Daily Archives: January 28, 2009

Message from the APS

Posted on by

I am writing to request that you IMMEDIATELY contact your elected
representatives and let them know that the proposed Congressional
economic stimulus package must include a strong investment in
scientific infrastructure to ensure the future competitiveness of
our country. We also request that you contact House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi to thank her for her tremendous efforts in ensuring that
science infrastructure investments were included in the House
stimulus package, formally known as the .American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.. You can make these contacts quickly
and easily at:
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=apspa&hotissue=81
&
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=apspa&hotissue=82

There, you will find pre-written messages to your Senators and
Speaker Pelosi. You may send these letters as they are, modify them,
or write your own. While individualizing your letter is not
essential, please at least make minor edits to the subject line
and the first line of the text of each email so that these emails
are more individualized. (See webpage pointers below for further
instruction.)

As you may be aware, the U.S. Congress is currently formulating a
stimulus package to help spur the recovery of our economy. In
addition to the tax cuts in the draft packages being discussed,
the packages include a number of infrastructure investments that
would create millions of jobs.

APS has actively participated in this process by providing the
incoming Obama Administration, and the leadership in the House and
the Senate, with recommendations for investments in scientific
infrastructure that would create more than 100,000 direct and
indirect jobs. The investments we proposed are principally in
infrastructure in our national laboratories and universities, high
performance computing, in procurements of scientific instruments
and material for projects such as ITER, and in creation of jobs for
young investigators at our universities to ensure that they have a
place to go during these trying economic times. As a result of our
efforts, many of our recommendations were used by the House and
Senate in formulating their proposed stimulus packages.

On January 15th, the leadership of the House of Representatives
proposed a bill that would give a significant boost to science
infrastructure, including allocating $2 billion for the Department
of Energy Office of Science (OS), $2.5 billion for the National
Science Foundation (NSF), $500 million for the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and $100 million for advanced
computing. On January 23rd, the Chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee released a summary of a proposed Senate
stimulus package. Unfortunately, the announcement did not offer
many details about how much funding science would receive in that
package. However, we are receiving troubling signs that science
may not receive the same levels of funding as in the House package
and would even, in some scenarios, be cut or even eliminated. We
are therefore urging the Senate to follow the House lead in helping
to ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century by making
critically needed infrastructure investments.

The attached letters would 1) thank House Speaker Pelosi for her
support of science and 2) request that the Senate follows the House
by including a robust amount of funding for scientific
infrastructure investments.

WEBPAGE POINTERS:
(1) While individualizing your letter is not essential, we ask that
you make minor edits to the subject line and the first line of
the text of each email.
(2) If you are a government employee, please do not use government
resources to send a communication.
(3) Your browser will take you to a page where you will enter your
name and address.
(4) After entering your address, click the .Edit/Send Email button..
A window with an individual email message to the four offices will
appear. Click .Send Emails. to transmit the communication.
(5) Electronic submission is preferred.

Not Taking it Personally

Posted on by

Chad discusses Editing and its Discontents over at Uncertain Principles.

At NIST, the paper-writing process was called “paper torture” for a reason, and it wasn’t that we were waterboarding our printed drafts. The process consisted of one author writing a draft, circulating it to everybody else, and then having a three-hour meeting in which every word of every sentence was challenged by somebody.

I have to admit, I had a slight tendency to take this personally. Not so much in a “my confidence in my ability to write well has been shattered” sense, though. More of a “how dare you criticize my deathless prose” kind of way. This probably dragged some paper torture sessions out longer than they needed to be, because my co-authors were almost always right, but having my drafts that I worked hard on cut to pieces always got my back up.

I’ve been fortunate that in my career, the group discussions giving feedback on papers or presentations have never gotten particularly rancorous — there is the occasional difference of opinion, but most of the time the author will admit that the suggestion makes the work better, or has some good reason for not making the change, and the matter is pretty quickly resolved. Everybody has their name on the paper, so there’s certainly motivation to put the best work out there as possible.

I had almost all of my tendency to take criticism personally beaten out of me while I was in the navy. If there’s one thing the military is good at, it’s generating leaders who are skilled at yelling at people for screwing up, but this goes even beyond that. The training to become a teacher included several practice lectures, after which the “students” (staff members observing and play-acting as necessary) gave critiques. And boy, was there criticism. (You’re facing the board. You’re mumbling. You keep saying, “So.” You’re doing that. You’re not doing this.) Realizing that the need to improve didn’t mean you were a bad person, and developing a thick skin, was pretty much mandatory. It was nice, though, when there was the occasional positive comment, and when reviewing I try to point out things done well, too, as well as picking at nits.

A Day in the Life

Posted on by

I was reading Wal-mart approach to college education? at incoherently scattered ponderings, and the latter half brings something to mind.

If you read comments to the article – one thing is for sure, regular people have no idea what faculty do all day long. Apparently the impression is that we teach a class (takes what – an hour three times a week?) and then we sit in our offices like fat cats eating donuts.

I know they don’t just sit around. But if the general impression is otherwise, how about a call for academic science bloggers to post a typical day, or chronicle a particular day that seems fairly typical. I see that Sciencewoman has provided a guest post recently. If you see this, consider yourself tagged and please do so, and also spread the word. If you already have at some time in the past, post a link in the comments.

Then You Are Set With a Capital 'J'

Posted on by

When you’re a Jet,
You … stay … a … Jet!

Why Dropping a Stone Makes a Jet

The splash of a solid object into water–be it a coin or an Olympic high diver–is capped off by a thin jet of fluid shooting straight up from the surface. The detailed explanation of this seemingly simple event has proved elusive. Now researchers publishing in the 23 January Physical Review Letters think they have a more complete explanation than their predecessors. Using a combination of theory, simulation, and experiment, they studied the collapse of the air cavity trailing the submerged object, concluding that it ejects water like toothpaste squeezed rapidly from its tube.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 034502
(issue of 23 January 2009)