: Ferric C. Fang, Arturo Casadevall
: Thinking about Science Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better
: ASM Press
: 9781683674368
: 1
: CHF 54.00
:
: Allgemeines, Lexika
: English
: 544
: DRM
: PC/MAC/eReader/Tablet
: ePUB

Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better

A riveting exploration of the world of science, diving headfirst into its triumphs and tribulations.

Penned by seasoned microbiologists Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall, this book offers a comprehensive analysis of the scientific enterprise through various lenses, including historical, philosophical, and personal.

From their unique vantage points as researchers, clinicians, and educators, Fang and Casadevall dissect the intricate mechanisms of science, shedding light on its strengths and weaknesses. Through engaging historical anecdotes, personal narratives, and insightful academic studies, they present a candid evaluation of science?s performance, including a thought-provoking examination of its role during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A must-read for anyone curious about the present predicaments and future potential of science,Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better is more than just a book; it?s a roadmap to understanding and improving the scientific endeavor for the benefit of society at large.

?The authors have given us a thoughtful description of science and the joy of discovery, an unflinching diagnosis of where improvements are needed, and recommendations for remedies well worth considering. Scientists, science and society would benefit if this book were read by both future and established scientists, as well as the administrators, policymakers, and regulators who are in a position to help us do better.?
?Michael Kalichman, UC San Diego

?With a deep understanding of the profound impact of science on society, the authors provide thought-provoking perspectives on changes in the scientific enterprise that will support sustainable, equitable practices, and engender public trust. An engaging read for everyone with an interest in science or science policy. ?
?Stanley Maloy, San Diego State University



Ferric C. Fang, MD, is a Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Microbiology, Medicine, and Global Health at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at Harborview Medical Center, and a former Editor-in-Chief ofInfection and Immunity.

Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, is a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor and Chair of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and the Editor-in-Chief ofmBio.

Boxes, Figures, and Tables


Boxes


Box 1.1Science and technology
Box 1.2Mathematics and science
Box 1.3Was science inevitable?
Box 1.4Science and uncertainty
Box 1.5Where do formulas in science come from?
Box 2.1Careful description leads to cosmic understanding
Box 2.2“Descriptive” is a fraught word in the scientific lexicon
Box 2.3Careful description can lead to revolutionary new insights
Box 3.1The illusion of scientific processes as clockwork
Box 3.2Mechanism leads to rational drug design
Box 5.1Elegance in the crust
Box 5.2Elegance in medicine
Box 6.1Rigor, deception, and intellectual honesty
Box 6.2Rigor and reproducibility
Box 7.1Efforts to improve the reproducibility of biomedical sciences
Box 8.1Importance in real time
Box 8.2Important science in the 1890s: Anna Williams and diphtheria antitoxin
Box 9.1Forgetting history cost lives in the COVID‐19 pandemic
Box 10.1Do scientific generalists pay a penalty today?
Box 11.1Revolutionary science as an antidote for depression
Box 12.1How basic research allowed scientists to meet the HIV challenge
Box 12.2Reverse translation: drug toxicity triggers bedside‐to‐bench research
Box 13.1Science and the moonshot
Box 14.1The cultivation ofMycobacterium ulcerans
Box 15.1Using science teaching to highlight inequality and recognize diversity in science
Box 17.1A study of problematic images in published papers
Box 17.2TheMolecular and Cellular Biology study
Box 17.3Post‐publication review
Box 18.1A problematic paper triggers a congressional hearing
Box 19.1The Higgs boson as a case study in the capriciousness of credit allocation in science
Box 20.1Polio vaccine wars: Albert Sabin versus Jonas Salk
Box 20.2Conflict resolution in science
Box 21.1The Nobel Prize distorts the history of DNA
Box 21.2More fun than a Nobel Prize
Box 21.3An alternative Nobel Prize scheme
Box 22.1Preprints and rejected science
Box 22.2The fate of rejected papers
Box 22.3The importance of failure in science
Box 23.1Transformative research that almost wasn’t
Box 23.2Randomization as a mechanism for bias reduction
Box 24.1Fake peer review
Box 25.1Types of error
Box 25.2The worst error in science?
Box 26.1How to choose a journal? Then and now
Box 26.2The cult of numerology in science
<
Box 26.3Other numbers used for the measurement (and mismeasurement) of science