{"id":33296,"date":"2018-03-23T13:32:37","date_gmt":"2018-03-23T12:32:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=33296"},"modified":"2022-02-13T12:47:49","modified_gmt":"2022-02-13T11:47:49","slug":"science-trumps-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2018\/03\/23\/science-trumps-trump\/","title":{"rendered":"Science trumps Trump?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sul Guardian<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/span>, Roger Pielke Jr. sostiene che la politica del governo Trump in materia di scienza, ambiente e clima, \u00e8 priva di conseguenze, non \u00e8 il caso di scandalizzarsi.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration\u2019s neglect of science and technology policy means there is no systematic effort to undercut science and technology policy. Instead, they just don\u2019t care.<\/p>\n

Poi sembra candidarsi a “honest bi-partisan broker”:<\/p>\n

If the president and his administration won\u2019t lead, then groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the National Academy of Sciences should instead.<\/p>\n

Lo stanno facendo da un anno senza di lui, e hanno convinto la maggioranza dei congressisti, repubblicani compresi.\u00a0\u00a0Per la seconda volta,Trump aveva deciso di tagliare il 11% dei fondi per la National Science Foundation, il 18% per i National Institutes of Health e del 30% per l’Environmental Protection Agency.
\nSu Nature<\/em>, Loren Morello e Giulia Guglielmi scrivono<\/span><\/a><\/span> che la proposta di legge finanziaria\u00a0concordata l’altro ieri al Congresso prevede invece aumenti per quasi tutte le agenzie scientifiche. L’eccezione \u00e8 l’EPA:<\/p>\n

Congress has proposed holding the agency\u2019s funding at $8.1 billion, even with the 2017 level.<\/p>\n

A condizione che non tenti di far applicare le tutele esistenti<\/p>\n

Although the spending deal would keep the EPA\u2019s overall budget steady, it would cut funding for the agency\u2019s regulatory programmes by $23.5 million.<\/p>\n

Altri sospiri<\/span><\/a><\/span> di sollievo<\/span><\/a><\/span> da\u00a0Science Insider,\u00a0<\/em>che racconta anche l’udienza<\/span><\/a><\/span> di ieri al processo San Francisco & Oakland vs Big Oil, rif. Dana Nuccitelli<\/span><\/a><\/span> sul Guardian<\/em>.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

Ennesimo supplemento<\/span><\/a><\/span> di Science<\/em> sull’immunoterapia oncologica “ingegnerizzata e personalizzata”. Ci sono centinaia di esperimenti clinici in corso,<\/p>\n

But it remains unclear why only a subset of individuals respond to treatment and how to better achieve sustained remissions. Hundreds of clinical trials are under way to see whether improved responses can be attained by combination therapy approaches. Unraveling the cellular and molecular basis of treatment resistance should facilitate rational design of new mechanism-based studies.<\/p>\n

Ci sono anche centinaia di esperimenti illegali e molto lucrosi in cliniche private tedesche<\/span><\/a><\/span>, con la partecipazione di lab universitari e di aziende biotech.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\u00c8 uscito\u00a0il “Global Energy and CO2 Status Report, 2017<\/span><\/a><\/span>” dell’IEA. Super-sintesi:<\/p>\n

Over 70% of global energy demand growth was met by oil, natural gas and coal, while renewables accounted for almost all of the rest. Improvements in energy efficiency slowed down last year. As a result of these trends, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.4% in 2017, after three years of remaining flat.<\/p>\n

E il nuovo\u00a0rapporto EASAC <\/a>\u00a0sugli eventi meteo estremi, rif. il Guardian<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Fra altre pessime notizie, pochi giorni fa Trump faceva dire dalla portavoce della Casa Bianca che non intendeva licenziare il generale McMaster, il consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale. Ieri lo ha sostituito con John Bolton<\/span><\/a><\/span>, un invasato guerrafondaio<\/span><\/a><\/span> legato ai Mercer e a\u00a0Cambridge Analytica<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

A White House official said Trump was ultimately drawn to Bolton, in part because he was impressed by his many appearances on Fox News<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Com. di servizio<\/strong>
\nCari orecchietti di radiopop,
\nFilippo \u00e8 a “Fa’ la cosa giusta” ma le Oche sono state sostituite a una diretta del Parlamento, ubi maior<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Da Oggi Scienza<\/em>, l’oca s. recensisce “La scienza in tribunale<\/span><\/a><\/span>” di Luca Simonetti e la custode del Parco delle Bufale cerca di spiegare il “potere curativo del legame quantico<\/span><\/a><\/span>” scoperto da Lynn McTaggart.<\/p>\n

A proposito di Lynn McTaggart e seguaci, sottoscrivo l’invito di Orac<\/span><\/a><\/span>:<\/p>\n

If you want to know the depths to which\u00a0Scientific Reports<\/cite>\u00a0will sink,\u00a0 all you have to do is to check out this article:<\/p>\n

Long-Term Study of Heart Rate Variability Responses to Changes in the Solar and Geomagnetic Environment<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Di mio, raccomando le riviste-spazzatura citate in bibliografia. Finanziato dalla King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, lo studio si basa sulle bufale dello HeartMath Institute, specializzato in<\/p>\n

innovative research on the interconnectivity between human consciousness and Earth\u2019s energetic systems as well as between people and other living systems. There is evidence that Earth\u2019s magnetic fields help to synchronize, energize and support the interconnection of all living systems.<\/p>\n

“Innovativa”? Speriamo che McTaggart li quereli a cominciare da Viktor Stolc, del\u00a0NASA Ames Research Center, che da Omics s’era comprato ‘sta roba<\/span><\/a><\/span>…<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

Con un pretesto, PLoS One <\/em>ritratta<\/span><\/a><\/span> una r\u00e9clame di Jeanette Hyde, l’autrice di\u00a0The Gut Makeover<\/a>, <\/i>per le sue diete “probiotiche”.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

Avevo parlato anch’io dei banchieri che erano pi\u00f9 disonesti sul lavoro rispetto ad altre professioni, stando a un paper<\/span><\/a><\/span> di Alain Cohn et al.\u00a0dell’universit\u00e0 di Zurigo, uscito su Nature<\/em> nel 2014.<\/span> Su SocArXiv, Jean-Michel Hup\u00e9<\/a>\u00a0del CNRS ne\u00a0demolisce<\/span><\/a><\/span> la statistica tenendo conto degli intervalli di confidenza:<\/p>\n

\u00a0– when the data show, in fact, that the results could have been obtained by chance, as I have shown here, none of the hypotheses can be refuted, because the inferential distance is too large between the measures and the psychological or sociological phenomena supposedly involved. […] The absence of significant result reveals that the king was naked.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sul Guardian, Roger Pielke Jr. sostiene che la politica del governo Trump in materia di scienza, ambiente e clima, \u00e8 priva di conseguenze, non \u00e8 il caso di scandalizzarsi. The Trump administration\u2019s neglect of science and technology policy means there is no systematic effort to undercut science and technology policy. Instead, they just don\u2019t care.… Continua a leggere Science trumps Trump?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,8,19,20,25,26],"tags":[1096,2263,3418,6019,6177,6513],"class_list":["post-33296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ambiente","category-bufala","category-matematica","category-medicina","category-politica","category-psicologia","tag-campi-magnetici","tag-emissioni-di-co2","tag-iea","tag-roger-pielke-jr","tag-scientific-reports","tag-statistica","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33296"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33296\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45416,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33296\/revisions\/45416"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}