Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 April 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 1

Basic readings for understanding Science or Nature

How well would a person understand Science or Nature magazines if she restricted her groundwork to a thorough study of Fundamentals of Physics, Campbell's Biology, or Theodore L. Brown's Chemistry textbook? --Doroletho (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The prose is understandable even for laypeople, it's the math that is difficult and also interpreting the results. E.g., I read 30 years ago that aluminum ions are linked to Alzheimer's disease. But we still don't know if it's a cause of the disease or its effect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The Al in AD theory has been thoroughly debunked, FYI. Fgf10 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

...But, there isn't very much math in a typical article in Science or Nature; results are shown, but rarely derived in these papers. Other journals, of course, do frequently contain extraordinarily detailed technical depth and quantitative mathematics. Even the topic journals by the same publishers often contain equations. But in the main magazines - Science and Nature, I struggle to think of the last time I saw an equation worked.

In my opinion, the hardest thing for a lay-person to understand is the context - out of all the topics covered in any issue, which ones are the really important ones? Which papers change the game for scientists? Which research carries weight outside of its field, or has potential to alter industry and technology? Of all 90 citations, which ones should the reader follow up on for more information? Perhaps most importantly: which statements or results merit skepticism or critical analysis, and ought to be reviewed for clarity or further evidence in other publications?

These "soft skills" come only after reading a lot of formal scientific papers. I think this is why the transition to "research scientist" requires many years of post-university study. The actual written material in Science and Nature is palatable to anyone who is literate and interested; but the import and the impact are sometimes very subtle.

Nimur (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

For example, from the current issue of Nature is a humble book review: Freeman Dyson’s life of scientific delight. The casual reader sees a book review on the biography of Freeman Dyson; in plain English, we read a that he is a delightful and open-minded scientist. The well-informed Nature reader sees a little shade cast over the man's lifelong efforts to look for scientific truth in space-aliens; perhaps it would be "unscientific" to mention his decades of effort on that avenue in a peer-reviewed journal. But the real scientist reading the review observes that a whole lot of words are used to hide Freeman Dyson's nuclear weapon research in plain sight - the only place where one can hide an atomic explosion! Well, what else can a scientist do when he knows too much for his own good?

I know a lot of credentialed physicists who can solve the wave equation, but who would be wholly unable to derive any delight by reading this article. But, many credentialed scientists don't actually read Science and Nature! Categorically, they're ... far too busy trying to get published in some prestigious journal, and have very little time for reading.

Read a lot, read often; read widely; follow the citations; read the citations; reject the unlikely; accept the probable when it is favored by evidence; keep an open mind.

Nimur (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Science has an article about how to read articles: see. Hofhof (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Angelicin synthase

I would appreciate it if some editor with a chemistry background would check that this edit is substantively ok. (Not watchlisting, please ping.) --JBL (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: The edit seems OK, but given there was damage from the first revision on we have to be more confident about the formula. The link [1] is a RS to support the formula

(+)-columbianetin + NADPH + O(2) <=> angelicin + NADP(+) + acetone + 2 H(2)O

which is just about the same as our formula

(+)-columbianetin + NADPH + H+ + O2 ⇌ angelicin + NADP+ + acetone + 2 H2O

ignoring subscripts. Almost, aside from that pesky H+ to keep the charge consistent. Harrumpf. I mean, it's probably right since that's how NADH/NADPH typically work, but if we're going to balance the equation better than our source I guess we should look at the atoms also. So I look to the article which has a figure to tell me what is going on (it's in step 12). Looks like the substrate loses CH2-COH-CH2 and H to form a double bond, which is equal to acetone + H2. NADPH + H+ provide two more hydrogens, and O2 provides the oxygens to make 2H2O total. The paper is certainly not going to go into that much detail.

This is a rare case in which I'm going to say screw the RS, let's stick with the Wikipedia original research. You can't make positive charge out of nothing, so keep it as you have it now and chalk one up for WP:IAR. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt! --JBL (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)