Science Inc. just announced that it has acquired mobile ad network PlayHaven from mobile analytics and marketing company Upsight.

Science CEO Mike Jones (pictured above) told me that the PlayHaven team will join Science, merge with its Chirp Ads unit and, under the firms startup studio model, become an independently operating company based in San Francisco. (In fact, it will be LA-headquartered Sciences first major presence in the Bay Area.)

While Jones said he expects PlayHaven to show great returns and great growth on its own, he also thinks other Science companies can use it to make monetize their mobile apps. To reinforce his his claim that PlayHaven offers a best of breed platform, he pointed to its behavioral targeting capabilities.

The ad network apparently includes 18,000 games (including the crazy popular Kim Kardashian game) with 245 million monthly active users.

Previously an independent startup, PlayHaven merged with Kontagent at the end of last year, with the combined company eventually rebranding as Upsight. CEO Andy Yang told me that selling off the ad network kills two birds with one stone it allows Upsight to focus on its analytics and monetization platform, and it also allows that platform to remain neutral as it works with a variety of different ad networks.

Yang added that the sale was has been part of the companys plans since the merger: The PlayHaven ad network was not part of our long-term vision.

The financial terms of the deal are not being disclosed.

Read the original:
Science Inc. Acquires Mobile Ad Network PlayHaven From Upsight

Appearances deceiving in salt marsh recovery

Once-depleted salt marshes in Cape Cod may be growing green and tall now, but that does not mean they are protecting the land from erosion, according to a new study by University researchers.

These results concern ecologists because the metric of a recovered habitat should not be Does it look like a recovered habitat? but Does it restore the ecosystem services? said Mark Bertness, professor of biology and senior author of the study, in a University press release.

Bertness worked with two former students to measure a wide array of Cape Cod salt marshes abilities to protect the land behind them. They set up chalk posts and noted how much the chalk waned after waves passed through the salt marshes in order to model the erosion of the land behind the marshes. They next compared the results to the biomass and height of the marsh grass in front of the area.

The results, published in the journal Biological Conservation, indicate that the marshes protection ability has increased more sluggishly than plant mass and height in these areas, which has implications for how conservationists should approach protecting Cape Cods shores, according to the release.

We need to prevent the die-off or understand the recovery enough to do management conservation tasks, such as fertilization, that would enhance the recovery, Bertness said in the release.

Private intensive care unit rooms forinfants boost health, study suggests

Though many hospitals boast intensive care units with lines of beds facing the center, a new study led by University researchers suggests that private family rooms in neonatal intensive care units may have a positive impact on the health of the babies leaving the hospital.

Infants hosted in private rooms generally needed fewer medical procedures, displaying increased attention as well as less lethargy and less pain, the researchers wrote. Additionally, underweight babies leaving the hospital from private rooms tended to be heavier and showed more rapid weight gain than those in communal rooms.

See the article here:
Science & Research Roundup: Sept. 24, 2014

Surprising psychology poses an obstacle on thoughts about global warming

Science can solve problems Credit: Thinkstock

Donald Trump probably leaves the water running while brushing his teeth. Heck, he probably leaves it running while hes at work. After all, turning faucets can be mildly inconvenient and if science has taught him anything, its that our planet is doing just fine when it comes to conserving its natural resources and its long-term environmental prospects. Indeed, given his very high profile remarks questioning climate change and the science upon which it is based, I think we can safely assume he doesnt lose any sleep over his consumption habits or the size of his carbon footprint.

But this is the kind of attitude we expect from individuals who have a fundamental mistrust (and misunderstanding) of science. Climate denialism seems to fit squarely with a disinterest towards cultivating environmentally friendly habits. We dont expect people who roll coal to have a sophisticated appreciation for the importance of scientific progress. Those who do demonstrate environmentally friendly behavior, however, seem more like the kind of folks who understand that science has much to teach us about addressing global problems.

But a new paper from researchers at The University of Amsterdam has thrown a wrench into this folk understanding of the relationship between environmental concern and scientific appreciation. Their provocative hypothesis suggests that increasing peoples belief in the efficacy of scientific progress actually reduces environmentally friendly behavior. In other words: the more likely we are to believe in the power of science, the more likely we are to trade in our hybrids for hummers.

Why? The authors ground their hypothesis in a well-validated theory called compensatory control. This argues that all people are highly motivated to see the world as an orderly and predictable place. Indeed, any suggestions to the contrary (e.g. seemingly random catastrophes) elicit stress and anxiety. One way in which people alleviate such stress is to believe in the power of external sources to make sense of, and control, the world. For example, belief in a God that can exert control over worldly events has been found to satisfy the motivation to perceive order. The authors suggest that belief in science can serve a similar function.

But if this is the case if greater belief in science allows us to see the world as controllable and orderly then the personal motivation to exert such control diminishes. Simply put, if science is going to figure out this whole climate change business, then why do I have to take shorter showers?

The authors tested this hypothesis in a series of four studies. They first sought to establish a link between beliefs about scientific progress and perceptions of the world as orderly, predicting that the more people believed, the more order they would perceive. Indeed, simply reading an article that affirmed the power of scientific progress to successfully address global issues such as climate change (vs. reading an article which questioned its efficacy in doing so) was enough to significantly increase the degree to which participants saw order in the world.

Next, they tested whether such feelings of control would predict individuals environmentally friendly behavior. Again their hypothesis was supported. Priming participants with thoughts of order vs. disorder influenced their reported willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behavior, with order-primes decreasing this behavioral tendency.

The final study brought these preliminary findings together to test the authors main hypothesis: that affirming belief in scientific progress would diminish feelings of worldly disorder, and in turn reduce environmentally friendly behavior. And in a total bummer for science-lovers everywhere, the more participants believed in the power of scientific progress, the more they saw the world as orderly and controllable, and the less likely they were to act in an environmentally friendly way.

Read more:
Trust in Science Reduces Concerns about Climate Change

Surprising psychology poses an obstacle on thoughts about global warming

Science can solve problems Credit: Thinkstock

Donald Trump probably leaves the water running while brushing his teeth. Heck, he probably leaves it running while hes at work. After all, turning faucets can be mildly inconvenient and if science has taught him anything, its that our planet is doing just fine when it comes to conserving its natural resources and its long-term environmental prospects. Indeed, given his very high profile remarks questioning climate change and the science upon which it is based, I think we can safely assume he doesnt lose any sleep over his consumption habits or the size of his carbon footprint.

But this is the kind of attitude we expect from individuals who have a fundamental mistrust (and misunderstanding) of science. Climate denialism seems to fit squarely with a disinterest towards cultivating environmentally friendly habits. We dont expect people who roll coal to have a sophisticated appreciation for the importance of scientific progress. Those who do demonstrate environmentally friendly behavior, however, seem more like the kind of folks who understand that science has much to teach us about addressing global problems.

But a new paper from researchers at The University of Amsterdam has thrown a wrench into this folk understanding of the relationship between environmental concern and scientific appreciation. Their provocative hypothesis suggests that increasing peoples belief in the efficacy of scientific progress actually reduces environmentally friendly behavior. In other words: the more likely we are to believe in the power of science, the more likely we are to trade in our hybrids for hummers.

Why? The authors ground their hypothesis in a well-validated theory called compensatory control. This argues that all people are highly motivated to see the world as an orderly and predictable place. Indeed, any suggestions to the contrary (e.g. seemingly random catastrophes) elicit stress and anxiety. One way in which people alleviate such stress is to believe in the power of external sources to make sense of, and control, the world. For example, belief in a God that can exert control over worldly events has been found to satisfy the motivation to perceive order. The authors suggest that belief in science can serve a similar function.

But if this is the case if greater belief in science allows us to see the world as controllable and orderly then the personal motivation to exert such control diminishes. Simply put, if science is going to figure out this whole climate change business, then why do I have to take shorter showers?

The authors tested this hypothesis in a series of four studies. They first sought to establish a link between beliefs about scientific progress and perceptions of the world as orderly, predicting that the more people believed, the more order they would perceive. Indeed, simply reading an article that affirmed the power of scientific progress to successfully address global issues such as climate change (vs. reading an article which questioned its efficacy in doing so) was enough to significantly increase the degree to which participants saw order in the world.

Next, they tested whether such feelings of control would predict individuals environmentally friendly behavior. Again their hypothesis was supported. Priming participants with thoughts of order vs. disorder influenced their reported willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behavior, with order-primes decreasing this behavioral tendency.

The final study brought these preliminary findings together to test the authors main hypothesis: that affirming belief in scientific progress would diminish feelings of worldly disorder, and in turn reduce environmentally friendly behavior. And in a total bummer for science-lovers everywhere, the more participants believed in the power of scientific progress, the more they saw the world as orderly and controllable, and the less likely they were to act in an environmentally friendly way.

View original post here:
Faith in Science Reduces Concerns about Climate Change

But this is the kind of attitude we expect from individuals who have a fundamental mistrust (and misunderstanding) of science. Climate denialism seems to fit squarely with a disinterest towards cultivating environmentally friendly habits. We dont expect people who roll coalto have a sophisticated appreciation for the importance of scientific progress. Those who do demonstrate environmentally friendly behavior, however, seem more like the kind of folks who understand that science has much to teach us about addressing global problems.

Buta new paperfrom researchers at The University of Amsterdam has thrown a wrench into this folk understanding of the relationship between environmental concern and scientific appreciation. Their provocative hypothesis suggests that increasing peoples belief in the efficacy of scientific progress actually reduces environmentally friendly behavior. In other words: the more likely we are to believe in the power of science, the more likely we are to trade in our hybrids for hummers.

Why? The authors ground their hypothesis in a well-validated theory calledcompensatory control. This argues that all people are highly motivated to see the world as an orderly and predictable place. Indeed, any suggestions to the contrary (e.g. seemingly random catastrophes) elicit stress and anxiety. One way in which people alleviate such stress is to believe in the power of external sources to make sense of, and control, the world. For example, belief in a God that can exert control over worldly eventshas been foundto satisfy the motivation to perceive order.The authors suggest that belief in science can serve a similar function.

But if this is the case if greater belief in science allows us to see the world as controllable and orderly then the personal motivation to exert such control diminishes. Simply put, if science is going to figure out this whole climate change business, then why do I have to take shorter showers?

The authors tested this hypothesis in a series of four studies. They first sought to establish a link between beliefs about scientific progress and perceptions of the world as orderly, predicting that the more people believed, the more order they would perceive. Indeed, simply reading an article that affirmed the power of scientific progress to successfully address global issues such as climate change (vs. reading an article which questioned its efficacy in doing so) was enough to significantly increase the degree to which participants saw order in the world.

Next, they tested whether such feelings of control would predict individuals environmentally friendly behavior. Again their hypothesis was supported. Priming participants with thoughts of order vs. disorder influenced their reported willingness to engage in environmentally friendly behavior, with order-primes decreasing this behavioral tendency.

The final study brought these preliminary findings together to test the authors main hypothesis: that affirming belief in scientific progress would diminish feelings of worldly disorder, and in turn reduce environmentally friendly behavior. And in a total bummer for science-lovers everywhere, the more participants believed in the power of scientific progress, the more they saw the world as orderly and controllable, and the less likely they were to act in an environmentally friendly way.

This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. Is our individual motivation to help solve environmental problems undermined by our belief that such a chore can be outsourced to science? Should science be portrayed as less able to deal with such important global issues? Fortunately, the answer is simple and it does not require a diminished understanding of science, but actually an increased appreciation of its nuance. Specifically,science is not about certainty.

Read the original post:
Global warmings dire psychology: Why pro-science climate deniers are more common than you think