The Nature of Scientific Proof in the Age of Simulations. Is numerical mimicry a third way of establishing truth?

Is numerical mimicry a third way of establishing truth? Kevin Heng received his M.S. and Ph.D. in astrophysics from the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder. He joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton from 2007 to 2010, first as a Member and later as the Frank & Peggy Taplin Member. From 2010 to 2012 he was a Zwicky Prize Fellow at ETH Z¨urich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). In 2013, he joined the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) at the University of Bern, Switzerland, as a tenure-track assistant professor, where he leads the Exoplanets and Exoclimes Group. He has worked on, and maintains, a broad range of interests in astrophysics: shocks, extrasolar asteroid belts, planet formation, fluid dynamics, brown dwarfs and exoplanets. He coordinates the Exoclimes Simulation Platform (ESP), an open-source set of theoretical tools designed for studying the basic physics and chemistry of exoplanetary atmospheres and climates (www.exoclime.org). He is involved in the CHEOPS (Characterizing Exoplanet Satellite) space telescope, a mission approved by the European Space Agency (ESA) and led by Switzerland. He spends a fair amount of time humbly learning the lessons gleaned from studying the Earth and Solar System planets, as related to him by atmospheric, climate and planetary scientists. He received a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research in 2006

Why Males ≠ Corvettes, Females ≠ Volvos, and Scientific Criticism ≠ Ideology: A Response to “Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain” by Larry Cahill in Cerebrum

A recent Cerebrum article by Larry Cahill about sex differences in the human brain has prompted a group of women academicians to respond and for the author to reply to their response. We encourage you to evaluate both points of view, as well as the original article, and form your own opinion.

Scientific rationale for Saturn׳s in situ exploration

Remote sensing observations meet some limitations when used to study the bulk atmospheric composition of the giant planets of our solar system. A remarkable example of the superiority of in situ probe measurements is illustrated by the exploration of Jupiter, where key measurements such as the determination of the noble gases׳ abundances and the precise measurement of the helium mixing ratio have only been made available through in situ measurements by the Galileo probe. This paper describes the main scientific goals to be addressed by the future in situ exploration of Saturn placing the Galileo probe exploration of Jupiter in a broader context and before the future probe exploration of the more remote ice giants. In situ exploration of Saturn׳s atmosphere addresses two broad themes that are discussed throughout this paper: first, the formation history of our solar system and second, the processes at play in planetary atmospheres. In this context, we detail the reasons why measurements of Saturn׳s bulk elemental and isotopic composition would place important constraints on the volatile reservoirs in the protosolar nebula. We also show that the in situ measurement of CO (or any other disequilibrium species that is depleted by reaction with water) in Saturn׳s upper troposphere may help constraining its bulk O/H ratio. We compare predictions of Jupiter and Saturn׳s bulk compositions from different formation scenarios, and highlight the key measurements required to distinguish competing theories to shed light on giant planet formation as a common process in planetary systems with potential applications to most extrasolar systems. In situ measurements of Saturn׳s stratospheric and tropospheric dynamics, chemistry and cloud-forming processes will provide access to phenomena unreachable to remote sensing studies. Different mission architectures are envisaged, which would benefit from strong international collaborations, all based on an entry probe that would descend through Saturn׳s stratosphere and troposphere under parachute down to a minimum of 10 bar of atmospheric pressure. We finally discuss the science payload required on a Saturn probe to match the measurement requirements.

The impact of environmental enrichment on the outcome variability and scientific validity of laboratory animal studies.

It has been widely accepted for some time that species-appropriate environmental enrichment is important for the welfare of research animals, but its impact on research data initially received little attention. This has now changed, as the use of enrichment as one element of routine husbandry has expanded. In addition to its use in the care of larger research animals, such as nonhuman primates, it is now being used to improve the environments of small research animals, such as rodents, which are used in significantly greater numbers and in a wide variety of studies. Concern has been expressed that enrichment negatively affects both experimental validity and reproducibility. However, when a concise definition of enrichment is used, with a sound understanding of the biology and behaviour of the animal as well as the research constraints, it becomes clear that the welfare of research animals can be enhanced through environmental enrichment without compromising their purpose. Indeed, it is shown that the converse is true: the provision of suitable enrichment enhances the well-being of the animal, thereby refining the animal model and improving the research data. Thus, the argument is made that both the validity and reproducibility of the research are enhanced when proper consideration is given to the research animal's living environment and the animal's opportunities to express species-typical behaviours.