Tag Archives: media

Should Nobel Prizes go to teams?

The 2017 Nobel Prize for Physics has gone to members of the LIGO consortium for the detection of gravitational waves, namely to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry Barish. But the contributions of many hundreds of people were necessary for the success of LIGO and so it can be argued that the restriction to three people is wrong and that future Nobel Prizes should go to teams.

Professor Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, told BBC correspondent Pallab Gosh that: “LIGO’s success was owed to hundreds of researchers. The fact that the Nobel Prize committee refuses to make group awards is causing increasingly frequent problems and giving a misleading impression of how a lot of science is actually done”.

Rees is right, of course, but would changing it be a good thing? It would mean that nearly all future Nobels in physics would go to teams, either simply to a named team or to a list of team members that could amount to hundreds.

I’m not sure this would be a good change. Continue reading

Advertisements

On Discovering a Planet and the Art of Writing a Press Release

tran_snapOne notable aspect of research into extra-solar planets is that both the media and the wider public are very interested. The first press release that I ever wrote, on the discovery of the first planets by our Wide Angle Search for Planets collaboration, back in 2007, ended up in TIME magazine as number 6 in their “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of the year. But the days of easy publicity for merely discovering a planet have passed. With astronomers worldwide having now found over 1000 exoplanets, it is getting harder to find a new angle when writing a press release.

Exoplanet transit

Our WASP project uses arrays of cameras to monitor millions of stars in order to look for tiny dips in their light caused by a planet orbiting in front of them. This requires a huge data-processing operation and the need for sophisticated search algorithms to look for the transit events.

WASP camera array

The big problem is that the data, being obtained looking through Earth’s atmosphere, are hugely noisy. In the end, we need a human to help out the computer algorithms and make a judgement about what is likely to be an actual transit event. And that requires looking at lots and lots of light-curves of lots and lots of stars.

When I got an email from a 15-yr-old schoolboy — Tom Wagg — saying that he was keen on science and asking if he could join my research group for a week of work-experience, I figured that a bright 15-yr-old would be as good at that sort of pattern-recognition task as the best computer algorithms. So, I trained him up by showing him all the planet-transit dips that we’d already found, and set him the task of finding more of the same in our extensive data archive. Continue reading

What is the point of scientific peer review?

peer-review-thumbnailIn order to publish in any scientific journal worth publishing in, ones paper must pass “peer review”. This consists of the editors asking one or more experts in the field to review the paper in order to spot errors, recommend improvements, and opine on whether it is of sufficient merit to publish.

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has written an article in the Times Higher Education arguing that “the process has little if any benefit and lots of flaws”, and that “peer review doesn’t work” because most of what is published in scientific journals “is plain wrong”.

He tells the story, when at the BMJ, of deliberately inserting multiple errors into manuscripts to see how many reviewers found them. Many of the reviewers missed many of the errors.

This raises the question of what peer review is actually for. Smith states that “Peer review is supposed to be the quality assurance system for science”, that aims to reassure readers “that they can trust what they are reading” (added emphasis).

However, no working scientist actually “trusts” scientific papers, all scientists read papers in a sceptical way, knowing full well that much of what they are reading will turn out to be wrong. “The” quality-assurance system for science is not what happens prior to publication, but what happens after publication. That is when the real peer review begins, when the community can read and think about and criticise a paper. Continue reading