Fake Banner
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...

AI And The Poetry Problem

Artificial Intelligence is artificial, but it is not intelligence. That could change some day but...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Robert H Olleypicture 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
Can Science 2.0 Help Bridge The Gap Between Climate Science And The Public?

Can Science 2.0 Help Bridge The Gap Between Climate Science And The Public?

Jun 23 2011 | comment(s)

Writing at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog,  Jason Samenow advocates an idea he recently saw pitched by atmospheric scientist Alan Betts, namely that science studies be accompanied by layperson explanations.
Don't Have Sex With People From The Future

Don't Have Sex With People From The Future

Jun 22 2011 | comment(s)

If Hollywood movies are your science guide, outer space is populated primarily by hot vampire girl aliens and time travel is not only possible, but chicks will dig you more, the same way women today would like a man in a powdered wig and no bath for three days if he suddenly appeared from 1811.(1)

Science hates to be a buzzkill but often must - having sex with someone from the future might shorten your lifespan, thanks to antagonistic coevolution.
Do Any Science Publishers Care About Scientists?

Do Any Science Publishers Care About Scientists?

Jun 20 2011 | comment(s)

When is a multi-million dollar business that charges money before a science article can be seen by the public superior to another multi-million dollar business that charges money before a science article can be seen by the public? 

Apparently only if they claim to be non-profit.

Scientists are not business people so it is easy to understand why anyone would confuse non-profit status with "doesn't make money".   They all want to make money.   So if one publisher can charge you $1,200 to buy out the copyright and another charges readers $150 to read science, who is superior?

It basically only depends on who you like.   
Should Greenpeace Be Writing IPCC Reports?

Should Greenpeace Be Writing IPCC Reports?

Jun 17 2011 | comment(s)

For climate scientists to make positive inroads in policy regarding a problem we know is only going to get worse - pollution and climate change - they need to police the actions of a few in their circle, most notably the very loud.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has existed for over two decades now - they are not new to politics and this is not gotcha journalism from WikiLeaks; they have also already been implicated by an independent commission created by the United Nations for their use of 'gray' literature published as data and for ignoring commentary on what studies it uses in reports.
Obama's

Obama's "Gainful Employment" Rules For Colleges And What It Means For Science

Jun 14 2011 | comment(s)

You've seen the advertisements on television; schools that market heavily with dubious promises of how wonderful the job market is, but then students who incur student loan debt to get those degrees - loans which are unlimited since the government in the early 1990s said higher education meant more money - find that in a market where everyone has some sort of degree or another, it doesn't mean much.
Plywood Gives You Cancer? Politics

Plywood Gives You Cancer? Politics "Have Hijacked The Scientific Process"

Jun 13 2011 | comment(s)

The National Toxicology Program has released its latest warning on things that 'give' you cancer and they include two things people come into contact with every day.

If you have walked into a new house and smelled that 'new house' smell, you are now ingesting a carcinogen, according to the report.   Let the lawsuits begin.   The issue is formaldehyde and they say, as they also said about carcinogens in their previous 11 reports, that the science is clear, but it turned out that the science in second-hand smoke was more cultural politics than data and the risk from tanning beds in cancer is the same as in cell phones and drinking coffee.