Budding poet Alannah Ferry from Milford has won the title of Young Writer of the Year 2019 in a Pramerica/ North West Words competition. The Junior Writing competition prizegiving took place in Cafe Davitt Letterkenny on Friday the 24th of May with a packed house.Hundreds of students from Primary and Secondary Schools throughout Ireland entered the competition with Poetry and Fiction in six categories. There were three shortlisted writers for each category, with Alannah Ferry from Milford claiming the overall title of Young Writer of the Year 2019 with her poem ‘She’s Alone with Invisible Company’. Alannah’s work and all the winners’ poems are now featured in a new online magazine launched by North West Words.The magazine gives high praise to Alannah’s ‘chillingly brilliant’ poem.“Her poem ‘ She’s Alone with Invisible Company’ stands shoulder to shoulder with some of our best known poets. A real masterpiece, and a worthy winner,” said the editorial comment. The magazine showcases the 18 finalists entries of the Pramerica sponsored Young Writer of the Year 2019 and their poems while also including the judges’ notes on the finalists.Check out the Magazine at the link here: http://northwestwords.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NWW-Childrens-Competition-Winners-20191.pdfMilford student’s masterpiece earns Young Writer of the Year award was last modified: June 24th, 2019 by Caitlin LairdShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:NORTH WEST WORDSpoetrypramericayoung writer of the year
Yuba City >> The Red Bluff Bass Anglers held a bass tournament Sunday at Bullards Bar Reservoir. It was a tough bite for everyone except Frank Johnston, whose winning five fish limit included 9.94, 9.53 and 8.51 lb. spotted bass for a total weight of 33.13 lbs. Johnston used a spinnerbait to catch the winning fish. Ken Davis finished a distant second with 8 lbs. and Kevin McLachlan took third with 7.22 lbs.The Red Bluff Bass Anglers will be starting a new tournament season on April 30 at …
(Visited 408 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Peer review is under attack with new move to combat fraud and special interest through integrity and transparency. But where do those come from?Big Science remains in crisis. Phys.org reports on a study that found “More than a quarter of biomedical scientific papers may utilise practices that distort the interpretation of results or mislead readers so that results are viewed more favourably.” That has certainly been our experience at CEH, daily watching the press releases emanating from university PR departments, where the name of the game is to make your scientist look good no matter how questionable the findings. Public acceptance of scientific claims tracks political party affiliation to a remarkable degree. Allegations of conflict of interest, peer pressure and funding bias are rife. What has happened to the presumptive authority of the science, seeking objective knowledge for its own sake?The situation recalls the words of Lincoln as he chastised Congress about a union falling apart:The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.In science, one of the dogmas is the notion that peer review somehow guarantees objectivity. And yet Phil Hurst, writing at Phys.org, portrays modern peer review as a domain of darkness. These factors are corrupting this pillar of scientific authority:Secrecy corruptsPoliticization of science destroys objectivityJournal paywalls bar stakeholders from access to productResearch misconduct escapes reviewer scrutinyAfter recounting the history of peer review back to the days of the Royal Society in 1832, when members moved from publishing minutes of their meetings to having reviewers write reports about what should be published, Hurst echoes Lincoln that the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty. We must think anew and act anew.It’s time to disinfect Big Science with sunshine, Hurst argues. Transparency is the new buzzword. Transparency, implying open peer review, opens the windows on secret cabals of reviewers and lets everyone see what is going on in the sausage-making called science.In 2014, the Royal Society launched the journal Royal Society Open Science which offers optional open peer review where reports are published along with articles. This has proved popular with the majority of authors opting for publication of peer review reports and half of reviewers signing their reports. The uptake varies by scientific discipline.Hurst lists four benefits of open peer review:Readers can see the comments by reviewers and reach their own conclusions about the rigour and fairness of the process;Reviewers’ suggestions to improve the paper are available to everyone as examples of what makes a good review.Reviewers tend to write better and more balanced reviews if they know they will be made public.By signing their reports reviewers can get recognition for this vital contribution to the research process.Overall, he says, “the whole peer review process gains more trust and accountability when everything is transparent.” But will open peer review be a passing fad? As we shall see, transparency alone cannot guarantee objectivity.Sheryl P. Denker also calls for transparency in a PLoS Blog entry. She says there is “community and public skepticism regarding the quality, trustworthiness and authenticity of the review process, from the initial stage of evaluation before reviewer assignment to the final editorial decision. Making peer review more transparent, at any stage, has the potential to revitalize the process and restore trust in the system.” She lists practical steps that journals and reviewers can take to increase transparency. Reviewers, for instance, can agree to sign their reviews (a radical change from the secrecy of old). But will this create other problems? Denker and Hurst seem to see transparency through rose-colored glasses, but knowing human nature, every solution breeds new problems.Measures of SignificanceAnother dogma of the quiet past is the P-value, a traditional measure of significance. By habit, scientists seek a P-value of .05, or 5% or lower, to judge a result as statistically significant over the null hypothesis. But why? What is sacred about that tradition? Nothing, it turns out, and scientists have been known to keep testing an experiment until they get the P-value they want to confirm their hunch. Nature writes about an effort to raise the bar, but then says that scientists are fighting back. Some object that the “one-size-fits-all” measure fails to take into account differences between the sciences. At this moment, sacred P-values are falling faster than statues of Confederate generals. A majority of scientists think the bar needs to be more stringent.Politicization of ScienceBy popular misconception, Republicans are the science deniers. Not so, says Phys.org; science denial is not limited to the political right. According to a study at the University of Chicago, people of all political backgrounds are equally tempted:“Not only were both sides equally likely to seek out attitude confirming scientific conclusions, both were also willing to work harder and longer when doing so got them to a conclusion that fit with their existing attitudes,” says Washburn, the lead author of the study. “And when the correct interpretation of the results did not confirm participants’ attitudes, they were more likely to view the researchers involved with the study as less trustworthy, less knowledgeable, and disagreed with their conclusions more.”By extension, this propensity afflicts scientists themselves. This explains why academia, so lopsided toward the Democrat party, produces members of scientific institutions whose own confirmation bias propels them to affirm the consensus of their peers. Their work can be motivated by feelings that have nothing to do with science. “Rather than strictly a conservative phenomenon, science denial may be a result of a more basic desire of people wanting to see the world in ways that fit with their personal preferences, political or otherwise, according to the researchers.” That’s a human foible against which every person must struggle, scientist or not.Drummond and Fischhoff, writing in PNAS, claim that the polarization over science is not a matter of scientific knowledge. In fact, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” they say. Now isn’t that counter-intuitive! “These patterns suggest that scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns.”Integrity Is Not a Scientific QuestionThree scientists writing in to Science Magazine make the preposterous suggestion of “Addressing scientific integrity scientifically.” Preposterous, we say, because it leads to an infinite regress. What about the integrity of the researchers testing integrity? What about the reviewers checking their work? Who watches the watchers? Who watches the watcher-watchers? etc. Watch it here: “The premise behind this effort is that universities should practice what they preach by supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based policies aimed at improving integrity in research.” Once universities can fake that, they’ve got it made.Escape to RealityScience Magazine printed testimonials of three scientists who searched for “Sunshine outside the ivory tower.” They now call themselves “Recovering Academics” and shared similar emotional challenges. “Over the past few years, all three of us have left academia,” they agree, before describing their individual situations. “It was the right decision for each of us, but we still struggled with uncertainty and a feeling of failure, and we could find little community support.” One felt like “I had lost my tribe” but, after awhile, she acclimated. Their descriptions mirror experiences of ex-cult members and drug rehab patients, suggesting that the culture of science puts a grip on people that controls their minds. Each one struggled with depression, a sense of failure, and a loss of community.Science is not an abstract, objective thing. It is always mediated through humans. People come into science with biases, expectations, and preferences. Hang out with liberal academics, and you will want to be like them. Hang out with superiors who cheat, and you will tend to excuse misconduct. Feel the allure of funding, and you will be tempted to bend your convictions to get that lifeblood of job security. It takes firm self-control and independence of mind to fight those tendencies. There are many good individual scientists who have integrity; we don’t tarnish them with a broad brush. However, it is scientists themselves who are pointing out these issues from the inside. We dare not assume a simplistic, 1950s-era mindset about scientific objectivity, gazing at Big Science like a Disneyland of wonders. Inside that white lab coat is a person with feelings, dreams, biases and a human soul. Maybe the best scientists are those who, like James Joule, are independently wealthy, alone, and experiment for the sure satisfaction of their curiosity about how the world works. Unfortunately, you can’t build a Large Hadron Collider or spacecraft that way. So while admiring good science, we must always be cautious about bad science.The best way to get scientists of integrity is to build the fear of God into them when they are young, teaching them the Ten Commandments. Even better is to mature them into those with the love of God, who, with the law of God written on their hearts, pursue truth and righteousness because they love those virtues.
18 September 2012South African President Jacob Zuma has once again appealed for peace to return to the Marikana mining area in North West province following weeks of violent protests.Addressing the national congress of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) in Johannesburg on Monday, Zuma said worker rights were enshrined in the Constitution, and added that there was legislation giving effect to the constitutional provisions. But he urged workers to respect the country’s laws.He reminded the gathering of South Africa’s biggest trade union federation that employers and employees had the mechanisms to manage relations in the workplace. There was no need to resort to violence.Zuma said the judicial commission of inquiry he had appointed would establish the facts around what happened in Marikana last month when 34 protesting miners were killed in clashes with police, a week after 10 people had died, including two police officers, in ongoing violence among rival unions.Violence ‘cannot become labour culture’“But there are a few immediate lessons,” Zuma said. “Firstly, we have to find a way to restore workplace stability and labour peace. Violence cannot become a culture of our labour relations.”He said workers and employers needed to use the laws of the country, which spelt out clearly how to handle disputes.“Given the levels of violence and intimidation in Marikana, government deployed law enforcement agencies to stabilise the situation. This does not take away the rights of miners and residents to protest, peacefully and unarmed, as provided for in the laws of the land,” said Zuma.The agencies had been told to be firm, but to respect the rights of residents and strikers.This applied not only to labour disputes but also to service delivery protests, which were at times also accompanied by violence, including the destruction of property.Workers at Lonmin platinum mine are demanding a basic salary of R12 500 a month with employers last week offering a R900 increase to the current R4 600 entry level salary.Impact on the economyIn his speech, Zuma urged the workers and their employers to find solutions to the dispute without further delay, given its ongoing impact on the economy.He said indications were that the total rand value of production lost in the gold and platinum group of mines due to work stoppages over the past nine months was close to R4.5-billion. Losses in the coal sector, adds another R118-million to the total.The National Treasury estimates that through its indirect impact on the economy, the strike actions in addition to other stoppages have already subtracted close to R3.1-billion from the national fiscus.The impact went beyond the mining sector. The manufacturing sector, especially the fabricated metal products sector, was already showing signs of strain.“We cannot afford to go into a recession, and revert to the 2008 and 2009 period where the country lost close to a million jobs, which we are still battling to recover,” Zuma said. “We wish the employers and workers well as they seek a solution to this wage impasse.”The government would continue to provide support to the negotiations through the ministry of labour, Zuma added.Housing and living conditions of workersAccording to the Mining Charter, mining companies are required to improve the housing and living conditions of workers and also to invest in skills development, employment equity, ownership as well as local community development.They have to meet certain targets for the conversion and upgrading of single-sex hostels formerly used by migrant labourers into family units or single occupancy accommodation by 2014.Companies are also expected to facilitate home ownership by 2014.“Our monitoring indicates that 50% have complied with the provisions relating to improving living conditions,” Zuma said. “We applaud those companies that are complying with this provision to humanise the living conditions of workers.”Source: SANews.gov.za
Mumbai, Dec 19 (IANS) Actress Fatima Sana Shaikh’s last release “Thugs of Hindostan” bombed at the box office, leaving her heartbroken and sad.Despite the presence of industry giants like Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan and Katrina Kaif, the “Thugs…” fizzled out and both audiences and critics wrote it off for its weak storyline and direction.Interacting with the media at Netflix web-series ‘Selection Day’ premiere on Tuesday here, Fatima said: “Yeah.. it hasn’t done well. It is very heartbreaking. “It is very sad because we all tried to make a good film but unfortunately, it didn’t do well. People didn’t like it so, I am feeling very bad for it.”Fatima is currently working on a project with Rajkummar Rao on Anurag Basu’s directorial — a sequel to “Life In A Metro”, though she said: “I don’t think it is called that.”The “Dangal”-famed actress is looking forward to “Selection Day” which is a story of two brothers and their father who wants his sons to pursue cricket as their career.”I am really excited and looking forward to see it because I found the trailer really interesting. I am also happy that lot of Indian shows are being made for Netflix and we (actors) are getting more opportunities. Even writers, directors and technicians.”Now, we have lot of options in terms of viewing and performing. So, I feel it’s great that such show and series are out,” she said.Speaking about her debut in “Dangal” which revolved around wrestling, Fatima said: “I run away from playing sports. It was the requirement for my film (Dangal) therefore, I had to do it otherwise, sports and I don’t get along really well.”–IANSiv/in/vmadvertisement