Posts tagged ‘scientists’

Ladies of the Laboratory 3: The Scientific Slut–Émilie du Châtelet

Written by Lewis D. Eigen

There is one marvelous scientist who, in the 18th century, not only brought the new mathematics and physics of Isaac Newton to much of France, but also found and corrected some errors that Newton had made—overturning erroneous physics principles that then had general scientific concurrence.  The scientist was a woman–Émilie du Châtelet.  And yet even many of the modern feminists who have sought to give female scientists due recognition, tend to avoid using this scientist as an example.  The reason is that by modern contemporary standards, she was a slut—a sexual libertine.  She was a little too liberated.  This article is not only about her, but about the culture that to this day inhibits recognition of a female scientist because of her personal sexual predilections—having nothing to do with science.

(more…)

December 31, 2009 at 12:12 AM 7 comments

Ladies of the Laboratory 2: How in a Few Months Late in the 19th Century One Man Who Had Little Interest in Gender Equality Hired More Female Astronomers than the World Had Ever Known

The remarkable story of a unique occurance in scientific history where although males were the final controllers, women worked with other women and under female supervision and the science thrived. This one instance a female culture, scientific laboratory was so successful that females produced more science output than all the men in history. The mostly female model succeeded so well that it put itself out of existence. But more females had worked as astronomers in this one instance than in all of prior recorded history.

Continue Reading December 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM 3 comments

Public Health Versus Private Health: The Coming Battle: 1. The Difference Has Little to do With Government and the Private Sector.

There are two groups of professionals in our nation’s health system. They are the medical providers who treat us advise us about our health. Then there are the public health professionals who develop the tools to prevent disease and create the protocols and recomendations for the treating professionals to use. On most issues, the two groups are in synch and each appreciates the other. But more and more, there are conflicts that result from each group looking at the same data and research, but doing so with a different perspective This article explains the differences between the two types of critical health professionals, and explains why they sometimes disagree and why they are BOTH RIGHT. The recent battle of the breast cancer screening recomendations is used to explain this critically imporant conflcit. Additional articles in this series will suggest ways we as health consumers can make sense of these conflicts, and how our political structure can cope with what often appear to be irreconcilable differences but are not really diametrically opposite.

Continue Reading November 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM Leave a comment

America: The Land of Freedom and Fairness Produces Great Scientific Advantage

America produces the most scientific contributions to the world, but the science is not usually done by Americans.

The United States generates more scientific studies than any country of the world and more than the rest of the world put together. We also produce more of the critical breakthrough research than the rest of the world. However, over half of all the scientists working in America are foreign born. Many become Americans, but they did not start out that way. The main reason is the FAIRNESS of much of the American system of allocating research money–a fiarness as this article will explain that does not take place to the same degree anywhere else in the world.

Continue Reading November 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM 1 comment

The Unspoken Research Evil of Earmarks

The evils of earmarks are widely recognized, but there is one that negatively effects the scientific research of the nation. It is one what has rarely ever been mentioned politically, and most of the media have ignored it or may not realize the problem exists. This article explains and gives examples of this additional critical reason for earmark reform.

It is the negative affect on the scientific researchers themselves and their processes and institutions.

Continue Reading November 16, 2009 at 12:05 AM Leave a comment


Copyright 2014

Enter your email address to subscribe to this Scriptamus and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 20 other followers