If you are an administrator at George Mason. I’m back in DC, ready to focus on the new academic year. This is a particularly important one for Mason–we’re choosing a new President.
For the Institute, this year will as much about new international collaborations, as it is about our new faculty members and research space. But we’ll also be carefully watching the US science funding agencies as they deal with their own challenges.
ScienceInsider has an analysis here. Their view is not as pessimistic as you might think.
Here is the quad at the MBL yesterday afternoon. I had the good fortune to, on arrival, immediately run into many close colleagues and even one of our own Mason doctoral students along with her mother!
When I’m in Woods Hole I never miss getting up very early before the tourists get here for the Martha’s Vineyard ferry, to enjoy the spectacular views and to get some quiet work in before the rest of the day gears up.
The campus seems in great shape under President Gary Borisy. The annual Corporation meeting is Friday and I’m sure I’ll learn more.
I’m spending time now thinking about the subject for our 2013 virtual symposium issue for The Biological Bulletin. What can possibly top regeneration (2011) and symbiosis (2012)? I suppose this counts as a bleg….
Tomorrow, I’m off for my annual visit to the Marine Biological Laboratory at the south western tip of Cape Cod on a narrow peninsula between Buzzard’s Bay and Vineyard Sound. It’s a place I’ve been visiting for more than thirty years and is the publisher of the 100+ year old journal I edit, The Biological Bulletin.
Our August issue, this year will be a “virtual” symposium with articles focused on the fascinating biological phenomenon of regeneration, the process by which animals recover form and function after either injury or some normal physiological process.
In the meantime, it will nice to see old colleagues and even, as has become more common, one of our current doctoral students here in Mason’s neuroscience PhD program. MBL’s summer courses are the very best in the world–they are life changing for young scientists–and in an extraordinarily positive way.
When I return to Mason, next Monday, it will mark pretty much the end of summer–another two weeks and the Fall semester will begin, with all the excitement and increased activity that goes with the beginning of the academic year.
The link from Schneier’s Security Blog is here. I think the implications are important. Essentially we have programmable components of systems that can attack the larger system under conditions where the factory code is hacked.
Have a new web page and it’s here. I think it looks quite excellent.
First, I think the consequences for US science, were the US to default and possibly even if Congress and the President reach a deal, will be negative. In macro terms, I see Federal R&D on a downward glide slope that may well turn into a dive.
Second, I think the combination of the US debt crisis and the European sovereign debt melt down are potentially devastating to the entire global science enterprise. Asia is not yet at the point where the massive western science infrastructure is not needed to push ahead.
Third, with regards to the US, the solutions being put forward by both sides are so constrained by the size of the entitlement problem, there is no scenario that I can see where we don’t eat our seed corn.
To give loyal readers a sense of what the future might look like, we might look to the example of Soviet science after the collapse of the USSR in 1989. Not good.
It’s here. Courtesy of Congressional Quarterly. Hat Tip to the Economist on-line.
I was sitting down with a colleague this morning–he’s a biochemist and I’m a neuroscientist–and the question came up of how hypotheses can be properly falsified in the social sciences and especially computational social science. This, to me, is an incredibly important question for the future of the social sciences, because, if you accept Karl Popper‘s requirement that scientific questions by definition, must contain falsifiable hypotheses, then social science can’t just be observational and inductive.
Now I’ve been familiar with Popperian-based social science since my training days in Ann Arbor (e.g. much of survey research is of this type). My problem is a deeper one. Given the complexity of human social relations, and our difficulty making measurements (of say the type we make in chemistry), how sure are we that the result of an experiment on social human beings can say anything definitive about an underlying hypothesis (much less falsify it).
Here I explicitly ignore trivial examples such as: all heads of state throughout history have been male (false).
Rather, I’m after the really non-trivial social science questions. The following is an example: human settlements (such as cities) follow a power law as far as population is concerned.
Even more importantly, as we create models for social systems in silico, we can conduct experiments on the models with Popperian rigor, but what really can we say about the relationship between a falsifiable hypothesis for a computational social science model and its corresponding hypothesis in the world of social human affairs?
Recently the new field of social neuroscience has opened up, led by John Cacioppo at the University of Chicago among others. Here at least, is the germ of an answer to my problem. Functional MRI measurements of human brains as they interact fulfills Popper’s requirements–within the caution that the fMRI BOLD signal is mismatched to both the spatial and temporal dimensions of the neural code (think neurons and action potentials to a first approximation).
The field of experimental economics, as pioneered by Vernon Smith, similarly, fulfills Popper.
Interestingly, the field of computational neuroscience requires a “validation” cycle with bench top neuroscience to be taken seriously: model results must be compared to bench top science. When the model and the bench top results don’t agree, we go with the bench top data and change the model.
Should there be a similar requirement for computational social science models?
Discoverers and Discoveries 