Who is the smartest?

Academia suffers from superiority wars, despite the denial. This is not news for humanity, since we've been at each other's throats for physical domination and more recently the richness, thanks to capitalism. 

Academics want to be "better" than each other by being more smart, having more publications, better positions with prize decorated walls, and many more ways one can make himself or herself distinctively superior.

Why can't we just be down to earth, caring about each other and not laugh to another when we see them fall/fail or just misspell?

Nobel prize in Chemistry 2014

I used to predict the Nobel prize in Chemistry on my nano-blog, Nanotella.com. This year, I wasn't going to guess anything as the Chemistry prize became Biochemistry prize recently. But then Thompson Reuters announced the citation laurates, in which my postdoc advisor Galen Stucky and his former pdoc Peidong Yang are listed. Also, Ryong Ryoo of where I work, was suggested to share the chemistry prize. What an interesting turnabout. Let's cross the fingers.

America's coal dilemma

Just like Clinton (who didn't sign the Kyoto protocol to cut down the CO2 emissions) Obama is now under pressure to wage war against coal. This dirtiest fossil fuel is the prime target for CO2 cutting pledges and while showing off their enthusiasm on TV, all American presidents (and administrations) feared of strong repercussions from coal industry. The famous example is Al Gore, who had the power to cut the emissions (and didn't), and yet came out to be a climate change champion (once he lost all his powers). Sincerity is hard to be found in politicians.

This time the issue is about the coal mine in Somerset Colorado, whether or not to extend the ban of producing coal into a permanent one. History will repeat once again and Obama will find himself in the same dilemma of the other presidents - not being brave enough to stop the coal industry. 

Journals for sale

It seems like you can make money in trading your already esteemed journal. But how do you know the new owners will treat your baby the same way you did? The journal named experimental clinical cardiology switched hands to unknown, un-everything people who are willing "to publish anything for $1,200". Beware.

Nature and Science may reject you but you still can get a Nobel prize

At least this wonderful collection of success stories (by Nikolai Slavov) without the Nature - Science pathway prove the statement: you don't need to publish to not perish. You can even end up getting a Nobel prize.

My favorite quote is from the PCR guy:

Kary Mullis: I knew PCR would spread across the world like wild fire. This time there was no doubt in my mind: Nature would publish it. They rejected it. So did Science …  F*** them, I said

End of the world

2012 was supposed to be the end. But it seems like there was a standard deviation of +/- 100 years (in the calculation). This may technically make us be safe for a maximum of 200 more years. But will we really live that long?

"No need for a doom (to end the world), the human kind will bring its own"

I don't remember where the quote was from but it really says it clearly. The more technologically advanced, we the humans seem to perfect our ways of killing each other, not the vice versa.

Academic vicious cycle

If there is a good player in sports, all teams want to draft the person as if there are no other players. This is also true in academia, as it is kind of sports, where brains play the ball. If you are in the job market, good luck. Most likely there will be a more attractive person, which gets all the interviews and you'll be left without anything. Rest assured that it is not because you're not worthy of those positions, it is that human nature, which is best explained with why all the flies are attracted to one distant star. A majority of them will fail to get the star, but this vicious cycle will go on. No one will learn a lesson. So human, so flawed. Keep your heads up and breathe. Let it go.