Web log

I'm back from time with the family in Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park, plus an afternoon at the New England Aquarium and a weekend visiting an old high school buddy in Chicago. It was good, at least until the flight home, which was canceled. (I got home only a day late, but my luggage still hasn't caught up.) Highlights: climbing Dorr Mountain, whale (and bird) watching, visiting the Field Museum and the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago. Much bio-geeking, but nothing work-related. Although it turns out that the Field Museum has a fishbowl genetics lab in the middle of one exhibit, where you can watch actual scientists do basically what I do all day. Kinda creepy. Anyway, time for photos:

Labels: travel

Labels: snow, weather

Back in March, Science ran a Perspectives piece in which computer scientist Ben Shneiderman suggested that the wealth of new data on human interactions provided by the Internet (Facebook, Amazon.com customer records, &c.) would require a new approach to science, which he called "Science 2.0" [subscription]:

... the Science 2.0 challenges cannot be studied adequately in laboratory conditions because controlled experiments do not capture the rich context of Web 2.0 collaboration, where the interaction among variables undermines the validity of reductionist methods (7). Moreover, in Science 2.0 the mix of people and technology means that data must be collected in real settings ... Amazon and Netflix became commercial successes in part because of their frequent evaluations of incremental changes to their Web site design as they monitored user activity and purchases.

Science 2.0 sounded, to me, a lot like what ecologists and evolutionary biologists often do - hypothesis testing based on observations, manipulations of whole natural systems in the field, and the clever use of "natural experiments" sensu Diamond [subscription]. I said as much in a post shortly after Shneiderman's article ran, and also wrote a brief letter to Science.

And now it turns out they've published it! My letter, along with a response from Shneiderman, is in the 6 June issue [subscription]. You can read it in PDF format here. In very short form, I say:

... what Shneiderman calls Science 1.0 has always included methods beyond simple controlled experiments, such as inference from observation of integrated natural systems and the careful use of "natural experiments" (1) to test and eliminate competing hypotheses.

Shneiderman's response concedes the point on natural experiments, but says he was actually talking about manipulative experiments conducted on large online social networks

Amazon and NetFlix designers conduct many studies to improve their user interfaces by making changes in a fraction of accounts to measure how user behaviors change. Their goal is to improve business practices, but similar interventional studies on a massive scale could develop better understanding of human collaboration in the designed (as opposed to natural) world ...

That still sounds to me like ecological experimentation, but with people's Facebook accounts instead of (to pick an organism at random) yucca moths. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I don't see anything in Shneiderman's description that qualifies as a new kind of science.

References
Shneiderman B. 2008. Science 2.0. Science 319:1349-50.

Diamond J. 2001. Dammed experiments! Science 294:1847-8.

Yoder, JB, and B Shneiderman. 2008. Science 2.0: Not So New? Science 320:1290-1.

Labels: media, publication, science, scientific methods

Slate's Ron Rosenbaum makes the case that liberal guilt is no cause for shame - and calls out "moralistic" conservatism on its weird disdain for guilt:

Shouldn't conservatives feel guilty about slavery and racism and the consequences thereof, or must they disdain such feelings, however moral, because they are associated with liberals? Do they choose their moral priorities because of their popularity among others? That doesn't seem like a conservative way of thinking about moral values. It sounds like a form of relativism. It's the kind of thinking that treats values as a brand identity. Guilt over racism is not part of the conservative brand identity. The more shame if that be the case.

... If they're young and college-educated, anyway. The Chicago Tribune has a pretty good piece on the political leanings of Goshen College students, which mainly focuses on increasing Mennonite willingness to participate in politics at all, but also addresses Goshenites' preference for Barack Obama.

I think there's an actual trend here. In the last primaries in states with historical Mennonite population centers, Indiana and Pennsylvania, Obama lost everywhere but big cities -- and the Mennonite-heavy counties. Seriously. Check out the county-by-county results for Indiana, and Pennsylvania - both Elkhart County, Indiana (home to Goshen College) and good ol' Lancaster County are in the Obama column.

Labels: church, politics, young adults

The New Yorker has a great essay by Jared Diamond on the role of revenge in tribal societies. It's more story-telling than the sort of rigorous comparative anthropology on display in Guns, Germs, and Steel, but it's fascinating.

Labels: Jared Diamond, science

The first publication from the Pellmyr Lab's study of Joshua trees and their pollinators, in which we demonstrate significant, potentially coevolved, morphological differences in Joshua trees pollinated by different species of yucca moths, is now online at the American Naturalist's website. My understanding is that it'll be in the print edition this June.

Godsoe W, JB Yoder, CI Smith, and O Pellmyr. 2008. Coevolution and Divergence in the Joshua Tree/Yucca Moth Mutualism. The American Naturalist 171.

Labels: coevolution, Joshua tree, science