Scientist

[QuarkQuarkQuark2001]

Which scientist do you know the most, and why?

[admiral_ju00]

Jane Goodall and her stunning research on primates.

 

had the pleasure of meeting her at my university a few years back

[Dave]

The one I know most is probably Hawking, just because I don't really know any scientists brilliantly. He's famous for obvious reasons

[YT2095]

with the exception of Glyn Richards (a retired A`lev Chem teacher) my next door neighbor on our Garden plots, with whom I have many a long chat, and beer drinking sessions with, at the sacrafice of doing any ACTUAL garden work

 

and Dr, Ian Gameson (chem) at Birmingam Uni, with whom beer drinking and the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy are typical discussional material.

 

and some of you guys on here, I don`t really KNOW any

[Sayonara]

Depends what you mean by "know".

 

The scientist I have had most contact with would be Professor R. McNeill Alexander, who some of you might know for his assistance with that BBC "Walking with Dinosaurs" thingy (not the best example of his expertise admittedly).

 

He used to suddenly insert pictures of clown fish into lectures just to tell us he thought they were pretty.

[YT2095]

good point, I should have included a link too

 

here: http://www.chem.bham.ac.uk/staff/gameson.htm

[timo]

my ex for obvious reasons

[YT2095]

my ex for obvious reasons

I`m not sure I follow you there bud?

[timo]

the scientist i know the most is my ex-girlfriend

[YT2095]

oh ok, sorry to hear that, what did she do (Scientificly)?

[daisy]

admiral ju00 you say Jane Goodall.....but she interfered with the chimps...that's now accepted...by giving them food rewards to entice them into the camp area in the very early days of her study. This surely impacted on their behaviour through the generations. They came, they ate the bananas provided by the research group, and this fact ALONE must surely mean that subsequent data was skewed. The chimps hung around the area because of the food reward and their contact with humans must then surely have impacted on their natural impulses and behaviour. Primates such as chimps and gorillas change their behaviour around when in close contact with humans surely? When studying animals one must NEVER interact in any way or even let them be aware of your presence....otherwise your data is useless.

Anyway, to get back to the question....I've never MET any big league scientists but I've heard Richard Dawkins lecture (neo-Darwinism), and Stanley Prusiner (prions), and Ron Laskey (cell cycle), and David Lane (p53), and I've been truly awed and inspired.

[NSX]

I most know my Physics Prof: Professor Michael Kolios. I know him after being in his classes for Physics I & Physics III, and hanging around his office during my off-hours talking about more Physics

hehe

 

He's doing pretty cool research involving internal imaging of the body via. ultrasound [or, that's at least what I understand from it].

 

 

A scientist I'd like to meet in the future would be Brian Greene.

[admiral_ju00]

admiral ju00 you say Jane Goodall.....but she interfered with the chimps...that's now accepted...by giving them food rewards to entice them into the camp area in the very early days of her study. This surely impacted on their behaviour through the generations. They came, they ate the bananas provided by the research group, and this fact ALONE must surely mean that subsequent data was skewed. The chimps hung around the area because of the food reward and their contact with humans must then surely have impacted on their natural impulses and behaviour. Primates such as chimps and gorillas change their behaviour around when in close contact with humans surely?

 

not if they accept her or someone else as part of their clan or at least as part of their environment. and she has spent years in the jungles trying to reach such confidence and trust

[Dave]

Come to think of it, I've spoken to Ian Stewart who's a professor at our university (Warwick). He's written a few books on various bits and pieces in Mathematics, although I don't really like the guy

[daisy]

Well, I don't accept that Jane Goodall or any of her group would be accepted as clan members by the chimps..I reckon the chimps became habituated to human neighbours but it still impacted on their natural behaviour. So how would you prove that a human had been accepted as a clan member by a chimp group then admiral_ju00? And that human presence wasn't affecting natural behaviour? It's pretty much accepted wisdom amongst the behavioural biologists I know that any form of human intervention or contact with the study animal should be kept to a complete minimum or avoided otherwise the data is invalid. This is surely self-evident.

[admiral_ju00]

Well, I don't accept that Jane Goodall or any of her group would be accepted as clan members by the chimps..I reckon the chimps became habituated to human neighbours but it still impacted on their natural behaviour.

 

to a certain degree, perhaps yes and that may be only for a while.

 

So how would you prove that a human had been accepted as a clan member by a chimp group then admiral_ju00?

 

i'd say this may be impossible. the only think i can think of by that is after you've spent enough time and being there constantly, not making any new or drastic moves, etc, after a while you blend in and no longer be the cause of fear or uncertainty, the animals will not mind and go about their business. you're just there, as part of the jungle/environment.

 

for example: if i need to drive to certain point(A) and historically speaking it takes me (X) amount of time, then my memory will start when i enter the car and when i leave the car or about too, because everything stayed the same. but if when i'm driving to point(A) but it takes me (Z) amount of time, either due to road construction, accident, someone runs me off the road, etc, then i become aware of the situation and can remember it, may not be in full detail but at least the part that caused a deviation in my trip. same thing for environment, if i drive every day for X amount of years to a certain location and the environment stays the same(considering the elemental changes) then after a certain time i make that same trip, my memory becomes blurred as to what really happened on my way. but if one day i take that route and there is a construction of a new building, then i become aware of it. etc.

 

And that human presence wasn't affecting natural behaviour?

It's pretty much accepted wisdom amongst the behavioural biologists I know that any form of human intervention or contact with the study animal should be kept to a complete minimum or avoided otherwise the data is invalid. This is surely self-evident.

 

but there is a difference in running active experiments and merely being an observer.

if you're working with rats and you want them to do a certain thing, then surely the contact of visibility between the 2 parties must be minimal. otherwise one party may give off certain cues that can and will modify the behavior/action of the other party.

 

but if one does not need to modify animals behavior, only observe, then the more visible the better. provided that one's behavior and appearance does not change drastically enough.