Latest news with #Pollyannaish
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Scientific norms shape the behavior of researchers working for the greater good
Over the past 400 years or so, a set of mostly unwritten guidelines has evolved for how science should be properly done. The assumption in the research community is that science advances most effectively when scientists conduct themselves in certain ways. The first person to write down these attitudes and behaviors was Robert Merton, in 1942. The founder of the sociology of science laid out what he called the 'ethos of science,' a set of 'values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science.' (Yes, it's sexist wording. Yes, it was the 1940s.) These now are referred to as scientific norms. The point of these norms is that scientists should behave in ways that improve the collective advancement of knowledge. If you're a cynic, you might be rolling your eyes at such a Pollyannaish ideal. But corny expectations keep the world functioning. Think: Be kind, clean up your mess, return the shopping cart to the cart corral. I'm a physical geographer who realized long ago that students are taught biology in biology classes and chemistry in chemistry classes, but rarely are they taught about the overarching concepts of science itself. So I wrote a book called 'The Scientific Endeavor,' laying out what scientists and other educated people should know about science itself. Scientists in training are expected to learn the big picture of science after years of observing their mentors, but that doesn't always happen. And understanding what drives scientists can help nonscientists better understand research findings. These scientific norms are a big part of the scientific endeavor. Here are Merton's original four, along with a couple I think are worth adding to the list: Scientific knowledge is for everyone – it's universal – and not the domain of an individual or group. In other words, a scientific claim must be judged on its merits, not the person making it. Characteristics like a scientist's nationality, gender or favorite sports team should not affect how their work is judged. Also, the past record of a scientist shouldn't influence how you judge whatever claim they're currently making. For instance, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling was not able to convince most scientists that large doses of vitamin C are medically beneficial; his evidence didn't sufficiently support his claim. In practice, it's hard to judge contradictory claims fairly when they come from a 'big name' in the field versus an unknown researcher without a reputation. It is, however, easy to point out such breaches of universalism when others let scientific fame sway their opinion one way or another about new work. Communism in science is the idea that scientific knowledge is the property of everyone and must be shared. Jonas Salk, who led the research that resulted in the polio vaccine, provides a classic example of this scientific norm. He published the work and did not patent the vaccine so that it could be freely produced at low cost. When scientific research doesn't have direct commercial application, communism is easy to practice. When money is involved, however, things get complicated. Many scientists work for corporations, and they might not publish their findings in order to keep them away from competitors. The same goes for military research and cybersecurity, where publishing findings could help the bad guys. Disinterestedness refers to the expectation that scientists pursue their work mainly for the advancement of knowledge, not to advance an agenda or get rich. The expectation is that a researcher will share the results of their work, regardless of a finding's implications for their career or economic bottom line. Research on politically hot topics, like vaccine safety, is where it can be tricky to remain disinterested. Imagine a scientist who is strongly pro-vaccine. If their vaccine research results suggest serious danger to children, the scientist is still obligated to share these findings. Likewise, if a scientist has invested in a company selling a drug, and the scientist's research shows that the drug is dangerous, they are morally compelled to publish the work even if that would hurt their income. In addition, when publishing research, scientists are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the work. This step informs others that they may want to be more skeptical in evaluating the work, in case self-interest won out over disinterest. Disinterestedness also applies to journal editors, who are obligated to decide whether to publish research based on the science, not the political or economic implications. Merton's last norm is organized skepticism. Skepticism does not mean rejecting ideas because you don't like them. To be skeptical in science is to be highly critical and look for weaknesses in a piece of research. This concept is formalized in the peer review process. When a scientist submits an article to a journal, the editor sends it to two or three scientists familiar with the topic and methods used. They read it carefully and point out any problems they find. The editor then uses the reviewer reports to decide whether to accept as is, reject outright or request revisions. If the decision is revise, the author then makes each change or tries to convince the editor that the reviewer is wrong. Peer review is not perfect and doesn't always catch bad research, but in most cases it improves the work, and science benefits. Traditionally, results weren't made public until after peer review, but that practice has weakened in recent years with the rise of preprints, reducing the reliability of information for nonscientists. I'm adding two norms to Merton's list. The first is integrity. It's so fundamental to good science that it almost seems unnecessary to mention. But I think it's justified since cheating, stealing and lazy scientists are getting plenty of attention these days. The second is humility. You may have made a contribution to our understanding of cell division, but don't tell us that you cured cancer. You may be a leader in quantum mechanics research, but that doesn't make you an authority on climate change. Scientific norms are guidelines for how scientists are expected to behave. A researcher who violates one of these norms won't be carted off to jail or fined an exorbitant fee. But when a norm is not followed, scientists must be prepared to justify their reasons, both to themselves and to others. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeffrey A. Lee, Texas Tech University Read more: Science activism is surging – which marks a culture shift among scientists Rogue science strikes again: The case of the first gene-edited babies Intellectual humility is a key ingredient for scientific progress Jeffrey A. Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Boston Globe
08-06-2025
- General
- Boston Globe
Revisiting a lasting lesson from Paul Reubens: Be kind
Advertisement I know it sounds Pollyannaish, but when it seems like it's acceptable to bully people as we're seeing today, and people are being thought of as less than human, it's even more important to speak up and honestly tell people what you appreciate about them. Be like Reubens: Take every opportunity to be kind. Mary Ellen Reardon Quincy
Boston Globe
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Boston Globe
‘Reformed' is a charming show about a young rabbi
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up And Léa isn't sure either, so she rehearses different voice memos. Yes, do it. No, don't. Oh no, uh, there was a family emergency, I can't help you . But invariably, she does help them, with real care and curiosity, not in trite or Pollyannaish ways. She is doctrinal but not doctrinaire, and all these rituals of change for her congregants are rituals of change for her, too. She becomes more confident and mature ushering a reluctant bar mitzvah boy through the process. She hones her discernment skills while officiating a wedding. Advertisement The most intriguing relationship on the show is between Léa and Arié (Lionel Dray), the local orthodox rabbi and her former teacher. There's a magnetic pull and constant fascination between them, a lot of trust but also a sense of betrayal. He's her mentor, and they have an intense erotic energy, but each also sees the other as practicing religion incorrectly -- a tension that can be playful right up until it is profoundly hurtful. The goings on at their respective shuls highlight their own misgivings about their denominational choices: Maybe her practice is shallow; maybe his practice is misogynistic. Let's resolve to smolder at each other about it. Advertisement In addition to being charming, 'Reformed' is interesting. Sitcom shenanigans nestle alongside philosophical musings. A farce unfolds at a Seder, and goofy sibling banter segues into deeper conversation and back. All eight episodes are available to stream now on Max. This article originally appeared in .
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them?
It's not that typical that an acronym for an arcane regulation would be a household word, but in California the term CEQA—pronounced see-kwa—is as well-known as terms such as OMG and LOL. Signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, the voluminous statute provides a laundry list of terms and conditions on developers of every manner of construction project. CEQA has created a regulatory nightmare, although it still has defenders. LOL indeed. As the Planning and Conservation League explains, "The California Environmental Quality Act…is California's premier environmental law. It allows public agencies to make informed decisions about activities that could degrade public health and damage the environment. It also provides California residents with the legal framework to hold their public agencies accountable." That sounds so unobjectionable. Who doesn't want public agencies to make informed decisions and provide community members with tools to protect the environment and hold officials accountable? But the reality is far different than what these Pollyannaish civics-textbook explanations suggest. California lawmakers refuse to substantively reform the law, but what's the first thing they do whenever they want a particular project built? You guessed it—they provide a CEQA exemption or streamlining. When the Sacramento Kings wanted to build a new downtown arena and keep the team from leaving town, Senate President Darrell Steinberg (later elected the city's mayor) ushered through an exemption. We've seen multiple examples—or attempts—to reduce the application of CEQA to other professional sports projects, as well as other favored projects, including one tied to LA's effort to lure the Olympics. It's always the sign of a bad law when it constantly requires exemptions. That reminds me of Assembly Bill 5, which banned most independent contracting—but its supporters exempted more than 100 industries from its grip because it threatened so many people's livelihoods. A recent national example: Donald Trump's tariffs posed an existential threat to many businesses, so he's been exempting certain industries. All these regulatory edicts empower the politically well-connected, who have lobbyists who can secure special favors. So what's wrong with CEQA? Whenever the government has discretionary approval authority, the law requires the agency to conduct a review. It usually requires the developers to conduct an extensive environmental analysis. It triggers an initial study process and then often a costly, time-consuming full Environmental Impact Report. Agencies can then mandate remediation or reject the project. It gives any stakeholder the right to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval. As is now well documented, interest groups often file lawsuits that are not related to improving the environment. No-growthers file suits to stop—or reduce the size—of projects they don't like. Neighbors can file lawsuits because they don't want more traffic. Unions threaten suits as a way to gain leverage to secure project-labor agreements and other union-friendly conditions. As the law firm Holland & Knight reported in 2015, "64% of those filing CEQA lawsuits are individuals or local 'associations,' the vast majority of which have no prior track record of environmental advocacy." And if you think these cynical efforts to gum up the construction process help the environment, then consider this alarming point from that analysis: "Projects designed to advance California's environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits." These include transit projects, multi-family housing, parks, schools and libraries. It notes that 80 percent of the CEQA lawsuits are in infill locations, which is where environmentalists want us to build. CEQA criticism has grown even on the political Left thanks largely to the law's stifling effect on new housing construction. As everyone here knows, California faces a severe housing crisis as the median home price statewide has soared above $800,000 and well over $1 million in many coastal metros. That has led to massive rent spikes and has exacerbated our homelessness situation. Lawmakers have—to their credit—passed targeted exemptions and streamlining provisions for particular types of housing projects (infill, multi-family, duplexes), but it's not enough. A 2022 report for the Center for Jobs and the Economy by Holland & Knight attorney Jennifer Hernandez notes that despite those new laws, "CEQA lawsuits targeting new housing production, in contrast, continue to expand—with 47,999 housing units targeted in the CEQA lawsuits filed just in 2020." The California Air Resources Board (CARB) "acknowledges that two-thirds of CEQA lawsuits allege violations of climate impacts." Look, if CEQA can be used to stop projects based on climate impacts, then it can be used against any project. It's been weaponized as a no-growth tool—constraining housing, energy projects, freeways, rail, you name it. Unless we're happy just grinding progress to a halt, we need to repeal—or significantly reform—this monstrosity and get beyond occasional exemptions for ballparks and public housing. We all know CEQA by name and deed, so why won't elected officials do anything about it? This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them? appeared first on
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Yellow creditors' battle over $550M-plus carcass heats up
Yellow Corp. and some of its creditors remain at odds over a final bankruptcy plan for the liquidation and distribution of the estate's remaining assets, which now include $550 million in cash. The bankrupt less-than-truckload carrier's unsecured creditors told a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware on Monday that it would submit its own plan in the coming days. Counsel for Yellow (OTC: YELLQ) said it didn't have the votes to proceed on its previously proposed plan but that it was still hopeful the parties could come to terms. Yellow's largest shareholder, MFN Partners, which now owns two pension claims stemming from the company's abrupt withdrawal from the plans in 2023, and the Milbank Group, which represents six other multiemployer pension claimants, are the known holdouts. 'Any plan that isn't supported by MFN and the Milbank Group is going to be hotly contested. It's going to be heavily litigated,' said Patrick Nash, partner at Kirkland & Ellis and lead counsel for Yellow. 'I'm not Pollyannaish. Based on what we received from the committee on Friday, it's possible that we could fold MFN and the Milbank Group into a global resolution.' Nash said he's neither optimistic nor pessimistic that the two firms will agree to a new plan. The debtors received the new settlement plan, which is said to be supported by many of Yellow's largest unsecured creditors, including Central States Pension Fund, on Friday. Yellow's board is reviewing the plan, which hasn't been shared with everyone. Counsel for MFN and Milbank said they were excluded from the process and fear that any new proposal would be detrimental to their claims. 'It feels a little bit like … a sufficient majority are getting together, trying to come up with something that they're then going to try to impose on the not-cool kids, if you will, the people who are not in those negotiations,' Andrew Leblanc, partner at restructuring firm Milbank, told the court. The impasse further delays distributions to former Yellow employees and creditors. Yellow's original plan included full recoveries to former employees, who are due paid time off and commissions, and to secured creditors holding unimpaired claims. Other claims, including general unsecured claims, would see much lower recovery amounts under that plan. Yellow had been operating under an extended exclusivity period, preventing other financial firms from proposing competing plans. Any competing plan put forward, however, presumably includes full recoveries for employees' PTO claims. Counsel for the committee said Monday that the new plan would cover partial recoveries to unsecured creditors, including a $917 million contract claim from Central States, to which Yellow was a contributor. Prior pension claims from Central States to the court totaled more than $4.5 billion. A monthly operating report for January showed $168 million in cumulative professional fees and expenses since the August 2023 bankruptcy filing. The company also had $343 million in cash at the time, but recent property and other asset sales appear to have pushed that number to $550 million. The estate still has roughly 80 terminals left to sell. It has sold approximately $2.25 billion in real estate plus millions in rolling stock since the liquidation began. Those funds were used to pay all secured debt as well as fees to attorneys and advisers. The distribution of funds could continue to take time. The Delaware court's prior opinions on withdrawal liability and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act claims have been appealed. Monday was slated as the confirmation hearing date for the bankruptcy plan but instead turned into a status conference as the current iteration failed to garner enough support. The committee said it would file a competing bankruptcy plan to the court by the end of this week. More FreightWaves articles by Todd Maiden: February freight trends mixed, outlook 'fraught with uncertainty' Knight-Swift adds LTL veteran to board as it targets Northeast expansion ArcBest takes on TL freight to fill empty capacity The post Yellow creditors' battle over $550M-plus carcass heats up appeared first on FreightWaves. Sign in to access your portfolio
