Former school and college science teacher, teacher educator, research supervisor, and research methods lecturer. Emeritus Professor of Science Education at the University of Cambridge.
Thank you also for the invitation to join the Editorial Board of 'Frontiers of Mechatronical Engineering'. I see from your website that the scope of the journal "includes mechanical engineering, electromechanical system[s], industrial engineering, production engineering, robotics, system design, modeling, automative, nuclear engineering, nanotechnology, computer intelligence, and aerospace engineering". This is a diverse range as might be expected from a journal tackling an interdisciplinary field, yet I cannot immediately see that my own expertise would be a good fit for the journal.
It all started with an invitation from the 4th Annual World Congress of Smart Materials:
"Dear Dr. Keith S. Taber,
Hope this letter doesn't bother you.
The construction work of the The 4th Annual World Congress of Smart Materials (WCSM-2018)'s program is drawing to a close due to lots of preparing work and Festival Holiday before the conference. And almost every session is only one or two available slot. However, the congress committee considers that we still lack one fantastic speech on Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems like your research. Therefore, we cordially invite you to make an oral presentation as the Speaker under Session 705: Materials for Solar Energy and Solar Microgrids.
What's more, please kindly pay attention [!], the deadline for submitting the speech abstract is December 20th. If you're interested in it, please contact me as soon as possible. Please don't miss the last chance to enjoy an academic feast.
Until now, WCSM has confirmed 300+ speakers from 22 countries. Keynote Speakers are list as below:
Dr. Shuji Nakamura, Professor, University of California Santa Barbara, USA (2014 Nobel Prize for Physics)
Dr. Mark Bradley, Professor, University of Edinburgh, UK
Dr. Florin Udrea, Professor, Cambridge University, UK; Fellow of Royal Academy of Engineering, UK
Dr. Masahiro Yoshimura, President, the World Academy of Ceramics (WAC); Chair Professor, the National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
Dr. Mo Elbestawi, Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering; Professor and Director, W. Booth School for Engineering Practice and Technology, McMaster University, Canada
More speakers and topics have been update online for your reference. Please don't hesitate to contact the coordinator to get details. …"
It was not immediately obvious to me how school students' understandings of the interactions in atomic and solar systems fitted with smart materials, so I did not hesitate (well, at least, not for too long) to contact the coordinator for clarification:
Invited speaker at World Congress of Smart Materials – query
"Thank you for the invitation to be a speaker at the 4th Annual World Congress of Smart Materials alongside such leaders in the field as Profs. Nakamura, Bradley, Udrea, Yoshimura, and Elbestawi. This would seem to be a very worthwhile conference which is likely to attract many delegates wishing to hear the expert presentations. I am pleased you have nearly completed the job of populating the programme with relevant talks.
Whilst I can see why you would invite me as someone who would be ideally placed to speak on that subject, I am still struggling to see how it would be of interest to experts in materials science. Do they really want to hear about how school students may transfer ideas incorrectly between their understanding of the forces acting in the solar system, and their developing thinking about basic models of atomic structure? I feel it may be difficult to do the topic justice in the the usual time for an oral presentation, as I imagine that many in the audience would not have strong background knowledge in terms of learning theories, pedagogy, curriculum representations, teaching models, student conceptions, and the like, which would mean I would have to set out a lot of background that I might normally take for granted if talking to delegates more familiar with the field in which the work was undertaken.
Perhaps, however, I am missing the connection you are making in extending this kind invitation, and I look forward to hearing back from you about what you might imagine that I would include in such a talk that would be of interest to colleagues in this field, and to persuade me why I should prioritise my own time to select to present to this particular audience.
Best wishes
Keith"
Sadly the clarification was not as in-depth as I might have hoped:
"We hope you could make a keynote Speech under Session 705: Materials for Solar Energy and Solar Microgrids. More details on this session, you could click on http://www.bitcongress.com/wcsm2018/ScientificProgramme7.asp
Please let me know whether you're interested in it."
So further clarification was sought:
Congruence of topic for keynote talk Re: Invited speaker at World Congress of Smart Materials – query
"Dear …
Thank you for getting back to me.
It is kind of you to reiterate the invitation to be an invited speaker and give a keynote at the conference.
I remain a little perturbed however, that specialists in smart materials who I appreciate might want to hear the latest developments and ideas in the topic of Materials for Solar Energy and Solar Microgrids are surely unlikely to find a talk considering conceptual difficulties that impact secondary level pedagogy of particular interest. I was hoping you could clarify the line of logic that led to you deciding that this work fitted alongside that of materials scientists and engineers of the quality of Profs. Nakamura, Bradley, Udrea, Yoshimura, and Elbestawi. In my own area of scholarship I understand why I would be called upon to consider giving a plenary talk, but a keynote speaker needs to be able to interest and enthuse (to inform and to some extent entertain) the specialist audience at a conference. Clearly my own work largely relates to aspects of conceptual understanding, integration, and progression in basic physical science topics commonly included in the secondary science curriculum.
Although I am clearly honoured to be considered alongside experts in this important field of research (which I recognise is of real significance in economic and environmental, as well as technical, terms), I am missing the rationale for why a serious academic conference aimed at academic and industrial scientists would choose to offer a valued and rare keynote opportunity to a scholar who works in a not entirely cognate field. I do not think this is false modesty, and I would genuinely appreciate you sharing your thinking on this. I am pleased you value my work so highly, but feel there must be a question here of its central relevance to your conference theme that I need to give due weight in considering an invitation.
Best wishes
Keith"
Still the clarification was disappointing:
"Thank you for your kind reply.
I think you maybe have some misunderstanding.
We hope you could make the Keynote Speech under Session 705: Materials for Solar Energy and Solar Microgrids not plenary.
What's more, due to the limited sponsorship and high cost for the conference preparation, I'm afraid that we couldn't cover the expense for our invited speakers.
It this convenient for you?
Look forward to your reply!…"
I was not really getting any clarification on the key issue:
"Dear …
I think you may be right that I have some misunderstanding, but I was hoping you could clarify for me, as I do not want to commit to talking to an audience that would not appreciate the presentation. It seems a little mean to invite speakers to give keynotes, but then not pay their expenses. What are the options for presenting remotely: as this would save you the cost of travel, accommodation etc.
I must reiterate, however, that I first need clarification of how my work fits with the interests of those attending. Do you have many delegates with science education backgrounds who are registered for the 'Materials for Solar Energy and Solar Microgrid' session? Are there going to be scholars and researchers from fields such as chemistry education and physics education in the audience? I would also need clarification of the timing of the Keynote, as there is a considerable time difference between here and Osaka.
Best wishes
Keith"
Back came a response, but still not addressing the logic of the invitation
"Thank you for your kind reply.
You could get more details on Solar Energy session by the following link…
Due to the limited sponsorship and high cost for the conference preparation, the committee is not able to cover the expense for our invited speakers, so you need to cover your expense by yourself. Hope you could understand.
Is this convenient for you? …"
So I am left to decide if it is convenient for me to travel around the world at my own expense to talk on a topic that clearly does not fit in the session topic or even the wider conference theme, to delegates unlikely to want to her about my work, at an event organised by people with no concern for 'constructing' a coherent programme.
I will give it some thought.
Addendum:
"Dear Dr. Taber,
Hope you receive this letter in a wonderful mood.
Have you make the decision on your attendance? Please let me know your decision. More details on the congress, you could click on the following link. …
Look forward to your reply! …"
"Dear …
Thank you for your message.
You have made no attempt to answer my substantive question in any of your replies, so I am left bemused about the rationale for the invitation. I suggest you look for someone with appropriate expertise to be able to talk on a topic likely to be of interest to the delegates, i.e., someone with expertise relevant to the theme of the strand. If people are paying you to attend a meeting about current developments in solar energy technology then I would imagine they are likely to wish to hear about that topic. I have not been able to work out why you think otherwise as you have not been prepared to explain this and have just ignored the question.
I am a scientist and well aware that I am – in a corporeal sense – composed of many billions of bits which have been recycled myriad times. At the level of molecules, ions, electrons and the like, bits of me have in the past been parts of other humans, various other animals and plants, in the rocks, soil, seas. Bits of me have been sneezed, urinated, bled and sweated out of many others who had use of my quanticles before me. No doubt my components have been parts of worms and bacteria and dinosaurs and dodos. Some of my bits are extraterrestrial, having drifted in from other parts of the solar system. Ultimately, much of me is stardust, as all the carbon and oxygen and nitrogen etc were forged in nuclear furnaces in a previous generation star.
Use of butchery products in banknotes
So, it may seen incongruous that I was disappointed, disgusted, and even surprised, that the Bank of England has decide to continue its recent innovation of making its banknotes from a mixture which includes some products of animal butchery. The polymer used in the new notes contains a small amount of fats sourced from animals killed for human use and profit. This was inadvertent, and when discovered there was an outcry, and a consultation.
Although most people in England are not especially concerned that their new notes contain meat products, a number of groups objected and this not only included vegetarians and vegans, but members of some religious groups who are subject to rules about which animals they can consume and handle. Nondescript dead mammal fat products are not something they wish to handle, even as cash.
Given that there was originally no deliberate decision to use butchery products in banknotes, and there was such a strong objection to the accidental development (well people must have known, but not the Bank), and given that usually England is a fairly liberal place where religious groups and eccentric people like myself are at least tolerated, I strongly expected a change in policy: but the Bank has contacted me (and others responding to the consultation) to report that "After careful and serious consideration and the extensive public consultation, the Bank has decided that there will be no change to the composition of polymer used for future banknotes. … The new polymer £20 banknote, to be issued in 2020, and future print runs of £5 and £10 banknotes will continue to be made from polymer which contains a trace amount, typically less than 0.05%, of additives derived from animal products".
Taking an ethical stand
I feel let down by the Bank of England, which clearly does not seek to take into account the reasonable (if to others somewhat picky) views of the full range of people it is meant to serve. Shame on you Mark Carney and your colleagues. You have betrayed many of the people in this country who believe that convenience sometimes needs to be balanced against taking an ethical standpoint, and that in England we sometimes stand up for the beliefs and concerns of others – even when they actually seem a bit quirky to us.
Most people have no qualms about eating and wearing (and gluing with, etc.) the worked-up products of killed animals, even if today few people in England are prepared to do their own hunting and killing and butchery. I am a vegetarian on aesthetic and moral grounds. As a scientist, I know there is no absolute difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. I find meat disgusting, and the idea that animals are put to death so others can enjoy eating them as disturbing.
Purely as an analogy, consider how an anti-slavery campaigner must have felt at the time when most of their peers – most decent, honest, caring, God-fearing, people they knew – seemed to think that slavery was a perfectly reasonable, economically justifiable, activity. Or when polite society thought it was appropriate to hang someone for stealing food for their starving children – after all, if you do not make an example, then before you know it all the poor will be stealing rather than starving quietly, and where might that lead?
An immoral act
The bank notes will not look or smell or feel of meat – but they will contain materials deriving from the commercial exploitation of animals killed because people think they are tasty and that living things can just be treated as economic resources to do with as we wish. (There is no strong global economic argument for the meat industry as we could feed the world more effectively with arable farming.) So, to my mind the new banknotes are unacceptable tokens of immoral actions. Deliberately including rendered animal corpse products into banknotes is, by my own personal ethical standards, an immoral act.
Most readers will no doubt think I'm quirky. After all, I've no problems with being made of bits of all those dead animals because they did not become part of me by a deliberate act (by myself or agents working for me) of taking life from other creatures – unlike the new banknotes. I'm very aware of my own mortality, and the precious gift of experience in this world. I do not expect other animals to experience life just as I do (I cannot be sure of that even for other human animals) but to be animate is have some level of experience that is ended by being used simply as material for human greed. I do not know what it is like to be a bat (or any other non-human animal, but Nagel (1974) famously chose this example to pose the question), but I can empathise with what it might be like to suddenly be denied being one to become food, or shoes, or banknotes.
I'm happy to be considered quirky all by the meat-eaters out there – except for those of you who think it is okay to eat, say, pigs and cows and – maybe – horses; but not cats or dogs…at least my quirkiness is systematic and coherent as any good scientist's quirkiness should be.
Source cited:
Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.
First published 15th August 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
Thank you for sending me your manuscript reporting your "revolutionary" paper
offering your
"own comprehensive, mass-related physical-mathematical Research Study, proposing new scientific data and formulas [sic] with a view to making it possible to unify the four universal interaction fields…, which as a matter of fact cover all possible physical as well as scientific-mathematical aspects and domains of reality itself…"
and incorporating your "FOUR REMARKABLE CONCLUSIVE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS".
You ask that I (and the others among the "500 SCIENTIFIC ADDRESSEES" to whom you sent the paper) "will kindly agree to publish" your "Research Study in Your worldwide famous scientific Reviews and / or Journals as soon as possible". I assume you have contacted me, inter alia, seeking publication in Chemistry Education Research and Practice?
I must decline your request, on several grounds.
Your paper does not seen to be within the scope of the journal. That may seem odd when you propose a TOE (Theory of Everything). I am certainly open to the argument that in principle all academic fields could be reduced to fundamental physics, but not that this is always sensible. So for example in chemistry we have concepts such as acidity, resonance, hyperconjugation, oxidation, and so forth. These are probably, in principle, capable of being redescribed in terms of fundamental physics – but any such description is likely to be too cumbersome to be of practical value in chemistry. We have these specifically chemical concepts because the complexity of the phenomena leads to emergent properties that are most usefully considered at the level of chemistry, not physics.
How much more so the concepts related to teaching and learning chemistry! Perhaps pedagogy could (again, in principle) be reduced to physics – but that would be little more than an impressive technical achievement of no practical value. Sadly, a theory of everything tells us very little of value about most things.
Secondly, the journal has peer review processes that need to be followed, and editorial fiat is not used to publish a paper without following these processes. You may well have made major breakthroughs in this fundamental area of science, but science is communal, and your work has no status in the field until other experts have critiqued and evaluated it.
So, thirdly, any submission needs to be made through the journal's on-line review system, allowing proper editorial screening and then – should it be considered suitable (which it would not in this case, see above) allowing it to be sent to review.
However, submitting a manuscript for formal review requires you to make a number of declarations. One of these is that the manuscript you wish to be considered is not published, under review or consideration, or has been submitted to, any other journal. As you have adopted a 'scatter gun' approach to submitting your work, you would need to wait until you have received formal notification that the other 499 scholarly outlets approached are declining your manuscript before you could make a formal submission.
As you are concerned that unless your work is published it may be plagiarised, I suggest you deposit your paper in one of the many repositories now available for posting unpublished documents. This will make your work available and will demonstrate your priority in anything that may later be judged (in peer review) by experts in the field as novelty in your work.
First published 12th March 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
"It also became clear that although the process was meant to select on the basis of academic ability, to a large extent the outcomes reflected the socio-economic family background of the children.
Where the independent schools largely served the more wealthy in society, the grammar schools admitted disproportionate numbers of children from so called 'middle-class' families (i.e., parents being lower professional and white-collar workers) rather than so-called working class (e.g., children of unskilled labourers). It was found that scholastic achievement at age 11 was strongly linked to social capital deriving from the home background.
If schools are expected to be agents of social change, rather than a means to reproduce existing social differences (and that of course is an ideological choice), then determining a person's educational, and so possibly professional, future at age eleven, based on an examination that did not compensate for levels of educational opportunity and advantage in the home environment, was clearly inappropriate.."
“Routledge author update: your article is now in the latest issue of Westminster Studies in Education”
The main text read:
“Dear Keith S. Taber, Congratulations! Your article, How Was It for You?: the dialogue between researcher and colearner, has now been assigned to the latest issue of Westminster Studies in Education, Issue 1.”
The email included an image of the journal cover, as above. The eagle-eyed might spot that the journal title is somewhat different. This was not a matter of the wrong journal, but rather that the journal has changed its name. But surely the journal did not change its name between the publisher publishing my article (“now”) and writing to tell me it was in the “latest issue”?
4×108 s later
Actually the new name applied from 2005. The article (Taber & Student, 2003) was actually published in volume 26, in 2003 when the journal was Westminster Studies in Education. It was not published electronically at that time, though. It was only published on-line in November 2006, by which time the journal was re-branded as the International Journal of Research & Method in Education.
Hm.
Clearly there’s been some kind of error here, or else this must be one of the slowest email notifications in history. Electronic messages are meant to travel at hundreds of millions of metres each second – so this would put Routledge’s office some light years away.
On the negative side, I may now get in trouble because the University’s software for supporting our bibliographic records may get hold of this, notify me and demand I take ownership of a new publication; and then tell me I must upload a manuscript copy to the University's open access repository within six months of the article being accepted for publication. That could prove tricky at this point.
On the other hand, I am hoping that whatever has gone wrong might have spread word of my ‘new’ publication more widely – I always thought it was a piece that deserved more attention.
First published 13th January 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
Source cited:
Taber, K. S., & Student, T. A. (2003). How was it for you?: the dialogue between researcher and colearner. Westminster Studies in Education, 26(1), 33-44.
The Radcliffe Camera – a well known library building at the other place*: Image by Wolfgang Claussen from Pixabay
The secret conference I referred to recently was advertised as being "at the University of Oxford". Now this is quite a well known university, considered by some to be very prestigious (there are some who claim it is as prestigious as Cambridge, and indeed some who even suggest more so!) With so many conferences seeking to attract academics and graduate students aspiring to develop an academic career, it is important that potential delegates can determine which are worth considering for attending and presenting work. The conference website tells potential delegates that "[f]ew places are more readily associated with scholarly endeavour [Morse?] than Oxford", and that "whilst some might argue that the city is not as aesthetically pleasing as its arch-rival Cambridge it remains a visual delight and a veritable treasure house of human achievements".
Organisers vs. facilities-for-hire?
Well a conference organised by Oxford University, or one of its Colleges or Departments, should be taken seriously. However, here this is just the conference venue. That is, the organisers have hired space to have their conference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, either from the point of view of the conference organisers or the University: but there is a big difference between
a conference organised by a top university, and
a conference hiring rooms at a top university.
Prestige indicators
I tell students that if they are unsure of the likely merits of a conference they should look for indicators of prestige, such as the membership of the organising committee. An academic conference normally has at least two committees, one local to the event, and another sometimes called the 'scientific' committee or international committee, that looks after the academic programme and organises peer review of submitted contributions. One would expect this latter committee to consist of senior academics, well known in the field, normally based at top universities or institutions of similar standing.
Oddly, although the website gave detailed instructions on formatting submissions (not as proposals, but as full papers in camera ready form for publication), I could find no information about either peer review, nor any scientific/international committee. Perhaps I missed this? More likely anyone submitting a paper is accepted for the conference as long as they pay the fee. Again, there is nothing wrong with this in the sense of there being anything underhand – as long as those who were looking for "[r]ecognition of your work on [the] international platform" appreciate that the conference is not peer reviewed and so will count for little on their c.v.
Still, if you have never been to Oxford, it is certainly worth a visit, even if it is "not as aesthetically pleasing as … Cambridge".
First published 13th January 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
Note: * 'The other place'
It is something of a tradition at Oxford and Cambridge Universities to refer to the other as 'the other place', as in "she teaches at the other place", "he did his undergraduate degree at the other place", "they might accepts this kind of nonsense at the other place, but…"
This may seem arrogant to anyone not at 'Oxbridge' (in my experience it is not intended so) given the current higher education context, but for about six centuries it would have referred to the only other place in England where one could get a University education.
Perhaps I should not be telling anyone this, but I have been invited to register for a conference that "seeks to elucidate a wealth of issues in all aspects of business management" which it was suggested would "be of interest to scholars, practitioners and researchers in management".
That raises the issue of why I was invited, but I have laboured that point before and that was not what tweaked my interest in this message. Rather, it was the strange juxtaposition of a clearly quite general circular inviting me to circulate it even further, suffixed with a statement telling me the email contents should not be further communicated.
A 'legal' notice
The foot of the message included a 'legal notice' telling me that the contents of the email were "confidential and may also be privileged". This notice told me that
"If you are not the addressee, do not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this email or any attachments. If received in error, notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments from your system."
Was I the addressee? The message did not have any declared recipient.
Of course it was delivered to my email address, so I could argue I was the addressee as the email was sent to my address. However, that makes a nonsense of the legal notice: anyone who has this turn up in their inbox is a addressee in that sense, and so anyone receiving the email can ignore the legal notice.
Spread the word?
At the bottom of the message was a subheading "INVITE YOUR COLLEAGUES", where I (or if not me, the intended addressee) was told "We would be grateful if you could forward this email on to your colleagues who might be interested to join with us".
So if I pass on this message, does that make anyone I send it to an additional addressee (and so again free to ignore the legal notice), or should I actually preface the forwarded message with "Hi Zaniwoop , thought you might be interested in this" to ensure that they need not worry about relying on the information, as they will clearly be the addressee?
This then raises the further question that if I was not the addressee, and so should not pass on the message, and I send it on to someone who I name at the start of the email, so they are the addressee of the forwarded message (I hope you are following that), then are they entitled to ignore the legal notice even though I have circulated it "illegally"? (I would not want to burden colleagues with such worries: I remember at primary school being given copies of Star Trek cards of the type put in packs of bubble gum – only much later to hear a rumour that the bubble gum factory had been broken into: did I inadvertently receive stolen goods?) Luckily I suspected the conference was not worth taking seriously so I did not need to fret too much over what to do.
Pedantry: first duty of an academic
I realise this all seems rather pedantic, but either the legal notice is meant to be taken seriously or it is something we can just ignore. If it is meant to be taken seriously, it should only be attached to messages that have a clear addressee.
To compile a circular that you want distributed as widely as possible, and then attach a notice warning recipients that they should not "disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use" the information in the circular seems pretty counter-productive. A lot of people seem to assume that rules, laws and regulations do not apply to them and may be ignored at their convenience. This kind of nonsense can only provide support for that kind of thinking.
I've always admired those people who seem to be able to turn their hand to a wide range of activities and master them at will: people like Jonathan Miller. Most of us, however, are best advised to find something we are reasonably good at, and that we have a strong interest in, and then to work hard to develop some worthy level of expertise. I always thought that it was realistic to settle for that, but I am increasingly finding that in this post-truth world (where if we say something with conviction often enough it can be treated as reality) I have aimed too low.
The idea that the scholarly world adheres to values of honesty, integrity, balance and so forth seems pretty passé. Rather those arranging conferences, founding journals or setting up book proposals, seem to feel that hyperbole, exaggeration, guesswork, flattery, and other cheap marketing tactics are fair game as they fish (or should that be phish) for contributors.
At least that is the only explanation I've come up with for my apparent reputation as a polymath…
Keith Taber: Eminent biologist
In a previous blog posting I reported how I was surprised to be invited as an eminent Plenary Speaker at an International Conference on Synthetic Biology. I am clearly not qualified to be considered an expert in synthetic biology, so considered this invitation had to be a scam. My reply to the conference organisers (and some of the eminent scientists on the scientific committee) asking why they thought I was suitable to be a plenary speaker on synthetic biology did not get a response.
However, I have just been having one of my periodic attempts to sort my email in-box and could not help but notice that my reputation for expertise is not restricted to science education (which I would claim) and synthetic biology (which I struggle to find a justification for), but rather that I seem to be a recognised authority across a range of scientific fields.
My immense contributions to physics
So I can add areas of chemistry and physics to biology. To be fair I am a chartered chemist and chartered physicist, but had always seen my expertise within these disciplines as limited to chemistry education and physics education. It seems I am selling myself short. Rather, it would appear that I have made "immense contribution to the field" of atomic and nuclear physics. I am not sure what these contributions are, but presumably the organisers of the "International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics" must have something specific in mind?
My eminent contributions to chemistry
I feel I have made some modest contributions to chemistry (and am very proud that this was recognised through the RSC Education Award) – but would certainly not claim anything that goes beyond my educational work. A mild fantasy that the degassing that occurs when dissolving salt displaces dissolved air from water might become know as the Taber effect has yet to come to fruition. Yet apparently I have made "eminent contribution in [the] field" of computational chemistry. Perhaps my undergraduate project on computerised orbital calculations for TTF-TCNQ was not as flawed as I had suspected at the time. Certainly the editors of the Frontiers in Computational Chemistry book series were interested in calling upon my expertise.
Keith Taber: An expert in computer science
Indeed it appears that my work in computing is more widely recognised. I was invited to join the committee for a conference where the organisers were "very interested in the contributions you have made in Computer Science", considering me "an expert". Amazing considering that I am so 'fingers and thumbs' that I often have to have several attempts at the passwords to get into my personal computers.
Keith Taber: Eminent researcher with excellent contributions to medical sciences
Moreover it seems my strengths are not limited to the so-called pure sciences. Additionally I am told that I have made such "excellent contributions to the field of medical sciences" that "the scientific committee of the conference [on HIV & AIDS] is aware of your published works in this field". I'm struggling to identify which publications they are referring to, but then my memory is not so good.
Indeed it seems that I am considered such an "eminent researcher" in Otolaryngology that I have been invited to join the editorial board of a new international journal in the specialism. That, on getting this invitation, I felt the need to check exactly what Otolaryngology is, merely reinforces just how unreliable my memory has become. Indeed, I'm wondering if there are any other areas of expertise I have developed a reputation for, that my modesty has allowed me to forget.
Addendum: it seems I am considered, at least by by a specialist journal inviting my "prominent contribution", to also be "eminent" in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
First published 3rd December 2016 at at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
It seems from an invitation to join the editorial board of another new journal that I am also known as an expert in psychotherapy where I "have made significant contributions, worth mentioning" with "achievements in various stages" indeed. It seems such expertise is very time-sensitive as the invitation "is valid only for one week and expires if no communication is received from" me.
Further addendum: more than a month after that time-sensitive request, I had another invitation to join the editorial board of this 'International Journal' of psychotherapy as my "knowledge of the subject and the contributions to field are noteworthy". I feel a bit bad about not accepting joining the journal as they think my "expertise will surely take it to great heights".
My prominence in immunodiagnostics
I was honoured to be "cordially invite[d] … to be … an Editorial Board Member for the Journal of Immunodiagnostics" considering that the journal manager, Maria Carla was able to "assure [me] of international quality and standards of our articles published in our journals, using state-of-the-art prominent reviewers and editorial board". Good to be considered prominent and state of the art.
My remarkable achievements in human resources
I have been invited to join the Editorial Board of Modern Management Forum, a new journal from Universe Scientific Publishing. This invitation has been made "In light of [my] remarkable achievements in Human Resources", which apparently were discernible when reading my review published in Science & Education of a science education handbook.
Is there no end to my (supposed) achievements?
Well, the praise keeps rolling in, as I get asked to write, chair, edit, talk, etcetera in a vast range of fields where, despite claims to the contrary, I clearly have no experise, or where someone (or some machine) imagines that my writngs about science education demonstrate eminence in unrelated areas…
It is considered an honour to be invited as a plenary speaker at a major international conferences – and an indicator of recognition as an expert in a field.
So it seems odd when one is invited to be a plenary speaker at a conference in a field that one has never worked in and so has no published work.
On 02/11/2015 17:21, Syntheticbiology 2016 wrote:
Honorable Invitation from Synthetic Biology 2016 at London UK
Dear Dr. Keith S. Taber,
Basing on your expertise in the related field, we are pleasured to welcome your eminent Plenary Speaker at the upcoming 2nd International Conference on Synthetic Biology 2016 London UK, which is going to be held during August 18-20, 2016 London UK.
Synthetic Biology 2016, a three day event consisting of a scientific program, workshops, symposiums, comprehensive talks, special sessions, oral and poster presentations of peer-reviewed contributed papers and exciting and innovative research products which can be exhibited for further development of Synthetic Biology.
Synthetic Biology research area interconnects Systems Biology, Computational Biology, Nano biotechnology, Biophysics, Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Biology, Protein Engineering, Bio-Chemical Engineering and Genetic Engineering. …
[Note – science education does not get a mention here.] …
My response:
On 26/02/2016 19:51, Prof Keith S Taber wrote:
Dear Kevin
I apologise for not giving this invitation attention earlier, but for some reason it was in my SPAM folder, so I had not seen it.
I am of course honoured to be invited as a Plenary Speaker at your conference. However, your invitation did not offer any details of what this would involve. I assume you repay travel expenses for your Plenary Speakers, but do you offer free accommodation for the whole conference, or just the day of the Plenary Lecture?
Do you offer a fee to Plenary Speakers, or do you simply cover their conference fees?
I would also be keen to know how you came to choose me as potential Plenary Speaker at this conference – and which area of my research the conference organising committee were especially keen for me to speak to your delegates about.
I look forward to receiving more details relating to your kind invitation.
Best wishes
Keith
This was copied to several academics at prestigious universities who were apparently part of the organising committee that had invited me:
Dr. Oscar Ces (OC), a Reader in Chemistry at Imperial College London
Professor Krams who holds a Chair in Molecular Bioengineering at Imperial College, London
Anthony Forster Professor at Uppsala University, Sweden
Vsevolod V Gurevich, Professor at Vanderbilt University.
Not surprisingly, I did not receive a reply from ‘Kevin’ (or anyone else) who had written to invite me as a plenary speaker – not to develop the invitation, to explain it, or apologise for it being a mistake (perhaps they meant to invite that other Keith S. Taber well known for his work in synthetic biology?)
This seems another sign of the sad demise of academia as a body worthy of being respected in the public domain. I wonder how many other academics with no connection to this field were invited as plenary speakers (but presumably actually would be charged fees if they did wish to speak). I find this type of scam as annoying (although my email application seemed to know I was being spammed), as I teach research methods, and it is difficult for new researchers to sift the decent conferences from the less worthy ones, when this type of irresponsible marketing ploy is used. I tell students to look to see if conference committees include senior academic they recognise from their reading, as one indicator of conference quality. In this case, committee members from top universities was no assurance of the quality of conference processes.
I am not surprised at some conference organisers behaving in such disreputable ways – I guess to them conferences are just events to be marketed in the search for profits. What I find very sad is that top academics from such highly regarded institutions put their names to these scams*, giving them a veneer of respectability they clearly do not deserve.
First published 24th July 2014 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
* This assumes, of course, that the academics named as scientific committee members have agreed to join such a committee, which I found when investigating another dubious invitation is not always the case! ⚗︎
Why do the thinking, when you can use the internet to ask someone else?
Keith S. Taber
Image by GraphicMama-team from Pixabay
Good afternoon Sir, I am [name omitted] a student of Chemistry Education at university of [university and country omitted].
I am about starting my Undergraduate degree Project,
I will be glad if I can send my write ups to you subsequently to check and give me ideas.
I will be glad if accept my proposal, longing to hear from you soon. Thanks, yours Faithful.
Dear [name omitted]
Thank you for writing to me to tell me that you are about to embark on your undergraduate project. Your university should be able to provide you with a project supervisor, so if you are unsure about this, please talk to your tutor.
It would not be appropriate for me to check your write-ups and give you my ideas for your work. Leaving aside that I am employed to support students in my own University, your University would likely consider it cheating for you to ask academics elsewhere to provide input to your work.
Best wishes
Keith
First published 24th July 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
I was checking some proofs for something I had written today* [Taber, 2017], and was struck by an ironic parallel between one of the challenges for teaching about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection and one of the arguments put forward by those who deny the theory. The issue concerns the value of having only part of an integrated system.
The challenge of evolutionary change
One of the arguments that has long been made about the feasibility of evolution is that if it occurs by many small random events, it could not lead to progressive increases in complexity – unless it was guided by some sense of design to drive the many small changes towards some substantive new feature of ability. So, for example, birds have adaptations such as feathers that allow them to fly, even though they are thought to have evolved from creatures that could not fly. The argument goes that for a land animal to evolve into a bird there need to be a great many coordinated changes. Feathers would not appear due to a single mutation, but rather must be the result of a long series of small changes. Moreover, simply growing features would not allow an animal to fly without other coordinated changes such as evolving very light bones and changes in anatomy to support the musculature needed to power the wings.
The same argument can be made about something like the mammalian eye, which can hardly be one random mutation away from an eyeless creature. The eye requires retinal cells, linked to the optic nerve, a lens, the iris, and so on. The eye is an impressive piece of equipment which is as likely to be the result of a handful of random events, as would be – say, a pocket watch found walking on the heath (to use a famous example). A person finding a watch would not assume its mechanism was the result of a chance accumulation of parts that had somehow fallen together. Rather, the precise mechanism surely implies a designer who planned the constructions of the overall object. In 'Intelligent Design' similar arguments are made at the biochemical level, about the complex systems of proteins which only function after they have independently come into existence and become coordinated into a 'machine' such as a flagellum.
The challenge of conceptual change
The parallel concerns the nature of conceptual changes between different conceptual frameworks. Paul Thagard (e.g., 1992) has looked at historical cases and argued that such shifts depend upon judgements of 'explanatory coherence'. For example, the phlogiston theory explained a good many phenomena in chemistry, but also had well-recognised problems.
The very different conceptual framework developed by Lavoisier [the Lavoisiers? **] (before he was introduced to Madame Guillotine) saw combustion as a chemical reaction with oxygen (rather than a release of phlogiston), and with the merits of hindsight clearly makes sense of chemistry much more systematically and thoroughly. It seems hard now to understand why all other contemporary chemists did not readily switch their conceptual frameworks immediately. Thagard's argument was that those who were very familiar with phlogiston theory and had spent many years working with it genuinely found it had more explanatory coherence than the new unfamiliar oxygen theory that they had had less opportunity to work with across a wide range of examples. So chemists who history suggests were reactionary in rejecting the progressive new theory were actually acting perfectly rationally in terms of their own understanding at the time. ***
Evolution is counter-intuitive
Evolution is not an obvious idea. Our experience of the world is of very distinct types of creatures that seldom offer intermediate uncertain individuals. (That may not be true for expert naturalists, but is the common experience.) Types give rise to more of their own: young children know that pups come from dogs and grow to be adult dogs that will have pups, and not kittens, of their own. The fossil record may offer clues, but the extant biological world that children grow up in only offers a single static frame from the on-going movie of evolving life-forms. [That is, everyday 'lifeworld' knowledge can act as substantial learning impediment – we think we already know how things are.]
Natural selection is an exceptionally powerful and insightful theory – but it is not easy to grasp. Those who have become so familiar with it may forget that – but even Darwin took many years to be convinced about his theory.
Understanding natural selection means coordinating a range of different ideas about inheritance, and fitness, and random mutations, and environmental change, and geographical separation of populations, and so forth. Put it all together and the conceptual system seems elegant – perhaps even simple, and perhaps with the advantage of hindsight even obvious. It is said that when Huxley read the Origin of Species his response was "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" That perhaps owes as much to the pedagogic and rhetorical qualities of Darwin's writing in his "one long argument". However, Huxley had not thought of it. Alfred Russel Wallace had independently arrived at much the same scheme and it may be no coincidence that Darwin and Wallace had both spent years immersing themselves in the natural history of several continents.
Evolution is counter-intuitive, and only makes sense once we can construct a coherent theoretical structure that coordinates a range of different components. Natural selection is something like a shed that will act as a perfectly stable building once we have put it together, but which it is very difficult to hold in place whilst still under construction. Good scaffolding may be needed.
Incremental change
The response to those arguments about design in evolution is that the many generations between the land animal and the bird, or the blind animal and the mammal, get benefits from the individual mutations that will collectively, ultimately lead to the wing or mammalian eye. So a simple eye is better than no eye, and even a simple light sensitive spot may give its owner some advantage. Wings that are good enough to glide are useful even if their owners cannot actually fly. Nature is not too proud to make use of available materials that may have previously had different functions (whether at the level of proteins or anatomical structures). So perhaps features started out as useful insulation, before they were made use of for a new function. From the human scale it is hard not to see purpose – but the movie of life has an enormous number of frames and, like some art house movies, the observer might have to watch for some time to see any substantive changes.
A pedagogical suggestion – incremental teaching?
So there is the irony. Scientists counter the arguments about design by showing how parts of (what will later be recognised as) an adaptation actually function as smaller or different advantageous adaptations in their own right. Learning about natural selection presents a situation where the theory is only likely to offer greater explanatory coherence than a student's intuitive ideas about the absolute nature of species after the edifice has been fully constructed and regularly applied to a range of examples.
Perhaps we might take the parallel further. It might be worth exploring if we can scaffold learning about natural selection by finding ways to show students that each component of the theory offers some individual conceptual advantages in thinking about aspects of the natural world. That might be an idea worth exploring.
(Note. 'Representing evolution in science education: The challenge of teaching about natural selection' is published in B. Akpan (Ed.), Science Education: A Global Perspective. The International Edition is due to be published by Springer at the end of June 2016.)
Notes:
* First published 30th April 2016 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
** "as Madame Lavoisier, Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, was his coworker as well as his wife, and it is not clear how much credit she deserves for 'his' ideas" (Taber, 2019: 90). Due to the times in which they works it was for a long time generally assumed that Mme Lavoisier 'assisted' Antoine Lavoisier in his work, but that he was 'the' scientist. The extent of her role and contribution was very likely under-estimated and there has been some of a re-evaluation. It is known that Paulze contributed original diagrams of scientific apparatus, translated original scientific works, and after Antoine was executed by the French State she did much to ensure his work would be disseminated. It will likely never be know how much she contributed to the conceptualisation of Lavoisier's theories.
*** It has also been argued (in the work of Hasok Chang, for example) both that when the chemical revolution is considered, little weight is usually given to the less successful aspects of Lavoisier's theory, and that phlogiston theory had much greater merits and coherence than is usually now suggested.
Sources cited:
Taber, K. S. (2017). Representing evolution in science education: The challenge of teaching about natural selection. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science Education: A Global Perspective (pp. 71-96). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
