Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged groups

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Beniamino Abis

The Wisdom of (Little) Crowds - 1 views

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/...the-wisdom-of-little-crowds

BIO science math groups

shared by Beniamino Abis on 30 Apr 14 - No Cached
Dario Izzo liked it
  • Beniamino Abis on 30 Apr 14
     
    What is the best (wisest) size for a group of individuals? Couzin and Kao put together a series of mathematical models that included correlation and several cues. In one model, for example, a group of animals had to choose between two options-think of two places to find food. But the cues for each choice were not equally reliable, nor were they equally correlated. The scientists found that in these models, a group was more likely to choose the superior option than an individual. Common experience will make us expect that the bigger the group got, the wiser it would become. But they found something very different. Small groups did better than individuals. But bigger groups did not do better than small groups. In fact, they did worse. A group of 5 to 20 individuals made better decisions than an infinitely large crowd. The problem with big groups is this: a faction of the group will follow correlated cues-in other words, the cues that look the same to many individuals. If a correlated cue is misleading, it may cause the whole faction to cast the wrong vote. Couzin and Kao found that this faction can drown out the diversity of information coming from the uncorrelated cue. And this problem only gets worse as the group gets bigger.
  • Dario Izzo on 02 May 14
     
    Couzin research was the starting point that co-inspired PaGMO from the very beginning. We invited him (and he came) at a formation flying conference for a plenary here in ESTEC. You can see PaGMO as a collective problem solving simulation. In that respect, we learned already that the size of the group and its internal structure (topology) counts and cannot be too large or too random. One of the project the ACT is running (and currently seeking for new ideas/actors) is briefly described here (http://esa.github.io/pygmo/examples/example2.html) and attempts answering the question :"How is collective decision making influenced by the information flow through the group?" by looking at complex simulations of large 'archipelagos'.
tvinko

Massively collaborative mathematics : Article : Nature - 28 views

www.nature.com/...461879a.html

INF collaboration p2p

shared by tvinko on 13 Nov 09 - Cached
  • tvinko on 13 Nov 09
     
    peer-to-peer theorem-proving
  • ...14 more comments...
  • Francesco Biscani on 13 Nov 09
     
    Or: mathematicians catch up with open-source software developers :)
  • Francesco Biscani on 13 Nov 09
     
    "Similar open-source techniques could be applied in fields such as [...] computer science, where the raw materials are informational and can be freely shared online." ... or we could reach the point, unthinkable only few years ago, of being able to exchange text messages in almost real time! OMG, think of the possibilities! Seriously, does the author even browse the internet?
  • Joris _ on 14 Nov 09
     
    I do not agree with you F., you are citing out of context! Sharing messages does not make a collaboration, nor does a forum, .... You need a set of rules and a common objective. This is clearly observable in "some team", where these rules are lacking, making team work inexistent. The additional difficulties here are that it involves people that are almost strangers to each other, and the immateriality of the project. The support they are using (web, wiki) is only secondary. What they achieved is remarkable, disregarding the subject!
  • Francesco Biscani on 14 Nov 09
     
    I think we will just have to agree to disagree then :) Open source developers have been organizing themselves with emails since the early '90s, and most projects (e.g., the Linux kernel) still do not use anything else today. The Linux kernel mailing list gets around 400 messages per day, and they are managing just fine to scale as the number of contributors increases. I agree that what they achieved is remarkable, but it is more for "what" they achieved than "how". What they did does not remotely qualify as "massively" collaborative: again, many open source projects are managed collaboratively by thousands of people, and many of them are in the multi-million lines of code range. My personal opinion of why in the scientific world these open models are having so many difficulties is that the scientific community today is (globally, of course there are many exceptions) a closed, mostly conservative circle of people who are scared of changes. There is also the fact that the barrier of entry in a scientific community is very high, but I think that this should merely scale down the number of people involved and not change the community "qualitatively". I do not think that many research activities are so much more difficult than, e.g., writing an O(1) scheduler for an Operating System or writing a new balancing tree algorithm for efficiently storing files on a filesystem. Then there is the whole issue of scientific publishing, which, in its current form, is nothing more than a racket. No wonder traditional journals are scared to death by these open-science movements.
  • LeopoldS on 15 Nov 09
     
    here we go ... nice controversy! but maybe too many things mixed up together - open science journals vs traditional journals, conservatism of science community wrt programmers (to me one of the reasons for this might be the average age of both groups, which is probably more than 10 years apart ...) and then using emailing wrt other collaboration tools .... .... will have to look at the paper now more carefully ... (I am surprised to see no comment from José or Marek here :-)
  • Joris _ on 15 Nov 09
     
    My point about your initial comment is that it is simplistic to infer that emails imply collaborative work. You actually use the word "organize", what does it mean indeed. In the case of Linux, what makes the project work is the rules they set and the management style (hierachy, meritocracy, review). Mailing is just a coordination mean. In collaborations and team work, it is about rules, not only about the technology you use to potentially collaborate. Otherwise, all projects would be successful, and we would noy learn management at school! They did not write they managed the colloboration exclusively because of wikipedia and emails (or other 2.0 technology)! You are missing the part that makes it successful and remarkable as a project. On his blog the guy put a list of 12 rules for this project. None are related to emails, wikipedia, forums ... because that would be lame and your comment would make sense. Following your argumentation, the tools would be sufficient for collaboration. In the ACT, we have plenty of tools, but no team work. QED
  • LeopoldS on 15 Nov 09
     
    the question on the ACT team work is one that is coming back continuously and it always so far has boiled down to the question of how much there need and should be a team project to which everybody inthe team contributes in his / her way or how much we should leave smaller, flexible teams within the team form and progress, more following a bottom-up initiative than imposing one from top-down. At this very moment, there are at least 4 to 5 teams with their own tools and mechanisms which are active and operating within the team. - but hey, if there is a real will for one larger project of the team to which all or most members want to contribute, lets go for it .... but in my view, it should be on a convince rather than oblige basis ...
  • Dario Izzo on 15 Nov 09
     
    It is, though, indicative that some of the team member do not see all the collaboration and team work happening around them. We always leave the small and agile sub-teams to form and organize themselves spontaneously, but clearly this method leaves out some people (be it for their own personal attitude or be it for pure chance) For those cases which we could think to provide the possibility to participate in an alternative, more structured, team work where we actually manage the hierachy, meritocracy and perform the project review (to use Joris words).
  • Joris _ on 15 Nov 09
     
    I am, and was, involved in "collaboration" but I can say from experience that we are mostly a sum of individuals. In the end, it is always one or two individuals doing the job, and other waiting. Sometimes even, some people don't do what they are supposed to do, so nothing happens ... this could not be defined as team work. Don't get me wrong, this is the dynamic of the team and I am OK with it ... in the end it is less work for me :) team = 3 members or more. I am personally not looking for a 15 member team work, and it is not what I meant. Anyway, this is not exactly the subject of the paper.
  • tvinko on 15 Nov 09
     
    My opinion about this is that a research team, like the ACT, is a group of _people_ and not only brains. What I mean is that people have feelings, hate, anger, envy, sympathy, love, etc about the others. Unfortunately(?), this could lead to situations, where, in theory, a group of brains could work together, but not the same group of people. As far as I am concerned, this happened many times during my ACT period. And this is happening now with me in Delft, where I have the chance to be in an even more international group than the ACT. I do efficient collaborations with those people who are "close" to me not only in scientific interest, but also in some private sense. And I have people around me who have interesting topics and they might need my help and knowledge, but somehow, it just does not work. Simply lack of sympathy. You know what I mean, don't you? About the article: there is nothing new, indeed. However, why it worked: only brains and not the people worked together on a very specific problem. Plus maybe they were motivated by the idea of e-collaboration. No revolution.
  • Francesco Biscani on 15 Nov 09
     
    Joris, maybe I made myself not clear enough, but my point was only tangentially related to the tools. Indeed, it is the original article mention of "development of new online tools" which prompted my reply about emails. Let me try to say it more clearly: my point is that what they accomplished is nothing new methodologically (i.e., online collaboration of a loosely knit group of people), it is something that has been done countless times before. Do you think that now that it is mathematicians who are doing it makes it somehow special or different? Personally, I don't. You should come over to some mailing lists of mathematical open-source software (e.g., SAGE, Pari, ...), there's plenty of online collaborative research going on there :) I also disagree that, as you say, "in the case of Linux, what makes the project work is the rules they set and the management style (hierachy, meritocracy, review)". First of all I think the main engine of any collaboration like this is the objective, i.e., wanting to get something done. Rules emerge from self-organization later on, and they may be completely different from project to project, ranging from almost anarchy to BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) style. Given this kind of variety that can be observed in open-source projects today, I am very skeptical that any kind of management rule can be said to be universal (and I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of project organizers never went to any "management school"). Then there is the social aspect that Tamas mentions above. From my personal experience, communities that put technical merit above everything else tend to remain very small and generally become irrelevant. The ability to work and collaborate with others is the main asset the a participant of a community can bring. I've seen many times on the Linux kernel mailing list contributions deemed "technically superior" being disregarded and not considered for inclusion in the kernel because it was clear that
  • pacome delva on 18 Nov 09
     
    hey, just catched up the discussion. For me what is very new is mainly the framework where this collaborative (open) work is applied. I haven't seen this kind of working openly in any other field of academic research (except for the Boinc type project which are very different, because relying on non specialists for the work to be done). This raise several problems, and mainly the one of the credit, which has not really been solved as I read in the wiki (is an article is written, who writes it, what are the names on the paper). They chose to refer to the project, and not to the individual researchers, as a temporary solution... It is not so surprising for me that this type of work has been first done in the domain of mathematics. Perhaps I have an ideal view of this community but it seems that the result obtained is more important than who obtained it... In many areas of research this is not the case, and one reason is how the research is financed. To obtain money you need to have (scientific) credit, and to have credit you need to have papers with your name on it... so this model of research does not fit in my opinion with the way research is governed. Anyway we had a discussion on the Ariadnet on how to use it, and one idea was to do this kind of collaborative research; idea that was quickly abandoned...
  • Francesco Biscani on 18 Nov 09
     
    I don't really see much the problem with giving credit. It is not the first time a group of researchers collectively take credit for a result under a group umbrella, e.g., see Nicolas Bourbaki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbaki Again, if the research process is completely transparent and publicly accessible there's no way to fake contributions or to give undue credit, and one could cite without problems a group paper in his/her CV, research grant application, etc.
  • pacome delva on 18 Nov 09
     
    Well my point was more that it could be a problem with how the actual system works. Let say you want a grant or a position, then the jury will count the number of papers with you as a first author, and the other papers (at least in France)... and look at the impact factor of these journals. Then you would have to set up a rule for classifying the authors (endless and pointless discussions), and give an impact factor to the group...?
  • tvinko on 18 Nov 09
     
    it seems that i should visit you guys at estec... :-)
  • LeopoldS on 18 Nov 09
     
    urgently!! btw: we will have the ACT christmas dinner on the 9th in the evening ... are you coming?
Ma Ru

Researcher Creates 'Facebook for Scientists' - 1 views

www.nytimes.com/...book-for-scientists-22081.html

inf Web 2.0 ariadnet science

shared by Ma Ru on 19 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Ma Ru on 19 Mar 10
  • ...4 more comments...
  • LeopoldS on 20 Mar 10
     
    and we are of course there since some time :-) and even have our own group in there ... think that Tobias has first discovered it our group is: https://www.researchgate.net/group/ESA_Advanced_Concepts_Team/ everybody welcome to join ... though Ariadnet is better
  • Ma Ru on 23 Mar 10
     
    So if I'm already on Ariadnet, there's no need for me to join this researchgate thingy? Pheew..
  • Luzi Bergamin on 23 Mar 10
     
    Very active group, it has exactly one member (Leo) and exactly zero (ZERO,0!!) posts since June 13, 2008!!! Well, sounds like a very typical ACT action in order to increase the key performance indicators :D.
  • Ma Ru on 23 Mar 10
     
    Oh come on Luzi, don't be over-pessimistic! It's just because all activity takes place on Ariadnet ;-)
  • nikolas smyrlakis on 24 Mar 10
     
    tsk tsk typical ex-ACT criticism.. Maybe for me too from next week;P
  • Luzi Bergamin on 24 Mar 10
     
    WRONG! You ignore the fact that I complained already while I was yet in the ACT!! Seriously: I clicked around in "ResearchGate" a little bit, couldn't find too many interesting things. Many scientists from India, Iran etc. desperately looking for contacts, retired engineers/scientists from industry that now remember that they were once at university and also quite a number of semi-crackpots. My honest conclusion: not a must. Btw: wish you a nice post-ACT depression! Keep a stiff upper lip, esp. in case you go back to Greece...
Christos Ampatzis

What it takes to be a team player - 2 views

physics.aps.org/...PhysRevE.79.066117

diigo

shared by Christos Ampatzis on 18 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Christos Ampatzis on 23 Oct 09
     
    PD's article presented to the idea storm: "They find the data can best be explained using a model that says an individual can join a team if she/he can bring some new, complementary skills to the group. This interpretation goes against the idea that an individual will tend to mainly join-and remain comfortable in-groups of "like-minded" people."
  • LeopoldS on 25 Oct 09
     
    nice article according to the abstract but can't download the paper (can we from within ESA? do you have it already downloaded - would be interested in reading the full paper - can we apply this to behaviour and size of the ACT?
  • Christos Ampatzis on 26 Oct 09
     
    Yes it is available within ESA's network - I have it anyway
LeopoldS

physicists explain what AI researchers are actually doing - 5 views

arxiv.org/1410.3831

AI PHY

shared by LeopoldS on 07 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 07 Dec 14
     
    love this one ... it seems to take physicist to explain to the AI crowd what they are actually doing ... Deep learning is a broad set of techniques that uses multiple layers of representation to automatically learn relevant features directly from structured data. Recently, such techniques have yielded record-breaking results on a diverse set of difficult machine learning tasks in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing. Despite the enormous success of deep learning, relatively little is understood theoretically about why these techniques are so successful at feature learning and compression. Here, we show that deep learning is intimately related to one of the most important and successful techniques in theoretical physics, the renormalization group (RG). RG is an iterative coarse-graining scheme that allows for the extraction of relevant features (i.e. operators) as a physical system is examined at different length scales. We construct an exact mapping from the variational renormalization group, first introduced by Kadanoff, and deep learning architectures based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs). We illustrate these ideas using the nearest-neighbor Ising Model in one and two-dimensions. Our results suggests that deep learning algorithms may be employing a generalized RG-like scheme to learn relevant features from data.
Joris _

File-Sharing Group Mulls a Floating Pirate Ship of Servers in the Sky | Popular Science - 1 views

www.popsci.com/...oating-pirate-ship-servers-sky

shared by Joris _ on 25 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • The problem: Where can servers that store data frequently seen as unsavory be kept? The solution: Hanging from a giant balloon in the sky?
  • this idea isn't totally practical, since the group has limited resources and an airborne server presents a whole host of problems
  • ther suggestions included a low-level satellite
  • Joris _ on 25 Oct 10
     
    outcome of a brainstorming, or an example of thinking out of the box ... :)
  • LeopoldS on 25 Oct 10
     
    should we try to help them :-) ?
  • Joris _ on 25 Oct 10
     
    we should propose fractionned servers with CubeSats ...
pacome delva

Power Law Explains Insurgent Violence - 1 views

sciencenow.sciencemag.org/...1

war power_law

shared by pacome delva on 18 Dec 09 - Cached
  • To try to explain the mechanism behind these patterns, the team borrowed a simple computer model from economics. The model treated all insurgencies like a marketplace--groups of people constantly deciding whether to act. Rather than coordinating, the groups simply watch the news. The size of the carnage reported at any given time determines the probability that a group of a given size will strike next. Like clockwork, the attacks over the course of the conflict--from the smallest to the most deadly--have the same distribution.
santecarloni

Peptidoglycan recognition proteins kill bacteria by activating protein-sensing two-comp... - 0 views

www.nature.com/...nm.2357.html

bio

shared by santecarloni on 24 May 11 - No Cached
  • santecarloni on 24 May 11
     
    A group of proteins that act as the body's built-in line of defense against invading bacteria use a molecular trick to induce bacteria to destroy themselves...
ESA ACT

Computational Neuroscience/Neuroinformatics - 0 views

www.hirnforschung.net/cneuro

YGT neuroinformatics neuroscience groups labs BIO INF AI

shared by ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  • ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09
     
    A collection of research groups working on neuroinformatics/computational neuroscience
jaihobah

New Boson Claim Faces Scrutiny - 0 views

www.quantamagazine.org/new-boson-claim-faces-scrutiny

PHY

shared by jaihobah on 18 Aug 16 - No Cached
  • jaihobah on 18 Aug 16
     
    "The Atomki group has produced three previous papers on their beryllium-8 experiments - conference proceedings in 2008, 2012 and 2015. The first paper claimed evidence of a new boson of mass 12 MeV, and the second described an anomaly corresponding to a 13.45-MeV boson. (The third was a preliminary version of the Physical Review Letters paper.) The first two bumps have disappeared in the latest data, collected with an improved experimental setup. "The new claim now is [a] boson with a mass of 16.7 MeV," Naviliat-Cuncic said. "But they don't say anything about what went wrong in their previous claims and why we should not take those claims seriously." One naturally wonders, he said, "Is this value that they quote now going to change in the next four years?""
santecarloni

Microscope probes living cells at the nanoscale - physicsworld.com - 1 views

physicsworld.com/...47866

microscope BIO phy science

shared by santecarloni on 29 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • santecarloni on 29 Nov 11
     
    Researchers in the US and UK say they have invented a new microscopy technique for imaging live tissue with unprecedented speed and resolution. The technique involves using the tiny tip of an atomic force microscope to tap on a living cell and analysing the resulting vibrations to reveal the mechanical properties of cell tissue. The team says that the technique could have widespread applications in medicine. However, another expert in the field suggests that the group has not demonstrated the superiority of the technique to those already available.
LeopoldS

DLR paper with nice mention of ACT - 0 views

elib.dlr.de/...ASG_SWON_v104.pdf

advanced disruptive

shared by LeopoldS on 28 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 28 Jan 12
     
    Quote: Recognizing the need to investigate and evaluate visionary aerospace concepts for their validity, several organizations employ specialized groups to do just this, like ESA's Advanced Concepts Team [2], Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works [3] or NASA's Team-X [4].
santecarloni

Getting to the froth of the matter - physicsworld.com - 1 views

physicsworld.com/...48509

Science technology

shared by santecarloni on 02 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • santecarloni on 02 Feb 12
     
    Whether it is the frothy milk on your cappuccino, the soapy suds in your bath or the large-scale structure of the universe, foams have intrigued physicists for many years. Now, for the first time in a lab, an international group of scientists has made the Weaire-Phelan foam - which physicists believe is the lowest-energy structure for a foam formed of equal-volume bubbles.
  • LeopoldS on 05 Feb 12
     
    Does this mean that there is foam that is non regular that can have even less energy structure? "which physicists believe is the lowest-energy structure for a foam formed of equal-volume bubbles."
annaheffernan

Cool new analytical solutions to Maxwells equations - 5 views

physicsworld.com/...hysicists-tie-light-into-knots

shared by annaheffernan on 17 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • annaheffernan on 17 Oct 13
     
    The solutions show light tied in knots
  • johannessimon81 on 17 Oct 13
     
    Really cool topic. Here a link to a paper from Leiden's quantum optics group from 2008 about knotted light (I was in that group at the time): http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n9/abs/nphys1056.html
  • LeopoldS on 27 Oct 13
     
    knot theory ... any volunteers?
Tom Gheysens

Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language -- ScienceDaily - 1 views

www.sciencedaily.com/...140423221420.htm

language human insights BIO science AI

shared by Tom Gheysens on 25 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Tom Gheysens on 25 Apr 14
     
    I think this is something we/the group can work on for languages? The finding opens the road for simulations I think so can we do something with this? 
Luís F. Simões

Dropship offers safe landings for Mars rovers / Technology / Our Activities / ESA - 2 views

www.esa.int/..._safe_landings_for_Mars_rovers

AI UAV StarTiger

shared by Luís F. Simões on 08 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • “StarTiger is a fresh approach to space engineering,” explains Peter de Maagt, overseeing the project. “Take a highly qualified, well-motivated team, gather them at a single well-equipped site, then give them a fixed time to solve a challenging technical problem.”
  • StarTiger stands for ‘Space Technology Advancements by Resourceful, Targeted and Innovative Groups of Experts and Researchers’ working within the Agency’s TRP Basic Technology Research Programme. It brings team members together on a single site to work on a set challenge, aiming to produce a working prototype by the end of the project’s time limit.
  • Luís F. Simões on 08 Jul 14
     
    StarTiger: similar, yet different from the way the ACT does things. Seems like a very interesting programme.
  • Thijs Versloot on 10 Jul 14
     
    Nice initiative and also a good approach, problem-oriented within a fixed time frame. Could definitely be a highly motivating approach, similar to GTOC... I think the ACT should do this more often, targeted at future technologies and/or missions. The team could be structured around 'problems' instead of 'research areas', this will promote multidisciplinary work as well, plus it will also focus activities more. The problems, or more broadly concepts, are identified by the team and a few get chosen as main activities. Subsequent RF and YGT hiring is then done to strenghten the research team. These projects have a maximum lifetime maybe of 1 year? Thoughts?
  • Ma Ru on 10 Jul 14
     
    I'm impressed already by what an innovative group of experts and researchers was able to achieve when resourcefully targeted at coming up with the project's name...
nikolas smyrlakis

The Backwards Brain Bicycle - YouTube - 5 views

www.youtube.com/watch

shared by nikolas smyrlakis on 28 Apr 15 - No Cached
LeopoldS and Ma Ru liked it
  • nikolas smyrlakis on 28 Apr 15
     
    Long time no post for me ! But this kind of popular science-engineering-basic neuroscience-bicycle-amsterdam related video seemed it could be a bit interesting for the group !
  • LeopoldS on 29 Apr 15
     
    this is fantastic!!!
Thijs Versloot

Graphene coated silicon super-capacitors for energy storage - 1 views

news.vanderbilt.edu/...vice-electricity-silicon-chips

technology supercapacitor

shared by Thijs Versloot on 25 Oct 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Thijs Versloot on 25 Oct 13
     
    Recharge in seconds and efficiently store power for weeks between charges. Added bonus is the cheap and abundant components needed. One of the applications they foresee is to attach such a super-capacitor to the back of solar panels to store the power and discharge this during the night
  • LeopoldS on 27 Oct 13
     
    very nice indeed - is this already at a stage where we should have a closer look at it? what you think? With experience in growing carbon nanostructures, Pint's group decided to try to coat the porous silicon surface with carbon. "We had no idea what would happen," said Pint. "Typically, researchers grow graphene from silicon-carbide materials at temperatures in excess of 1400 degrees Celsius. But at lower temperatures - 600 to 700 degrees Celsius - we certainly didn't expect graphene-like material growth." When the researchers pulled the porous silicon out of the furnace, they found that it had turned from orange to purple or black. When they inspected it under a powerful scanning electron microscope they found that it looked nearly identical to the original material but it was coated by a layer of graphene a few nanometers thick. When the researchers tested the coated material they found that it had chemically stabilized the silicon surface. When they used it to make supercapacitors, they found that the graphene coating improved energy densities by over two orders of magnitude compared to those made from uncoated porous silicon and significantly better than commercial supercapacitors. Transmission electron microscope image of the surface of porous silicon coated with graphene. The coating consists of a thin layer of 5-10 layers of graphene which filled pores with diameters less than 2-3 nanometers and so did not alter the nanoscale architecture of the underlying silicon. (Cary Pint / Vanderbilt) The graphene layer acts as an atomically thin protective coating. Pint and his group argue that this approach isn't limited to graphene. "The ability to engineer surfaces with atomically thin layers of materials combined with the control achieved in designing porous materials opens opportunities for a number of different applications beyond energy storage," he said.
Nicholas Lan

Letter from Intergovernmental panel on climate change. - 2 views

docs.google.com/fileview

environment climate change

shared by Nicholas Lan on 21 Jul 10 - No Cached
  • Nicholas Lan on 21 Jul 10
     
    To Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, and Review Editors for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC." and an amusing related memo on how to deal with reporters if you can't avoid them. I particularly enjoyed the list of words that mean one thing to scientists and something else to other people. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B88iFXWgVKt-NDc2N2FiM2QtYzQzYS00MWMxLWE4MGEtZjUwZDlmNzc3MTcz&hl=en
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Ma Ru on 21 Jul 10
     
    This. Memo. Is. Awesome.
  • pacome delva on 21 Jul 10
     
    quite weird this note of IPCC... I feel more like people have to be educated...
  • Nicholas Lan on 21 Jul 10
     
    i agree. however, (and perhaps it would have been useful to post my source which didn't seem so interesting at the time) the contents of this particular memo seems to have been interpreted as a more or less direct consequence of "ClimateGate" rather than standard practice. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-climate-change/ On the other hand, I'd suggest that talking to the press is not necessarily a great way of educating the public, there being some truth i think to the contents of the memo.
  • LeopoldS on 21 Jul 10
     
    don't know why this seems weired or shocking - looks like some good practice advice to me
  • pacome delva on 21 Jul 10
     
    well compare to ESA it's sure it doesn't seem weird. Imagine one second a journal article about climate change: "We contacted Dr. X of the IPCC, who refused to answer to our questions..."
  • LeopoldS on 22 Jul 10
     
    this is not what the memo recommends ... it just says speak only about what you can confidently speak about and refer to others for other questions ...
1 - 20 of 142 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page