

People who mattered in science this year - maximgsaini
http://www.nature.com/news/365-days-nature-s-10-1.14367

======
maximgsaini
1\. FENG ZHANG: DNA’s master editor

Borrowing from bacteria, a biologist helps to create a powerful tool for
customizing DNA.

\-------

2\. TANIA SIMONCELLI: Gene patent foe

A US science-policy expert fought to keep genes open to all.

\--------

3\. DEBORAH PERSAUD: Viral victor

A virologist provides the strongest evidence yet that infants born with HIV
can be cured.

\--------

4\. MICHEL MAYOR: In search of sister Earths

An astronomer with a flair for technology extends his legacy of discovery.

\--------

5\. NADEREV SAÑO: Climate conscience

After Typhoon Haiyan ravaged the Philippines, a diplomat focused the world’s
attention — briefly — on global warming.

\--------

6\. VIKTOR GROKHOVSKY: Meteorite hunter

A Russian researcher tracked the debris from the biggest object to hit our
planet in a century.

\--------

7\. HUALAN CHEN: Front-line flu sleuth

A virologist helped China to quell an outbreak of H7N9 avian flu in humans.

\--------

8\. SHOUKHRAT MITALIPOV: The cloning chief

After years of frustration, a biologist has finally developed a line of stem
cells from a cloned human embryo.

\--------

9\. KATHRYN CLANCY: An eye on harassment

An anthropologist unearths disturbing trends in sexual assaults at field sites
— and suspects she’s just scratching the surface.

\--------

10\. HENRY SNAITH: Sun worshipper

An energetic physicist pushes a promising solar-cell material into the
spotlight.

------
wazoox
This one is particularly shocking: "KATHRYN CLANCY: An eye on harassment"

basically, she discovered hos prevalent sexual harassment is in science. It
looks like programmers and such aren't so bad, but more like the society as a
whole. Depressing.

~~~
nzp
What's depressing and ironic is that these people are anthropologists and yet
they are "shocked" and "surprised" by the results. Breaking news:
Anthropologists Discover Sexuality in Humans.

What did they think would happen in an academic setting artificially
sterilized of any attempt at realistic imperfect human relations? Of course
there is harassment, people are frustrated. Note that I'm not excusing the
behaviour, just trying to explain.

Aside the mere statement that there is harassment, it would be much more
interesting and helpful in actually overcoming the problem to see the actual
dynamics of the phenomenon backed by some actual data (she's aware herself how
flimsy the data currently is, it says so in the article).

------
javajosh
So fucking depressing. I can't believe this is the what all of "science"
achieved this year. I'm not saying that these things aren't important in and
of themselves. But from a pure science perspective, it's like, WTF? Where is
the new insight, the discovery? I mean, it's not every year that you discover
relativity or the genome, but come on, most of this is pretty weak sauce.

~~~
mkingston
I get the feeling you've considerably misinterpreted the article: "365 days:
Nature's 10. Ten people who mattered this year." Instead of "The only ten
things science accomplished this year".

I actually find your comment so outrageous I'm starting to wonder if it's a
joke?

~~~
javajosh
Not a joke.

Think of it from the perspective of a kid. Do they want to be a scientist?
What _is_ a scientist? (Or, equivalently, the _parents_ of a kid might ask
this question.) And they see this list. I'm sure everyone on it is smart,
well-meaning, hard-working, and indeed their work is probably of more benefit
to society than the vast majority of others. So far, so good.

But with the exception of the cloning guy, I don't see anything inspirational
on that list. I don't see anyone working on quantum computing or AI, solving a
long-standing math problem, or examining the gravitational constant to an
exceedingly fine degree, or examining cosmic background radiation for any kind
of communication pattern (which we might expect to if our universe was a
simulation and the outer universe wanted to communicate with us).

And of course this ignores really really cool things like, basically anything
and everything that would make colonizing Mars a reality (and that's an
extremely broad category of stuff, actually, since "getting there" is really
only the first problem among many).

Now, you might criticize my list as being arbitrary, and that some people
would find "colonizing mars" about as yawn worthy as doing an ethnographic
study on sociologists in the field. But frankly, I think that's silly. If
popular entertainment is any measure of what the public finds inspiring, then
exploration of space, genetics, AI, etc are all quite well-represented.

~~~
mkingston
"And they see this list."

But why would they see this list in your proposed context? The list is not
specifically intended for your theoretical audience, nor intended to contain
your theoretical content, but you're railing against it like it is. If the
article was entitled: "This article will inspire kids to do science", you
might have a point. I will go further and argue that the type of youth reading
Nature is actually probably going to be inspired by this article.

If you had wanted to discuss motivating kids into science, that's a great
discussion to have, but inaccurately denigrating science/the article like
this: 'I can't believe this is the what all of "science" achieved this year.'
is probably not the most productive way to do it.

