Daniel Moore

There is a new book out about the Great Books. It is called “A Great Idea at the Time” by Alex Beam. The Great Books of the Western World were published as a large volume set by the University of Chicago and the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1952. According to Alex Beam, the Great Books made “no concessions to contemporary taste, or even pleasure.”

Well, they weren’t supposed to. The books are supposed to outline the foundations of Western Civilization.

Beam’s book seems pretty interesting, being billed as chronicling the “rise and fall of the project.” I’m not convinced it has completely fallen, it’s just lying dormant in many places. The Great Books are a source of controversy. Sure, in their initial incarnation they were overwhelmed by “dead, white males.” And the 1990 re-release didn’t really help that perception. Of course a Great Books of the Western World will be dominated by white males (who, of course, are dead), as it is only relatively recently in history that non-white and non-males have been permitted to contribute significantly to cultural development. Surely nowadays we would add such writers as Jane Austen, Booker T. Washington, Watson and Crick, and other developments in thinking that have changed our approach to the world (feel free to name your own that you think belong in the canon).

The idea of Great Books of the Western World (which include all fields of human study – religion, literature, sociology, science, and many many more) and the idea of Great Ideas of the Western World forming a basis for a society and culture that creates such richness and value as Western culture has is inspiring. The Great Books represent knowledge that we pass down. They represent the thoughts that must be addressed, the ideas that must be respected, and the questions that must be answered. There are, of course, modern incarnations of the idea – what else is Lapham’s Quarterly, but an attempt to apply the idea of the Great Books in bite size nuggets?

The Great Books of the Western World were almost certainly a great idea for their time. They are a great idea. Period. For all time.

Posted by Daniel at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The EPA clarified its position on carbon nanotubes yesterday, saying that they are distinctly different from other forms of carbon. No big surprise – it interacts with its environment differently, atomically is shaped differently, and the EPA had established the position before, but clarifying the position is a good step in encouraging industry companies to take a closer look at potential negative impacts of carbon nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes are being looked at for use in a wide range of industries ranging from electronic devices to building materials.

The interesting question that has not been addressed, yet, by the EPA is whether or not nanoscale forms of other materials that are not atomically different than their bulk cousins will be treated differently. Some studies suggest that simply being nanoscale increases the toxicity.

Posted by Daniel at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

John Tierney has an interesting article today on whether or not scientific research with industry sponsors is inherently worse in quality than that which is not funded by industry (and presumably funded by government, NGOs, or other such organizations). The answer: research funded by industry is different than other research – it’s better.

Published in the Nature’s International Journal of Obesity, a recent study shows that the reporting quality of industry funded research (in weight loss trials) was higher than non-industry funded research. We often hear industry funded research being dismissed because of where the funding comes from. Typically, we hear about issues with accepting money from “big tobacco” or from “big oil” (big, apparently, equals bad). As it is, this sort of dismissal tends to impugn the integrity of the scientists doing the research by claiming that they can’t do good research because of where their funding comes from (Question: do researchers who accept money from the American Cancer Society or the Sierra Club have an inherent bias in their research? Why does it apply the other way around then?).

No doubt, different funding organizations are likely to fund research that will lead to outcomes more favorable to their “cause” than they will fund research likely to attack their “cause.” But it should be noted that industry’s “cause” is to make money by selling a product. That means that they have to have the highest level of research (that allows companies to have products that will have high yield, work properly, and do what they are being purchased to do). And they must as correct as possible – otherwise, the companies involved in the research lose money. The researchers involved are not going to perform poor research and fudge results, endangering their career and reputation. They will do their best to perform the best research that they can.

Posted by Daniel at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)