ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction


Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

A discussion on Big Science, Small Science and the future of all science

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Tomorrow I have the privilege of joining a panel discussion on Big Science with three very distinguished scientists: Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, MIT astrophysics professor Sara Seager and Perimeter Institute cosmologist Neil Turok. The conversation will mostly focus on the problems facing Big Science in a bad economy and how science can retool itself in the new millennium.

The program will be broadcast on Canada’s TV Ontario, more specifically on their “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” show at 8 and 11 PM EST. It will be preceded by an interview with star astronomer Chris Hadfield who entertained and informed all of us through his YouTube videos from the International Space Station.

If you are in Canada and have access you might want to check it out since I am sure the conversation will be stimulating. I will have a summary of the discussion here soon, hopefully along with a video or a podcast.

Note: Looks like the discussion will be streamed live at 8 PM EDT on the main website and the video will be archived immediately thereafter.

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. padma101 10:35 am 10/29/2013

    We are all waiting with bated breath.

    Link to this
  2. 2. sunspot 12:46 pm 10/29/2013

    Ash,
    It will be nice to see a Canadian point of view, since I have many friends there who know very little if anything about the Perimeter Institute, and I find Neil Turok to be a fascinating science writer. It would be interesting to hear responses to the following question of the panel. “Do you believe that science funding would improve if prominent science writers would backoff from characterizing all religion as “dumb”. Neil Turok quoted this term from philosopher David Albert, who implied that this attitude is counter productive to science. I believe that Turok supports the AAAS DoSER program (Dialogue on Science Ethics and Religion), and Weinberg opposes it, so this question may result in a nice debate. Please ask.
    The topic of this negative attitude is also important to Scientific American readers, because this type of condescension is also promoted by many SciAm writers, both on the staff and on some blogs. In contrast, SciAm’s Editor in Chief, DiChristina, is trying to make the magazine appealing to young people, but parents may not want their children to read a magazine (or blog) that calls the parents’ beliefs dumb?
    I hope you have fun at the panel discussion, and please ask interesting and controversial questions.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X