<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/style/rss/rss_feed.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="/style/rss/rss_feed.css" type="text/css" media="screen" ?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Clipmarks | kidora's 'research' clips</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipper/kidora/tag/research/</link><feedUrl>http://rss.clipmarks.com/clipper/kidora/tag/research/</feedUrl><ttl>15</ttl><description>Clip, tag and save information that's important to you. Bookmarks save entire pages...Clipmarks save the specific content that matters to you!</description><language>en-us</language><item><title>Research + Details = The Devil ?</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/42F3260B-633F-4246-8384-C389E263B693/</link><description>&lt;b&gt;clipped by:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipper/kidora/"&gt;kidora&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;clipper's remarks:&lt;/b&gt;  This article really does not surprise me. I work in the research world and it's very hard to get people to do clean work. You can trust people with themselves only so far. After that you take your chances. &lt;br/&gt;Unfortunately researches are often so focused on their own ideas that they sacrifice good methods for their own arrogance. &lt;br/&gt;I will say that while sloppy methods are a problem I don't think that most published findings are wrong, maybe a little off, but not wrong. Of course this might depend on what field of research they are specifically talking about.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;div border="2" style="margin-top: 10px; border:#000000 1px solid;" width="90%"&gt;&lt;div style="background-color:"&gt;&lt;div align="center" width="100%" style="padding:4px;margin-bottom:4px;background-color:#666666;overflow:hidden;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;"&gt;Clip Source: &lt;a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1429222" title="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1429222"&gt;science.slashdot.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;I&gt;"The Wall Street Journal has a sobering piece describing the research of medical scholar John Ioannidis, who showed that in many peer-reviewed research papers '&lt;A href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html"&gt;most published research findings are wrong&lt;/A&gt;.' The article continues: 'These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. [...] To root out mistakes, scientists rely on each other to be vigilant. Even so, findings too rarely are checked by others or independently replicated. Retractions, while more common, are still relatively infrequent. Findings that have been refuted can linger in the scientific literature for years to be cited unwittingly by other researchers, compounding the errors.'"&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 40px;"&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/science/" rel="tag"&gt;science&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/research/" rel="tag"&gt;research&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/journals/" rel="tag"&gt;journals&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><clipSource>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1429222</clipSource><pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:34:30 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bees Not Being Killed By Cell Phones</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/E960D9E3-EBE0-4930-806B-98DF8A9263AE/</link><description>&lt;b&gt;clipped by:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipper/kidora/"&gt;kidora&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;clipper's remarks:&lt;/b&gt;  Is the mystery close to being solved? At least we know know now that bees are not being killed by cell phones. Though, in my mind, this seems like a very strange idea to offer for their disappearance. &lt;br/&gt;Anyway glad to know that this is not the reason.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;div border="2" style="margin-top: 10px; border:#000000 1px solid;" width="90%"&gt;&lt;div style="background-color:"&gt;&lt;div align="center" width="100%" style="padding:4px;margin-bottom:4px;background-color:#666666;overflow:hidden;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;"&gt;Clip Source: &lt;a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137014/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws" title="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137014/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws"&gt;www.pcworld.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Recent claims that mobile phone signals may be responsible for the decline in honeybee numbers have been quashed by research.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;P&gt;In April Landau University in &lt;A href="http://www.pcworld.com/tags/Germany.html"&gt;Germany&lt;/A&gt; suggested that the mobile phone signals were confusing bees and leading to their death from CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder). The disease paralyses bees so they then die outside the hives. It has been responsible for the deaths of between 50 and 90 percent of commercially managed bees in the &lt;A href="http://www.pcworld.com/tags/United+States.html"&gt;U.S.&lt;/A&gt; alone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;P&gt;A three-year scientific study conducted at U.S. universities has uncovered a virus which is thought to have come from imported bees and royal jelly and then spread through apiaries, causing the death of the bees.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;P&gt;The research also suggested factors such as the practice of transporting bees in closed trucks may put the bees under stress and make them more likely to contract the virus. The next step in the research is to infect a sample of bees with the virus to see if it is definitely to blame.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 40px;"&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/bees/" rel="tag"&gt;bees&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/cell+phone/" rel="tag"&gt;cell phone&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/science/" rel="tag"&gt;science&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><clipSource>http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137014/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws</clipSource><pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:42:17 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Natalie Portman, Neuroscientist</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/7B533585-D424-4B49-A4B5-030D7F9AB220/</link><description>&lt;b&gt;clipped by:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipper/kidora/"&gt;kidora&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;clipper's remarks:&lt;/b&gt;  How many actors do you know take a break from acting and peruse this kind of alternative job?&lt;br/&gt;This is great to actually see an actor using their brain. How wonderful !&lt;br/&gt;Cheers to you Natalie.&lt;br/&gt;If you click on this link you can get a copy of the paper Ms. Portman is on at the bottom of the page. &lt;br&gt;&lt;div border="2" style="margin-top: 10px; border:#000000 1px solid;" width="90%"&gt;&lt;div style="background-color:#cccccc"&gt;&lt;div align="center" width="100%" style="padding:4px;margin-bottom:4px;background-color:#666666;overflow:hidden;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;"&gt;Clip Source: &lt;a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/06/natalie_portman_cog.html" title="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/06/natalie_portman_cog.html"&gt;www.mindhacks.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG width="121" height="184" align="right" src="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/files/2007/06/natalie_portman.jpg" /&gt;&lt;A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Portman"&gt;Natalie Portman&lt;/A&gt; is best known for her roles in Hollywood movies like &lt;I&gt;Star Wars&lt;/I&gt;, &lt;I&gt;Cold Mountain&lt;/I&gt; and &lt;I&gt;V for Vendetta&lt;/I&gt;. What is less known is that she was co-author of a &lt;A href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&amp;Cmd=ShowDetailView&amp;TermToSearch=12202098"&gt;scientific paper&lt;/A&gt; on the neuroscience of child development. This is about her research.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;Portman, whose real name is Natalie Hershlag, left acting to pursue a psychology degree at Harvard during 2000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;While there she was employed as a research assistant in &lt;A href="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~kwn/"&gt;Prof Stephen Kosslyn's&lt;/A&gt; neuropsychology lab where she got involved in a study investigating the link between frontal lobe development and visual knowledge in infants.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 40px;"&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/natalie-portman/" rel="tag"&gt;natalie-portman&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/neuroscience/" rel="tag"&gt;neuroscience&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/science/" rel="tag"&gt;science&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/development/" rel="tag"&gt;development&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/children/" rel="tag"&gt;children&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><clipSource>http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/06/natalie_portman_cog.html</clipSource><pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:49:47 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>