Thursday, May 14, 2009
Beatrix Potter and other great women scientists - a poll
The poll is organised by L’Oreal in its Fellowship for women in science programme and by the UKRC (UK Resource Centre for women in science, engineering and technology). UKRC notes that:
Half a million women in the UK are qualified in either science, engineering or technology (SET) - but less than a third work in those sectors, all of which are suffering a severe skills shortage, set to get worse in the coming decades.
This situation is bad for the UK’s productivity and competitiveness. It undermines the UK’s aspirations for fairness and opportunity. It wastes women’s talent and limits their career aspirations, lifetime earnings and economic contribution.
Hear hear.
I am biased as I actually know one of the nominees personally so I will not discuss voting possibilities further.
(yes, yes it is THAT Beatrix Potter. Go to the websites for the story…)
(yes, yes it is THAT L’Oreal and sure they are also doing it for the commercial beauty products publicity too but in this case …)
Labels: New Scientist, science, technology, women
And I've met one of them myself, though I'm actually voting for Ada Lovelace, even though the write-up on her does not do her justice. She was the world's first programmer, not just a translator, for goodness sake.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Bones Commission, culture and the MCERBTA
“The decisions of the judges are final unless shouted down by a really overwhelming majority of the crowd present.”
Remind you of the home life of any conferences lately?
This of course is in an Australian context so the following on use of language may need less vigorous emphasis in an UK setting (while useful reminders for bloggers at any time):
“Abusive and obscene language may not be used by contestants when addressing members of the judging panel or, conversely, by members of the judging panel when addressing contestants, unless struck by a boomerang.”
Back to Bones: A Liberal party needs Liberal rules. Lest see if we can evolve these sensibly.
(Hat tip to Len Fisher’s wonderful book ‘How To Dunk a Doughnut: the science of everyday life” for a lead to the MCERBTA. Read this book for insights into how scientist actually work, including using humour).
Labels: Party rules, science
There is no such thing
: 1:03 pm, August 31, 2008Is Lorin Hawes still around? The famous boomerang designer had the 'association' as one of his wacky projects, I thought. Perhaps if he is still in Mudgeeraba you could ask him, and get the word onto the nets one way or another
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Brian Eno and making radical mind changes
Edge's publisher, John Brockman, asked the intellectual cream what they had changed their mind about and why. "Science is based on evidence. What happens when the data change? How have scientific findings or arguments changed your mind?" said the brief.
A common theme in the responses is that what distinguishes science from other forms of knowledge and from faith is that new ideas can rapidly overturn old ones as new evidence emerges. So there's nothing to be ashamed about in admitting an intellectual switch.
One contributor is Brian Eno, a name unexpectedly familiar in LibDem circles since Nick Clegg won the leadership poll.
He explains how he started his political journey as a Maoist, why he changed his views and where he is now:
Interesting…. a rather Popperian approach... wonder how this plays out with younger people?Maoism, or my disappointment with it, also changed my feelings about how politics should be done. I went from revolutionary to evolutionary. I no longer wanted to see radical change dictated from the top — even if that top claimed to be the bottom, the 'voice of the people'. I lost faith in the idea that there were quick solutions, that everyone would simultaneously see the light and things would suddenly flip over into a wonderful new reality. I started to believe it was always going to be slow, messy, compromised, unglamorous, bureaucratic, endlessly negotiated — or else extremely dangerous, chaotic and capricious. In fact I've lost faith in the idea of ideological politics altogether: I want instead to see politics as the articulation and management of a changing society in a changing world, trying to do a half-decent job for as many people as possible, trying to set things up a little better for the future.
Perhaps this is why I've increasingly come to regard the determinedly non-ideological, ecumenical EU as the signal political experiment of our time…
Labels: beliefs, political argument, science
