Science Blogging – Science Sushi

3 Quarks Daily Science Prizes have been announced!

The 3 Quarks Daily Science Prizes have been announced. Top Quark went to the ever-amazing Eric Michael Johnson for his deeply-researched and thought-engaging post on how Promiscuity Is Pragmatic. The second place slot, The Strange Quark, went to… ME!

I’m honored to be chosen for this award, judged by none other than the esteemed Frans B. M. de Waal. Eric and the third-place winner, Carl Zimmer, are both incredibly talented writers, and I’m truly humbled to be in such good company. For the Strange Quark, Frans picked my essay on Margie Profet and the counter-intuitive idea that allergies might actually be a good thing. Here’s what Frans had to say about the piece:

“My second choice is Christie Wilcox’s piece on the toxin hypothesis of allergies. It is well written and the recent mouse work she describes supports the view that allergies reflect a protective mechanism…

In fact, all three essays explore unusual ideas that seem to go against the mainstream, which makes for exciting reading, leaving one to wonder what other established ideas we may have wrong. As such, these authors promote the healthy skepticism that is the bedrock of science, and show that science is always in flux, always keeping us at the edge of our seat. In a society that sometimes turns away from science, or views it as a boring mass of facts, this is a most important message to convey.”

You can find out more about the prizes here. Be sure to read the other two fantastic posts (linked above), and you can read my entire winning post here.

Don’t forget to donate!!

I know you’re busy trick or treating or pegging houses with eggs, but the Science Bloggers Donors Choose drive is still going! And now, there’s even more incentive to give. If you enter the match code “SCIENCE” when you go to pay, your donation will be matched by DonorsChoose.Org*! That means every dollar you give equals two dollars for those kids. So go check out the Science Sushi page, or any of the SciAm donation pages and get generous!

*up to $100 per donor

Time to Vote!

Nominations are over, and two of my posts are in the running, included among an impressive list of science blogs. Go peruse the nominees, get a feel for your favorites, then GO VOTE. You have until midnight this Saturday to do so!

Mine are in the S’s under “Science Sushi” if you want to vote for me – which you do, right? 😉

Here are the two posts in the running:

Time – and brain chemistry – heal all wounds

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

The 3 Quarks Daily Science Blogging Prize Is Back!

Every year, the amazing crew over at 3 Quarks Daily offers a prize for great science writing online judged by an esteemed scientific mind. This year, the judge is Sean Carroll – previous 3QD winner, incredible science blogger, practicing scientist, and the author of great science books like From Eternity to Here. Any science blog post from May 29th, 2011 until May 29th, 2012 is eligable – all you have to do is nominate it by leaving a comment with a link on this announcement post. You have until June 9th to submit your nominations!

And, on the topic of shameless self promotion, if you wanted to submit one of mine, here are my favorites:

Of course, please submit whatever posts you like the best, from the amazing plethora of science blogs out there.

On a similar note, you can now submit nominations for the AAAS Kavli Awards for science journalism. Science blogs are perfect for the online category – so nominate your favorite science blogs for that prize, too!

Social Media for Scientists Part 4: On The Road

A couple weeks ago, I braved the freezing north to speak at the University of Washington for a workshop focusing on Social Media for Scientists. The event was co-sponsored by AFSUW, Washington Sea Grant, and COSEE OLC as a part of the Beyond the Ivory Tower series, a set of free public lectures that hopes to provide researchers with tools and techniques to reach audiences and broaden the impacts of their work. I was teamed up with the effortlessly incredible Liz Neeley, COMPASS’ super ninja of science communication, to try and convince a room full of hardy Seattle scientists that, indeed, every lab should tweet.

I truly do believe that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media are essential for every scientist to use. Not only are they the communication platforms of the future, they hold the potential to revolutionize how we do science in the first place. It seems foolish at best that in scientific circles we deride the use of these networks that, literally, two thirds of the world’s population are connecting through. I’ve laid out the arguments before (see the post list below), and will surely continue to talk about this topic until I go hoarse. Simply put, it’s not a question that scientists need to increasingly engage with new media platforms to stay relevant in this digital age. The question is how.

For that, I’m going to point you toward the freshly launched Social Media for Science Google+ Page and the workshop wiki, which is an evolving collection of information and resources, as well as the Storify of the afternoon by Jessica Rohde. You can also download my slides from slideshare, or watch the video of my talk:


Science and Social Media--Christie Wilcox from AFSUW on Vimeo.

More Social Media for Scientists:

Blogging Science While Female – the Storify

Whew. What a crazy week! Just 7 days ago, I hopped on a plane and began my long journey eastward to North Carolina to attend Science Online 2012. In case you aren’t familiar with the conference, Science Online is, as Christopher Mims said, like “a Burning Man for Science Journalists.” For me, this meant three days straight of talking, learning, and networking – note the absence of the word “sleeping.” Last night was the first time in a week I got more than 5 hours sleep. It was amazing.

Anyhow, I was at Science Online not only to engage with other scientists and journalists, but also to co-moderate a session titled “Blogging Science While Female.” Here’s the session description:

The session on women in science blogging at Science Online 2011 sparked internet-wide discussion about sexism, discrimination and gender representation in science and science blogging. Now here we are, a year later. How have we, as a community, faced the issues brought up by last year’s discussion? What has changed? What have we learned, and what challenges still lie ahead? Moderators and attendees will assess the current state of women in the science blogosphere and discuss the best way we can support and encourage gender representation in science blogging.

Rather than rehash the session here, I’ll instead give you Tanya Lewis’ storify of the session (below). Also, be sure to read Kate Clancy’s epically awesome post: Blogging While Female, and Why We Need A Posse

Two Words: An Open Letter To Ed Rybicki

Dear Ed,

It seems you are upset at the torrent of outrage your Futures piece has caused. You’re “dumbfounded” that anyone could read so much into your frivolous little tale, and honestly didn’t mean for your short story to harm or offend anyone. After all, it was just supposed to be a joke.

That is totally understandable – I mean, come on, haven’t we all been there? You’re having this fun, friendly conversation with a colleague/friend/family member/whomever and you make some comment or joke. You giggle a little – because hey! It was a funny! – only to see that your companion clearly feels otherwise. You didn’t mean to offend, but by the awkward silence and sudden look of confusion, anger, or even hurt on their face, you realize that you did. It was completely by accident.

Most people’s instantaneous reaction to the above scenario is two simple words. Those words might be followed by an explanation of the joke to see if it changes the response (“See, it’s funny because I said XYZ when, really, we all know ABC…”). Or, even, when that clearly doesn’t improve things, defensive statements like “Wait – that didn’t come off right” or “That’s not what I meant” or even “What I meant to say was…”, but the first thing, the first thing that comes out of their mouth, is this:

“I’m sorry.”

Ed, you say that you totally didn’t mean to offend anyone, and with the benefit of the doubt, I’ll believe you. But you did offend people. A lot of people, especially women in science.

You say that the image painted by others of you isn’t accurate, that Womanspace isn’t a reflection of your views of women and gender, and that it was supposed to come off as a joke that, if anything, says women are superhuman while men are bumbling idiots.

But for what seems to be a large percentage of its readers, it didn’t. And while you seem to be able to go on and on about how really good a person you are, and how you didn’t mean any harm, and it was just a joke, you have to realize by now that to many people, it was offensive and anything but funny.

If Womanspace doesn’t reflect your views of gender and women, it should bother you that so many of your colleagues and other scientists were offended. When someone points out that your story reinforces negative stereotypes and promotes the kind of environment that discourages women from STEM careers, you should feel badly that your joke came off so poorly. That is, like when you accidentally step on someone’s toes, you should feel remorse that you caused harm to another when you really didn’t mean to.

Yes, you’re allowed to defend yourself. It’s understandable that you wanted to make sure that people know you didn’t mean to alienate women, or reinforce the notion that women should cook and clean while men ponder the intricacies of the universe. No one will fault you for quickly saying “Wait! I didn’t mean for it to sound like that!”

There was just one problem: your response lacked the two little words that should have been your knee-jerk reaction to making so many people feel badly. You should have felt compelled to apologize for the unintentional harm you may have caused.

In short, you should have said you’re sorry.

The fact that you didn’t reveals more about you as a person than any terribly-written, stereotypical science fiction story ever could.

Science Bloggers Compete for $10,000

Last year, I entered this $10,000 blogging scholarship on a whim. After all, why not? $10,000 is a lot of money, money that as a poor grad student, I could definitely use. I remember I was so excited when I saw that I’d made it into the list of finalists – the only science blogger in the running. I was even more excited, and a little amazed, when I won, thanks to the incredible support of the science blogging community.

This year, I’m thrilled to see that there are a whopping total of six science bloggers in the race. I’m glad I won last year, because I’d hate to have to compete with the talent in the running now! I encourage you to visit each and every one of the six blogs I’m about to link to, as well as the other finalists. These students need votes to win the scholarship, which means they need your help. All you have to do is follow this link and vote for the one you think deserves to win the most. I also want to encourage you to pass this along and get your friends, family and social networks to do the same.

So, without further ado, here are the science finalists:

Biology Blogs

Yes, I’m listing the bio blogs first. I’m biased. Given my career field of choice, it’s no wonder that these blogs have a special place in my heart. Bio blogs are a whopping 15% of the entries this year – way to go, biology lovers! Here are the three bio-themed blogs, in order of appearance in the overall list:

David Shiffman: Southern Fried Science

Ahoy, matey! If you’ve never sailed over to Southern Fried Science before, you don’t know what you’re missing. This marine-themed blog is the perfect blend of science and saltiness. David’s coblogger, Andrew, just posted a nice list of some of David’s best posts, which I highly recommend reading.

Heather Cohen: Escaping Anergy

It’s not easy to make immunology engaging and interesting, but Heather does a fantastic job of it. She clearly has a passion for what she does, and loves to share it with others. She hopes that her blog will help connect the general public to a field that is often overhyped and misinterpreted – and I’d say she’s off to a damn good start.

Jacquelyn Gill: Contemplative Mammoth

I grew up reading prehistorical fiction like The Clan of the Cave Bear. As a child, I wished more than anything I could travel back and time and walk among mammoths. Well, Jacquelyn does, every day. Her job as a paleoecologist is to use clues in the fossil record and from the world around us to recreate and study the past. Her blog brings readers back with her, exploring the science which lets us learn about the world as it once was as well as what it’s like to be a graduate student now, studing animals long since extinct.

Physics & Astronomy

I saw this great cartoon the other day, which definitely applies here. I guess if you can’t study the life on this planet, studying the rest of the universe is not a bad compromise. Two finalists manage to make the non-life sciences fun to read:

Philip Tanedo: Quantum Diaries

A little confession: I almost became a physicist. At least, I listed myself as a physics major when I started undergrad. In the end, I couldn’t hack it as a theoretical physicist, so I have a lot of respect for anyone who can make the Higgs boson into something I actually care about. Philip (or Flip) has a knack for turning some of the most complex topics out there into fun, entertaining reads.

Ray Sanders: Dear Astronomer.com

Ray wants to be sure that no astronomy question goes unanswered. If you have a question about our universe, he’ll try to answer it. He started his blog with the express purpose of acting as resource, complete with a good helping of “cheeky shenanigans to help make Astronomy fun and entertaining.”

Data Analysis

What is science without good data analysis? Sure, the last blog on my list isn’t *exactly* a science blog, but he sneaks in here because anyone who finds talking about data to be a fun hobby is a scientist at heart.

Kevin Flora: EdMatics

Kevin is a perfect example of why this contest is so great. I’d never heard of EdMantics before this, but when I checked out his blog, I was stunned. Who thought data could be so interesting? Kevin writes about presenting and analyzing data as if it is an art form – which, frankly, it is. He gets major kudos from me for turning most scientists’ least favorite part of the job into something beautiful.