A fun challenge for science bloggers
One of the things that I still find incredibly fun about being a scientist is the ability to “touch” history, in the form of the original publication of now famous scientific results. I’m reminded of my undergraduate days, when a classmate and I were discussing the topic of Čerenkov radiation, which had become relevant in our high-energy physics discussions. We didn’t completely understand the idea, so the next day my classmate came in with a photocopy of Čerenkov’s original (well, translated) 1934 paper. That was the first time it dawned on me that, as scientists, we could go right to the “source”, so to speak, and in essence learn about science from the famous people who performed it.
There’s a lot more to learn in going to the source than one might think. As Tom at Swans on Tea observed recently,
The “materials at hand” is one thing that continually amazes me. I read details of some century-old experiment and am reminded that their apparatus and supplies were hand-crafted, often in the same lab. You read about Rutherford doing alpha-scattering experiments in pure nitrogen. Did he order a tank of compressed nitrogen from the local welding-supplies shop, like I do? Of course not.
The nitrogen was obtained by the well-known method of adding ammonium chloride to sodium nitrite, and stored over water.
(My well-known method involves the internet and a credit card)
My “challenge”, for those sciencebloggers who choose to accept it, is this: read and research an old, classic scientific paper and write a blog post about it. I recommend choosing something pre- World War II, as that was the era of hand-crafted, “in your basement”-style science. There’s a lot to learn not only about the ingenuity of researchers in an era when materials were not readily available, but also about the problems and concerns of scientists of that era, often things we take for granted now!
(I’ve already got my paper picked out, though I miscalculated a bit: I thought it was a straightforward experiment that couldn’t be more than a two-page paper, but it’s about 40 pages - and in German!)
P.S. Hopefully it was clear from the original post, but my “challenge” extends to sciencebloggers of all branches, not just physics bloggers: I’d be really interested to read about some of the landmark papers in biology, chemistry, and math, too!
April 23, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Sounds like fun. I’m in.
April 24, 2008 at 6:51 am
Tom: Cool! We’ll see if anyone else takes up the “challenge”…
April 24, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’ll have to think about this one. There is, of course, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” but that’s a bit too obvious.
April 24, 2008 at 9:28 am
“…but that’s a bit too obvious.”
When I was still a graduate student, my thesis advisor asked me for suggestions for problems for the new graduate student’s qualifying exam. I gave him an idea for a problem, but I thought it was a little too obvious. He replied: “Nothing is obvious for our students!”
In a similar vein, I say: “Nothing is too obvious for me!”
April 24, 2008 at 10:51 am
By the way, if any of my sad, blog-deprived science friends feel like joining in on the fun (you know who you are), I’ll gladly give you a guest account to write a post. If you’re clever enough to realize that this sounds suspiciously like whitewashing the fence, you’re clever enough to write an excellent post!
April 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I have a couple book reviews to write, along with some accessory posts which’ve grown out of contemplating the aforesaid books, but this sounds like a fun thing to try when I’m done with those!
April 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Blake: Cool!
April 30, 2008 at 12:29 am
I’m in… I’ll do some research on this soon. Great challenge, btw.
April 30, 2008 at 8:41 am
ecoli: Cool! I’ll look forward to your ‘entry’!
May 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ahh, this is a good idea. I’ve got several ideas, so I’ll see what I can put together.
May 7, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Gerlach: Excellent! Be sure to send me an email link to your post once it’s done; I’ve already put together a page to compile everyone’s entries (though so far, only mine is present!)
May 7, 2008 at 6:15 pm
[...] Scientiae Carnival And Platypus Revealed! Jump to Comments Just a few quick linky-poos - first, I will be taking part in this great challenge: [...]
May 8, 2008 at 2:07 am
Sounds like fun. I’m in.
May 8, 2008 at 7:28 am
I like to touch on older papers every now and then and here I did something similar to what you propose.
May 8, 2008 at 8:24 am
[...] A fun challenge for science bloggers One of the things that I still find incredibly fun about being a scientist is the ability to “touch” history, in the form of the original publication of now famous scientific results…. [...]
May 8, 2008 at 8:31 am
Mark: Excellent! I look forward to seeing your entry!
Bora: I figured I couldn’t be the only one looking at some older research! I’m finding it so much fun that I’ve ‘Interlibrary Loan’-ed about a dozen papers from the early 1900s over the past week. I’m sure the librarians are wondering what the heck is wrong with me…
May 9, 2008 at 8:25 am
There’s a wealth of Manu’s available free of charge c/o the James Lind Library dating back to 6th Century:-
http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/published.html
May 9, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Great idea … hope i’m not too late … I just finished a post about a 1917 paper (in geology) and then a commenter told me about your challenge … you can find my post about the paper here
May 9, 2008 at 6:35 pm
BrianR: Nope, not too late; I’ve made the ‘official’ deadline the end of May. I’ll add your entry to the list ASAP!
May 9, 2008 at 6:41 pm
thanks! … that was fast
May 9, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This is such a great idea. I had half an idea to throw away my science papers, but now this give me a reason to put it off a while longer. i could probably come up with a dozen ‘classic’ papers. Now if only I could find them in my stack of boxes, lol.
May 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I absolutely love this idea - I’ve long thought that the classic papers were under-appreciated. I’ve been trying to hunt down and collect classical papers around my preferred area (microbiology), especially ones that seem to be forgotten…like the original reference to the Schaeffer-Fulton stain.
I’ll try to dig up a “new” (so to speak) one to do a post on, but in the meantime, I have done a few posts on this one:
How’s THAT for classic. Mind you, my most in-depth post on the subject covers a whole mess of subsequent papers as well, discussing why, exactly, Hans Christian Gram’s famous staining technique works the way it does and what the results turn out to really mean in the end, so it’s not only about the original paper.
May 9, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Oops - can’t tell if the previous post went through, but even if it did, I realized as I clicked “submit” that I’d forgotten the link:
http://www.bigroom.org/wordpress/?p=58
I assume 1884 is old enough?….
May 9, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Jackie: Good luck finding the papers!
Epicanis: Thanks for the submission!
May 14, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hi! Is it too late to get in? And could I use a medical case report? It doesn’t really include cool materials people used in their basements, but I still think it’s cool. I can always choose something else, of course. Is there a word limit? And should I put it in any particular context?
http://scicurious.wordpress.com/
May 14, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I think this is a great idea, too. Any chance we could get a “classics” tag group going on Connotea?
May 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm
scicurious: Nope; not too late! I set a deadline of May 31st here, because people were asking for one. Every entry I get before then I’ll put up on a permanent page here.
A medical case report sounds fine to me! As for length, I didn’t suggest any length requirements; whatever seems appropriate. As for context, I originally suggested trying to explain the history and methodology of the work, but in the end it’s up to you!
May 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Here’s my offering: A Report on the Geology of the High Plateaus of Utah.
It’s not terribly in-depth, but BrianR said I should submit it anyway!
May 16, 2008 at 1:22 pm
This is mine: Hayes, C.W., Handbook for Field Geologists, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1914.
An excerpt from the first chapter is http://ohwm.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-oldie-but-goodie.html
May 16, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Tuff Cookie: Thanks for the entry! I’ve added it to the list…
coconino: Are you planning more writing on the Handbook, or should I link to just your first chapter description? I’d like to keep one link per article/book, so if you’re planning to write more, I’ll link to a final aggregate of your posts…
P.S. I should add that I’ll be happy to add your entry either way!