with; curiosity combined plus the size of the universe makes for far more research proposals than time will ever permit conducting. As a result, the powers that control access to them must be convinced that it will be spent on something that is both worthwhile and possible to do, and convincing them is itself a challenge for the resourceful.

Whether our solar system, and by implication life and intelligence, is unique in the universe or not is a question that, at the end of the 1980s, appeared to be unanswerable in my lifetime.

Besides, ours was the only solar system we knew of. Straightforward physics suggests that the inner planets of a system should be terrestrial – composed of rock and metal, like Earth – and that the larger, gas and ice worlds will be found further out. Gas / ice worlds such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are largely made from small molecules like hydrogen, helium, water, ammonia, and methane; these substances are volatile and are boiled off a newly forming world if it is too close to its sun, while further out they can condense in enormous quantities as they are by far the most common materials in the solar nebula.

So you expect Jovian worlds to be found only in stately orbits far from a star, if it has any. Nature, happily, has a way of not cooperating with our expectations – and of rewarding our willingness to test them. When the first extra-solar planet was discovered orbiting a sun-like star, 51 Pegasi, only some fifty light-years from our own solar system, it stunned the astronomical community only by showing a mass approximately half of our Jupiter’s, while at the same time being in an orbit which was only some five million miles from its sun (as opposed to Earth’s 93 million miles), with an orbital period of only some four and a quarter days. Similar systems were discovered in the ensuing years, also of gas giants in very close proximity to their stars.

In one sense, this should not have surprised us at all. Such planetary systems ought to be the first discovered as they are the easiest to detect: a large planet orbiting close to its sun will produce the largest Doppler shift effect, and hence be easiest to detect. It was just that no one had suspected such systems to exist at all, or at most, to be exceedingly rare. Gas giants, after all, could only form far from their parent stars, otherwise as mentioned the intense stellar radiation and stellar wind will blow the light elements away. Clearly, that was what had happened with Earth’s solar system. So what had gone awry in systems such as 51 Pegasi?

The basic physics of planetary formation are likely to be correct. Therefore, 51 Pegasi b (the official designation of the planet) must have formed at more Jovian-like distances: a good one hundred or so times further out from the present position. Various interactions with other bodies in the system, or even with other stars, have since gradually spiraled 51 Pegasi b in to its current orbit, very close to its sun. This hypothesis is not unreasonable; it was known that planetary orbits could be highly unstable over time spans of billions of years. No doubt, catastrophic interactions with other bodies in the 51 Pegasi system had occurred in this time: smaller, closer, possibly terrestrial (even Earthlike) planets had been bulldozed out of the system permanently, into cold interstellar space.

This just leads to the next question, however. Why has our own solar system been apparently so stable during its four and a half billion years of existence? If anything, the gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn have done us a good turn by sweeping smaller bodies out of the system which otherwise might have collided with us, or herded them into relatively stable asteroid belts. Have we been just incredibly fortunate in this regard? Why didn’t Jupiter eject our own world, not to mention Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the moon into the interstellar abyss?

The number of additionally discovered systems similar to 51 Pegasi have made this question more than a trifling compelling. It suggests that systems harboring life-bearing worlds are rarer than we had supposed, relying on a mixture of luck and physical laws which we still have but an inkling as to their workings. It seems that once again, in our attempts to gratify our curiosity, we have only given it more fodder to feed on. One thing is for certain: repeatedly, we find our attempts to uncover the secret orderings of things to humble us again and again as to how little we still understand. We think we are taking the Russian dolls apart one by one, into ever deeper levels of understanding, only to find ourselves as baffled as when we had begun.

* * *

I am not trying to sound defeated. I do not believe that we are, or will be defeated. Progress in knowledge, in science, does proceed. Little by little, our curiosity is satisfied. It is merely that it never proceeds in the nice, round, little steps we always expect it to. No, there are fits and starts, backtrackings where we seem worse off than when we had begun, strategic retreats here and there before we make the next jump forward. If anything, this makes the whole journey that much more exciting, and fulfilling. At the end of each day, we can sit and watch the sunset, happy in what we have achieved and that much more edgy and restless for what tomorrow might bring. For we know that, like today, it will bring something, just not the nice, neat packages of knowledge that, actually, would have been quite boring to receive, but a mixture of new questions and mysteries with which we can set out for further explorations – with just enough genuine new understanding to leave us feeling satisfied. That is the way of knowledge, the path that curiosity invariably takes us down. Isn’t it one filled with restless throbbing and hope? I believe that it is.

Furthermore, since the discovery of the 51 Pegasi planet, almost fifteen years ago, astronomers have been aiming their instruments at the sky with the hopes finding more planetary systems, and not only that, planetary systems more like our own solar system. And they have been successful well beyond anyone’s expectations. Over the last few years systems have been found with planets more similar to our own; these includes “super-Earths”, which are rocky terrestrial worlds akin to our own, only much larger, and other large planets, similar to our own gas giants but smaller. Some of these worlds have even revealed the tantalizing tastes of substances such as oxygen and water, absolutely essential to life as we know it. It seems quite likely now that over the next ten-twenty years we will discover Earth-like planets circling other stars in our galactic neighborhood. And where there is life, there is certainly the possibility of intelligence.

* * *

Well, I certainly hope I have whetted your appetite for what is to come. At this point, I myself must admit that it is uncertain just what ground I will cover, what areas will be explored, what mysteries will be unveiled. Perhaps that is as it should be. Curiosity is a passion which you never know for certain where it may lead you. You only know it will go somewhere; that there will be a resting spot somewhere in the future you can perch upon and gaze at the territory covered, while the campfire dims and the last of the evening meal lingers on your palette.

To suppose that the eye -- Some wisdom from Charles Darwin

File:Charles Darwin seated crop.jpg

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

From Quarks to Quasars » The Physics of Death:

From Quarks to Quasars » The Physics of Death:
Posted on December 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm by

The Physics of Death:                

Larger Image: http://imgur.com/gallery/cC8sAOw (via All Science, All the Time)
Credit: depositphotos
Credit: depositphotos

Attached to the bottom of this article, we have included one of the most profound poems we know of about death. It’s one of my favorites, as it doesn’t necessarily touch base on the many disturbing things that happen to the body during the decomposition phase, when the cells and tissues begin to break down, ravishing the physical remnant of a person’s life. Instead, it looks at the subject from a physics standpoint.. the redistribution of energy that occurs during the decomposition process.

In life, the human body is comprised of a combination of matter and energy, both electrically (through neurons and electrical impulses) and chemically. (The same can be said about plants. they are powered by a phenomenon we know as photosynthesis. whereby they generate energy from sunlight) At any given moment, we contain some 20-watts of energy, which is sufficient to power a single light-bulb. This energy is acquired in a plethora of ways. Mostly through the consumption of food, which gives us chemical energy. Said chemical energy is then used to power our muscles and facilities, transforming into kinetic energy.

Credit: Jon Sullivan
Credit: Jon Sullivan

As we know through thermodynamics, energy can not be created nor destroyed.. it can simply change states. Whereas; The total amount of energy in an isolated system does not, can not, change. (and thanks to Einstein, we also know matter and energy are two rungs on the same ladder) The universe as a whole IS closed. However, human bodies (and ecosystems alike) are not closed systems, but open systems, which essentially means that we exchange energy with our surroundings. We can gain energy (again, through chemical processes) and we can lose it (by expelling waste or emitting heat from our bodies).

In death, your atoms (and the energy contained within your body) are returned to the universe, where they are subsequently used in various other substances and forms. These same atoms and energy, which originated during the big bang, will always be around. Therefore, your “light,” the essence of your energy (not to be confused with your actual consciousness) will continue to echo throughout spacetime until the lights around here go out permanently.

And we leave you with this jewel:


Larger Image: http://imgur.com/gallery/cC8sAOw (via All Science, All the Time)
Larger Image: http://imgur.com/gallery/cC8sAOw (via All Science, All the Time)

Someone Please Explain Why This Would Fool Anyone Knowledgeable About Evolution?

Source:  http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/07/evolutionist-on-complexity-to-some.html
Evolutionist on Complexity: “To some extent, it just happens”
 
David Strumfels -- what this is is another example of how to use facts about evolution, and use people's ignorance to make it seem absurd.  There is nothing new here, and nothing that hasn't been refuted a hundred times.

Who Will Tell the People?

No sooner had we pointed out that while, as Andreas Wagner admitted, we know “very little” about how evolutionary innovations originate and that “Exactly how new traits emerge is a question that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists,” such inconvenient truths are rarely admitted in public, then leading science writer Carl Zimmer, as if on cue, writing for Scientific American on the topic of “how organisms can evolve elaborate structures,” informed his readers that when it comes to complexity “To some extent, it just happens,” and that “intricate systems of proteins can evolve from simpler ones,” and finally that “studies suggest” that random mutations “can fuel the emergence of complexity.”

That incredible sequence of whoppers makes us wonder, why is it that we cannot simply tell the truth about the science? Who will tell the people?

Biosynthesis captured in motion

Original:  Biosynthesis captured in motion
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-biosynthesis-captured-motion.html#jCp
by Susan Brown

Biosynthesis captured in motion

Linking carrier proteins (red) to enzymes (blue) that synthesize fatty acids, reveals this snapshot of biosynthesis in action.

(Phys.org) —Chemists have caught molecules in the act of biosynthesis revealing an animated view of how a fundamental piece of cellular machinery operates. The system they observed, a critical metabolic pathway, generates fatty acids, essential components of fats and structures such as cell membranes. Nature published their findings in the early online edition December 22.

Scientists would like to regulate this pathway for diverse purposes: to curb the chaotic growth of cancer cells or harmful bacteria, for example, or to boost the production of oils by algae to be harvested for fuel. But these efforts often fail, for lack of complete information about how molecules involved in the synthesis interact.

"We need to decipher the communication code, to understand how proteins work with each other on a molecular level," said Michael Burkart, a biological chemist at the University of California, San Diego, who led the project in partnership with Shiou-Chuan (Sheryl) Tsai, a biochemist at UC Irvine.

The challenge is that at work are usually in motion. "It's analogous to a huge machine," Tsai said. "We need to know how different parts of the engine fit and work together."

Capturing images of the varying configurations required a team of chemists with complementary areas of expertise. Their joint work has revealed the molecular dance of a carrier protein that protects the growing chain of and ferries it between active sites of the enzymes that assemble it.
Tsai is an expert in x-ray crystallography, a method chemists use to lock proteins in place and generate still images of their structures. The protein this team studied, acyl carrier protein or ACP, proved particularly challenging because it moves so much.

To pin down ACP and other proteins, Burkart's research group has developed a molecular toolkit, a set of small molecules that can lock proteins together in their working configurations.

"Mike pins them, and I take the pictures," said Tsai, who holds appointments in the departments of
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Chemistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences at UC Irvine. The strategy resulted in two snapshots, showing two different states of interaction.

Then, working with Stanley Opella, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC San Diego, they extended their observation using a different method, , which reveals the motions of the and enzyme in solution. These observations were validated by dynamic modeling of the molecule by a research group led by J. Andrew McCammon, also a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC San Diego.

They saw salt bridges form and the enzyme grab helices and pull them apart. The growing chain of fatty acids also loops back into a pocket in the carrier molecule. "We call it the marsupial protein," Burkart says. "It protects its young." That is, until it's time for the product to go.

"We thought this tiny protein was just a transporter," Tsai said. "But when it ejects its cargo, it works like a piston. We see a helical collapse forcing the fatty acid out."

The approach will allow this team to continue to unravel interactions between proteins, a critical step to the successful manipulation of biosynthetic pathways.
Journal reference: Nature

Ode to a Flower: Richard Feynman’s Famous Monologue on Knowledge and Mystery, Animated | Brain Pickings

Ode to a Flower: Richard Feynman’s Famous Monologue on Knowledge and Mystery, Animated | Brain Pickings

by
“The science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower.”


Richard Feynmanchampion of scientific culture, graphic novel hero, crusader for integrity, holder of the key to science, adviser of future generations, bongo player, no ordinary genius. In this fantastic animated adaptation of an excerpt from Christopher Sykes’s celebrated 1981 BBC documentary about Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out — which gave us the great physicist’s timeless words on beauty, honors, and curiosity and his fascinating explanation of where trees actually come fromFraser Davidson captures in stunning motion graphics Feynman’s short, sublime soliloquy on why knowledge enriches life rather than detracting from its mystery, the best thing since that animated adaptation of Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot.

The message at the heart of Feynman’s monologue — to celebrate the beauty of the mysterious, embrace the unfamiliar, and life the questions — is beautiful mantra on which to center the new year.

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe… 
I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Scientists Petition U.S. Congress for Return to the Moon | Space.com

Original article:  http://www.space.com/24068-destination-moon-petition-congress.html?cmpid=514648
 
Leonard-david
Lunar Exploration
China’s Chang’e 3 robotic landing on the moon has helped spur a political crusade in the United States to more aggressively explore and utilize the moon.

Scientific Groupthink and a Summary of the Evidence that most Published Research is False

If these articles are both true, then are Americans right to distrust scientists and their claims?

http://www.american.com/archive/2013/december/scientific-groupthink-and-gay-parenting

Part one:  Scientific Groupthink

 
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The controversy over a recent study on gay parenting illustrates a sociopolitical groupthink operating in the social scientific community. Scientists should go where the science takes them, not where their politics does.

University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’s study, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” published in the academic journal Social Science Research last year, caused a firestorm in the scientific community. Unlike most previous studies, Regnerus found that children of parents who had experienced a same-sex relationship fared worse than children of heterosexual parents on measures of social, emotional, and psychological adjustment as well as educational attainment, employment history, need for public assistance, substance abuse, and criminal justice system involvement.

The reaction to the Regnerus study was swift and harsh. Many of his academic colleagues said it was fatally flawed. Many questioned the motives of the author, reviewers, and journal editor. Did they have an anti-gay political agenda?

The controversy illustrates how tougher standards for assessing scientific worth are applied if a study produces results that are inconsistent with the scientists’ own political views. Suppose Regnerus had conducted an identical study, with the same methodological flaws, that had produced results consistent with previous studies, finding no differences between the children of gay or lesbian ("lesbigay") versus heterosexual parents. Would this one study (among the over 60 studies on lesbigay parenting) receive the same criticism, or any criticism at all, from the academic community? Would 201 scholars send a letter to the journal objecting to its publication of the study? Would the author’s former department chair publish an op-ed saying that she was “furious” about her junior colleague’s “pseudo-science”? Would academics make allegations in blogs and other forums about the integrity of the author, journal editor, and editorial review process?1 Would the professor’s university subject him to an intrusive investigation for possible scientific misconduct (of which it found no evidence)? And would similar attacks have been launched against other researchers who dared to question the scholarly consensus?2
Conservatives’ trust in science has dipped to an all-time low.
This is not the first time that science has clashed with politics. The Bell Curve, a book about the heritability of intelligence and the resulting libertarian or conservative policy implications, created great controversy. The Regnerus case unfolded similarly to the controversy surrounding the publication of a meta-analysis of child sexual abuse studies that was published in the journal Psychological Bulletin and reported that childhood sexual abuse often caused few long-lasting psychological effects. The article caused outrage. The study was attacked as substandard, and many questioned the authors’ motives and alleged scientific misconduct.

Most would acknowledge that science, particularly policy-relevant social science, is often politicized. The Regnerus controversy illustrates that scientists’ sociopolitical views frequently affect the kind of science that is conducted on policy-relevant questions, how findings are interpreted and received, and the degree of critical scrutiny such studies receive.

Scientific Groupthink
“If when a study yields an unpopular conclusion it is subjected to greater scrutiny, and more effort is expended towards its refutation, an obvious bias to ‘find what the community is looking for’ will have been introduced.”3

The Regnerus case illustrates a sociopolitical groupthink operating in the social scientific community. Surveys of the professoriate consistently find faculties to be quite lopsidedly liberal. The political imbalance is particularly acute in the social sciences, with liberal-conservative ratios of between 8:1 to 30:1 in most disciplines, and particularly with respect to social issues like gay marriage.

Such homogeneity of sociopolitical views among social scientists almost invariably leads to “groupthink,” a phenomenon that occurs when group members have relatively homogeneous backgrounds or ideological views. With this groupthink comes self-censorship and pressure on dissenters, the negative stereotyping and discounting of conservative perspectives, and a failure to consider conservative-friendly (as compared with liberal-friendly) question framing and data interpretation. A recent national survey of psychology professors found that one in four reported that they would be less likely to give a positive recommendation on a journal manuscript or grant application having a conservative perspective, and one in six would be less likely to invite conservative colleagues to participate in a symposium. In sociology, Notre Dame University Sociology Professor Christian Smith notes that:
 
The temptation . . . to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender ... Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged ... the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach ... The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions.

Regnerus did not, however, play it safe. He did not publish the right conclusions on a politically controversial topic. Politically correct sociologists, on the other hand, enjoy certain privileges in a very politically conscious and liberal discipline. Indeed, there sometimes is the belief “that social science should be an instrument for social change and thus should promote the ‘correct’ values and ideological positions.”4

No wonder there is so little research by academics that arguably supports conservative policy perspectives. When such research is published, the Regnerus controversy illustrates how it may be received. Critics used the liberal norms and privileges of their discipline to marginalize the Regnerus study. A point-by-point methodological comparison of the Regnerus study alongside previous lesbigay parenting studies reveals the selective scrutiny applied by the critics of the Regnerus study.5

Ideological Diversity Is the Antidote
“No one knows how many research programs [social scientists] have failed to launch, or how many research discoveries they have failed to make, as a result of the skew in the distribution of [political] views within their discipline.”6

Contrary to the critics’ concerns about the political conservatism of Regnerus and his funders, the Regnerus study illustrates the value of ideological diversity among both researchers and funders. The allegedly conservative researcher Regnerus, funded by advocacy organizations opposing gay marriage, conducted a study producing findings useful to gay marriage opponents. Many previous studies were conducted and/or funded by those favoring gay marriage, and they produced findings useful to the gay-marriage cause.
Scientists should go where the science takes them, not where their politics does.
It is not surprising, nor is it indicative of nefarious scientific misconduct, that researchers of different ideological persuasions would produce findings consistent with their own ideology. It is human nature to frame research questions and interpret findings in ways that confirm one’s political beliefs. Such biases are the norm, even among scientists. This is particularly true when it comes to research on social issues because social scientists, many of whom were attracted to social science because of its progressive ideology, often have values invested in the issues they research. One can find such ideological tilt throughout social science research. For instance, how researchers interpret data on the relative contributions of hereditary factors versus environment to intelligence, or on biological factors in personality styles, seems to be partly a function of their political views.

Politics inevitably enter into the scientific endeavor as a consequence of the sociopolitical, parochial, financial, or career interests of researchers, funders, and professional organizations as well as those of the larger scientific community and polity. Scientists’ values and interests influence how they define and conceptualize social and behavioral issues, the data collection and analysis methods chosen, how results are interpreted, how scientists scrutinize and evaluate a study’s quality, and whether there are incentives or disincentives to advance research findings in policy advocacy.

Because biases are endemic to the scientific enterprise, the Regnerus case illustrates how research conducted or funded by those outside the sociopolitical mainstream, insofar as social scientists are concerned, may be the only way that “politically incorrect” research challenging the scientific consensus gets done. Theoretical or ideological homogeneity among researchers tends to produce myopic, one-sided research, whereas ideological diversity fosters a more dynamic climate that encourages unorthodox, diverse (and sometimes politically incorrect) research. Not only do those in the political minority bring diverse perspectives to the research endeavor, but their very presence has the effect of widening perspective and reducing bias in the rest of the scientific community. If social scientists were embedded in ideologically diverse networks of other scientists, they would be more likely to consider and test alternative hypotheses and perspectives on the social issues they research.

Science and Scientists in the Policy Debate
“Social scientists are never more revealing of themselves than when challenging the objectivity of one another’s work. In some fields almost any study is assumed to have a more or less discoverable political purpose.”7

Especially with controversies like the Regnerus study, it is no wonder that policymakers of all political persuasions are often skeptical about policy research coming from the academy, or that conservatives’ trust in science has dipped to an all-time low. This is what happens when policy-relevant research fails to be politically inclusive because virtually everyone funding and doing the research comes from the same political perspective.
Social scientists, many of whom were attracted to social science because of its progressive ideology, often have values invested in the issues they research.
Indeed, scientists who do research on policy issues arguably have an obligation to inform policymakers and the public about their research findings. But it is dangerous for science, policymaking, and the public’s trust in science when scientists are encouraged to do so only when the science supports liberal positions but are discouraged from doing so, or risk disapprobation from their colleagues, when the findings do not. Sadly, this is often the case. Scientists should go where the science takes them, not where their politics does. To attack a study based on the political incorrectness of its findings or its author’s and funder’s politics is scientifically irrelevant and ad hominem.
Rather, studies must stand or fall on the weight of their methodological reliability and validity.

Part Two:  A summary of the evidence that most published research is false


A summary of the evidence that most published research is false


One of the hottest topics in science has two main conclusions:
  • Most published research is false
  • There is a reproducibility crisis in science
The first claim is often stated in a slightly different way: that most results of scientific experiments do not replicate. I recently got caught up in this debate and I frequently get asked about it.
So I thought I'd do a very brief review of the reported evidence for the two perceived crises. An important point is all of the scientists below have made the best effort they can to tackle a fairly complicated problem and this is early days in the study of science-wise false discovery rates. But the take home message is that there is currently no definitive evidence one way or another about whether most results are false.
  1. Paper: Why most published research findings are falseMain idea: People use hypothesis testing to determine if specific scientific discoveries are significant. This significance calculation is used as a screening mechanism in the scientific literature. Under assumptions about the way people perform these tests and report them it is possible to construct a universe where most published findings are false positive results. Important drawback: The paper contains no real data, it is purely based on conjecture and simulation.
  2. Paper: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical researchMain ideaMany drugs fail when they move through the development process. Amgen scientists tried to replicate 53 high-profile basic research findings in cancer and could only replicate 6. Important drawback: This is not a scientific paper. The study design, replication attempts, selected studies, and the statistical methods to define "replicate" are not defined. No data is available or provided.
  3. Paper: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literatureMain idea: The paper collects P-values from published abstracts of papers in the medical literature and uses a statistical method to estimate the false discovery rate proposed in paper 1 above. Important drawback: The paper only collected data from major medical journals and the abstracts. P-values can be manipulated in many ways that could call into question the statistical results in the paper.
  4. Paper: Revised standards for statistical evidenceMain idea: The P-value cutoff of 0.05 is used by many journals to determine statistical significance. This paper proposes an alternative method for screening hypotheses based on Bayes factors. Important drawback: The paper is a theoretical and philosophical argument for simple hypothesis tests. The data analysis recalculates Bayes factors for reported t-statistics and plots the Bayes factor versus the t-test then makes an argument for why one is better than the other.
  5. Paper: Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited research Main idea: This paper looks at studies that attempted to answer the same scientific question where the second study had a larger sample size or more robust (e.g. randomized trial) study design. Some effects reported in the second study do not match the results exactly from the first. Important drawback: The title does not match the results. 16% of studies were contradicted (meaning effect in a different direction). 16% reported smaller effect size, 44% were replicated and 24% were unchallenged. So 44% + 24% + 16% = 86% were not contradicted. Lack of replication is also not proof of error.
  6. PaperModeling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer reviewMain idea: This paper considers a theoretical model for how referees of scientific papers may behave socially. They use simulations to point out how an effect called "herding" (basically peer-mimicking) may lead to biases in the review process. Important drawback: The model makes major simplifying assumptions about human behavior and supports these conclusions entirely with simulation. No data is presented.
  7. Paper: Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analysesMain idea: This paper attempts to collect the data used in published papers and to repeat one randomly selected analysis from the paper. For many of the papers the data was either not available or available in a format that made it difficult/impossible to repeat the analysis performed in the original paper. The types of software used were also not clear. Important drawbackThis paper was written about 18 data sets in 2005-2006. This is both early in the era of reproducibility and not comprehensive in any way. This says nothing about the rate of false discoveries in the medical literature but does speak to the reproducibility of genomics experiments 10 years ago.
  8. Paper: Investigating variation in replicability: The "Many Labs" replication project. (not yet published) Main ideaThe idea is to take a bunch of published high-profile results and try to get multiple labs to replicate the results. They successfully replicated 10 out of 13 results and the distribution of results you see is about what you'd expect (see embedded figure below). Important drawback: The paper isn't published yet and it only covers 13 experiments. That being said, this is by far the strongest, most comprehensive, and most reproducible analysis of replication among all the papers surveyed here.
I do think that the reviewed papers are important contributions because they draw attention to real concerns about the modern scientific process. Namely
  • We need more statistical literacy
  • We need more computational literacy
  • We need to require code be published
  • We need mechanisms of peer review that deal with code
  • We need a culture that doesn't use reproducibility as a weapon
  • We need increased transparency in review and evaluation of papers
Some of these have simple fixes (more statistics courses, publishing code) some are much, much harder (changing publication/review culture).
The Many Labs project (Paper 8) points out that statistical research is proceeding in a fairly reasonable fashion. Some effects are overestimated in individual studies, some are underestimated, and some are just about right. Regardless, no single study should stand alone as the last word about an important scientific issue. It obviously won't be possible to replicate every study as intensely as those in the Many Labs project, but this is a reassuring piece of evidence that things aren't as bad as some paper titles and headlines may make it seem.

Many labs data. Blue x's are original effect sizes. Other dots are effect sizes from replication experiments (http://rolfzwaan.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-can-we-learn-from-many-labs.html)
 
The Many Labs results suggest that the hype about the failures of science are, at the very least, premature. I think an equally important idea is that science has pretty much always worked with some number of false positive and irreplicable studies. This was beautifully described by Jared Horvath in this blog post from the Economist.  I think the take home message is that regardless of the rate of false discoveries, the scientific process has led to amazing and life-altering discoveries.

Right to property

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property The right to property , or the right to own property ...