i don't understand why to need to know the intelligence level of a nation must use the number of Nobel Prize? .. since the award was coming from private funding, the largest contributing nation in funding must get the most nobel award.

http://worldtrendproducts.blogspot.com

I would be more worried about "scientists" who dont seem to realise there is a difference between clinical science and the study of physical science. Because a a physical scientist can calculate how long it would take a 1kg load to hit the ground from 10 meters, would the scientist take the same approach trying to figure out how far a living person could throw the 1kg load. I dont think they could get their head around the fact each throw would have a different outcome.
seo in chandigarh

The French intellectuals know about science but a little bit different than we used to know about that. They see things different and that is why write down about them also in a different way.

____________________
free pdf viewer

The author of this article has a fuzzy notion of science and intellectual, and for that matter France. While he admits that his own method is unscientific, he tries to make a generalization about an entire nation's relationship to science (as if science were a thing and not perhaps a method). The title metnions French intellectuals, but none are cited in the article! The country that prides itself on Cartesian thinking is suddenly anti-science?! A proper scientific method requires doubt and humility in the face of evidence. I see no evidence here worthy of a hypothesis.

Article hypothesis: "France (has a) difficult relationship with evidence-based science"

"evidence":

1. In France, autism is frequently treated by psycho-analysis. This is not as successful as the way autism is treated in the UK (if successful treatment of autism is measured by gaining entry into university).
2. French people are good at, & knowledgeable about, science.
3. Science makes no inroads into French cultural life. (The *evidence* for this claim? One deconstextualised quote from a French primatologist.)
4. A theory about the inverse relation between population support for science initiatives & strength of science.
5. France has a lower ratio of nobel prize winners per head of population than UK, Sweden or Germany.

Let us make 2 observations:

i. None of these 5 points would remotely pass muster as "evidence" for any discipline or inquiry, never mind science.
ii. None of them in any way relates to the hypothesis of the article.

Conclusion: Apparently jingoistic science journalist is woefully incapable either of constructing an argument, or of providing evidence that might justify his argument.

Ironically.

One in five voted for the far-right. The lefts great European revival is a long way away.

Science is not part of cultural life in Britain let alone France and in both unlike the US active religous anti-science is thankfully not significant. Psycho-analysis and everything else that came from Freud was damaging, unscientific nonsense but is thankfully receding. It was not by any means confined to France and is probably stronger in the US than anywhere in eruope.

France's share of Nobel prizes is less than Britains but is still far far greater than the world average. The significance of this is doubtful especially when the strong relationship between the number of Nobel prizes per head of population and proximity to Sweden is noted. The most significant modern trend is the increase in the proportion of prizes won by US citizens.

The general impression is of a writer who reachs his conclusions first and then desperately searchs for evidence afterwards. It would be nice for a 'science journalist' to write balanced articles with strong evidence.

I would be more worried about "scientists" who dont seem to realise there is a difference between clinical science and the study of physical science. Because a a physical scientist can calculate how long it would take a 1kg load to hit the ground from 10 meters, would the scientist take the same approach trying to figure out how far a living person could throw the 1kg load. I dont think they could get their head around the fact each throw would have a different outcome. A patient wants a clinician with experience who can take a good history and perform a good physical examination, which is far more important than the ability to search for published data on Pub Med.

and what about the difficulties of the US citizens with "evidence-based science" , with serious conservative candidates not believing in evolution, climate change, and so on.
Ok France's education system is not perfect, but at least it is secular.

In America, every kid and their dog is getting a label of mental illness, over a billion dollars has been spent on autism research, and autism only increases while actual knowledge of what it is or what causes it continues to draw a blank in Science.. In France, autism is not the gravy train it is here in America see http://raggette.blogspot.com/2011/05/okay-now-is-your-chance-to-use-brai... or go here: http://geocommons.com/maps/62088.

Science is only one way of seeing the world, and it is often wrong.

I suppose that if President Sarkozy would find out that among the undecided voters is a huge interest in homoeopathy, France would have the biggest institute for homoeopathetic research in the world in a snap. Its just a guess, following his other positions that develop due to demand.

The article seems to draw a link between two unrelated issues:
* The organisation of French research with national research institutes (CNRS, INRIA...) working in tandem with universities. This is a rather technical issue, related to the teaching overload of junior university professors, which is itself perhaps link to most French universities being prohibited from choosing their students.
* Lack of scientific knowledge among "intellectuals". This seems related to
a) curricula organization : philosophy, sociology, psychology are seens as "literary" endeavours, apart from exact sciences;
b) a culture where it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, to admit to be woefully ignorant on basic science (e.g. 1st and 2nd principles of thermodynamics), but it is a dreadful faux pas to admit not to know about some intellectual or not having read some novel (witness how Sarkozy was criticized for mispronouncing Roland Barthes' surname).