News Feeds

Japan’s Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) didn’t last long after it landed on the surface of the moon, but it released two rovers – one that hops and one that rolls – that took images on the lunar surface

Scientists have long strived to develop artificial molecular motors that can convert energy into directed motion. Researchers have now presented a solution to a challenging problem: how motion can be transferred in a controlled manner from one place to another through a 'molecular gear'. Molecular motors have the potential for use in, for example, energy storage applications and medicine.

Lithium-ion batteries face safety concerns as a result of internal separator issues which often lead to short circuits. Scientists have now developed a method to improve the stability and properties of separators with a layer of silicon dioxide and other functional molecules. Batteries employing these separators demonstrated improved performance and reduced growth of disruptive root-like structures, paving the way for high-safety batteries that can aid the adoption of electric vehicles and advanced energy storage systems.

Perchlorate compounds are known for their explosive nature. To understand what makes these compounds so explosive, a team of researchers developed a novel deep learning-based method that analyses their crystal structure and molecular interactions to elucidate their physical properties. This novel technique avoids dangerous laboratory-based experiments and uses data to study the nature of compounds. Overall, the study marks a significant step towards data-driven and artificial intelligence-based methods for chemical research.

A new study describes the best method to improve images obtained by the James Webb Science Telescope (JWST) using a mathematical approach called deconvolution.

A new commentary highlights that switching the focus from how energy is supplied to how energy is consumed can be a more effective approach to reducing carbon emissions with the added benefit of improving wellbeing for all.

Researchers were able to control the growth of thin, branching networks that support cellular structure and help cells function. The networks, called microtubules, can exert force and precisely transport chemicals at a subcellular level.

Instead of tubular commercial aircraft, other designs could be used in the future: Jets with a blended wing body would fly more efficiently and make less noise -- but how would the noise emissions from these new types of aircraft affect people?

Chemists have developed an autonomous chemical synthesis robot with an integrated AI-driven machine learning unit. Dubbed 'RoboChem', the benchtop device can outperform a human chemist in terms of speed and accuracy while also displaying a high level of ingenuity. As the first of its kind, it could significantly accelerate chemical discovery of molecules for pharmaceutical and many other applications.

Chemists have developed an autonomous chemical synthesis robot with an integrated AI-driven machine learning unit. Dubbed 'RoboChem', the benchtop device can outperform a human chemist in terms of speed and accuracy while also displaying a high level of ingenuity. As the first of its kind, it could significantly accelerate chemical discovery of molecules for pharmaceutical and many other applications.

The microquasar SS 433 stands out as one of the most intriguing objects within our Milky Way. A pair of oppositely directed beams of plasma ('jets') spirals away perpendicularly from the binary systems disk's surface at just over a quarter of the speed of light. The H.E.S.S. observatory in Namibia has now succeeded in detecting very high energy gamma rays from the jets of SS 433, and identifying the exact location within the jets of one of the galaxy's most effective particle accelerators.

A newly evolved enzyme could one day make silicone compounds biodegradable.

The branch of mathematics known as topology has become a cornerstone of modern physics thanks to the remarkable -- and above all reliable -- properties it can impart to a material or system. Unfortunately, identifying topological systems, or even designing new ones, is generally a tedious process that requires exactly matching the physical system to a mathematical model. Researchers have demonstrated a model-free method for identifying topology, enabling the discovery of new topological materials using a purely experimental approach.

The branch of mathematics known as topology has become a cornerstone of modern physics thanks to the remarkable -- and above all reliable -- properties it can impart to a material or system. Unfortunately, identifying topological systems, or even designing new ones, is generally a tedious process that requires exactly matching the physical system to a mathematical model. Researchers have demonstrated a model-free method for identifying topology, enabling the discovery of new topological materials using a purely experimental approach.

Observations of the microquasar SS 433 provide clues to how these small black holes accelerate electrons to produce high-energy jets

Rebus puzzles provide wordplay challenges involving both images and text, and they can confound Silicon Valley’s most powerful AI models

According to the New York Times, Barnard College is in a big kerfuffle involving free speech, institutional neutrality, and academic freedom. The problem is that they’re conflating them all, so the campus is full of stress and argument that, with some good will, could be avoided. Here I proffer a simple solution to the College’s woes.

First, some terms. These are my takes, so others might disagree. Free speech is the ability to express yourself without censorship. The First Amendment protects your speech from being censored by the government, but not necessarily by anybody else, including your boss on the job. Public colleges and universities, however, must adhere to the courts’ construal of the First Amendment (they’re considered arms of the government), while private colleges need not. In my view, however, they should, for free speech is seen by many academics as the best way to get to the truth, with everybody able to discuss issues without being quashed. The University of Chicago, a private school, adheres to the First Amendment in our Principles of Free Expression, also known as the “Chicago Principles,” and these have been adopted by more than 100 colleges.

In contrast, institutional neutrality in academia means that colleges and universities remain neutral on political, moral, or ideological issues, and make no “official” statements about them. (Faculty and students, of course, are welcomed to express their personal views.) Thus, at Chicago, which adheres to institutional neutrality, you will (or rather “should”) find no department or unit of the university making any kind of statement about politics or ideology on its websites. This is an adherence to our Kalven Principles (also see here), which allow exceptions to neutrality only when the issues at hand are intimately connected with the mission of the University. Sadly, only a few schools in the country, including Vanderbilt and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have officially adopted institutional neutrality, though I think all of them should. That’s because the purpose of Kalven is to not “chill” speech by avoiding intimidating people who want to speak up against positions that might be construed as “official”. Kalven and the Principles of Free Expression are designed to buttress each other.

There is, of course, a difference between free speech and institutional neutrality.  You can have free speech without institutional neutrality, so that individuals can speak their minds but departments and universities can also take “official” positions.  (I can’t imagine, however, having institutional neutrality without free speech, as the former makes sense only if you have the latter.) The problem with Barnard College, as outlined in the NYT article below (click to read), is that it has adopted free speech but isn’t trying that hard to be institutionally neutral. And this is causing problems.

As for academic freedom, that’s usually construed as the freedom of academics to teach and do research on what they want without interference. In other words, it is a freedom of inquiry. This is somewhat connected with freedom of speech (can a professor say whatever she wants to in a classroom? Nope.), but it’s not the issue at hand today, though both Barnard and the ACLU are conflating freedom of speech with academic freedom and with institutional neutrality. If they adopted the Chicago Principles and Kalven, they wouldn’t be in trouble. But there are lots of faculty who think that departmental websites, official emails, and other official venues should be able to express political opinions, and that’s where they get in trouble.

Click to read, though you may be paywalled:

First, Barnard College (in New York City, affiliated with Columbia University) has adopted the Chicago Principles, and so has free speech (NYT text is indented).

The Barnard faculty also held a vote in December affirming the “Chicago Principles,” a commitment to free expression, several professors said.

It’s in the institutional neutrality issue where they get balled up, because the professors cannot refrain from making political statements on official websites:

Three weeks after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, the Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College in New York posted a statement on its departmental website in support of the Palestinian people.

Below the statement, the professors posted links to academic work supporting their view that the struggle of Palestinians against “settler colonial war, occupation and apartheid” was also a feminist issue. Two days later, they found that section of the webpage had been removed, without warning, by Barnard administrators.

What happened next has sparked a crisis over academic freedom and free expression at Barnard at a time when the Israel-Hamas conflict has led to tense protests on American college campuses and heated discussions about what constitutes acceptable speech.

“Acceptable”, however, means “speech that can appear on departmental websites”.  The departmental statement was removed because, at least for this issue, Barnard was enforcing institutional neutrality, which is good. (The claim that the Hamas/Israel war is a feminist issue is the way department always try to get around these restrictions.  In fact, I’d argue that if you’re a feminist, you’d want to support Israel, which doesn’t oppress women or gays. But I digress.)

Asked to explain why the page was removed, college administrators told the department that the statement and links were “impermissible political speech,” a statement from the department said.

And if that applied to all “official” political, ideological, and moral issues, that would be great. Barnard would then be like the University of Chicago. The problem is that Barnard College seems to have taken it upon itself to judge whether some “official” political/ideological speech is okay, and other speech isn’t.  And that puts them in the position of being, as W. said, “The Decider.”  What speech is acceptable, and what is not.

The Barnard administration then, in late October and November, rewrote its policies on political activity, website governance and campus events, giving itself wide latitude to decide what was and was not permissible political speech on campus, as well as final say over everything posted on Barnard’s website.

And so we get stuff like this:

At both Columbia and Barnard, an all-women’s college that is formally part of Columbia University but has its own leadership and policies, administrators have asked the community to refrain from slogans and words that others may find hurtful. Both institutions have also issued reworded administrative rules that officially apply to everyone. But critics say that in reality, they are being used to curtail views the college does not want aired.

Under new rules Barnard emailed to faculty on Nov. 6, for example, all academic departments must submit changes to the content of their websites to the Office of the Provost for review and approval. All content on the college’s website may be amended or removed without notice, a related policy states.

Arthur Eisenberg, executive counsel with the N.Y.C.L.U., said that the policy gives the administration discretion to determine what is permissible academic discourse on the website. “And that’s the problem,” he said.

While the pro-Palestinian statement was taken down, for example, a statement by the Africana Studies Department decrying anti-Black racism and state-sanctioned violence in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in 2020 was permitted to stay up.

No “hurtful” speech? Trying to maintain a position like that is asking for trouble.

At Chicago, statements about George Floyd, structural racism, state-sanctioned violence, and Black Lives matter on departmental websites was taken down, simply because these were political statements that had nothing to do with the mission of the departments who issued them or our University.

And now the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is warning Barnard that institutional neutrality amounts to “censorship”, not realizing that it is intended to prevent chilling of ideas. The problem is when you are trying to draw lines between “hate speech” and “other speech”. It’s best to just adopt Kalven and not permit any official speech on politics or ideology.

Apparently, the NYCLU doesn’t understand that, nor does it understand academic freedom:

The moves caught the attention of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which wrote a letter to Barnard’s new president, Laura Rosenbury, in December, warning that the website and political speech policies violated fundamental free speech principles and were “incompatible with a sound understanding of academic freedom.”

“Such a regime will inevitably serve as a license for censorship,” the letter said.

In a statement, the Barnard administration said that it had barred college resources from being used for political activity for at least a decade. Another policy barring political signs from being posted on campus was not directed at any ideology, it contended.

But the statement about George Floyd and “state-sanctioned violence” above is certainly a political statement. It would be barred here and, if Barnard adheres to its principles, it should be barred there. As for the ACLU defending “academic freedom”, that’s simply not what’s at issue.

The upshot seems to be that Barnard will approve of some political speech on department websites, but not all such speech. Sure, it’s fine to have the administration decide in advance what additions to department websites should be made, but they should simply ban all additions that make political, ideological or moral statements.

This kerfuffle is easily resolved:

Dear Barnard College,

The solution to your problems is this: adopt both the Chicago Principles of Free Expression, which you’ve already approved, but also the Kalven Principles of institutional neutrality.

Cordially,
Jerry Coyne
(University of Chicago

The big impediment is that some professors are so bursting with political bombast and feeling of virtue that they INSIST that their political views must be broadcast on their departmental websites. One example:

The Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies has now created its own website that is not administered by the college, and posted its pro-Palestinian statement and resources there. It has for the past two months been in discussions with Barnard’s provost office about permitting a link from its official website to this website, Dr. Jakobsen said.

Fine, have your unofficial website. But the answer to whether this should link to the departmental website is “NOPE!” If Barnard says it’s okay, then they’re opening Pandora’s box.

Experiments with a robotic dinosaur suggest feathers may have evolved to startle prey into fleeing from hiding places, a strategy used by some modern birds

Experiments with a robotic dinosaur suggest feathers may have evolved to startle prey into fleeing from hiding places, a strategy used by some modern birds

Antechinus males only live for one breeding season, so they give up 3 hours of sleep a night during this short period before dying of exhaustion