The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon... Read More.
Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin
"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine
"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review
"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly
"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
A bit of a placeholder here for now, as I think it will be of interest to write up the anatomy of an observing run in Chile, but wanted to let anyone looking here know that I wasn’t dead. My wifi on my laptop however, which was supposed to let me stay better in touch and blog from my hotel in Chile, is apparently dead. I did have ethernet connections in the office at the University of Concepcion and the Las Campanas Observatory, but I was pretty busy working at those times. Suffice to say for now I got good data, gave what I think was a well-received colloquium talk, ate/drank some good stuff, and talked science a lot. And had a cold most of the time.
Just catching up here on a long list of stuff now that was put off by the trip.
Trying to finish up a lot of things before I leave for Chile this week (a colloquium at the University of Concepcion, work with an old student/collaborator, and an observing run at the Magellan Observatory).
Speaking of that, there’s more on the NASA story vis a vis China and congressional restrictions (which should be lifted during a shutdown, right?). Well, Congressman Frank Wolf got annoyed and wrote NASA a long, angry letter about how his legislature and his positions on China have been mischaracterized. Although it’s harsh, I’m actually pleased because I now have a better understanding of the restrictions and I don’t think they’re as oppressive as I originally thought. I almost always prefer engagement over boycotting, so I don’t love the situation, but…
Next story cluster is about NASA and Congressional interference, both the obvious one (the shutdown) and a less obvious one (black listing China and Chinese scientists — even ones working in the USA). NASA is the agency most hard hit by the shutdown. Yes indeed. See it here. Scientists are at home. Some telescopes have shut down science operations. Some scientists (like me!) are waiting for approved grant money to come in, and waiting, and waiting… Here’s some more details from the AAS. And Congress, back when NASA was open and they were talking with them, told them that playing with China was prohibited. Chinese astronomers working in the USA often stay and remain citizens, and generally speaking do not spy — we’d love people to see our work! But they’re being blocked from attending meetings at NASA centers and this is leading to boycotts. This issue is a little nuanced, but basically it’s politics having a negative impact on science and scientists. Catalogs of exoplanets are not exactly issues of national security.
Expert chess players are smart, yes. I think the appropriate way to interpret this is that practice will bring expertise, but top performance requires both practice and aptitude for any field of endeavor.
We found that there were clear stereotypes of computer science students as people who, for example, “stay up late coding and drinking energy drinks” and have “no social life” (Cheryan, Plaut, Handron, & Hudson, 2013). In several behavioral experiments (Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009), we found that women who enter a computer science environment with objects stereotypically associated with the field (e.g., Star Trek posters, video games) are less likely to consider pursuing computer science than women who enter a computer science environment with non-stereotypical objects (e.g., art posters, water bottles). These results held even when the proportion of women in the environment was equal across the two types of environments.
The researchers suggest “broadening the image of computer science” by changing environmental factors among other things. Replacing the Star Trek poster with a Monet poster, I guess. I’m a little shocked that “video games” are a turn off for would be computer science majors of any type, however, in the same way telescopes should not be a turn off to would be astronomy majors.
I’m torn here, because I want to have welcoming environments, but I also want to hang up things I like in my student lab and other spaces, and Star Trek and science fiction in general are part of that and may in fact help select similarly-minded people to engage with me (e.g., “Hey, I like that poster!”). I also think there may be another solution, too, involving bringing about more general social acceptance of Star Trek and things geeky.
And maybe I’m over reacting a bit, since they didn’t investigate astronomy students, many of whom I know, male and female, were inspired in part to go into science by Star Trek. I was.
About 6-7 years ago, I had a little grant money to analyze Chandra X-ray Observatory observations of a particularly interesting quasar. There was a post-doc in the department who was running out of money, didn’t have a job to transition to yet, and I wound up hiring him for six months to do the analysis and write a paper. He did the analysis and presented a paper at an astronomy meeting (see the abstract). He then expanded that into a longer, detailed paper, with some help from me and our collaborators, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal.
We got a referee from hell. The referee was snarky, competent in some areas but less so in others (and oblivious to the difference), ambiguous, dogmatic, and tended to prefer negative comments to constructive criticism. We had two round of comments, and two rounds of revisions, but before we could finally get the paper accepted, the post-doc got a job offer for a faculty position and the paper got lost in the transition. I’d periodically check in about, but his faculty position was teaching intensive, and his time was limited. And believe me, it’s hard to pick up a paper and dive into revisions after it has sat for months…or years. After a while, you forget the details, the literature continues to evolve, and the required revisions become more extensive while the memory is distracted by students. Doesn’t help when there’s the taint of an unpleasant referee.
I kind of thought the paper would never get done, which would have been a shame, as there’s some nice stuff in it.
Well, my former post-doc did return to the paper earlier this year and revised the paper with help from me and some co-authors (new and old). We got a more constructive referee. And this morning the paper was accepted for publication!!!
Sometimes it is possible to make up for past shortcomings and make good, and to finish off old projects that remain worthwhile.
An aspiring scientist quits and blames the culture of modern academia. This is an interesting letter and contains nuggets of truth. I went through a similar crisis of conscious in grad school, but I didn’t quit. I just got depressed for a few months, then recovered. Science is done by real people who suffer the shortcomings of real people. Academics involves money, power, egos, and more, just like everything else — the ivory tower is dirty. But at the end of the day, there is still meritocracy and you get to spend a lot of your time doing research, and everything else tends to be even dirtier. Still don’t like it? Change it, at least in your own department or research group.
Here’s an article by someone who thinks that Bill Nye the Science Guy being on Dancing with the Stars is bad for science. His reasoning is that Nye is an older white guy and put on a lab coat for his opening dance — kind of stereotypical in a way that will drive women and POC away from science. I disagree, mostly. Yeah, a bit stereotypical, except for the fact that it’s a science guy being called “a star” in the popular sense, and being seen dancing. That’s not stereotypical. If he sticks around, we’ll see more sides to Nye. Also, a lot of scientists are older white guys — letting an older white guy be a speaker for science is just fine. He’s not the only one — just the only one on this how. I am horrified sometimes about playing demographic games on sample sizes of one. I’m all for someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson taking his turn on DWTS, and for all I know he turned them down and Nye is a second choice. I also question the premise in the article that Nye being a white male will “drive women away from science.” It may not attract them, but that’s a far cry from driving them away.
Here’s someone who is doing the right thing about the stereotyping issue. Don’t complain about what others are doing — do what you think should be done and be the change you want to see. The important thing here to me is that the trailer for her movie looks decent and interesting (given the time I’ve spent in Brazil). I mean, can you imagine voting for a woman for President just because she’s a woman? I think of Palin, and the idea makes me shudder. But a smart, talented, and ambitious woman like Landre is probably worth supporting. (I also see she’s just hit her $75k kickstarter target).
Here’s a bunch of stuff that’s about alien life, for real, but not really as scientifically sound as it probably should be. We’ll start with the most sound: alien microbes from space? Unfortunately, a bit circumstantial and published in a “journal” that is more speculative than most. But it’s still kind of science, compared to pictures of varioussmall animalsseen in Curiosity Mars photos. (Maybe Valentina Tershkova will show up in a photo. Or robot snakes.)
OK, we all know about Orson Scott Card’s various bigotries by now, and confirmation bias is giving people bad reasons to read his mind, accusing him of “defending genocide”. (This is probably based on Kessel’s essay giving one interpretation of Ender’s Game.) I’m fine with interpreting complex literary work. I’m not so fine with mind reading and giving a biased interpretation of a piece of work because you find the author’s personal views unappealing (or worse). If Ender’s Game is a defense of genocide, Ender sure seems to feel guilty about it and spends a lot of effort in subsequent books to make up for it. Writing a story involving genocide doesn’t mean the author supports genocide. Card gives us plenty of non-fiction essays to tell us what he really believes — let’s stick to that. No mind reading required.
Lo and behold…adults play video games. Duh, like this is news. Except to some it apparently is. Adults also watch cartoons, play board games, dress up for Halloween, read comic books, and do anything fun they want to — even if some people have narrow-minded definitions of what it means to be an adult.
The case against high school sports. Physical education, yes, but the expensive, organized sports thing is unfair and makes little sense, except from a particular point of view. How about putting that emphasis on math, science, writing, and thinking?
I’ve been thinking about how to respond to certain negative things I’ve seen over the years, particularly on the internet. I’ve struggled, and tried on outrage, indignation, logic, rationality, ridicule, and other responses. Frankly, I haven’t been happy with most of them, and watching other people overdo them has really made me cringe. I could write down a long list of incidents, current and past, and I bet everyone could write down their own list. I don’t think boycotts, bullying, bluster, and the like are the right response to someone with a different opinion. Even an idiotic and offensive opinion. If you have the better idea, you should be able to win the war of ideas — if not with the offender, at least with those watching the war. Every little infraction, even those that are simple misinterpretations of written comments without context, seems too often to be the worst thing ever and brings out calls to die in a fire. Really? Is such a response really the best response? It’s just destructive.
I’m also not finding pure reason the best way to go in some situations. With no emotion, there’s no passion. And some positions are just the result of bias that is not rooted in reason, but rationalization. Some think that their own opinions are facts, when they’re not. Arguing with a global warming denier who denies the greenhouse effect isn’t an argument — it’s explaining physics to a pre-recorded TV show.
And I’ve also been thinking about how often we scientists, with our system to root out bias and promote objectivity, still wind up too often bitching about poor or offensive referees for our papers. Anonymity there, as for the internet, seems to give some people the green light to be rude and condescending even when it’s not justified.
It’s hard enough dealing with referee’s reports without also having to deal with the emotions of being insulted. (This doesn’t happen every time, or even most of the time, but enough of the time that it’s depressing.)
I’ve decided I’m going to try to be constructive in my dealings from now on. If I’m trying to teach a pig to sing, it does waste my time and annoys the pig, so when I’ve got a true believer (or denier as the case may be) who is not arguing in good faith, the most constructive thing to do is to disengage. It’ll save me some time. If I come across some offensive behavior, I can and should point it out, but I don’t have to be holier-than-thou in a way that will cause people to dig in their heels deeper. Adversarial interactions rarely bring about the changing of minds or hearts.
It’s stressful to hate, bad for your health. Don’t give the haters back what they give you. Instead you could spend showering love on someone who deserves it.
There are situations where you can’t walk away, I know. Also situations where walking away cedes the field to the hateful and the biased, I know. Responding to hate and outrage with the same isn’t constructive, however. Always try to find the best possible outcome and how to get there. Look for win-win solutions. Be constructive. Make the changes you want to happen, happen, without tearing down others to do so. And lord I know there have been a few I’ve wanted to tear down myself, but if it’s not necessary, we’re all the better for it.
I’m sure I’ll fail to live up to this ideal from time to time and rant and rage about this and that, but I want to live in a world with fewer insults, fewer unnecessary fights, fewer vendettas, and fewer howls of outrage. We can critique each other’s ideas without trying to destroy each other, and there are few people who are truly so evil that they deserve to be destroyed. Look to create first before you look to destroy.
Look to be constructive. Build a legacy. Let people look at your life and see a zone around you where the world is a little better, there are more smiles, and more things of worth are being accomplished. Cultivate positive people around you who don’t tear you down at every opportunity. We can have a better world. I know my own personal world will be better.
What’s funny to me is that I’ll be going up for promotion to full professor this year, and I have to update my CV (AKA “curriculum vita”), which is going to be a 50-60 page document that covers all my academic publications, grants, courses, etc. And my wiki entry that “has multiple issues” is a “stub.”