[ASC-list] ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 22

Marina Hurley info at writingclearscience.com.au
Wed Dec 15 20:28:50 UTC 2010


of course that $30 - not $30m

On 15 December 2010 19:56, <asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:

> Send ASC-list mailing list submissions to
>        asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        asc-list-owner at lists.asc.asn.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ASC-list digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. (no subject) (Leanne McKnoulty)
>   2. (no subject) (Leanne McKnoulty)
>   3. Stefanie Pearce is out of the office
>      (stefanie.pearce at iird.vic.gov.au)
>   4. Re: ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 21 (Marina Hurley)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Leanne McKnoulty <leannem at netspace.net.au>
> To: "asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au" <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:56:44 +1000
> Subject: [ASC-list] (no subject)
>
>
> Sent from my phone
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Leanne McKnoulty <leannem at netspace.net.au>
> To: "asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au" <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:02:01 +1000
> Subject: [ASC-list] (no subject)
>
>
> Sent from my phone
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: stefanie.pearce at iird.vic.gov.au
> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:28:19 +1100
> Subject: [ASC-list] Stefanie Pearce is out of the office
>
> I will be out of the office starting  15/12/2010 and will not return until
> 16/12/2010.
>
> I am not available on Wednesday 15th December.
>
> I will respond to your email when I return.
>
> Urgent personal messages can be left on my mobile: 0414 891 416.
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************************************
> Department of Business and Innovation, Government of Victoria, Victoria,
> Australia.
> This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential
> information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not distribute
> or reproduce this e-mail or the attachments.  If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us by return e-mail.
>
> *****************************************************************************************-
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marina Hurley <info at writingclearscience.com.au>
> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:56:03 +1100
> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 21
>
>
>
> Strictly speaking something is not considered science until a study has
> been both peer-reviewed and published. In broad terms there are three levels
> of verification in the process of producing science - Firstly - the test
> itself that either supports or discounts a hypothesis, question or
> statement. The results are validated by the fact that an appropriate test
> has been chosen and correctly carried out. In addition validation comes from
> the scientist's arguments and assessments of their results and comparison
> with the results of other scientists (other studies in the literature);
> Secondly - the process of peer-review which is not perfect but still a
> rigorous process and thirdly the publication of the study (the research
> paper) that allows scrutiny by the scientific community.
>
>
>
> Many papers get through the second stage that perhaps shouldn't, but the
> discussion and disagreement that arises in this third phase of scrutiny is -
> as Niall says - is a necessary and important part of science. Still Rosie
> Redfield's criticism
> http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
>  is stinging as she clearly states that this paper should not have been
> published and hints at monetary bias by the editors. "*I don't know
> whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're
> unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda.  I
> hesitate to blame the reviewers, as their objections are likely to have been
> overruled by Science's editors in their eagerness to score such a
> high-impact publication*." Considering that this paper was challenging
> fundamental knowledge of the building blocks of life the authors should have
> expected this degree of scrutiny and had absolute water-tight methods and
> results.
>
>
>
> The process of dealing with any papers that are shown to be faulty or
> flawed - as I understand it - is that, after significant notification and
> awareness, the paper is formally retracted by the editors. The blogging of
> science research will only help the process of scientific discussion and
> debate but ultimately any serious criticism of the research must also be
> peer-reviewed and published (as Wolfe-Simon, the author of the bacterium
> paper,  herself has said).  But many scientists don’t have the time to
> participate in the third phase of scrutiny, leaving the question - how many
> poor (and less controversial) papers have been published, left
> un-scrutinised and considered science?
>
>
> The public can increasingly become privy to this debate thanks to the
> internet, the online postings and blogs. However the fact that
> non-scientists or scientists without institutional support still have to pay
> $30m per paper means that it is not possible for everyone to engage in the
> process to their own satisfaction.
>
> cheers
>
> Marina
>
>
>
> On 15 December 2010 14:51, <asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:
>
>> Send ASC-list mailing list submissions to
>>        asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        asc-list-owner at lists.asc.asn.au
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of ASC-list digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20 (Susan Kirk)
>>   2. Re: ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20 (Susan Kirk)
>>   3. Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic and scavenges P (Magdeline Lum)
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Susan Kirk <skirk at iprimus.com.au>
>> To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:26:30 +1000
>> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20
>> Maybe I don't understand the process of publication in a science journal.
>> This is my (albeit simplified) understanding.  An experiment is conducted
>> within certain parameters or controls and the results are then deciphered.
>> The results of the experiment must be able to be replicated with the same
>> result.  I thought this experiment was then 'peer reviewed' meaning other
>> scientists would test it out.  At this point any shortcomings in any of
>> the
>> basic science ie control measures use of equipment etc etc would come to
>> the
>> fore. If there were shortcomings then the reviewers would say to the
>> authors
>> go back and do it again.  I imagined that once a paper was published it
>> had
>> gained a fair amount of credibility but now it appears that the research
>> goes into additional peer review.  How long does this go on for?  At any
>> stage is the research discredited/disregarded or accepted as truth? If we
>> dont discover the uncertainties which, in this case were sent around the
>> blogosphere, how else we will discover them.  Are we the public privy to
>> the
>> objections?  I can't see where.
>>
>> Niall is correct.  NASA overcommitted itself with sensational spin that in
>> turn seduced the journalists.  The result, the findings became the truth,
>> instead of research, none of which contributes to the public understanding
>> of science.
>>
>> I understand that there is a growing consensus that there are issues with
>> the veracity of this research as Helen has pointed out.
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/12/10 9:00 PM, "asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au"
>> <asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Send ASC-list mailing list submissions to
>> > asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > asc-list-owner at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of ASC-list digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >    1. Re: [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>> >       scavenges P (Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au)
>> >    2. Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy (Stephan Kern)
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:17:21 +1100
>> > From: <Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au>
>> > To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: Re: [ASC-list] [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic
>> > and scavenges P
>> > Message-ID:
>> > <B039DE0B62CBDE46AB819FC14FA7A72D019121309B at EXNSW-MBX04.nexus.csiro.au>
>> >
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>> >
>> > Do critics of the blogosphere's reaction realise how much of the best
>> science
>> > writing is happening on blogs? These aren't (all) undergrads or
>> hobbyists -
>> > when they talk about "bloggers", they're talking about top flight
>> science
>> > writers and scientists writing for the online arms of Discover, Wired,
>> Seed,
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > And the reverse chronology blog feed is a style of writing that's just
>> really
>> > well suited to science. Instead of the story beginning and ending with
>> the
>> > latest embargoed paper, it's ongoing, updated as new facts come to light
>> - in
>> > many cases with writers that are following the journals (often in their
>> own
>> > discipline).
>> >
>> > And in this case, they picked up issues with the paper that virtually
>> all the
>> > mainstream media went for. Did having Science and NASA on the stand draw
>> > everyone's guards down? Ed Yong was involved right though, and his
>> post-mortem
>> > really captures it. It seems like NASA messed up the PR, then got a hint
>> of
>> > what a lot of politicians and businesses have seen in the past year or
>> two
>> > when the social media world senses it's being taken for a ride.
>> >
>> > Really interesting case study for anyone interested in the shifting
>> media
>> > balance and science communication, that's for sure.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au [
>> asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On
>> > Behalf Of Helen Sim [Helen.Sim at csiro.au]
>> > Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 1:39 PM
>> > To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> > Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>> > scavenges P
>> >
>> > I don't think there's any doubt about the voracity of the findings, but
>> their
>> > veracity is a different matter.
>> >
>> > - H
>> >
>> > On 13/12/10 12:22 PM, Niall Byrne wrote:
>> >
>> > A good topic.
>> >
>> > I don?t think this is a debacle ? it?s just science ? with the
>> blogosphere
>> > over-reacting partly because of a clumsy media alert from NASA that
>> > overpromised.
>> >
>> > I liked this comment from the blog you cited.
>> >
>> > ?If question remains about the voracity of these authors findings, then
>> the
>> > only thing that is going to answer that doubt is data.  Data cannot be
>> > generated by blog discussion? Talking about digging a ditch never got it
>> dug.?
>> >
>> > Science is messy, peer review is messy and sometimes it?s good for us to
>> be
>> > exposed to that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Niall
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________
>> >
>> > Niall Byrne
>> >
>> > Science in Public has moved to:
>> >
>> > 82 Hudsons Road, Spotswood  Vic  3015
>> > Our postal address is PO Box 2076 Spotswood VIC 3015
>> > Our landline stays the same - 03 9398 1416.
>> >
>> > Niall?s mobile: 0417 131 977
>> > Sarah?s mobile: 0413 332 489
>> >
>> > niall at scienceinpublic.com.au<mailto:niall at scienceinpublic.com.au>
>> > Twitter scienceinpublic
>> > Full contact details at
>> > www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog<http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog>
>> >
>> > From:
>> > asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au<mailto:
>> asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > [mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan Kirk
>> > Sent: Saturday, 11 December 2010 1:49 AM
>> > To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au<mailto:asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and scavenges P
>> >
>> > OK well all is good.  Jessie Shore assures me this is the place to
>> > communicate.  So lets get started.
>> >
>> > There has been much said this week about the arsenic eating bacteria
>> that
>> > apparently means we are inhabiting the earth with extra-terrestrials.
>>  There?s
>> > a whole # devoted to it over at twitter.  My question to the whole
>> debacle
>> > was, ?If the controls were flawed WHY was the experiment published??
>> >
>> > Here?s a pretty good timeline of the event
>> >
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria
>> > -a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/
>> >
>> > S
>> >
>> > Susan Kirk  Bcomm
>> > Journalist
>> > MEAA  ASC HMAQ QWC
>> > [cid:part1.06020309.09030703 at csiro.au]
>> > 39 Shamley Heath Rd,
>> > KUREELPA   Q  4560
>> > P: +61 7 5478 6761
>> > M:+ 61 0414 645 953
>> > skirk at lingo.net.au<mailto:skirk at lingo.net.au>
>> > www.lingo.net.au<http://www.lingo.net.au>
>> > www.lingo.net.au/blog<http://www.lingo.net.au/blog>
>> > www.lingo.net.au/discuss<http://www.lingo.net.au/discuss>
>> >
>> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message may contain privileged and
>> confidential
>> > information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If
>> you are
>> > not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying,
>> > distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
>> unlawful.
>> > ________________________________
>> > No virus found in this message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
>> > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3306 - Release Date: 12/09/10
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------
>> > Helen Sim
>> > Media Liaison and Public Relations
>> >
>> > CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
>> > and
>> > Australian Astronomical Observatory
>> >
>> > T: +61 2 9372 4251
>> > M: +61 419 635 905
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:20:23 +1030
>> > From: Stephan Kern <SKern at riaus.org.au>
>> > To: "asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au" <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: [ASC-list] Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy
>> > Message-ID:
>> > <17094CB8564A9040B2D54019D7EDD0941A89D24BDC at RIA-EXCH01.riaus.internal>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> >
>> > Hello Everyone,
>> >
>> > After six months, the Thinking Critically about Energy series is finally
>> > complete-  and you can now view the entire TCASE series at the new
>>  RiAus On
>> > Demand Site
>> >
>> http://riausondemand.org.au/feature_series/thinking-critically-about-sustainab
>> > le-energy/
>> >
>> > A big thanks to all our speakers for helping produce such an interesting
>> and
>> > informative series.
>> >
>> >
>> > [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB7689.E60A6870]
>> >  Steve Kern
>> >  Senior Programs Co-ordinator
>> >
>> >  Ri Australia
>> >  PO Box 3652
>> >  RUNDLE MALL  SA  5000
>> >  Ph: (08) 7120 8604 | Fax: (08) 8221 6563 |
>> > skern at riaus.org.au|<mailto:atyndall at riaustralia.org.au|>
>> > www.riaus.org.au<http://www.riaustralia.org.au/>
>> > The Royal Institution of Australia Inc is a Charitable Institution and
>> is a
>> > Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR)
>> > ABN: 98638459658
>> >
>> > Think B4U Print
>> > 1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree and 5.4kg CO2 in the atmosphere
>> > 3 sheets of A4 paper = 1 litre of water
>> >
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL:
>> > <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/atta
>> > chment-0001.html>
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> > Name: image001.jpg
>> > Type: image/jpeg
>> > Size: 1498 bytes
>> > Desc: image001.jpg
>> > URL:
>> > <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/atta
>> > chment-0001.jpg>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ASC-list mailing list
>> > list at asc.asn.au
>> >
>> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
>> >
>> > End of ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20
>> > ****************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Susan Kirk <skirk at lingo.net.au>
>> To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:22:13 +1000
>> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20
>> Maybe I don't understand the process of publication in a science journal.
>> This is my (albeit simplified) understanding.  An experiment is conducted
>> within certain parameters or controls and the results are then deciphered.
>> The results of the experiment must be able to be replicated with the same
>> result.  I thought this experiment was then 'peer reviewed' meaning other
>> scientists would test it out.  At this point any shortcomings in any of
>> the
>> basic science ie control measures use of equipment etc etc would come to
>> the
>> fore. If there were shortcomings then the reviewers would say to the
>> authors
>> go back and do it again.  I imagined that once a paper was published it
>> had
>> gained a fair amount of credibility but now it appears that the research
>> goes into additional peer review.  How long does this go on for?  At any
>> stage is the research discredited/disregarded or accepted as truth? If we
>> dont discover the uncertainties which, in this case were sent around the
>> blogosphere, how else we will discover them.  Are we the public privy to
>> the
>> objections?  I can't see where.
>>
>> Niall is correct.  NASA overcommitted itself with sensational spin that in
>> turn seduced the journalists.  The result, the findings became the truth,
>> instead of research, none of which contributes to the public understanding
>> of science.
>>
>> I understand that there is a growing consensus that there are issues with
>> the veracity of this research as Helen has pointed out.
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/12/10 9:00 PM, "asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au"
>> <asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Send ASC-list mailing list submissions to
>> > asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > http://lists.asc.asn.au/mailman/listinfo/asc-list
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > asc-list-request at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > asc-list-owner at lists.asc.asn.au
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of ASC-list digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> >    1. Re: [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>> >       scavenges P (Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au)
>> >    2. Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy (Stephan Kern)
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:17:21 +1100
>> > From: <Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au>
>> > To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: Re: [ASC-list] [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic
>> > and scavenges P
>> > Message-ID:
>> > <B039DE0B62CBDE46AB819FC14FA7A72D019121309B at EXNSW-MBX04.nexus.csiro.au>
>> >
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>> >
>> > Do critics of the blogosphere's reaction realise how much of the best
>> science
>> > writing is happening on blogs? These aren't (all) undergrads or
>> hobbyists -
>> > when they talk about "bloggers", they're talking about top flight
>> science
>> > writers and scientists writing for the online arms of Discover, Wired,
>> Seed,
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > And the reverse chronology blog feed is a style of writing that's just
>> really
>> > well suited to science. Instead of the story beginning and ending with
>> the
>> > latest embargoed paper, it's ongoing, updated as new facts come to light
>> - in
>> > many cases with writers that are following the journals (often in their
>> own
>> > discipline).
>> >
>> > And in this case, they picked up issues with the paper that virtually
>> all the
>> > mainstream media went for. Did having Science and NASA on the stand draw
>> > everyone's guards down? Ed Yong was involved right though, and his
>> post-mortem
>> > really captures it. It seems like NASA messed up the PR, then got a hint
>> of
>> > what a lot of politicians and businesses have seen in the past year or
>> two
>> > when the social media world senses it's being taken for a ride.
>> >
>> > Really interesting case study for anyone interested in the shifting
>> media
>> > balance and science communication, that's for sure.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au [
>> asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On
>> > Behalf Of Helen Sim [Helen.Sim at csiro.au]
>> > Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 1:39 PM
>> > To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> > Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>> > scavenges P
>> >
>> > I don't think there's any doubt about the voracity of the findings, but
>> their
>> > veracity is a different matter.
>> >
>> > - H
>> >
>> > On 13/12/10 12:22 PM, Niall Byrne wrote:
>> >
>> > A good topic.
>> >
>> > I don?t think this is a debacle ? it?s just science ? with the
>> blogosphere
>> > over-reacting partly because of a clumsy media alert from NASA that
>> > overpromised.
>> >
>> > I liked this comment from the blog you cited.
>> >
>> > ?If question remains about the voracity of these authors findings, then
>> the
>> > only thing that is going to answer that doubt is data.  Data cannot be
>> > generated by blog discussion? Talking about digging a ditch never got it
>> dug.?
>> >
>> > Science is messy, peer review is messy and sometimes it?s good for us to
>> be
>> > exposed to that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Niall
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________
>> >
>> > Niall Byrne
>> >
>> > Science in Public has moved to:
>> >
>> > 82 Hudsons Road, Spotswood  Vic  3015
>> > Our postal address is PO Box 2076 Spotswood VIC 3015
>> > Our landline stays the same - 03 9398 1416.
>> >
>> > Niall?s mobile: 0417 131 977
>> > Sarah?s mobile: 0413 332 489
>> >
>> > niall at scienceinpublic.com.au<mailto:niall at scienceinpublic.com.au>
>> > Twitter scienceinpublic
>> > Full contact details at
>> > www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog<http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog>
>> >
>> > From:
>> > asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au<mailto:
>> asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > [mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan Kirk
>> > Sent: Saturday, 11 December 2010 1:49 AM
>> > To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au<mailto:asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and scavenges P
>> >
>> > OK well all is good.  Jessie Shore assures me this is the place to
>> > communicate.  So lets get started.
>> >
>> > There has been much said this week about the arsenic eating bacteria
>> that
>> > apparently means we are inhabiting the earth with extra-terrestrials.
>>  There?s
>> > a whole # devoted to it over at twitter.  My question to the whole
>> debacle
>> > was, ?If the controls were flawed WHY was the experiment published??
>> >
>> > Here?s a pretty good timeline of the event
>> >
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria
>> > -a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/
>> >
>> > S
>> >
>> > Susan Kirk  Bcomm
>> > Journalist
>> > MEAA  ASC HMAQ QWC
>> > [cid:part1.06020309.09030703 at csiro.au]
>> > 39 Shamley Heath Rd,
>> > KUREELPA   Q  4560
>> > P: +61 7 5478 6761
>> > M:+ 61 0414 645 953
>> > skirk at lingo.net.au<mailto:skirk at lingo.net.au>
>> > www.lingo.net.au<http://www.lingo.net.au>
>> > www.lingo.net.au/blog<http://www.lingo.net.au/blog>
>> > www.lingo.net.au/discuss<http://www.lingo.net.au/discuss>
>> >
>> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message may contain privileged and
>> confidential
>> > information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If
>> you are
>> > not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying,
>> > distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
>> unlawful.
>> > ________________________________
>> > No virus found in this message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
>> > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3306 - Release Date: 12/09/10
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------
>> > Helen Sim
>> > Media Liaison and Public Relations
>> >
>> > CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
>> > and
>> > Australian Astronomical Observatory
>> >
>> > T: +61 2 9372 4251
>> > M: +61 419 635 905
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:20:23 +1030
>> > From: Stephan Kern <SKern at riaus.org.au>
>> > To: "asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au" <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> > Subject: [ASC-list] Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy
>> > Message-ID:
>> > <17094CB8564A9040B2D54019D7EDD0941A89D24BDC at RIA-EXCH01.riaus.internal>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> >
>> > Hello Everyone,
>> >
>> > After six months, the Thinking Critically about Energy series is finally
>> > complete-  and you can now view the entire TCASE series at the new
>>  RiAus On
>> > Demand Site
>> >
>> http://riausondemand.org.au/feature_series/thinking-critically-about-sustainab
>> > le-energy/
>> >
>> > A big thanks to all our speakers for helping produce such an interesting
>> and
>> > informative series.
>> >
>> >
>> > [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB7689.E60A6870]
>> >  Steve Kern
>> >  Senior Programs Co-ordinator
>> >
>> >  Ri Australia
>> >  PO Box 3652
>> >  RUNDLE MALL  SA  5000
>> >  Ph: (08) 7120 8604 | Fax: (08) 8221 6563 |
>> > skern at riaus.org.au|<mailto:atyndall at riaustralia.org.au|>
>> > www.riaus.org.au<http://www.riaustralia.org.au/>
>> > The Royal Institution of Australia Inc is a Charitable Institution and
>> is a
>> > Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR)
>> > ABN: 98638459658
>> >
>> > Think B4U Print
>> > 1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree and 5.4kg CO2 in the atmosphere
>> > 3 sheets of A4 paper = 1 litre of water
>> >
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL:
>> > <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/atta
>> > chment-0001.html>
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> > Name: image001.jpg
>> > Type: image/jpeg
>> > Size: 1498 bytes
>> > Desc: image001.jpg
>> > URL:
>> > <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/atta
>> > chment-0001.jpg>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ASC-list mailing list
>> > list at asc.asn.au
>> >
>> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
>> >
>> > End of ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20
>> > ****************************************
>>
>>
>> Susan Kirk  Bcomm
>> Journalist
>> MEAA  ASC HMAQ QWC
>>
>> 39 Shamley Heath Rd,
>> KUREELPA   Q  4560
>> P: +61 7 5478 6761
>> M:+ 61 0414 645 953
>> skirk at lingo.net.au
>> www.lingo.net.au
>> www.lingo.net.au/blog
>> www.lingo.net.au/discuss
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message may contain privileged and confidential
>> information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
>> unlawful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Magdeline Lum <m.lum at mac.com>
>> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:50:43 +0800
>> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and scavenges P
>> I'm on twitter and I've been following the hashtag #arseniclife and as a
>> science communicator, it's been exciting to watch the conversation evolve.
>> Initially there was a lot of anger directed at NASA due to the absence of an
>> ET announcement. It is no different as to how any other person or
>> organisation has been treated by people on the Internet when they feel that
>> they have been duped.
>>
>> Not all has been futile from the blogosphere. Following on from Matthew's
>> comments I would like to direct the attention of the critics of bloggers to
>> Rosie Redfield's letter in Science. Her critique of the study started at her
>> blog here,
>> http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.htmland has also provided her letter published in Science here,
>> http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-letter-to-science.html. There
>> are so many adept and established researchers running blogs and some do
>> indeed prove to be a record and display of the scientific process.
>>
>> The sounds from #arseniclife now is a public display of the peer review
>> process. The discussion isn't purely "NASA got it so wrong" and much of it
>> links to journal articles and lengthy discussions about the science and
>> reasoning behind conclusions and questions.
>>
>> When it comes to the initial publication of the flawed study, who knows
>> what really happened. I've been more interested in the reaction from
>> everyone else and the demonstration of research conducted by the blogosphere
>> and twittersphere. Not everyone involved has been an academic and I think
>> this is especially wonderful, particularly if it reminds the PR of science
>> organisations that the lack of a science degree doesn't indicate a lack of
>> scientific understanding.
>>
>> Guardian's science story tracker has been invaluable in the coverage of
>> news, blogs and articles being created around this.
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/02/nasa-life-form-bacteria-arsenic?CMP=twt_gu
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/02/nasa-life-form-bacteria-arsenic?CMP=twt_gu>
>>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/02/nasa-life-form-bacteria-arsenic?CMP=twt_gu>
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>>      scavenges P (Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au)
>>   2. Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy (Stephan Kern)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:17:21 +1100
>> From: <Matthew.Levinson at csiro.au>
>> To: <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> Subject: Re: [ASC-list] [ExternalEmail] Re: Bacteria spits out arsenic
>> and scavenges P
>> Message-ID:
>> <B039DE0B62CBDE46AB819FC14FA7A72D019121309B at EXNSW-MBX04.nexus.csiro.au>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>>
>> Do critics of the blogosphere's reaction realise how much of the best
>> science writing is happening on blogs? These aren't (all) undergrads or
>> hobbyists - when they talk about "bloggers", they're talking about top
>> flight science writers and scientists writing for the online arms of
>> Discover, Wired, Seed, etc.
>>
>> And the reverse chronology blog feed is a style of writing that's just
>> really well suited to science. Instead of the story beginning and ending
>> with the latest embargoed paper, it's ongoing, updated as new facts come to
>> light - in many cases with writers that are following the journals (often in
>> their own discipline).
>>
>> And in this case, they picked up issues with the paper that virtually all
>> the mainstream media went for. Did having Science and NASA on the stand draw
>> everyone's guards down? Ed Yong was involved right though, and his
>> post-mortem really captures it. It seems like NASA messed up the PR, then
>> got a hint of what a lot of politicians and businesses have seen in the past
>> year or two when the social media world senses it's being taken for a ride.
>>
>>
>> Really interesting case study for anyone interested in the shifting media
>> balance and science communication, that's for sure.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au [
>> asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Helen Sim
>> [Helen.Sim at csiro.au]
>> Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 1:39 PM
>> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au
>> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and
>> scavenges P
>>
>> I don't think there's any doubt about the voracity of the findings, but
>> their veracity is a different matter.
>>
>> - H
>>
>> On 13/12/10 12:22 PM, Niall Byrne wrote:
>>
>> A good topic.
>>
>> I don?t think this is a debacle ? it?s just science ? with the blogosphere
>>  over-reacting partly because of a clumsy media alert from NASA that
>> overpromised.
>>
>> I liked this comment from the blog you cited.
>>
>> ?If question remains about the voracity of these authors findings, then
>> the only thing that is going to answer that doubt is data.  Data cannot be
>> generated by blog discussion? Talking about digging a ditch never got it
>> dug.?
>>
>> Science is messy, peer review is messy and sometimes it?s good for us to
>> be exposed to that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________
>>
>> Niall Byrne
>>
>> Science in Public has moved to:
>>
>> 82 Hudsons Road, Spotswood  Vic  3015
>> Our postal address is PO Box 2076 Spotswood VIC 3015
>> Our landline stays the same - 03 9398 1416.
>>
>> Niall?s mobile: 0417 131 977
>> Sarah?s mobile: 0413 332 489
>>
>> niall at scienceinpublic.com.au<mailto:niall at scienceinpublic.com.au<niall at scienceinpublic.com.au>
>> >
>> Twitter scienceinpublic
>> Full contact details at www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog<
>> http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/blog>
>>
>> From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au<
>> mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au<asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au>>
>> [mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Susan Kirk
>> Sent: Saturday, 11 December 2010 1:49 AM
>> To: asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au<mailto:asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au<asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> >
>> Subject: [ASC-list] Bacteria spits out arsenic and scavenges P
>>
>> OK well all is good.  Jessie Shore assures me this is the place to
>> communicate.  So lets get started.
>>
>> There has been much said this week about the arsenic eating bacteria that
>> apparently means we are inhabiting the earth with extra-terrestrials.
>>  There?s a whole # devoted to it over at twitter.  My question to the whole
>> debacle was, ?If the controls were flawed WHY was the experiment published??
>>
>> Here?s a pretty good timeline of the event
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria-a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/
>>
>> S
>>
>> Susan Kirk  Bcomm
>> Journalist
>> MEAA  ASC HMAQ QWC
>> [cid:part1.06020309.09030703 at csiro.au]
>> 39 Shamley Heath Rd,
>> KUREELPA   Q  4560
>> P: +61 7 5478 6761
>> M:+ 61 0414 645 953
>> skirk at lingo.net.au<mailto:skirk at lingo.net.au <skirk at lingo.net.au>>
>> www.lingo.net.au<http://www.lingo.net.au>
>> www.lingo.net.au/blog<http://www.lingo.net.au/blog>
>> www.lingo.net.au/discuss<http://www.lingo.net.au/discuss>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message may contain privileged and confidential
>> information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
>> unlawful.
>> ________________________________
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3306 - Release Date: 12/09/10
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------
>> Helen Sim
>> Media Liaison and Public Relations
>>
>> CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science
>> and
>> Australian Astronomical Observatory
>>
>> T: +61 2 9372 4251
>> M: +61 419 635 905
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:20:23 +1030
>> From: Stephan Kern <SKern at riaus.org.au>
>> To: "asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au" <asc-list at lists.asc.asn.au>
>> Subject: [ASC-list] Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy
>> Message-ID:
>> <17094CB8564A9040B2D54019D7EDD0941A89D24BDC at RIA-EXCH01.riaus.internal>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> After six months, the Thinking Critically about Energy series is finally
>> complete-  and you can now view the entire TCASE series at the new  RiAus On
>> Demand Site
>>
>> http://riausondemand.org.au/feature_series/thinking-critically-about-sustainable-energy/
>>
>> A big thanks to all our speakers for helping produce such an interesting
>> and informative series.
>>
>>
>> [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB7689.E60A6870]
>> Steve Kern
>> Senior Programs Co-ordinator
>>
>> Ri Australia
>> PO Box 3652
>> RUNDLE MALL  SA  5000
>> Ph: (08) 7120 8604 | Fax: (08) 8221 6563 | skern at riaus.org.au|<mailto:
>> atyndall at riaustralia.org.au|> www.riaus.org.au<
>> http://www.riaustralia.org.au/>
>> The Royal Institution of Australia Inc is a Charitable Institution and is
>> a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR)
>> ABN: 98638459658
>>
>> Think B4U Print
>> 1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree and 5.4kg CO2 in the atmosphere
>> 3 sheets of A4 paper = 1 litre of water
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: image001.jpg
>> Type: image/jpeg
>> Size: 1498 bytes
>> Desc: image001.jpg
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.asc.asn.au/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101214/ba2c27a1/attachment-0001.jpg
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ASC-list mailing list
>> list at asc.asn.au
>>
>> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
>>
>> End of ASC-list Digest, Vol 73, Issue 20
>> ****************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ASC-list mailing list
>> list at asc.asn.au
>>
>> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Marina Hurley
> Lecturer & Consultant
> Writing Clear Science
> P.O. Box 2373
> Richmond South
> Victoria 3121
> Australia
> 0416-097-979
> Fax +61 3 94213472
>
> info at writingclearscience.com.au
> www.writingclearscience.com.au
> -----------------------------------------------------
> PLEASE NOTE: This message and any attachments may contain legally
> privileged and confidential information and/or copyright material intended
> only for the use of the addressee(s) named above.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ASC-list mailing list
> list at asc.asn.au
>
> http://www.asc.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=115
>



-- 
Dr Marina Hurley
Lecturer & Consultant
Writing Clear Science
P.O. Box 2373
Richmond South
Victoria 3121
Australia
0416-097-979
Fax +61 3 94213472

info at writingclearscience.com.au
www.writingclearscience.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged
and confidential information and/or copyright material intended only for the
use of the addressee(s) named above.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.lists.sublimeip.com/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20101216/19171489/attachment.htm>


More information about the ASC-list mailing list