Someone told me there was a Chinese curse that says, "may you live in interesting times." There are a few "interesting times" that sort of stick in my head associated with being a scientist. This is one of them.
In either 1986 or 1988 (I think the latter), I attended a conference organized by the American Geophysical Union and the American Society of Limnologists and Oceanographers. This conference is sometimes abbreviated AGU-ASLO. I had been working at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for Dr. Oliver Zafiriou. I attended the conference to present (if it was 1986) some work done on the Cariaco Trench (an anoxic basin off the coast of Venezuela) or (if it was 1988) to present a study on production of nitric oxide by denitrifying bacteria.
The members of the American Geophysical Union do (and did) many things. Among them are seismic studies, mostly of earthquakes. However, there are other things besides normal continental drift which cause the earth to shake. These include blasting in quarries and other explosions. One source of big explosions is nuclear weapons. Here is the part about "interesting times." If you haven't noticed, we live in interesting times and one of the things making those times interesting is nuclear weapons.
In the early and mid 80’s, the talk of the time was the nuclear freeze, the comprehensive test ban treaty (never completed), using Europe as a “theater” for limited nuclear war (this made the Europeans nervous), deterrence, and mutually assured destruction. If you came of age in the 90's you need to realize that you came of age in a rather optimistic time. I came of age a few years earlier and we (we at least I did) thought about the nuclear arms race. My favorite analogy was the one where there are two people in a small room with a big open can of gasoline. The person with the most matches was somehow the winner. To put things in perspective, throughout the most of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80's there was on any given day the possibility that 500,000,000 could be dead within weeks, and there were those who had reason to believe many more would follow.
So there I was at this meeting one afternoon. My presentations were over. The sessions which were related to my work were over and I was looking at the schedule. A conference session on seismic detection of atomic bombs (or something thereabouts) caught my eye. The murmur of the times by itself might have caused me to be curious but I was particularly curious. For those who have looked at my office wall you might understand my particular curiosity. Others will have to use their imagination. Hmm... I thought. Why not have a look.
So I did. After a few minutes, I started to feel like a bit player is a film. The actors were as follows. There were several very earnest and also very well informed representatives from the National Resource Defense Council (I hope I have the name right, it has been a few years). The NRDC was primarily an environmental organization. These people looked like you might expect. Not a bunch of long-hairs like yours truly, but they were easily distinguishable from another group I will describe later. For those of you who think a scientific conference is a bunch of well dressed people in fancy suits and ties talking lofty thoughts, I have some news. It isn't so. Look around our department at your lecturers and professors. Repeat as necessary. It isn’t so. There are some scientists who do dress well, but they tend not to favor the polyester suit look. Many dress for comfort and often the result is the casual look. I even saw one guy show up in a cape (guy was a fruitcake). Not all meetings are the same. PITTCON (a conference for analytical chemists) tends to be more formal. I think that is due to analytical chemists being a necessary part of nearly all serious industry. It makes businessmen feel more confident when you have the “business look.” But the participants in AGU-ASLO were not as a rule a stuffy bunch. You get the picture.
In the audience was a very striking man who I think was Pakistani or Indian. Both countries were thought to be working on the development of atomic bombs at the time. The man had a few people with him, but he really stood out in a crowd. The reason he stood out was he had a very pronounced tick that caused his whole face to twitch every few seconds. It was very distracting to watch. In my head, I nicknamed him Mr. Twitch. I do not know his name and since he did not give a presentation, it would be hard to find out. So the second group in the room was Mr. Twitch and his entourage.
Group three were a group of strangely dressed people, at least for the place they were speaking. They were wearing lots of non-descript suits, ties, and accoutrements you would expect to go with the costume. In another context, they might have blended in well, but at AGU-ASLO they looked out of place.
Finally, there was a group (I include myself here) that was just there out of curiosity. Then the show started. Presentations got going. ..
The people in group one (the NRDC) spoke to the audience as a whole. They were showing data collected (as I recall) from Central Asia seismic monitors. Looking at what an earthquake looks like, what a quarry blast looks like, what a BIG quarry blast looks like, and trying to see whether there were unique "signatures" that could be recognized. This was fascinating, because I (and I expect you) had never thought about what might be involved in detecting an underground atomic bomb blast. At first it seems pretty obvious, then suppose someone you were suspicious of just said, "Well we had a minor earthquake...." or “We were just blasting in a quarry…” The NRDC was genuinely interested in whether a comprehensive test ban treaty was verifiable.
The people in group three also presented. While listening, I got the impression they were really talking to Mr. Twitch. They all seemed to be from small companies in Virginia. These small companies had some fascinating material. Slide shows like not many people have seen. Simulations of underground bomb blasts. Example: There was a "talk" which was a slide show of a bunch of trailers resting at ground zero ABOVE an underground bomb blast. They included a time series before, after, and during a test that took place under an island (I think it was called Amchitka - I will try to look it up) in Alaska.
As you might imagine ground zero is not a good place to be. The trailers were messed up afterward. The speaker dryly remarked that the ground accelerated upwards (briefly) at 18 g's. I got the impression that this was lesson 1 for Mr. Twitch. Specifically, when you blow up yours, don't hang around at ground zero. Now, you may be wondering how a small company in Virginia gets pictures like that. Go figure....
Another example, there was another chap from another company. He had some really flashy full color simulations of rock fracturing, etc. around a bomb blast. This gives rise to a cavern that forms which is often followed by collapse, creating a ground level crater. He showed a series of time points in the simulation. Then he dryly remarked something to the effect, this is what happens provided you place the bomb well OUTSIDE the WATER table. If you put it into the water table, or close to it, the top of the crater comes off. The chemists among you will appreciate that it is easier to vaporize water than it is rock. This has, apparently, potentially catastrophic consequences. A serious blast instead of a “little” crater. As before, enquiring minds would like to know how a small company in Virginia got all the data to do that simulation....
Again, this fellow seemed to be talking to Mr. Twitch. If my memory serves me, Mr. Twitch asked how far above or below the water table “one” might want to be. It has been nearly 20 years, but my recollection now is that the man giving the presentation asked Mr. Twitch to have a word with him privately after the session was over.
This took up the better part of the afternoon. It was most fascinating. I have never stumbled across its like again - sometimes I am thankful - other times the fact that I have not makes me uneasy. My conclusions at the end were these. The US knew what the country Mr. Twitch came from was up to. Over the course of the afternoon they told him: 1) We know what you are doing. 2) When you test we will know. 3) When you test, don't be stupid and hurt yourself or others. 4) Here are a few tips to avoid hurting anyone.
Unfortunately, we still live in interesting times... It is indeed our curse.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Life in Science 1: Way back when...
I certainly had no idea what a life in science meant when I was an undergraduate. There may be people who knew all their lives that they wanted to be scientists. I am not one of them. I became interested in Chemistry my last year of secondary school as the result of an excellent teacher named Mr. Cruishank. An interest in chemistry is not the same as knowing one wants to be a scientist.
As I say often to students, science at the secondary school level is taught as a collection of facts which can be learned. If you read the book, study hard, and have a good memory and decent math skills you can do well. This is just the foundation. Your teachers are trying to teach you the language of science. Because you know a language, doesn't mean you can write concise essays or decent poetry.
So it is with science. At the University level we try to introduce you to science as it is practiced. Rather than being a collection of facts for memorization, science is an investigation of the unknown. When you are increasing the total of what we know about the physical world around us, you have started being a scientist. As you go through the University, the level of abstraction increases. For example, we know a lot about lead contamination of the environment. But, we may know nothing about the amount of lead in YOUR tap water. This is a good short project for an undergraduate student. By the end of second year analytical, you should have no difficulty doing this measurement. But clearly, this would be insufficient to give you a Ph. D. What determines the difference between you measuring lead in your own tap and a Ph. D. is the level of generality and the level of abstraction.
The problem with studying the unknown is that it is unknown. This is a BIG problem. First, since it is unknown, by definition you don't know necessarily what to do, you do not know what you will find, you do not know if your experiment will work. This means spending a lot of time feeling your way around in the dark. What is more, the more interesting the knowledge, the less is known. For example, at a fundamental level, science really does not know how consciousness works. We are so much in the dark with our knowledge that people can say that it ma not be possible to know how consciousness works. This means we haven't got a clue how to go about studying it. Lots of bumping around in the dark left to go.
When I first encountered chemistry, I had no idea that a career in science might include spending most of my time a bit confused, unsure, and having experiments not work right. Rather, my idea was that science would consist of progressively thicker books full of interesting facts, describing how I could do increasingly more complex experiments in support of those facts. The concept of designing an experiment that would show something NEW didn't get into my head until far along in my undergraduate education.
At the end of my undergraduate education, I never wanted to sit in a classroom. I was tired of exams, hurried reading, and cramming information into my head (sound familiar). It wasn't until later that I realized all of that effort was just the background allowing a person to recognize the gap between the known and the unknown. It was then that I knew I wanted to be a scientist.
The purpose here is to try to clarify one aspect of the nature of science. Science is the investigation of the unknown. Once it is known, it may become interesting to all sorts of people, but the scientist has to move on. Understanding this point will make your transition to advanced study in science easier and better enable you to decide what you want to do after you finish your degree.
As I say often to students, science at the secondary school level is taught as a collection of facts which can be learned. If you read the book, study hard, and have a good memory and decent math skills you can do well. This is just the foundation. Your teachers are trying to teach you the language of science. Because you know a language, doesn't mean you can write concise essays or decent poetry.
So it is with science. At the University level we try to introduce you to science as it is practiced. Rather than being a collection of facts for memorization, science is an investigation of the unknown. When you are increasing the total of what we know about the physical world around us, you have started being a scientist. As you go through the University, the level of abstraction increases. For example, we know a lot about lead contamination of the environment. But, we may know nothing about the amount of lead in YOUR tap water. This is a good short project for an undergraduate student. By the end of second year analytical, you should have no difficulty doing this measurement. But clearly, this would be insufficient to give you a Ph. D. What determines the difference between you measuring lead in your own tap and a Ph. D. is the level of generality and the level of abstraction.
The problem with studying the unknown is that it is unknown. This is a BIG problem. First, since it is unknown, by definition you don't know necessarily what to do, you do not know what you will find, you do not know if your experiment will work. This means spending a lot of time feeling your way around in the dark. What is more, the more interesting the knowledge, the less is known. For example, at a fundamental level, science really does not know how consciousness works. We are so much in the dark with our knowledge that people can say that it ma not be possible to know how consciousness works. This means we haven't got a clue how to go about studying it. Lots of bumping around in the dark left to go.
When I first encountered chemistry, I had no idea that a career in science might include spending most of my time a bit confused, unsure, and having experiments not work right. Rather, my idea was that science would consist of progressively thicker books full of interesting facts, describing how I could do increasingly more complex experiments in support of those facts. The concept of designing an experiment that would show something NEW didn't get into my head until far along in my undergraduate education.
At the end of my undergraduate education, I never wanted to sit in a classroom. I was tired of exams, hurried reading, and cramming information into my head (sound familiar). It wasn't until later that I realized all of that effort was just the background allowing a person to recognize the gap between the known and the unknown. It was then that I knew I wanted to be a scientist.
The purpose here is to try to clarify one aspect of the nature of science. Science is the investigation of the unknown. Once it is known, it may become interesting to all sorts of people, but the scientist has to move on. Understanding this point will make your transition to advanced study in science easier and better enable you to decide what you want to do after you finish your degree.
Monday, January 24, 2005
CHEM1415 1: A good beginning
I am pleased with my first year analytical students. Why am I pleased? On Thursday, we had a discussion about the honesty document (see previous posts). So? Well, … I have discussed this topic before and the student who did the work gave a presentation in a public forum. We discussed it in the second year course last semester. I have discussed it privately with colleagues and shared it with people in administrative positions. Reactions have included: hostility, scorn, mild interest (a secretary called to ask about the circumstances under which the study was done), and silence. This is the first time that anyone from any group has used words like “outrageous” and “ridiculous.” It is the first time that I really felt the response was appropriate to the subject. I have found a group able to see the ethics involved. Previously, I have gotten the impression that people are too heavily invested in the status quo to recognize the big picture, which is indeed “outrageous.”
This is not to say that all is perfect. Life never is. When I asked whether, based on their previous semester, they think their colleagues used “cookbooks.” There was much nervous laughter and a murmur in the lecture theatre. They understood what I was really asking.
But still, I am pleased with them. There is a clear and well developed ethical sense. I am looking forward to the semester and working with them.
This is not to say that all is perfect. Life never is. When I asked whether, based on their previous semester, they think their colleagues used “cookbooks.” There was much nervous laughter and a murmur in the lecture theatre. They understood what I was really asking.
But still, I am pleased with them. There is a clear and well developed ethical sense. I am looking forward to the semester and working with them.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Concerns 1: Honesty
Perhaps my biggest concern as a University faculty member is issues of intellectual honesty . I am posting a summary sheet of a study I helped to supervise here so that it can be commented on by students, staff, and community members anonymously. Before reading what is below please keep the following in mind. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that students at this University are exceptional when it comes to intellectually dishonest behaviors. Information published on other Universities put this one well within the range of "normal" behavior. Data from other Universities do not not exist for all behaviors listed here. Conversely, just because similar behaviors exist elsewhere does not mean there existence here is not cause for concern.
Overview of intellectual honesty issues within the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry.
A study was carried out over the summer looking at the extent of “cookbook” use and plagiarism. The study was carried out by a student under the guidance a Prof. in education and Dr. Hanley. Here, the results found in that study have been supplemented with a separate test of an anti-plagiarism software program using essays turned in electronically.
The following were the major findings broken down into self-reported student behaviour, students perceptions of other students’ behaviour, faculty perceptions of student behaviour, student ratings of incentives, and summary of results using the anti-plagiarism software.
Self-reported student behaviour:
1) 94.4% participating in the study reported that they used cookbooks. Cookbook use was universal among the level II and III students participating in the study.
2) 36.1% reported participating in copy and paste type plagiarism.
3) Self reported use of cookbooks increases over the course of the degree program. Lowest use is in prelim (1.79), next highest is year I (1.88), next highest is year II (2.23), and highest use is in year III (2.56). The scale from1-4 used here was: 1 – did not use cook books at all, 2 – used cookbooks occasionally, 3 – used cookbooks often, and 4 – used cookbooks nearly all the time.
4) The 5 highest levels of cookbook use occur in the final year chemistry courses. Within these five courses are the final year courses at the core of the chemistry degree program.
Student perceptions of other students’ behaviour:
1) Students estimated on average that ~70-80% of students use cookbooks to complete labs or assignments. This underestimates the self-reported value of 94.4%.
2) On a relative scale (1-5), students rank cookbook prevalence 4.42, copy and paste plagiarism (3.14), and data falsification (3.59). If the trend between the relative scale and the self-reported values continues (e.g.: 4.42 corresponds to 94.4% for cookbook use, and 3.14 corresponds to 36.1% for plagiarism), ~50% of students are falsifying data.
Lecturer perceptions of students’ behaviour:
1) On average lecturers participating believed ~50% of students were using cookbooks. It is worth noting, that the largest group of lecturers (42.9%) think 0-20% are using cookbooks.
2) As a group, teaching staff consistently perceived a lower prevalence of all categories of dishonest behaviours than did students. The categories included: copying colleagues assignments, data falsification, downloading entire essays, and copy and paste plagiarism. Many lecturers underestimate the extent of the problem and some seem to be completely disconnected from what their students are doing.
Student ratings of incentives:
1) On a relative scale (1-5), students indicated the major incentives to use cookbooks are a poor understanding of theory (3.64), course load too heavy (3.57), and labs identical year after year (3.53).
2) Least important of the proposed incentives (2.02) was lack of lecturer approachability.
Summary of results using anti-plagiarism software:
The results obtained using anti-plagiarism software (EVE) indicate that 7 out 32 (~20%) reports scanned showed evidence of a high degree of plagiarism. Among these reports, as much as 40.69% of the total report was copied from internet sites. While less convenient, careful use of GOOGLE is more effective at locating plagiarized web sites than EVE. Further, the level of plagiarism indicated was highly variable, a characteristic of this program which has been noted previously.[i]
Conclusions:
While these results are not flattering, in comparison to other studies on plagiarism at other universities, this university is in the higher end of prior reports. Reported values range from ~10% (Universities with honor codes)[ii] to ~42%.[iii] Although this university does not appear exceptional, the 36.1% is of considerable concern. Plagiarism has been proven to harm the grades of honest students1 and may have long-lasting effects on this university's reputation.
We were unable to find reports of “cookbook” use in the education literature so a comparison was not possible.
However, there are several points of deep concern.
1) Cookbook use appears to be learned over the course of study in chemistry at this university. Rather than being a bad habit from secondary school that is progressively reduced by attendance at this university, the opposite appears to be the case. Exceptions to this trend are biochemistry and analytical chemistry. Both of these disciplines exhibit low levels of cookbook use over all years.
2) If the trends from cookbook use and copy and paste plagiarism hold for students’ perception of data falsification as well, there could be a very serious problem that should be dealt with carefully.
3) Lecturers seem to greatly underestimate the extent of these behaviours.
Finally, it is notable that the disciplines with the lowest prevalence of cookbook use benefit from lecturers who regularly revise their lab manuals. While students do not perceive the reuse of the same labs year after year as the highest incentive to use cookbooks, the fact remains that there will be no cookbooks available to students for a new or newly revised lab module. Complete revision of all labs each year does not seem to be needed. Substantive changes to existing experiments appears to work well or better.
[i] Braumoeller, B.F., and Gaines Brian J. (2001) Actions do speak louder than words: Deterring Plagiarism with the Use of Plagiarism Detection Software. Political Science and Politics 34 835-39.
[ii] McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino, and K. D. Butterfield (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior 11(3):219-232.
[iii] Newstead, S. A. Franklyn-Stokes, P. Armstead,. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating Journal of Educational psychology 88 229-241.
Overview of intellectual honesty issues within the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry.
A study was carried out over the summer looking at the extent of “cookbook” use and plagiarism. The study was carried out by a student under the guidance a Prof. in education and Dr. Hanley. Here, the results found in that study have been supplemented with a separate test of an anti-plagiarism software program using essays turned in electronically.
The following were the major findings broken down into self-reported student behaviour, students perceptions of other students’ behaviour, faculty perceptions of student behaviour, student ratings of incentives, and summary of results using the anti-plagiarism software.
Self-reported student behaviour:
1) 94.4% participating in the study reported that they used cookbooks. Cookbook use was universal among the level II and III students participating in the study.
2) 36.1% reported participating in copy and paste type plagiarism.
3) Self reported use of cookbooks increases over the course of the degree program. Lowest use is in prelim (1.79), next highest is year I (1.88), next highest is year II (2.23), and highest use is in year III (2.56). The scale from1-4 used here was: 1 – did not use cook books at all, 2 – used cookbooks occasionally, 3 – used cookbooks often, and 4 – used cookbooks nearly all the time.
4) The 5 highest levels of cookbook use occur in the final year chemistry courses. Within these five courses are the final year courses at the core of the chemistry degree program.
Student perceptions of other students’ behaviour:
1) Students estimated on average that ~70-80% of students use cookbooks to complete labs or assignments. This underestimates the self-reported value of 94.4%.
2) On a relative scale (1-5), students rank cookbook prevalence 4.42, copy and paste plagiarism (3.14), and data falsification (3.59). If the trend between the relative scale and the self-reported values continues (e.g.: 4.42 corresponds to 94.4% for cookbook use, and 3.14 corresponds to 36.1% for plagiarism), ~50% of students are falsifying data.
Lecturer perceptions of students’ behaviour:
1) On average lecturers participating believed ~50% of students were using cookbooks. It is worth noting, that the largest group of lecturers (42.9%) think 0-20% are using cookbooks.
2) As a group, teaching staff consistently perceived a lower prevalence of all categories of dishonest behaviours than did students. The categories included: copying colleagues assignments, data falsification, downloading entire essays, and copy and paste plagiarism. Many lecturers underestimate the extent of the problem and some seem to be completely disconnected from what their students are doing.
Student ratings of incentives:
1) On a relative scale (1-5), students indicated the major incentives to use cookbooks are a poor understanding of theory (3.64), course load too heavy (3.57), and labs identical year after year (3.53).
2) Least important of the proposed incentives (2.02) was lack of lecturer approachability.
Summary of results using anti-plagiarism software:
The results obtained using anti-plagiarism software (EVE) indicate that 7 out 32 (~20%) reports scanned showed evidence of a high degree of plagiarism. Among these reports, as much as 40.69% of the total report was copied from internet sites. While less convenient, careful use of GOOGLE is more effective at locating plagiarized web sites than EVE. Further, the level of plagiarism indicated was highly variable, a characteristic of this program which has been noted previously.[i]
Conclusions:
While these results are not flattering, in comparison to other studies on plagiarism at other universities, this university is in the higher end of prior reports. Reported values range from ~10% (Universities with honor codes)[ii] to ~42%.[iii] Although this university does not appear exceptional, the 36.1% is of considerable concern. Plagiarism has been proven to harm the grades of honest students1 and may have long-lasting effects on this university's reputation.
We were unable to find reports of “cookbook” use in the education literature so a comparison was not possible.
However, there are several points of deep concern.
1) Cookbook use appears to be learned over the course of study in chemistry at this university. Rather than being a bad habit from secondary school that is progressively reduced by attendance at this university, the opposite appears to be the case. Exceptions to this trend are biochemistry and analytical chemistry. Both of these disciplines exhibit low levels of cookbook use over all years.
2) If the trends from cookbook use and copy and paste plagiarism hold for students’ perception of data falsification as well, there could be a very serious problem that should be dealt with carefully.
3) Lecturers seem to greatly underestimate the extent of these behaviours.
Finally, it is notable that the disciplines with the lowest prevalence of cookbook use benefit from lecturers who regularly revise their lab manuals. While students do not perceive the reuse of the same labs year after year as the highest incentive to use cookbooks, the fact remains that there will be no cookbooks available to students for a new or newly revised lab module. Complete revision of all labs each year does not seem to be needed. Substantive changes to existing experiments appears to work well or better.
[i] Braumoeller, B.F., and Gaines Brian J. (2001) Actions do speak louder than words: Deterring Plagiarism with the Use of Plagiarism Detection Software. Political Science and Politics 34 835-39.
[ii] McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino, and K. D. Butterfield (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior 11(3):219-232.
[iii] Newstead, S. A. Franklyn-Stokes, P. Armstead,. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating Journal of Educational psychology 88 229-241.
Why a blog?
The obvious question is why a blog. Some simple reasons:
1) it is much easier to update and add links here than on my University web page.
2) something keeps happening to the links on my university web page.
3) opportunity for people to leave comments in an anonymous way where others can see them.
Have a look now and then. I will try to provide useful links and updates.
If you have a question or comment, please use thecomment function. I will know when a comment has been left. Comments may be completely anonymous. Please do not leave abusive comments. I will delete them at my discretion. Constructive criticism is appreciated.
1) it is much easier to update and add links here than on my University web page.
2) something keeps happening to the links on my university web page.
3) opportunity for people to leave comments in an anonymous way where others can see them.
Have a look now and then. I will try to provide useful links and updates.
If you have a question or comment, please use thecomment function. I will know when a comment has been left. Comments may be completely anonymous. Please do not leave abusive comments. I will delete them at my discretion. Constructive criticism is appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)