SciStarter, a clearinghouse for scientists and interested civilians to find each other for projects has noted that some of their projects run into trouble. With limited time and resources, help is not always available. So they would like to enlist the crowd.
Next month SciStarter will run a contest to help find solutions for these problems. …
I wasn’t able to find any more information about the contest on the SciStarter website but the organization’s blog offers an Oct. 18, 2012 posting by John Ohab which lists ten items from its project list (Note: I have removed pictures),
The Royal Society Laughter Project: The Royal Society has put together a playlist of different laughs that you can listen to. The tricky part is that some are real and some are fake. See if you can guess which laugh is real and which is posed. The results will help researchers at the University College of London learn how people react to different sounds. This is science that will make you LOL!
Age Guess: AgeGuess is a simple project in which you guess the age of other people by looking at their pictures. In just a few minutes, you can help create a first of its kind research data set for the study of human aging. The project is studying the differences between how old you look to others and your actual age.
EyeWire: Scientists need your help mapping the neural connections of the retina. All you have to do is color brain images! EyeWire is a fun way to learn about the brain and help scientist understand how the nervous system works.
Digital Fishers: Are you one of those people who loves the ocean but doesn’t want to deal with the sunburns, parking, or other unpleasant aspects that come with the territory? Here’s a project that puts you in touch with the ocean and saves you the extra costs in suntan lotion. Digital Fishers allows you to help scientists identify different species of fish. You can assist with research by watching 15-second videos from the comfort of your own computer and click on simple responses.
Musical Moods: Musical Moods is a sound experiment that aims to find out how viewers categorize the mood of certain TV theme tunes. The goal is to find out whether there are new ways of classifying online TV content through the mood of the music rather than the program genre itself. The whole experiment takes about ten minutes and is incredibly easy. You listen to themes and answer a few questions about each theme afterward.
Citizen Sort: Video games have the potential to do more than entertain. Citizen Sort is taking advantage of this potential by designing video games that make doing science fun. Citizen Sort is a research project at the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University in New York.
Project Implicit: Project Implicit offers the opportunity to assess your conscious and unconscious preferences for over 90 different topics ranging from pets to ethnic groups to sports team. In 10-15 minutes, you’ll report attitudes toward or beliefs about these topics. It’s that easy! The experience is both educational and engaging, and you get the chance to assist psychological research on thoughts and feelings.
Be A Martian: NASA’s Be A Martian is an interactive Mars science laboratory that allows visitors to help scientists learn about the red planet. You can help identify important features in images returned from previous Mars rovers, ask and vote on questions for NASA Mars experts in a virtual town hall, explore a Mars atlas to learn more about the planet’s terrain, send postcards to Spirit (another Mars rover), and watch educational videos in the Two Moons theater.
Clumpy: When plants experience bacterial infections, the chloroplasts inside the plant cells appear to “clump” together. This can be a bad sign for plants. To help understand these bacterial infections, scientists need help classify images of clumpy chloroplasts. All yo have to do is arrange the images from least clumpy on the left to most clumpy on the right.
MAPPER: Help NASA find life on Mars by exploring the bottom of the lakes of British Columbia, Canada. The Pavilion Lake Research Project has been investigating the underwater environment with DeepWorker submersible vehicles since 2008. Now with MAPPER, you can work side-by-side with NASA scientists to explore the bottom of these lakes from the perspective of a DeepWorker pilot.
I did take a closer look at the MAPPER project since the research takes place in my home province,
Photo: getmapper.com (downloaded SciStarter.com)
Help NASA find life on Mars by exploring the bottom of the lakes of British Columbia, Canada.
The Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP) has been investigating the underwater environment with DeepWorker submersible vehicles since 2008. Now with MAPPER, you can work side-by-side with NASA scientists to explore the bottom of these lakes from the perspective of a DeepWorker pilot.
The PLRP team makes use of DeepWorker subs to explore and document freshwater carbonate formations known as microbialites that thrive in Pavilion and Kelly Lake. Many scientists believe that a better understanding of how and where these rare microbialite formations develop will lead to deeper insights into where signs of life may be found on Mars and beyond. To investigate microbialite formation in detail, terabytes of video footage and photos of the lake bottom are recorded by PLRP’s DeepWorker sub pilots. This data must be analyzed to determine what types of features can be found in different parts of the lake. Ultimately, detailed maps can be generated to help answer questions like “how does microbialite texture and size vary with depth?” and “why do microbialites grow in certain parts of the lake but not in others?”. But before these questions can be answered, all the data must be analyzed.
I think it’s the sheer cheesiness of the video and ‘branding’ that bothers me most. Science: It’s a Girl Thing! is the European Commission’s brave new attempt to make science appealing to girls. Unfortunately it looks like a campaign for cosmetics. If you go to the website, you’ll find the lettering for the brand is pink (lipstick) while the letter ‘i’ in Science is represented by a lipstick which looks like a different shade than the one used for the lettering. Very cheesy branding but apparently it’s the video that has caused a bit of an uproar. Here it is for your delectation,
I find the June 29, 2012 posting by Curt Rice at the Guardian Science blogs gives insight into some of the current response (condemnation and support from an unexpected source) to and the prior planning that went into the campaign,
Advertising professors everywhere must be thanking the European Commission for their new campaign, Science: it’s a girl thing! This campaign – designed to convince high school girls to pursue careers in science – had such a badly bungled launch that it’s sure to become the topic of lectures and exam questions for communications students throughout Europe and beyond.
The problem lies in the “teaser” video, which went viral last week for all the wrong reasons. It was put up on the campaign website, disliked, criticised, mocked and then pulled down faster than the gaga male scientist in the video could open his zipper.
The video was so shocking that the EC had to deny that it was an attempt at irony.
I was a member of the “gender expert group” that provided recommendations to the commission for this campaign. We met during the spring of 2011, articulated ideas about target groups and relevant evidence-based perspectives. We submitted a report and then heard nothing more from the commission until receiving an invitation to the kick-off a few weeks ago.
When that invitation came, it worried me. The logo for the campaign was written in lipstick – pink lipstick. “What will that convey?” I wondered.
My uncertainty about how the campaign would be received was vanquished the moment I saw the teaser video. Not only was it completely devoid of any trace of our group’s recommendations – as we noted in a recently released joint statement – but its sex roles were stereotypical clichés.
Here’s what I found particularly intriguing,
I started airing my concerns on Twitter. The debate was lively and engaged; it was nuanced. Twin sisters in Australia were provoked to write to me and elaborate on their views. Imogen and Freya Wadlow are 17 years old and they run two science websites, one for younger kids and one for teens.
How did two teenagers with award-winning websites view the infamous video? They thought it was a stereotype-busting effort! That’s right. Imogen and Freya told me that they receive loads of emails from girls who love science but hate being labeled geeks. Why, they ask, can’t scientists wear make-up, killer heels and be seen laughing?
I do like Rice’s suggestion for a proactive response to this video,
Maybe crowdsourcing the creation of a teaser – based on the campaign’s website – would be the best way to find out what could tempt teenage girls to study science.
In fact, I think we should show the European Commission just how crowdsourcing the teaser could work. Let’s have a contest. Go to the campaign website and find your inspiration. Think about what could be a meaningful teaser video. And then make it!
Rice is the Pro Rector for Research and Development at the University of Tromsø (Norway). Rice gives the contest rules here,
The #ScienceGirlThing contest
The European Commission has just launched a campaign — Science: It’s a girl thing! — that aims to increase participation of women in science. However, one part of the launch was a fiasco. Join our contest and show the European Commission that YOU can do better!
To get attention for the campaign, the Commission used a “teaser” video:
That video was extremely controversial and it was quickly abandoned. Twitter exploded with discussion marked with the hashtag #sciencegirlthing.
Let’s show the Commission what kind of talent is out there. Let’s show them how crowdsourcing can create something brilliant.
The contest below is for you!
The winning video will be shown at the European Gender Summit 2012, November 29-30 at the European Parliament in Brussels. (UPDATE: I’m working on a securing a cash prize for the contest as well. Watch this space for news about this in the coming few days.)
Create a video for Europe
Create your own video teaser and have it shown at the European Gender Summit 2012 and promoted on this site.
2. Create a one minute (or less) video designed to drive traffic to the site and create awareness for the project.
3. Upload your video to YouTube and include the hashtag #sciencegirlthing in the description, and tweet to @CurtRice with a link to your video. I’ll promote your videos on my blog and on Twitter.
4. Encourage people to “like” your video on YouTube. The one with the most likes on Tuesday, November 6, at 12 noon Central European Time will be shown at the conference.
5. Sign up for our newsletter below [on Rice’s blog] and receive updates on who is winning with links to all of the videos.
The teen (and twin sister) Australian science bloggers mentioned in Rice’s posting on the Guardian dropped by on June 30,2012 to leave a comment,
30 June 2012 12:47AM
We’re Immie & Freya (mentioned in Curt’s article). We LOVE Reena’s survey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/16896759); shows that our responses were pretty typical of teen girls. We are a bit older than the girls surveyed, so we understand that in a few years when we’re working scientists, we will be more focussed on being seen as professional and serious scientists. But right now, we need to smash the stereotypes that stop girls getting interested in science in the first place. I don’t think those making negative comments about the video remember just how alienating being interested in science can be, especially for girls. It shouldn’t just be for the quiet geeks, science should be for ALL girls and like it or not, us teens identify more with the girls depicted in the video than with white coats and glum faces (see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/opinion-scientist-stereotype/). We love that at least the EU is making an effort and yes, we’d love to re-do the video; get rid of all that pouting and the dude perving at the girls, get some REAL scientists in there, because we’ve met some amazing cool science chics who DO wear killer heels, lipstick and are happy to hit the moshpit and it’s them who’ve inspired us to join the science ranks. All we want as young girls is to feel ‘normal’, not pasted into a stereotype of dull, boring and handles test tubes well! This video is not an answer, but it’s a start!!!!
I had tripped across Rice’s posting last week but it was David Bruggeman’s July 4, 2012 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog that moved me to write about my thoughts on the matter (which I haven’t quite done yet but I will),
Girls Inc. inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and bold through life-changing programs and experiences that help girls navigate gender, economic, and social barriers. Research-based curricula, delivered by trained, mentoring professionals in a positive all-girl environment equip girls to achieve academically; lead healthy and physically active lives; manage money; navigate media messages; and discover an interest in science, technology, engineering, and math. The network of local Girls Inc. nonprofit organizations serves 125,000 girls ages 6 – 18 annually across the United States and Canada.
Our History The Girls Inc movement started in New England during the Industrial Revolution as a response to the needs of a new working class: young women who had migrated from rural communities in search of newly available job opportunities in textile mills and factories.
Programs Girls Inc develops research-based informal education programs that encourage girls to take risks and master physical, intellectual and emotional challenges. Major programs address math and science education, pregnancy and drug abuse prevention, media literacy, economic literacy, adolescent health, violence prevention, and sports participation.
I always find the Board of Directors list to be very informative, you may want to take a look (the first name on this list is Michelle Obama, First Lady of the US).
I digress; the video of ‘I am a scientist’ by Mates of State for the Science Fair album (available here and mentioned in the earlier excerpt from David Bruggeman’s posting) provides a contrast to the Science: It’s a Girl Thing video but is fraught with its own stereotype,
Nerd (corrected July 6, 2012 at 16:30 PST) Geeky girl with glasses (intelligent girls almost always wear glasses in videos, movies, & tv series) gets laughed at for her ‘science’—that’s a very familiar trope. In fact, these two videos represent the dominant (almost the only) stories ‘you’re sexy and can’t hold onto your molecules (i.e., not very good at science/business/etc.)’ or ‘you’re a nerd and people will will laugh at you when you try to be serious’ about girls/women/females. I don’t think the stories are the problem it’s just that they’re pretty much the only stories that get represented. Then, we all start arguing as if it’s an either/or situation.
I should mention here Darlene Cavalier and the Science Cheerleader website where she has been tackling the issue of being overtly girly and practicing science for years. You can check out my Sept. 2, 2010 posting (scroll down 3/4 of the way) or you can look at this from her June 19, 2012 posting about twins (in honour of the Australian bloggers, Imogen and Freya Wadlow), scientists, and cheerleaders, Kim and Kelly,
Kim and Kelly, former Philadelphia Eagles cheerleaders, science professionals, and twins (from the Science Cheerleader website)
So what got you two into science? Kim: My science related career evolved over time. My initial work was on the business side with ExxonMobil. Later I managed operations in a facility which included safety, health, and environmental compliance and I really enjoyed the learning curve of the vast environmental regulation arena. This experience allowed me to eventually move into a position as an Environmental Advisor, in which I support the company’s Lubricant Blend Oil Plants in their environmental sustainability initiatives and environmental compliance. Kelly: After teaching 3rd grade for nine years, a position opened up in my school building for a 6th grade science teacher. I jumped at the chance to challenge myself to teach and become an expert in one subject area instead of teaching all subject areas. I took many classes, training, and in-service workshops in preparation for teaching science.
Personally, I want to see more stories and variations and I’m glad to see Darlene has continued with her quiet campaign to challenge stereotypes about women in science.
Good luck to Curt Rice and I look forward to seeing the entries to his contest.
One last thing about David Bruggeman’s July 4, 2012 posting, he has some details and a video clip about a geometry movie Sphereland, sequel to a 2007 movie, Flatland. Both movies are based on books of the same title.
The US government established science envoys (scientists as part of the diplomatic service) in 2009. According to this Sept. 19, 2010 posting on the Pasco Phronesis, three more people have been appointed,
The newest science envoys are:
Dr. Rita Colwell, former Director of the National Science Foundation. Her background is in biotechnology and microbiology, and her current research interests include infectious diseases.
Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, an agronomist at Purdue University and a native of Ethiopia. His research interests focus on sorghum, an important cereal and feed crop worldwide.
Dr. Alice Gast, president of Lehigh University. Dr. Gast has a background in chemical engineering, and served as the vice president for research at MIT prior to becoming the Lehigh President.
(You can get links and more details from Pasco Phronesis.) I find this introduction of science into areas that I don’t ordinarily associate with it quite interesting. Here’s another example also from Pasco Phronesis, science with US style football (Sept. 17, 2010 posting),
Continuing a project started during the recent Winter Olympics in Vancouver, NBC has partnered with the National Football League (NFL) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide science content to augment the network’s football coverage. With the help of high-speed cameras, a scientist (most sponsored by NSF) will introduce a scientific principle and a former or current NFL player will explain how the principle applies to their position. Scientific fields represented include kinesiology, engineering and nutrition.
David (Pasco Phronesis) goes on to suggest that a segment on concussions (not currently part of the series) would be a good idea and I have to agree with him on that one.
To my delight I found that Science Cheerleader (Darlene Cavalier) helped develop this program (from her Sept. 9, 2010 posting),
Man, this was one of the most exciting projects I’ve ever worked on (partnership director). I originally pitched this as the Science of Pro Cheerleading but, what the heck, this ain’t too shabby. Huge round of applause to the National Science Foundation for making this possible. Together, with the incomparable professionals at NBC and NFL, we present to you, the Science of NFL Football….with a few procheerleaders-turned-scientists- and engineers sprinkled in here and there. Can’t help it. And, these gals do a great job inspiring young women to consider careers in science and technology so SciCheer is broadening the distribution of this series. We will debut new video stories every week for the next seven weeks.
Given her engaging perspective, I imagine the US National Football League’s and NBC series will also be engaging and creative.
Both David and Darlene have made me realize just how much science is being snuck into unexpected places these days. This reminded me that Dancing with the Stars also had a science segment. One of the nights they broadcast the show (can’t remember which season), they included information about the kinesiology and physics of ballroom dancing and compared dancers to athletes. Science is everywhere.
Last week, three women were honoured for their work in nanoscience with L’Oréal Singapore for Women in Science Fellowships (from the news item on Nanowerk),
In its second year, the Fellowships is organised with the support of the Singapore National Commission for UNESCO and in partnership with the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). The Fellowships aim to recognise the significant contribution of talented women to scientific progress, encourage young women to pursue science as a career and promote their effective participation in the scientific development of Singapore.
The three outstanding women were awarded fellowships worth S$20,000 to support them in their doctorate or post-doctorate research. This year’s National Fellows are:
– Dr. Low Hong Yee, 2010 L’Oréal Singapore For Women in Science National Fellow and Senior Scientist at A*STAR’s Institute of Materials Research and Engineering. Her work in nanoimprint technology, an emerging technique in nanotechnology, focuses on eco solutions and brings to reality the ability to mimic and apply on synthetic surfaces the structure found in naturally occurring exteriors or skin such as the iridescent colours of a butterfly’s wings or the water-proofing of lotus leaves. This new development offers an eco-friendly, non-chemical method to improve the properties and functionalities of common plastic film.
– Dr. Madhavi Srinivasan, 2010 L’Oréal Singapore For Women in Science National Fellow and Assistant Professor at the Nanyang Technological University. Dr Srinivasan seeks to harness the power of nanoscale materials for the answer to the future of energy storage. Such technologies are vital for the future of a clean energy landscape. Its applications include powering electric vehicles, thus reducing overall CO2 emission, and reducing global warming or enhancing renewable energy sources (solar/wind), thus reducing pollution and tapping on alternative energy supplies.
– Dr. Yang Huiying, 2010 L’Oréal Singapore For Women in Science National Fellow and Assistant Professor at Singapore University of Technology and Design. Dr Yang’s fascination with the beauty of the nano-world prompted her research into the fabrication of metal oxide nanostructures, investigation of their optical properties, and the development of nanophotonics devices. These light emitting devices will potentially be an answer to the need for energy-saving and lower cost display screens, LED bulbs, TV and DVD players etc.
This announcement reminded me of a question I occasionally ask myself, why aren’t there more women mentioned prominently in the nanotechnology/nanoscience narratives? There are a few (the ones I’ve heard of are from the US: Christine Peterson/Foresight Institute; Mildred Dresselhaus, advisor to former US Pres. Bill Clinton; Kristen Kulinowski/Rice University and the Good Nano Guide, please let me know of any others that should be added to this list) just not as many as I would have expected.
On a somewhat related note, there was this blog post by one of the co-authors of the article, The Internet as a resource and support network for diverse geoscientists, which focused largely on women,
In the September issue of GSA Today, you can find our article on The Internet as a resource and support network for diverse geoscientists. We wrote the article with with the idea of reaching beyond the audience that already reads blogs (or attends education/diversity sessions at GSA), with the view that we might be able to open some eyes as to why time spent on-line reading and writing blogs and participating in Twitter might be a valuable thing for geoscientists to be doing. And, of course, we had some data to support our assertions.
As a white woman geoscientist in academia, I have definitely personally and professionally benefited from my blog reading and writing time. (I even have a publication to show for it!) But I would to love to hear more from minority and outside-of-academia geoscientists about what blogs, Twitter, and other internet-based forms of support could be doing to better support you. As you can see from the paragraph above, what we ended up advocating was that institutional support for blogging and blog-reading would help increase participation. We thought that, with increased participation, more minority and outside-of-academia geosciences voices would emerge, helping others find support, community, role models, and mentoring in voices similar to their own. Meanwhile those of us closer to the white/academic end of the spectrum could learn from all that a diverse geoscientist community has to offer.
The 2-page article is open access and can be found here.
Meanwhile, women in technology should be taking this tack according to an article by Allyson Kapin on the Fast Company website,
We have a rampant problem in the tech world. It’s called the blame game. Here’s how it works. You ask the question, “Why aren’t there enough women in tech or launching startups?” From some you get answers like, “Because it’s an exclusive white boys club.” But others say, “Not true! It’s because women don’t promote their expertise enough and they are more risk averse.” How can we truly address the lack of women in tech and startups and develop realistic solutions if we continue to play this silly blame game?
Yesterday, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch wrote a blog post saying, “It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are. If your idea rocks and you can execute, you can change the world and/or get really, stinking rich.”
That’s a nice idea and if it were true then the amount of wealthy entrepreneurs would better match our population’s racial and gender demographics. The fact remains that in 2009 angel investors dished out $17.6 billion to fund startups. Wonder how many funded startups were women-run? 9.4%, according to the 2009 angel investor report from Center for Venture Research at University of New Hampshire. And only 6% of investor money funded startups run by people of color.
Yet Arrington says it’s because women just don’t want it enough and that he is sick and tired of being blamed for it. He also says TechCrunch has “beg[ged] women to come and speak” and participate in their events and reached out to communities but many women still decline.
Unfortunately, the article is expositing two different ideas (thank you Allyson Kapin for refuting Arrington’s thesis) and not relating them to each other. First, there is a ‘blame game’ which isn’t getting anyone anywhere and there are issues with getting women to speak on technology panels.There are some good suggestions in the article for how to deal with the 2nd problem while the first problem is left to rest.
Kapin is right, the blame game doesn’t work in anyone’s favour but then we have to develop some alternatives. I have something here from Science Cheerleader which offers a stereotype-breaking approach to dealing with some of the issues that women in science confront. Meet Christine,
Meet Crhstine (image found on sciencecheerleader.com
Meet Erica (image found on sciencecheerleader.com)
Changing the way women are perceived is a slow and arduous process and requires a great number of strategies along with the recognition that the strategies have to be adjusted as the nature of the prejudice/discrimination also changes in response to the strategies designed to counter it in the first place. For example, efforts like the L’Oréal fellowships for women have been described as reverse-discrimination since men don’t have access to the awards by reason of their gender while standard fellowship programmes are open to all. It’s true the programmes are open to all but we need to use a variety of ways (finding speakers for panels, special financial awards programmes, stereotype-breaking articles, refuting an uninformed statement, etc.) to encourage greater participation by women and the members of other groups that have traditionally not been included. After all, there’s a reason why most of the prominent Nobel science prize winners are white males and it’s not because they are naturally better at science.
The US National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has posed the question, What kind of person is a science communicator for the NAE? Thanks to a July 26, 2010 posting about science communication on Science Cheerleader, we have an answer.
The Science Cheerleader posting opened with a discussion of another science communication initiative (from the Union of Concerned Scientists) and goes on to provide more context for this video about NAE communicators.
Matthew Nisbet at the Framing Science blog recently posted about a science communication initiative at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The organization is announcing a new $5000 award for public engagement by early career scientists. From Nisbet’s July 27, 2010 posting,
It will be interesting to see the criteria by which nominations are judged. As I noted last month [June 30, 2010 posting], how public engagement is ultimately defined, its goals and outcomes, remains an open question. …
There is more major news on this front [public engagement] coming in August including the launch of a new blog, and a special issue of a leading journal with articles that review different dimensions of public engagement activities along with the types of structural and cultural transformations needed within the science community and at universities.
Over at the Pasco Phronesis blog, David Bruggeman weighs in with similar concerns regarding how the AAAS defines public engagement and other related issues (from his July 27, 2010 posting),
It’s great to have something to encourage public engagement with science and engineering, and also great to target researchers before they have reached tenure. Unfortunately, the size of the prize frankly isn’t worth the hassle of trying to demonstrate excellence in an area that is not likely to matter much in the calculation of tenure.
David’s commentary about the US situation (more detailed than I’ve represented here), points up a significant difference between Canada and the US with regard to science and pubic engagement/discussion/promotion/outreach. While there is some lip service paid to the idea of science outreach to the Canadian public, it is not a serious endeavour here. Even agencies that require a public outreach element for their grants don’t, to my knowledge, define the requirement let alone audit any of the activities. Of the outreach that does exist, much of it is oriented to children and teens.
Still, there are a few efforts oriented to adults such as CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio’s How To Think About Science (why didn’t they pick another title?) series that was originally broadcast as part of the longrunning Ideas programme.
There are 24 episodes available for listening here. Interview subjects include: Evelyn Fox Keller, Richard Lewontin, Ulrich Beck and Bruno Latour, and Ruth Hubbard. One caveat, the announcer and the interviewer have something I think of as ‘golf’ commentary syndrome’ (a tendency to over-enunciate and speak in tones usually reserved for the sacred and/or taboo).
You can find the projects I’ve listed in the headline (and others) at the Science Cheerleader website which was founded by Darlene Cavalier, from the About page in her own words,
The year was 1991, I was a senior at Temple University (where many thought I dual majored in cheerleading and mixology) and I was starved for cash. I supplemented my pitiable income by becoming a professional cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team. After a couple of exciting years sharing the spotlight with Sir Charles Barkley, I had to retire the skimpy outfits and pom poms, as “serious” work was calling. I was hired as a part-time temp to stuff envelopes for the Discover Magazine Technology Awards. Eventually, I was hired full-time by Discover (owned by the Walt Disney Company at the time) to run the awards and to manage business development activities for the company’s magazine group.
Darlene Cavalier in her cheerleading days
I returned to school at the University of Pennsylvania and dove into science history, sociology, and science policy to learn more about people like me: people with no hard academic background who are deeply interested in science, especially in its public faces in science policy and science literacy.
In the process, I uncovered a remarkable group of people I’d never seen or even heard about before. Scientific Citizens. Through their grass-roots, bottom-up efforts they aid research in a plethora of science fields by tagging butterflies, monitoring the health of water, keeping an eye on migratory patterns of birds, discovering new galaxies, and so much more.
Her May 13, 2010 post about the challenge that Andrew Revkin at the DotEarth New York Times blog set for researchers and other interested parties to come up with solutions for the current BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico offers some interesting insight into the politics of how BP is handling suggestions from outsiders along with commentary about the US federal Minerals Management Service which is charged, amongst other responsibilities, with overseeing oil rigs. She offers an excerpt of her May 13 , 2010 post here on Science Cheerleader and the full post here on DiscoverMagazine.com where she is a guest blogger during May 2010.
Ordinary people (nonscientists like me) have a long tradition of participating in scientific research in areas such as astronomy and ornithology (bird watching). A local example is the eagle count which takes place at Brackendale every year. (Aside: The 2010 count has already taken place but it’s still possible to attend festival events which are now part of the Brackendale eagle count experience.)
Someone whose science interests may be more esoteric can have trouble finding opportunities to pursue their interests. Thanks to the Science Cheerleader there is a new online resource to help you find a project. From the Science Cheerleader blog,
Hot diggity-DOG! After years in the making, my partner, Michael Gold, and I–with generous support from Science House–have officially unveiled the beta version (that means this is still a work-in-progress) of ScienceForCitizens.net . Science journalist, Carl Zimmer, who frequently writes for Discover and Time Magazine, said “It’s like Amazon.com for all sorts of possibilities for doing cool citizen science”. We’ll take that
For an abrupt change of pace: Yes, you could be wearing your batteries at some point in the future. Scientists at Stanford University (CA) have found a way to easily and inexpensively turn cotton or polyester fibres into batteries or, as they call it, wearable energy textiles or e-textiles. From the news item on BBC News,
“Wearable electronics represent a developing new class of materials… which allow for many applications and designs previously impossible with traditional electronics technologies,” the authors [of the study published in ACS Nano Letters] wrote.
A number of research efforts in recent years have shown the possibility of electronics that can be built on flexible and even transparent surfaces – leading to the often-touted “roll-up display”.
However, the integration of electronics into textiles has presented different challenges, in particular developing approaches that work with ordinary fabrics.
Now, Yi Cui and his team at Stanford University in the US has shown that their “ink” made of carbon nanotubes – cylinders of carbon just billionths of a metre across – can serve as a dye that can simply and cheaply turn a t-shirt into an “e-shirt”.
I’ve taken a look at the research paper which, as these things go, is pretty readable. Bravo to the American Chemical Society (ACS) for not placing the material behind a paywall. The article, Stretchable, Porous and Conductive Energy Textiles, published in the ACS journal Nano Letters is here.
I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview on Whyy Radio conducted by Marty Moss-Coane where she interviewed Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnolgies. The interview (approximately 50 mins.) titled, The Science and Safety of Nanotechnology, is available for listening here. Moss-Coane was well-prepared, asked good questions, and had listeners call in with their own questions. Dr. Andrew Maynard was, as always, very likable and interesting.
After my recent posting on science policy in Canada and the four major political parties, I thought I’d check out the various shadow science ministers or critics. Here’s what I found,
Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Jim Maloway, NDP, Science and Technology [portfolio]
Frances Coates, Green Party, shadow minister Science and Technology
Marc Garneau, Liberal Party, Industry, Science and Technology critic
I have looked at all their websites and Garneau seems the most interested in science and technology issues. Given that he’s a former astronaut and is an engineer, one might expect that he would have a major interest in the subject. He’s written a paper on the subject (thanks to the folks at The Black Hole for finding it). If you go here and either read or scroll to the bottom, you will find a link to his paper. He also has a poll on his website, What is the importance of science and technology to create the jobs for tomorrow? You can go here to answer the question. As for the others, Goodyear lists a series of announcements in news releases as accomplishments which makes identifying his actual accomplishments difficult. Jim Maloway does not mention science on his website and Frances Coates posted a few times on her blog in 2008 but made no mention of science.