I just came across HubMed yesterday and I found one of their tools incredibly useful for getting references into EndNote (or other reference manager software tools). Basically, HubMed Citation Finder will take a bibliography (say from one of your favorite papers), split them up, find the citation in PubMed, and return the list of references in several citation formats such as RIS, BibTex, RDF, etc. This file is then easily imported into your reference manager's library.
It just saved me a couple of hours and would have saved me even more if I had known about it a few weeks ago.
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Climate Change Myths
The recent surge of climate change in the media has not really interested me. Basically, I am a bit skeptical that the political interest will last long enough to really make the necessary changes, but deep down I do have some hope.
One of the big problems is getting the information to the public. I think there is a need for information between the high level one page news reports that don't provide any real science and the detailed scientific studies that most people can't and/or don't want to read.
Second, there is usually so much bias in reviews from both sides of the debate that the major facts get missed by the public. Instead, people are inundated with threats of massive storms and flooding or threats of economy collapse. Some people don't want the two major oppositions they just want some basic facts. I think this is similar to the Evolution vs Creationism debate and is one of the best points coming out of Francis Collins' book the Language of God.
A nice example of balancing the level of science and the point of views was published yesterday in the New Scientist. The article provides a "round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions" and does so with a true effort in maintaining scientific clarity and an unbiased opinion.
One of the big problems is getting the information to the public. I think there is a need for information between the high level one page news reports that don't provide any real science and the detailed scientific studies that most people can't and/or don't want to read.
Second, there is usually so much bias in reviews from both sides of the debate that the major facts get missed by the public. Instead, people are inundated with threats of massive storms and flooding or threats of economy collapse. Some people don't want the two major oppositions they just want some basic facts. I think this is similar to the Evolution vs Creationism debate and is one of the best points coming out of Francis Collins' book the Language of God.
A nice example of balancing the level of science and the point of views was published yesterday in the New Scientist. The article provides a "round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions" and does so with a true effort in maintaining scientific clarity and an unbiased opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)