For just one dollar a day

29 06 2009

No, I am not about  to con you into some religious sponsorship program.* Absolutely no African children for sale here.

It’s about SunSmart awareness and skin cancer prevention. The idea is that for $1 per day per person the Australian government could encourage people to regularly use sunscreen and prevent over 100,000 cancers and 20 deaths each year. This is based on some trials done in Queensland.

Now some of you might be trying to do the math. It is a little over 8 billion dollars annually for Australia’s 22 million inhabitants. But the authors make a compelling case by comparing it to the cost of public cosmetics expenditure, as well as government spending on vaccines (which cost $100s per dose).

Sunscreen is important for all Australians.

An exemplary example of framing science?

*Food for thought on religious-based missions here, here, and here


Psychologists do their bit to make Nature look less of a dick

4 08 2008

I’m sure they can rationalise it along those lines.

I don’t think I can (and keep a straight face).

This act of dickery makes superman seem like a really nice guy.

For your reference – be reminded of Nature’s new policy on open access. They’ll allow a simple one-step submission process that will allow authors to mark their work for open access release, in six months. Some people are upset claiming that this locks in Nature’s stronghold on knowledge. Others, myself included, think its a fair, possibly even outright polite, kind of move from a company that has a right to protect its own interests.

Rather than provide a free service, the American Psychological Association proposed a new strategy, whereby they would charge authors – $2,500 US per publication – to transfer the works into public access, twelve months after initial publication

The APA is “reconsidering” their new policy. You think?