I was asked to be a guest on a local NPR affiliate show today with Amanda Hess (in a previously recorded interview) and Emily Graslie (with me in the second half).
This year, I was invited to contribute to the Edge Foundation’s Annual Question. Other contributor include Helen Fisher, Irene Pepperberg, Alan Alda, Nina Jablonski, Jay Rosen, and, well 150 others: http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement The question was, “What scientific idea is ready for retirement?” My contribution: The Way We Produce And Advance Science Last year, I spearheaded a [...]
Kiddo spills her milk. We lock eyes, and she dissolves in a puddle of sadness, crying about how it's all her fault and she feels SO BAD. "Kiddo, honey, it's really okay.
Im attending the AAAS Meetings in Chicago this year in both my capacities as a scientist: as someone who does reproductive physiology research and as a science communicator.
Trigger warning for graphic description of internet harassment. * * * We science writers all have our favorite troll comments. For me, they are the ones that claim I don’t know my topic, that tell me what I should have written, that criticize my tone rather than my content.
I’ve seen a number of tweets and blog comments over the last few days wondering – some nicely, some not so nicely – why so many of us reacted more strongly to Scientific American’s response to Dr.
This post is many months in coming, yet I know I will not be able to give it the kind of attention I would like. I am leaving Scientific American. There is no mystery to the reasons.
A few months ago, I received the following email from one of the leaders of a Cool Science Thing. Well call him Dude from Cool Science Thing (DCST).
The actions of a few have exposed some major problems in the actions and thinking of many. The way the science communication community responds to crises, and the desire of some to prevent “scolding” or not “attack allies” has revictimized members of our community.