We got together on September 1, with our distinguished panel of scientists, which included Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier (KD), Vice President for Research and Professor of Meteorology at OU, Dr. Joe Rodgers (JR), Professor of Psychology at OU, and Dr. Douglas Gaffin (DG), Dean of University College and Professor of Zoology at OU. These three represented the different perspectives of physical, social and life sciences, and their answers to our group's questions were diverse and interesting. I'll do my best to indicate what questions were asked and give a sense of how the different panelists answered the questions, though there will be NO DIRECT QUOTES, only because I didn't get any.
Question: What is your background, and how did you get interested in science?
KD got interested in learning more about the weather due to all of the severe storms he experienced growing up in Kansas. Over the years he has focused on developing mathematical models of the atmosphere, with the goal of better understanding severe storms.
JR was a math major, and got interested in behavioral science after taking a psychology course. He develops mathematical models of adolescent behavior in order to better predict and prevent behaviors such as smoking and STD transmission.
DG was never sure what he wanted to do, but always loved nature, and considered a career in forestry. His brother worked on a project with bees that got his mind working on science related to organisms and their behaviors, and he was introduced to scorpions, his lifelong research topic, in college shortly afterwards.
Question: How has science changed since the early period of alchemy and astronomy?
DG felt that science is not all that different from early science for the individual scientist. He recounted experiences of having to "do it all", much as the early astronomers had to, in the sense of taking measurements, building models to interpret those measurements, reporting findings, illustrating findings with technical drawings and artwork, and pretty much being one of a very small handful of people that thought deeply about his particular topic.
JR stated that he believes the major way that science has changed is that we no longer are searching for "the Truth", but rather building models of how very specific phenomena behave. This is different than researchers like Newton, who believed there might be and elegant model that describes everything.
KD described science as the way that we explore our curiosities, and in that way as not having changed much, other than now those explorations are now required to somehow help achieve the common good.
Question: How much faith should we place in the scientific method?
KD stated that the scientific method is a human construct, which means that it is limited by human beings. It's neither right nor wrong, but is useful as a way of answering questions.
Question: How does peer review work? Is it the same across different disciplines? Is it harder to get published in one field than in another?
DG noted that peer review is actually changing, with much faster turnaround times, but that it remains a very "schizophrenic" process.
JR edits a journal, and is continually amazed that the peer review and editing process is completely volunteerism based, meaning that no money changes hands at any point in the publication process. It's all done out of service to the discipline and the community.
KD felt that the peer review process is inherently conservative, and can fail us at times by refusing to publish truly revolutionary ideas, simply because the reviewers are human beings and may not recognize it as such.
Question: As a scientist ages, does their ability to publish good work decrease?
KD said that the average scientist's age had definitely increased, making the field top heavy, and that many scientists continue to publish good work all the way until they retire.
JR asserted that even though a lot of elder scientists might feel that their best work is behind them, there are other ways to contribute to the field, such as by mentoring graduate students, organizing conferences, and editing journals. This work is also very important to the continuation of science, and requires the experience of an elder scholar.
Question: Does the current climate of limited funding inhibit collaboration?
KD felt as though the opposite was happening, because to do good work on complex problems, large teams are sometimes necessary. In addition, the competition for funding has led the University to a "portfolio approach", where work by individuals is funded, but also work by interdisciplinary teams and research centers play an important role.
Question: It's sometimes said that Walmart can predict a coming disaster by the sales of some particular item, say strawberry pop-tarts, merely by looking at trends in the data. What is your take on this idea?
JR said that even if this anecdote had substance to it, that Walmart wasn't really doing science, because they weren't looking for fundamental relationships and causes, but rather simple statistical trends. When a scientist develops a predictive model, they're really drawing on what they believe the fundamental causes are.
Question: How do scientists conceptualize and tackle uncertainty when they make predictions?
DG said that he tried to minimize uncertainty by looking for features that were robust over many experiments, and by having a deep understanding of the statistical tests that he uses in his work.
JR stated that in behavioral science, uncertainty and modeling constitute a large part of graduate school education, so that when research is done, the chances of the scientist not understanding what the assumptions are is minimized.
KD pointed out that in meteorology, scientists and forecasters use an ensemble of models to try to capture the essence of uncertainty, and utilize an area called "risk decision theory" to minimize the chances of catastrophe for severe weather events.
So these are my notes from our most recent Science Cafe. Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions!
