Publications

Google Tech Talks
January, 15 2008

ABSTRACT

JoVE: an Open-access library of experimental videos to revolutionize biomedical research and scientific publishing.

Biomedical research has reached a level of complexity that is matched only by the complexity of the living species under investigation. Contrasting the rapid advancement of scientific research itself, scientific communication still heavily relies on traditional print journals. Print journals however, lack the necessary characteristics to allow enable an effective transfer of knowledge, which is significantly impeding scientific progress. Addressing this problem, the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE, www.jove.com) implemented a novel, video-based approach to scientific publishing, based on visualization of experimental studies. Created with the participation of scientists from leading research institutions ( e.g. Harvard, MIT, and Princeton ), JoVE provides solutions to the "bottleneck" of the contemporary biological research: transparency and reproducibility of biological experiments. JoVE has so far released 9 monthly issues that include over 150 video-protocols on experimental approaches in developmental biology, neuroscience, microbiology and other fields. To facilitate integration of video into scientific publishing, JoVE has developed a distributed video-production network to assist scientists with filming and editing of their experiments.

As a new type of an online open-access productivity tool for biomedical researchers, JoVE adds to the other ground-breaking trends in the communication of scientific information such as the open-access movement and Google Scholar. The following are example of coverage JoVE has received in the scientific and popular press: Nature, The Scientist and WIRED .

Our presentation should be interesting to Google people who work on video, Google Scholar, biomedicine and science-related subjects.

Speaker: Moshe Pritsker, Ph.D.
CEO, Editor-in-Chief, Co-founder

Dr. Pritsker has developed the JoVE idea based on his deep familiarity with current problems of biological research, acquired through more than 10 years of work in this area. He holds a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Princeton University and an M.Sc. in Chemistry from the Weizmann Institute of Science. Results of his research on stem cells, genomics, bioinformatics and HIV were published in leading scientific journals (PNAS, JBC, Genome Research and Biochemistry) and patent applications. Prior to co-founding JoVE, Dr. Pritsker held a position of post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts General Hospital.

Duration : 0:21:13

(more…)

I’m confused as to the order that comes after the lead author. Sometimes the next "most important" author is listed second, other times I’ve seen the lab director or supervisor of a project listed last.

I’m interested primarily for the field of ecology.
To clarify, I’m submitting an abstract for a presentation and I’m not sure whether to include my supervisor–who is the second most important of 4 authors–second or last?

Generally the list starts with the person who did the most work on the project and progresses to the principle investigator in whose lab the work was done (assuming that the PI did not do the work). On really big projects involving many scientists, they might be listed in alphabetical order with a small asterisk or cross indicating people who contributed equally to the project as well as an indication to whom one writes for reprints.

Evolutionists are Exposed and Vicious – http://www.warneveryone.com/evolutionists_exposed_vicious.htm
2. THE “APE-MEN” FALLACY
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/ape.htm
Considering the similarity of attacks by sharks and evolutionists, it does appear that they are desendents of these creatures. Iowa State University Denies Tenure to noted scientist who supports Intelligent Design because Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez co-authored the book, The Privileged Planet http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_university_denies_t.html

Breaking News: Iowa State Department Faculty Acknowledge ID Played Role in Gonzalez’s Tenure Denial – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/isu_department_faculty_acknowl.html

Science or Myth? Rodger Dehart A Documentation History of Events The Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html

They devour their own. Dr. Richard Steinberg, who holds two Ph. D.s in biology, was persecuted by bigoted Darwinists within the scientific community. As editor of “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington”, a scientific publication associated with the Smithsonian Institute, he was forced to step down as editor, had his office at the Smithsonian taken away, had to turn in his keys, had research money withheld and was even “shunned”. Closed minded, fellow scientists refused to respond if he spoke to them and wouldn’t even greet him in hallways. Why? Because he allowed an article, approved by a panel of scientists, to be published which promoted intelligent design rather than the religion of Darwinism. He didn’t write the article. He simply allowed it to be published. If these actions had been taken by Christians against an evolutionist it would have been a front page story! Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, And The Paper That Started It All – http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command.

Are Atheists Hijacking Academic Freedom? Why some might consider Ben Stein’s new movie to be political dynamite. The theory of intelligent design (ID), holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory. But there is more to this than meets the eye. English Chick Cartoon Tracts – http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp Chick Publications P.O. Box 3500 Ontario, Calif. 91761-1019 (909) 987-0771 Ph. (909) 941-8128 Fax

Duration : 0:11:29

(more…)

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don’t publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389

It is the ’standard list with the added ‘taxes are going to hurt everyone unfairly’ and ‘its all just a conspiracy to get more taxes’ thrown in used by any large scale powerful lobby to win the day.

What were the arguments the bankers used to save them from the fate they deserved?
What were [are] the continuing arguments the auto industry is using to receive continuing subsidies… if they can’t run a successful business close it, leave it to their competitors.

Guess what the arguments will be if anyone were foolish enough to suggest that too much money was wasted on the war machinery [ie 'defense' forces and their ever increasingly expensive toys]

Scholars and fishermen had a surprise during an experience on the northern shore of Bahia (1). Looks like a prehistoric animal… looks like silicon… it has only fat on … this one you cannot eat!. And you really cant, Its a fish with a weird flesh, doesnt have skin or scales, from the head to the tip of the tail is formed by a mass that looks more like gelatin, It was captured during a research trip of the TAMAR Project (2), the technicians were testing circular hooks which wouldnt incur the risk of killing sea turtles, suddenly the animal was hooked. When I saw that completely different creature I was spooked, and I dove into the water… I felt ill. These are the images recorded by Guy Marcovaldi when the fish approached the surface already barely alive, it was 1,000 meters deep at 15km from Praia do Forte North littoral of Bahia.Researchers believe that the Brazilian coast have at least 150 species of unknown fishes the most recent discoveries were of small animals, this is the first time on something at this size.It weights around 40 kilos and its about the size of a tall man.1,83m.Small eyes, large mouth and barely visible teeth, the oceanographer Claudio Sampaio confirms that there are no records of this fish on any scientific publication.To find such a completely new creature like this, for science its a rare jewel, a fish that has never been seen before by the human race.The fish will be preserved in formaldehyde and shall become part of the collection of the Federal University of Bahia, for the biologists, the challenge will be greater than a mere identification, theyll have to discover in which regions of the Atlantic lives this rarity.

(1) Bahia is a state located at the northeast part of Brazil
(2) TAMAR is a Brazilian non-profit organization that studies sea turtles
————————-
RIDDLE: A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven’t eaten in 6 months – Which room is safest for him? Correct Answer: http://riddlenow.com/a101.htm

Duration : 0:1:56

(more…)

Produced at Jönköping University, Sweden. Researchers are interviewed about different types of scientific literature, peer-review and other aspects of scientific publishing.

Duration : 0:8:2

(more…)

In fact, I am looking for a copy of the following scientific publication from 1930 that was published by Constable press.
Otto Warburg: The metabolism of tumors. London, Constable Press

Hi there, I think the link below is for a PDF version of the book. Let me know if it doesn’t work and I’ll carry on looking!

Short Circuiting The Scientific Process – A Serious Problem In The Climate Science Community
— Roger Pielke Sr.

There has been a development over the last 10-15 years or so in the scientific peer reviewed literature that is short circuiting the scientific method.
The scientific method involves developing a hypothesis and then seeking to refute it. If all attempts to discredit the hypothesis fails, we start to accept the proposed theory as being an accurate description of how the real world works.
A useful summary of the scientific method is given on the website sciencebuddies.org.where they list six steps
•Ask a Question
•Do Background Research
•Construct a Hypothesis
•Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
•Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
•Communicate Your Results
Unfortunately, in recent years papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature that fail to follow these proper steps of scientific investigation. These papers are short circuiting the scientific method.
Specifically, papers that present predictions of the climate decades into the future have proliferated. Just a two recent examples (and there are many others) are
Hu, A., G. A. Meehl, W. Han, and J. Yin (2009), Transient response of the MOC and climate to potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 21st century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L10707, doi:10.1029/2009GL037998.
Solomon, S. 2009: Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print January 28, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
Such studies are even reported in the media before the peer reviewed process is completed; e.g. see in the article by Hannad Hoag in the May 27 2009 issue of Nature News Hot times ahead for the Wild West.
These studies are based on models, of which only a portion of which represent basic physics (e.g. the pressure gradient force, advection and the universal gravitational constant), with the remainder of the physics parameterized with tuned engineering code (e.g see).

When I served as Chief Editor of the Monthly Weather Reviews (1981-1985), The Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (1996-2000), and as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG for the American Geophysical Union (1993-1996), such papers would never have been accepted.
What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, are the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses. The fourth step in the scientific method “Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment” is bypassed.
This is a main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it
http://climatesci.org/2009/06/04/short-circuiting-the-scientific-process-a-serious-problem-in-the-climate-science-community/
Hunter-Warrior……. your answer was plausible until you ended with your religious sermon.

In response to icarus62

Sure we can’t make stars but we don’t scare people by saying hey our Sun is going to explode in 100 years if you don’t stop CO2.

If climate model is so accurate why does it predict global warming when we had the coldest winter in past 10 years? Now don’t try to tell me its because of climate change.

Global warming by itself will moderate the temperature due to rise in humidity not make it more extreme.

And as I say in my other answers, if I write my atomic theory which to me makes more sense than current atomic "Theory", people reject it because I’m a Physicist nor do I have PhD in anything. Yet when it comes to Global warming the lead person is Al Gore to explain how it will effect us?

Secondly I haven’t seen a single book explaining any climate modal they have come up with, nor are these program available online, I don’t know what formulation are being used and I don’t know how they work nor have they been made public.

If I tell you electron has – charge, I have to prove it to you, if I say stars formed in dense cloud of gas and dust I have to show it to you or its just called "Theory" its doesn’t call for "drastic" actions based on "NOTHING".

First of all Climate Change or global warming alarmist don’t call their "Unknown Stuff" as theory, they stay it as its something proven in past when no reasoning or formulation has been made public or explained to public. Secondly they are using this "Unknown unformulated unexplained theory" to make governments spend trillions of dollars and they are telling my son something which can’t be proven.

When it comes to "Theory of Evolution" its still called theory even though its quite clear if you read about it that its something very logical, very much possible, yes no one has seen it happen but we do see it on micro scale. Yet people oppose it to be taught in schools. While Global warming is not proven, its link with CO2 is not proven, all models predict complete different result and still my child is being fed with this wrong information.

Those who challenge his status quey get punished.Many scientist face persecution.They are loosing their jobs.They are denied publication in scientific journals.They are also openly ridiculed and ostrosised by their peers. Why is this and do you think this is fair.I mean we have freedom of speech in every part of our society but science.

Well the problem is much graver than you know!! Other scientists are losing their jobs for backing autodynamics and zero-point energy devices. I was talking to an astrologer the other day and he told me that scientists openly laughed at his work – can you imagine? And this guy’s work is in every newspaper in the country! Other researchers are being persecuted for working with homeopathy, psychic surgery, iridology, and radionics – I mean where will it end??

I’ve found plenty of papers on whether the Chinese currency is undervalued or not, what China should do about its exchange rate policy and what the effects are of China’s current exchange rate regime. However, it seems hard to find more information about China’s current regime. Especially publications from a scientific source (like IMF, IIE, EconPapers, CEPII, World Bank, universities, etc.). Can anyone point me in the right direction? I’m looking for an overview of current exchange rate policy and perhaps the capital controls that are in place. Thanks!

The best I could find on the net is this 38-page, 2006 paper from Berkeley. It doesn’t appear to be outdated. If you find a better summary, please let ME know.

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/research/short.pdf