Fake Banner
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...

Morte Alla Francia Italia Anela - The Secret History Of Organized Crime In 1343

Italy as we know it today had not been such since the days of the Roman Empire. You can see that...

User picture.
picture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture 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
What?  Republicans getting a mention on the eve of a scientific Golden Age due to the presence of Democrats in both Congress and the Oval Office, a time when the heavens themselves shall burst forth with funding to drive out the stench of stem cell restrictions and global warming doubts and heralding in a spirit of tolerance and equality for everyone except oil company employees and vaccination deniers?    Have I lost my senses?  

Patience, my friends, as always there is a reason.   And, as always, it will take me 1,000 words to get to it.
Two posts in one weekend?  I am such a science blogger.
A group of researchers did an analysis of the personalities of Wikipedia members and apparently don't think they are all that great.   By not great, I mean they fared less well on scales of agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness than people who weren't Wikipedia members.

Not surprisingly, introverted women were more likely to be Wikipedia members than non-introverted women.   Basically, women who can get boyfriends instead of slamming other contributors on Wikipedia tend to do that.   Not so shocking.
There was a big development in science this year, yet most people missed it.   It wasn't induced pluripotent stem cells or global warming or Barack Obama securing 99% of the scientist vote despite his belief that vaccines cause autism, which caused even heterosexual scientists to disregard Jenny McCarthy.  No, it was an alarming decrease in available clichés to describe what scientists think about new discoveries.
For the dwindling minority that still smokes and don't feel oppressed enough, here's something new to worry about;  even if you choose to smoke outside of your house, thinking that you're keeping your kids away from second-hand smoke, you're still exposing them to toxins and potentially cognitive deficits, say researchers in the January issue of Pediatrics.  Did they do a clinical study?   No, they did a survey and found people who agree.  That is why I use the term jumping the shark.  Anti-smoking fundamentalists may have done it.
Go ahead and admit it, you would have been stumped if the answer wasn't in the title, right?   There isn't much a Democrat President-elect, an old white Republican war veteran and an insane actor could all have in common, but they do, according to the group Sense About Science which seeks to promote scientific accuracy.

It's scientific illiteracy.

Their Celebrities and Science Review 2008 pulls out the choicest bits of non-supported science data and holds them up for all to ridicule.  So let's go to it:

Barack Obama: