Fake Banner
Marijuana For ADHD?

Cannabis and THC, its main psychoactive compound, have been endorsed by people suffering from anxiety...

Rutgers Study - Forcing DEI Programs On People Increases Hostility

If you have done nothing wrong, do you want to be treated like a criminal? That was always the...

Minnesota Trial Lawyers Want To Ban Neonics - Here Is Why That Is A Mistake

Minnesota is having a challenging year, so challenging they are approaching California as the wackiest...

The Toxic Masculinity Of Disney Movies

Once upon a time, stories were just stories. They were fantasies that took people to a new world...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Fred Phillipspicture for
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
Dr. Oz has done a lot of things right recently.
The Natural Resources Defense Council environmental lobbying group has created a coalition and they have drafted a petition demanding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban eight food additives they believe are carcinogens, in the interests of public health.

The problem is that many of these are natural, which is one reason why they have never been banned. The other reason is they haven't been shown to be harmful, regardless of whether or not we have been trained by environmental lobbying groups to be scared of chemical names.
At the Biotech Literacy Project Boot Camp, held a week ago at the U.C. Davis World Food Center, I was on a journalism roundtable with Brooke Borel, Keith Kloor and Razib Khan, moderated by Professor Kevin Folta, and I was asked about the most important thing for scientists to keep in mind regarding increasing science acceptance.

It's always difficult to pick just one but given the nature of the assault on food science, 'don't engage in deficit thinking' was my response. Basically, don't assume the other person simply lacks the proper facts or that if things are framed properly it would change their minds. It probably will not, at least for the most vocal critics.
Though 50 percent of science in America is done by the corporate world, journal articles are overwhelmingly written by academics.

The reason is simple: In the private sector, it is a given that basic research may not produce anything. A drug company expects 1 out of 5,000 efforts to get to market and entire divisions at some companies have never led to a product. CEOs understand it can't be a free-for-all but there has to be room for creativity, and those researchers don't have to think about validating their existence.
In America, the social sciences, like psychology and anthropology, are regarded as female occupations - because they are.

But does that mean women are self-selecting women and there is bias against males in those fields? It depends on who you ask.

People rarely admit to bias and in 2015 people are rarely overtly biased, so instead it may be that when you walk into a classroom and no one looks 'like' you, you may be uncomfortable or, worse, you may feel like you are representing your whole gender/ethnicity and under-perform because you worry about how it makes your group look if you fail. 

In 2006 there was a serious decline in the number of honey bee colonies in parts of Europe and the United States and it brought renewed concern about another Colony Collapse Disorder, which had last occurred in the mid-1990s.