For decades, fierce debates have raged over the benefits of different programming languages over others: Java vs. C++; Python vs. Ruby; Flask vs. Django. While often waged with religious fervor by computer scientists and programmers, these debates tend to rely on anecdotal evidence, with very little rigorous comparison of programming approaches or the larger question of how software may augment human thinking.
For the future of the planet, there are few research subjects more important than the global supplies of food, water, and energy. To comprehensively study, understand, and inform policy around these complex systems, the next generation of researchers in the physical, social, and biological sciences will need fluency with data analysis methods that traverse traditional academic boundaries.
Reader preferences for liberal or conservative political books also attract them to different types of science books, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Chicago, Yale, and Cornell. The result supports observations that the divisiveness of politics in the United States has spread to scientific communication as well, endangering the role of science as politically neutral ground.
In two recent studies, CI Senior Fellows James Evans and Andrey Rzhetsky built a network of millions of papers to ask an important question: is scientific research living up to its potential? Their analysis, conducted with UCLA's Jacob Foster and CI Director Ian Foster, found that science increasingly explores more incremental and conservative questions, avoiding the