Philip Ball

Incredibly influential thinker. Her two-volume history of cognitive and computational neuroscience is a goldmine.

Scientists mourn Tom Lehrer — nerdiest of singer-songwriters Nature - The mathematician's memorable satires were beloved by generations of researchers.

Despite being best known for his humorous and satirical songs, Tom Lehrer spent most of his life as an academic mathematician

go.nature.com/4fhj6Nj

And there is no easy way to see how the DoE would do this unless it is now basically climate-change denialist.

Ah, so now I'm excited too.

And this is why I argued with Carlo Rovelli in Helgoland 😉

I believe he thought in 1941 that Germany would win, and that this would be OK in the long run - give the Reich 50 years and it would all settle down. And he was extraordinarily insensitive about it all in Copenhagen. And awfully self-justifying after the war - he never faced up to what he'd done.

...because they didn't fully understand what was needed - the issue of whether H estimated the critical mass rightly or wrongly is still argued over, but I see no reason to think he was as clear and close to accurate about it as Peierls & Frisch.

Oh, you'll see in the book. But in short: yes, collusionist but not Nazi. Didn't make the bomb because he & the others lacked the confidence they could deliver (and didn't want to make promises to Speer & Hitler that they couldn't keep) and so didn't make the case for the resources. And also...

This is fascinating. It is also evidence in favour of taking biological agency seriously, rather than treating it as an "as if" property.

No, this is Rose's contribution to "Copenhagen in Debate" - but he says similar things in his book (which definitely takes things too far, but raises some valid points too).

On that score, I have literally just read these words of Paul Lawrence Rose. He despises Heisenberg and sometimes goes too far, but here at least I think he is basically right, and painfully relevant today.

Indeed, here's your proof of that 😉

This really is quite the headline. ONS statistics, 2021: "10.0 million (16.8%) usual residents in England and Wales were born outside of the UK". It really is that simple. What does @thetimes.com have to say?

Of course, they might say that they *have* talked about it, both internally and externally. But such talk has resolutely evaded the real issues in favour of blather about "impartiality".

Seeing that headline again reminds me that many German academics in the 1930s considered that speaking out against the Jewish expulsions would be seen as "political". The proper "apolitical" stance, they felt, was to say nothing.

Not always, no. Which in itself need not be a problem...

I totally agree, of course. Ties of both confidentiality and friendship oblige me to say that there are some in the RS who have thought hard and seriously about this. But in the end it seems to me to be an institutional failure that some establishment figures seem incapable of seeing beyond.

Thanks Stephen. If they acknowledged these issues and argued the case accordingly, rather than just "we mustn't be political", I could live with a decision different from the one I'd want. But they (and certain others) just won't. I do have hopes that Sir Paul will engage more directly.

I don't think it does include either of those criteria - and nor, of course, should it.

*That* is what is causing the RS to lose so much respect among scientists. When will this change?

... any further action, then sure, let's talk about why. And if they were to explain some of the other considerations that, quite reasonably, the RS must weigh in the balance, we could talk about them. But none of this happens. None of it. Instead we get misdirection, misrepresentation, evasion...

...into disrepute despite all this, we could talk about it. If they were to say that yes, it's all problematic, but the risks involved are too great, we could debate that. If they were to explain what was so concerning as to lead Paul Nurse to write to Musk yet not so concerning as to take...

...scientific misinformation, and massively lethal withdrawal of aid to vulnerable populations (not to mention open racism), is why we don't think he had violated the RS's Code of Conduct", we could have a discussion. If they were to explain why they don't think he has brought science and the RS...

The debate around Musk and the Royal Society is just so frustrating. If those who think it is right to retain him as an FRS were to say "Here, despite his having been a direct accomplice to the dismantling of scientific institutions, destruction of scientific data, spreading of...

😉🤨

I am open to hearing arguments for why it was right to retain Musk as a Fellow. But it is so striking that all the "arguments" I have so far seen (apart from craven ones: "We can't risk it") totally avoid the issue.

I don't understand this at all. "The reason he was given the fellowship has not changed." But that is not the issue at all. The issue is whether he has violated the Code of Conduct. If he hasn't, why so? And what would it then take to do that?

How to detect consciousness in people, animals and maybe even AI Insights from human brains could inform how scientists search for awareness in all its possible forms.

How to detect consciousness in people, animals and maybe even AI

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

No, but funny you should say that... More later.

This machine is designed to wind Powered by light and heat, this molecular machine twists catenanes into being

I got to write about a new molecular machine this week for @cenmag.bsky.social. This one is from Michael Kathan's lab and it makes catenanes.
cen.acs.org/materials/mo...