Biologists of all stripes are sharing an essay by Harvard University mathematician-turned-biologist Jeremy Gunawardena that makes a sobering observation: the mathematical equations at the core of many biological models fail to reflect nature. He argues that the components of all quantitative models should be verifiable and, most of all, the conclusions should be falsifiable. Or, in his words: “Stick the model's neck out.” Jason Moore, a geneticist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, tweeted: “This paper is so good, I'm actually printing it out”— high praise in the paperless age.
A key assumption at the core of many rodent studies — the idea that every person in a white coat looks the same to rats and mice — is suddenly in serious doubt. In a brief communication to Nature Methods, a team of researchers presented compelling evidence that rodents experience more stress and stress-related pain relief in the presence of male researchers. Commenters quickly took to Twitter to make light of the scientific suggestion that men are inherently stressful. But some science-minded observers saw the more serious implications. “This is why I love and hate the scientific method. How many experimental findings will get thrown out?” tweeted Roy Raanani, an engineer in Switzerland. Alan Rice, a geneticist at the University of Dublin, had a different take: “The mouse lobby have come out in favour of more women in science too.”
Sorge, R. E. et al. Nature Meth. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2935 (2014)
Some scientists on social media seemed to be in a reflective mood, perhaps explaining the popularity of 'The forgotten half of scientific thinking' — an essay on the care and feeding of the creative mind penned by Marten Scheffer, an environmental scientist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Scheffer starts with the observation that “although thinking is the core business of scientists, we rarely ponder how it thrives best.” He advocates sparking the process with naps, daydreams, moderate doses of distractions and frequent trips to local drinking spots. Sean Norman, an environmental-health scientist at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, tweeted his agreement: “So true, my best ideas have come in pubs or my garden!”
Another thing that pubs offer — besides the obvious — is a pleasant hum of chatter and clinking glasses, the sort of environment that just might help to spur the next big idea. Twitter users are still talking about a paper from late 2012 suggesting that creativity flourishes in moderate noise — around 70 decibels. The researchers tested their theory in a student lounge, but many commenters saw the results as validation for their habit of taking their laptops to coffee shops. Others noted the existence of apps and websites that stream coffee-shop sounds to computers and mobile devices, creating a creativity-friendly environment without the caffeine.
For even better results, you might want to leave your laptop at home and pack a notebook instead. Psychologists Pam Mueller of Princeton University and Daniel Oppenheimer at the University of California, Los Angeles, recently published a much-discussed study suggesting that students understand material on a deeper level when they take notes with a pen. Although keyboards are good for verbatim dictation, the authors say, writing longhand helps to internalize the information. The results resonated with Adam Bates, head of innovation at auditing company KPMG, who tweeted: “I still take scrappy longhand notes on a @moleskin: far better retention than colleagues who use their iPads.”
Mueller, P. & Oppenheimer, D. Psychol. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581 (2014)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woolston, C. Maths reality check resonates online. Nature 509, 263 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/509263e
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/509263e
