We're currently engaged in a game of guessing what names the researchers might choose, and a more detailed commentary on how those predictions were made (sorry, no spoilers). To review IUPAC permits "Elements can be named after a mythological concept, a mineral, a place or country, a property or a scientist". So aside from the distortion in motivations, is there reason to believe naming an element for educational purposes would have the desired effect? There was some simultaneous discussion going on with Kat Day about IUPAC's rules for acceptable name sources. That doesn't mean you get to show up at the 1 1 th hour and claim ownership in an effort that has cost dozens of people years of blood, sweat and tears to achieve. The doors of science are wide open to whoever wants to enter.
This is a false equivalency between science and the procedure for naming elements. Within this same conversation, another user asked "shouldn't science belong to people? Or should it stay enclosed in its ivory tower?" The use of the pejorative "ivory tower" insinuates that scientists (academics) believe they own something that rightfully belongs to everyone. This was part trolling, part serious question, but as you can see, they never answered the question and then admitted the letter was actually about making their original (not actually motivated by education) petition feasible. I posed this question about creative ownership to they engaged me on a tweet about their letter. The researchers working on elements 113, 115, 117 and 118 aren't mining for an unknown substance in the ground that's already there, they're using ingenuity and creativity to design experiments. If anyone ever petitioned a band to name one of its songs, would anyone expect the artists to bow to public pressure? This is essentially what petitioning IUPAC (or the researchers) is. Producers and studios sometimes try to interfere with an artist's art, but that almost never results in a better product. It was stealing) and artists regularly ban politicians from using their songs. There was a lot of debate during the Napster "file sharing" era about whether musicians should be compensated (They should. In the 21 st century, we've come to appreciate the rights of artists (musicians, filmmakers, etc.) to their creative works. As Chemjobber is most adamant about pointing out, STEM shortages are mostly myth. The most recent effort by is to get teachers and academics to sign a letter to IUPAC asking them to change the guidelines for naming elements to include " Any person by whose honouring the causes of science in education would be furthered." Sound great right? What educator could be against something that promotes education? Like every other educational initiative these days, it's written in STEM Tourette's. This is all about a flawed premise and hypocrisy. I don't have strong feelings on Lemmy Kilmister or Motörhead one way or the other, so I don't want to sound like I'm trying to besmirch anyone's music or legacy. So go ahead and call me the Chris Crocker for IUPAC. I've already dedicated way more time to 'lemmium' than the movement warrants, and the researchers at JINR, ORNL and LLNL as well as the good folks at IUPAC don't need a proxy without a shred of authority like me to fight their non-existent battles.
0 kommentar(er)
