Today Andrew Gelman in his blog complained that a Nature columnist mocked a paper published in the Science magazine. I’ve read that paper too. It is about the life course of social network in a big university. To me, the merits of the paper are the innovative method—email—they employed, and the quantification of the social network. These are very important because the social network research during past few years was neglected if not demised because of its inherent uncertainty and complexity, weak association with important outcomes such as health, and the lack of theoretical models. In a sense, this paper revives the social network research. Besides, this paper is fun to read.

I visited the accused Nature column and found that the column is a fun piece too. It is written in a way you and I will write for a blog entry. But I am a common people and am free to tease or mock any scientific findings, while the columnist is supposed to represent the Nature—the highly respected topnotch science journal. Furthermore, although the columnist interviewed the authors and other experts for comments and ideas, she produced such a minor piece that deemed to be ignored by the whole science community. Considering tens of hours spent on this project, you definitely want to see a more insightful article if not a comprehensive review. I agree with Andrew Gelman’s comment that this type of journalism is unethical.

Here is another good piece. The Scientific American maintains an excellent blog, full of well written and insightful entries. Well, I guess it’s a formal project inside the magazine, while mine is a self-initiated junk yard for the purpose of practicing English with the benefit of expressing myself, or more appropriately, “behavioral show-off” (sorry, it’s from a Chinese phrase; I never heard of this in the English world).

The recent entries in that SCIAM blog include the author’s summary on a panel discussion about politics and science in which he clearly supported the liberal point of view. The entry about the American science education is an interesting reading too. And all the discussion of human stem cell scandal is a must read even if you are tired of it.

Speaking of American science and religion, I was appalled when my son first talked about God made us and is taking care of everybody. I never took him to any Sunday school and never taught him anything about God. We have Bible at home but he is not able to read it yet. I am perplexed about whether I should tell him or not that there is no God, and all the stuff about God and Jesus is just nonsense. I can’t argue with him because he doesn’t know all the details about the religion and apparently he believes in the existence of God, just like he believes that Superman and Spideman once saved the world.

I am sure the teacher doesn’t teach him about all the God stuff. But it is possible that many of his classmates attended Churches and Sunday schools. I think my son will give up all those bluffs about God eventually.

However, it is the other kids that worry me. This proves that religion penetrates the community relentlessly, and most kids will grow up with a sincere belief that God is our ultimate savior. It is the hot bed for the creationism. It is no wonder that two thirds of college students believe that either God creates us or God leads the evolution. They are taught about this before they start to learn the world.