- Due 3 p.m. Sunday, April 1: a. Response 7 will be a blog post about your story or multimedia project or your own science research. You could, for example, write a backstory about an intriguing interview, an interesting character in your story or a challenge you faced and overcame. Bora Zivkovic, the chief blogger at Scientific American, will be our guest via Skype on Monday, and he’ll take a look at your posts. Here are tips about writing a blog post.
b. Also ask two questions about the social media readings listed in the schedule.
c. Also comment on one classmate’s post or questions. - BRING to class on Monday, April 2: I’ve moved all the stories and multimedia projects for your group to a DOWNLOAD STORIES folder in D2L’s Dropbox so you can retrieve them. You have a week (until class time on Monday, April 2) to download the stories of the other students in your group and give detailed feedback on your teammate’s stories. Use Comments or Track Changes. You do NOT need to edit the stories unless you can’t help yourself! Bring the other stories in your group to class this coming Monday, April 2, for a writers workshop. See the critique guidelines on the handout you received in class.
Carol Schwalbe
Office hours (Marshall 337)
Monday 7-8 p.m.
Wednesday 4-6 p.m.
or by appointment520.621.6223
cschwalbe@email.arizona.edu
TwitterClass hours (Marshall 340)
Monday 4:30-7 p.m.Cecil Schwalbe
520.621.5508
cecils@email.arizona.eduUA Journalism Social Media
Calendar
Menu
Archives
Meta
Principles of Science Journalism 
Urban Heat Island Effect Mitigation
Unbeknown to me, a large majority of the population in the United States is unaware of the urban heat island effect or suburban heat island effect. A large majority of Americans lives in an urban heat island or suburban heat island. Shouldn’t people know where they live? Truthfully, people know they live in cities or master planned communities, but they do not consider the environmental implications of their neighborhoods.
So what is a heat island? Long story short, highly populated areas are hotter than surrounding areas because of the high concentration of materials that retain heat (i.e., concrete, asphalt). Fun fact: heat islands have been around since the 1800s when they were “discovered” by a manufacturing chemist, Luke Howard. Cities such as London, New York and Phoenix are considered major heat islands. The Migrant Mind (http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011/02/urban-heat-island-in-pictures.html
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011/02/urban-heat-island-in-pictures-part-2.html
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011/02/urban-heat-island-in-pictures-part-3.html) has some pretty heated (ha, ha) posts about heat islands with great pictures (there is even one of the University of Arizona).
Anyone who has been to any of these cities can detect the temperature change in comparison to more rural areas. In fact, if you walk in the middle of the road (if you ever find yourself feeling risky) in Phoenix during the summer, you can literally feel the heat radiating from the ground (your shoes might melt). Switch to walking on grass, and it is like putting your feet in an ice bath.
Heat islands are such a big deal that the Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an entire website to ways to mitigate the problem. After doing some research for my article, I realized I needed to take a different approach. Assume nothing. If I want people to know about heat islands, I have to start from square one. Maybe my little article will be the first step in the heat island PR campaign à la Kony 2012.
Q1: Some of the links suggested using multiple types of social media to market your blog. Does anyone actually use other forms of social media besides “The Big 3”: Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr? If so, which sites do you use?
Q2: Following a blog is one thing, but following a bloggers Tumblr, being friends on Facebook, subscribing to their Twitter feed and having them in your friend circle on Google+ is quite another. Is it possible to be oversaturated by blogs? The amount of information out there is a little overwhelming.
I just started using Twitter and am a Facebook junky as well. But I also love social media sited like Instagram. That’s really just an app on my phone for sharing and commenting on photographs of friends and people to whom I subscribe. Also, WordPress itself has some interesting Opinion blogs organized by category.
As far as obsessively following someone on social media sites, it’s certainly something that people do. You can find the same online handles populating people’s and organization’s differing profiles all the time. It is scary. Then again, if said entity didn’t want to be cyber-stalked, they could eliminate their profiles, modify their privacy settings, block specific users who pose a threat or report abuse of a profile by specific users to moderating authorities. There is always the “report this” or “flag” button.
Instagram? I haven’t seen that yet. I’m off to check it out! I’ll be back.
Susan
Hmm. Instagram looks a little like Shutterfly, but with more features. I think it’s something I could use. Thanks, John! You folks keep me up with the new technology.
Susan
Subscribe to me, Susan. We’ll exchange images! Awesome! liveinfiction is my handle.
How do I subscribe wordandpulp?
Susan
Jessica, I love the a la Kony 2012 statement, but something similar to that like the big bad a la concrete could possibly work as well.
Answering your second question, I feel I would be creepy following one person on all his or her different social media websites. I think it’s great that a person has enough ideas to share with people on their blogs, Twitter or the whole shebang. I do think it is possible to be oversaturated by blogs, but if people are feeling overwhelmed, the nice thing about the Internet is that you can exit out of it and step away, unlike most things in our lives!
Like Lightning? READ ON!
When I was a kid I always thought Zeus was throwing down his lightning bolts because he was angry with one of his brothers, but then I came to realize that Hades wasn’t being a problem child.
In fact, moisture was being the bad boy because it caused Zeus (charged particles) to separate when moisture was driven up into the heavens (clouds). When this happens, the particles spark, which is the beginning of a lightning strike.
Okay, enough with my mythological approach.
My story is about lightning, obviously, and I don’t have an argument against big, bad lightning, but I understand why people are afraid of it — or not afraid enough.
When lightning strikes, it can reach temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun. This fact immediately hooked me to this topic, and I wanted to learn more and more and more.
Lightning looks a lot like a tree. Imagine the branches and all the leaves being the cloud. The trunk is the main channel, and the roots of the tree represent fractions of lightning that branch out from the main channel, trying to find other places to dump its current as quickly as possible. We usually can’t see the roots of the tree, much as how we can’t really see these fractions of the lightning.
The chance of someone surviving electrocution by the main channel is extremely rare. Those who do survive deserve a medal.
Most people are actually struck by fractions of the lightning or a side flash, which is still amazing to survive but more commonly survivable. It all depends on the temperature and where you were struck by this side flash.
I don’t think people are scared enough of lightning. Even if thunder is a faint sound 25 miles away, IT CAN STILL STRIKE YOU!
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/lightning-profile/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html
1) If scientists had a blog, I would follow them in a heartbeat. Most of them are great writers, and instead of reading about the facts of their research, we could get insight into their opinions about their research as well as other research. Would you follow scientists’ blogs? If so, what approaches do you think they should take in terms of not making the blog another scientific journal article?
2) Do you think it is more important for a journalist to have more social media sites than a scientist, or should a scientist have just as much? Obviously, it’s a free country, and the social media police are not going to put journalists and scientists in jail for not having a Twitter account, but what do you think?
Hey Shea,
In response to your second question, I think scientists should probably actively maintain just as many social media outlets as a journalist. Those resources are better suited to redirecting people to a more detailed description of the science itself, where journalists have plenty of space to showcase their work through blogging and other online publication.
Where the scientist is the person actually doing the research and claims ownership, they should do so in their own name.
Journalists are reporting for a larger organization and, therefore, don’t need the personal attribution unless it’s something like “Hey, check out this story I wrote for the Times about X, http://urlgoeshere.com.”
I guess what I’m getting at in a roundabout sort of way is that Facebook and Twitter are great for redirecting someone to the real story, not telling the story itself.
Hey Shea,
I would also follow a scientist blog. I think science bloggers would have to focus more on their personal life and the journey to their scientific discoveries. This would help to ensure that their blogs are not just extensions of their academic papers. As a reader, I would like to know what the research means to them and the greater community. I would want to know what struggles and hiccups they had in the process of getting funding and conducting the research. I would want to know the kinds of people they are working with and what they think of the project. These are some of the things that would be discussed in a blog by a scientist and help to steer them clear of just writing another academic paper.
In response, and with great respect, I am going to disagree with your statement in question 1. I would say most scientists struggle with communication, and not just on the written level. This would explain the lack of science blogs. In contrast, look at something like yoga, where people are constantly in touch with how to communicate with themselves and others, and there are tons of yoga blogs out there.
Back to the notion of science blogs and being followed: It’s hard to say how I would respond. When I read science-based material, part of me wants it to be dense and almost difficult to get through. On the other hand, take the work of someone like Michael Pollan, who can makes very sophisticated science seem so eloquent. I lose myself not only in the dreaminess of the language but also in the ideas it’s describing. I guess it really depends on delivery.
I would definitely follow a scientist’s blog if effort was given to making the information accessible to everyday users. Many scientists write very well but have a tendency to overexplain.
It sounds pretty basic, but some scientists could really benefit from taking a basic creative writing class–learn description in terms of mass appeal as opposed to appeal based on the needs of a community dealing with terminology and explanation outside of the everyday. This doesn’t just pertain to scientists either, but people who would like to increase the readership of their blogs in any field.
For instance, a NASA blog has some pretty interesting things. A lot of the language is followable. But it could be less dry. This, in my opinion, would increase appeal and serve to further the spread of information.
I have noticed this effect. I recently read a book called Emotions Revealed (the guy Lie to Me was based on). It was fascinating, with interesting stories and understandable science, but I felt that something was missing. Now that I look back, I think it was missing the beauty of language that transforms right from “good” to “great”. I have always cared about style, sometimes more than I care about content, and I think this is what scientists are missing. However, I would say that it’s more of a gift in some ways. I think a better approach would be for scientists to allow others to write about them. I know a lot of science journalism students would love a chance to blog for a scientist.
Carbon Fiber Is Faster Than Aluminum
We cyclists are weight weenies, perennially searching for ever-lighter, more featherlike components to swap onto our bikes. We’re lazy, you see? The less weight we have to drag around, the less work we have to do.
Work is a very appropriate term. It defines the transfer of energy from one thing to another over the course of a certain distance. As cyclists, we use this number to calculate power–literally how much energy our bodies are putting out at any instant. Power is measured in watts, just like in a light bulb. Depending on how much work a cyclist is doing to move his bike, he could be generating a couple hundred watts.
Less weight means less work, which in turn means less energy expended to get the same result. That is to say, if your bike weighs less, you don’t have to pedal as hard to go as fast. It’s a pretty simple idea, but advancing the science of reducing weight and increasing power transfer is a little bit more complicated.
Before carbon fiber, aluminum was the best material to make a bike frame out of. It was light, stiff and relatively inexpensive. Stiffness in a bike frame is good because when you push on the pedals, you want all the energy to go into turning the front chain ring. If the bike frame isn’t stiff enough, it will bend, and some of the energy will be diverted away from turning the chain ring and in turn driving the rear wheel.
This technical paper about the properties of carbon fiber comes from Calfee Design, a company that manufactures custom carbon fiber bike frames.
Carbon fiber has all the benefits of aluminum in terms of stiffness. What’s more, it can be easily molded into nearly any shape, weighs less and absorbs vibration better. This is a result of its material properties. It is strong in only one direction, so it won’t bend or flex very much when you push on it. But if you were to exert a force on it in another direction, it would bend. Aluminum is strong in any direction, so when you ride on a bumpy road, the vibration isn’t absorbed the same way it is with carbon fiber. The carbon fiber bends a tiny bit with each bump, and the energy isn’t transferred to the rider. Ultimately, this leads to a lighter, more comfortable and stiffer frame than aluminum.
All these qualities come together to make a bike made out of carbon fiber faster than one made out of aluminum.
Q1. Give an example of a time when you found out about a science topic through social media, whether it came directly from the scientist or through a friend. Which is more effective, or is there a difference at all? What I really want to know is, did you pass it on?
Q2. Is social media the best way to communicate the research itself, or is it a better tool to notify people about talks, lectures or conferences? Does tweeting satisfy people’s curiosity about a subject? Are they really willing to do more research for themselves?
Hi Danny,
As an amateur cyclist (I really just use my beach cruiser to get from point A to point B), I found this very educational! My bike is so heavy, and I have always wondered why everyone else was cruising by me effortlessly, while I felt like the little engine that could. I wish they made lighter cruisers! Then again, I do realize beach cruisers are meant for the beach, not the pothole ridden streets of Tucson.
I digress. I do think that social media is an effective tool for informing communities about science. A friend of mine, who took this class last semester, always posts interesting articles that pop up on my newsfeed. To be honest, I probably would not read the articles otherwise because that’s not something I look for in the news (although that is changing because of this class). I read the “LA Times” article about wind farms and then actually posted it to this very website! This is a special circumstance because this class focuses on science journalism.
Social media is a useful tool for spreading the word about scientific discoveries or what have you because they are just plain cool. People tweet or post about things that are cool, and then their friends pass it along and the cycle continues. Rarely do I see anyone tweeting about the economy unless they are watching the Republican primaries. I do not think that social media should be the only tool for learning about science.
-Jessica
Hey Danny,
To answer your second question, I think that social media would be better used to notify people of the information they want to pass on. For instance, if a scientist could use Twitter to get people interested in a topic by saying what the research says in a human way, I think people would be more inclined to check it out. If the original tweet to the research tells people exactly what to look for, then it may come easier to them as they read the more complicated information.
I think that the same rules apply to Facebook. Just getting the public interested by giving them the nuts and bolts of their research, then allowing them links to more in-depth stuff for them to analyze with an insider’s point of view would be very helpful.
Three years ago I found myself pursuing eligibility for naturopathic medicine school. Just like traditional medical schools, these schools required multiple semesters of full-spectrum science courses from chemistry and biology to physics and calculus. I came from a creative writing background, so this material engaged my brain in a different way. I quickly grew to like it.
Fast forward through three years of hard work, strange incidents and goal changes: I find myself on the brink of graduating with a chemistry degree. The dreams of an N.D. have been left behind (with details and complexities that I’ll glaze over for time and interest’s sake). Instead, I am left with a question that many upcoming graduates have on their mind: “How am I going to make use of this knowledge?”
Okay, that’s not the real question. The real question is “How am I going to make money and set my self up with this degree?”
For me, this answer did not come easily, but ultimately, I’ve decided to go into pharmaceutical sales.
Whoa.
Naturopathic doctor to pharma rep? I know, I know, it’s a big jump. But for me, really, the only thing to address was the morality of it. How could I legitimize or justify selling drugs if I knew that it might be a lifestyle change in a bottle?
Then in came this project for Science Journalism. I chose to explore Nexium, one of the top-selling drugs, to see what it does as a drug, as well as what alternative medicine had to offer. The results? Well, you’ll have to read the story to find out.
Questions:
1) I inferred from one of the n00b pages that Twitter is part of the meat and potatoes that makes social media work. Blood in the veins of the system, if you will. But for me, this style of constant status updates is fairly egotistical and nauseating. I’d like to hear a good argument for how Twitter really assists science blogging and science entering the mainstream, especially considering the character limits associated with a tweet.
2) The statistic of professors not being on Facebook made sense to me. At least when it started, Facebook seemed to mimic MySpace in that it was a place for people to collect. Obviously, when people collect, so do ideas, and hence we see the constant rejuvenation of this social media device. However, I would beg to argue that in order to “include” more of these “academic” and “professional” people in such a forum, a different kind of medium might prove desirable. What kind of format would make social media more accessible for professors, post-docs and those of “outskirted” but important social groups?
For your first question, I will agree with you in that a vast majority of Twitter is egotistical.
However, I use Twitter purely to follow people I’m interested in and to hear about things that they are doing that interest me. I never tweet.
For example, I basically use Twitter as an RSS feed for various blogs and webcomics that I enjoy reading. Some of these are run by scientists, astronauts and science bloggers. It’s nice to be able to jump on Twitter and see a picture taken that morning of the Earth by a Space Station astronaut.
But if you want narcissism and ego, follow celebrities.
For most college students, spring break means beaches and beer bong. Some of my friends from the University of Arizona went to San Diego or Mexico. I elected to go on an alternative spring break to New Mexico to volunteer with the Nature Conservancy. I got a lot of weird looks from people when I told them I spent break just outside Silver City. Not exactly a vacation hot spot, but for a budding ecologist, this was a great way to spend my break.
I was placed at Lichty Ecological Research Center under the wonderful guidance of Martha Cooper, the local field representative. Aldo Leopold, one of the first forest ecologists and a personal hero, resided in this area and wrote some inspired work. His most popular book is A Sand County Almanac. If you haven’t read it, go pick it up. He is Thoreau for a new age. I think he surpasses him in nature writing, but you’ll have to decide that for yourself.
Martha and other local scientists and nature enthusiasts helped to explain why the Gila River is such a special place. Flooding is allowed, which helps to germinate plants and trees like the cottonwood. The riparian (land around the river) area is what a natural healthy ecosystem should look like. The Nature Conservancy historically focused on individual species, but with climate change drastically and rapidly manipulating the environment, focus on one species is like saving one fish in the pond. You need to look at the big picture.
Which brings me to otters–cute, fuzzy, little critters. Otters are the answer to climate change. OK, not really, but they are integral to some healthy river systems. You wouldn’t think it, but otters are predators, like bears and wolves. And like the clawed beasts in New Mexico and surrounding areas, the native river otter was eliminated from the Gila River. Predators are a part of the food web and help to keep nature in order. It’s a top-down effect. First, there are no predators, which equals more herbivores. More herbivores eat vegetation and dwarf plant growth. Bam! Lower biodiversity, and everybody is unhappy.
Martha wants to see the return of the river otter because native fish are being bullied by invasive game fish. She thinks that if native otters were reintroduced to the Gila River, they would eat many of the invasives, giving the native fish species like the Gila chub a fighting chance to survive. Because the otter and the native fishes coevolved, they will live together in Darwinian harmony.
1. What does it mean to be reviewed in a peer review journal?
2. If peer review was transferred to a Wikipedia-type format, what would be the pitfalls and advantages to this system?
Hi Michelle,
In regard to question 1: For peer review, the article you wrote is sent out to other professionals in your field (usually 3 or so). They read your paper and comment extensively on it. Then, once you get your article back, you have to address every point the reviewers brought up. If the editor thinks you did a good job at addressing all the points, they can say it’s fit to publish. If they don’t, I’m not sure what happens, but I believe it’s one of two things: They either send it back to you and tell you to do a better job, or they send it out to the reviewers again (I think the first is more likely). I bet Cecil and Carol know the process much more intimately 🙂
From Carol and Cecil: Corinne is right on target. After the article is reviewed by several (usually three) reviewers, it is accepted (rare), accepted with revisions, given a revise and resubmit or outright rejected. I know of only one article that was accepted as is. Depending on the reviewer, you could receive several pages of comments. (I once received five pages of single-spaced comments on a paper that was only 25 pages long double-spaced!) If your paper is accepted with revisions, you usually don’t have do a massive reconceptualization or rewrite. A revise and resubmit involves a lot of heavy lifting. You might even have to go back and recrunch the data.
When you return the revision, the editor usually sends it to the reviewers, especially if the changes are substantive. The reviewers can accept the manuscript, reject it or request more changes. You could end up doing several revisions to satisfy the reviewers.
And then you have to deal with the editorial changes, but that’s easier. I’m the editor of an academic journal, so I have lots of experience in this realm!
Fungi: Looking beyond the mushroom
Many of us (excluding me) enjoy some mushrooms in a stir-fry, but did you know that a particular type of fungus can dramatically help the rice plants from that stir fry grow?
Fungi that live in and around the root system of plants are called micorrhizal. Myco- for fungus and –rhiza for roots. Most of these fungi maintain a mutualistic relationship with the plants: They help each other out. The fungus helps the plant by aiding in the absorption of soil nutrients and water to the plant roots, while the plant feeds the fungus some of the sugar it produces via photosynthesis.
But this isn’t where the plant-fungus relationship ends. It turns out that mutualistic fungi can do many things for plants. Some kill insects that try to eat the plant (Click here for a scientific article on insect killing fungi.) Others increase the plant’s tolerance to salt content in the soil, increase the number of seeds the plant produces and cause resistance to pathogenic fungi ( here is an article on these particular upgrades to the plant). Is it just me, or does this sound useful for agriculture (it’s not just me)?
Why not pesticides? Why fungi?
At a glance, pesticides appear to be working. Most commercial growers use a lot of them in the United States, and we are producing tons upon tons of food. Besides human health concerns about pesticide use (just ask a Californian strawberry farmworker), we should also be concerned about how long we will actually be able to use these pesticides before everything they are used against evolves resistance. The stronger the pesticide, the more a pest has to gain by evolving resistance. Just imagine, if you are the lucky pest individual that has resistance, you can munch and reproduce as much as you’d like on that crop because all your natural enemies (the other insects that would kill you) and your competition (the other pests that would eat your food) are all gone. It’s a free-for-all buffet for you and your offspring. This means that resistance is expected to spread rapidly.
So why, then, would fungi be any better? Fungi can evolve in response to pests, while chemicals cannot. It is difficult for humans to catch up with natural selection—all the pests have to do is evolve resistance, while we have to come up with an entirely new way of killing them each time. It would be much nicer if we could have a living thing (like a fungus) evolve new ways each time to fight off the crop pests.
Questions:
1. Some people, including both scientists and journalists, think that science journalists should write and scientists should do science. What are the potential pitfalls when scientists cross over into writing via the blogosphere or twitterverse (is that even a word?)?
2. Is it the job of scientists to communicate their research to the general public?
Corinne—In response to your first question, I tend to agree. In a perfect world, that’s how it would function… scientists would do experiments, and journalists would cover them. That’s certainly what I’d like to see. But I think our readings commented on the fact that we are not in a perfect world of such clean-cut interaction. Because journalists are stretched so thin, and publications may not prioritize science, it becomes the responsibility–the job!–of scientists to communicate their finding to the public, who are, after all, the stakeholders and funders of NSF research. I think the pitfalls for scientists are exactly what was addressed in the 3rd blog–lack of time, a pull away from time spent solving scientific problems (not scientific literacy problems).
My experience pulling invasive plant species on the east side of Tucson with Cecil Schwalbe was truly an eye-opening experience.
Working with someone who has adopted stretches of land around his home to combat the invaders (and does so often) was certainly intimidating. Not only did I need to learn the different techniques quickly, but I also wanted to prove myself a worthy partner in the battle against these aliens. I did not want to let Cecil down.
While driving around the neighborhood in his truck, doing recon, trying to spot some invasive plants to attack, I was a fish out of water. Admittedly, on the drive to Cecil’s house, I was able to spot hoards of buffelgrass alongside Houghton Road, but my expertise ended there.
Cecil was able to show me another invader, Sahara mustard, and how to properly pull it (grabbing it by the stalk and pulling straight up so the stalks don’t snap, making your job that much more difficult).
After working the majority of the morning digging out buffelgrass on the side of the road — some plants awkwardly high on ledges, others with powerful roots that fight back against you and more still growing underneath cacti making your job that much tougher — I saw Cecil in the distance.
Little did I know of the monsters he had just discovered. The entire corner of Escalante Road and Melpomene Road was littered with Sahara mustard plants.
After taking a deep breath and accepting the daunting task I was up against, I got to work.
With these beasts, the battle didn’t end after you ripped their roots out of the ground. Not only would the plants stick to each other, making it impossible to remove them without pulling multiple plants out of the earth, but their seed pods would stick to the sides of the garbage bags when you tried to stuff them away.
After working for hours in the Arizona sun (which I would find out later had fried the backs of my legs with sunburn), the corner had been cleared of all the Sahara mustard plants. My lower back ached for days, and the knuckles on my fingers refused to clench properly for a while, but there’s certainly a sense of pride involved when you remove 11 garbage bags full of invasive plant species. It’s an experience I won’t soon forget.
Questions:
1. Do you think there is a difference between a “blog” and an online “journal”? Sometimes I feel as if blogs are just people telling of their personal experience instead of an opinion about something.
2. In what ways do you think scientists can use social media to their advantage?
Sidenote: Appologies for not knowing how to imbed the hyperlink on WordPress. Maybe we can have a quick lesson on how to do it.
I’m glad you asked, Ben. Here’s how to embed a link in WordPress:
Sahara mustard
Problem! Every time I type in the instructions, they turn into a link. Go to this page for instructions: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp
For those of you who are having a problem turning words into a link, don’t worry about it. I’ll fix it for you. I’ll also show you how to do this in class tomorrow.
Establishing a Critique of Newt’s Moon Establishment
As some of you probably know by now, my article for this class will be about the moon base that Newt Gingrich has proposed that we build by the end of 2020. However, this idea did not just appear in my head. In fact, I struggled for a long time trying to decide what my article would be about.
I knew that I wanted to do something relating to NASA and the development of space, but I didn’t know what to do. The moon base was on the back of my mind, but I tend to avoid political discussions because typically they start going downhill very quickly and don’t persuade anyone.
However, I saw a blog post on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog that made me realize that I could focus more on the engineering feasibility of the project rather than the political aspects. This allowed me to remove most (if not all) political opinions and discussion from the article and focus more on the engineering and technical challenges that such an endeavor would present.
Doing this radically altered my enthusiasm and confidence in being able to complete this project. This change in focus allowed me to do research on the aspects of the topic that interested me rather than something that would absolutely just bore me to tears.
This experience actually taught me an interesting lesson, and that lesson is that a news story can be approached from a multitude of different angles, and I find that fascinating. Those who are interested in science can look at the story in a way that economists wouldn’t find interesting and in a way that engineers might find only marginally interesting. I suppose this is one of those things I always kind of knew about, but I never realized the impact of it until now.
1. I found the article regarding taking the time to engage in social media to be quite interesting. What aspect of your academic career do any of you find yourself lacking in because you think you don’t have the time?
2. I bookmarked the article that listed various social media tools, because there were a number of them I had never heard of before that looked useful or interesting in their own ways. Which of these did you use before seeing this link?
I wanted to really blog it up. Here’s my posting: http://wordandpulp.wordpress.com/
My questions are at the bottom, but I’ll paste them here as well.
1. What do you think of social media as a form of running diary? Do you enjoy or even care about your online friend’s woes and triumphs? Is it annoying when a person constantly updates their blog/Facebook page, or is that appropriate given the forum? Does anything you encounter in social media affect your personal view of the world: politics, religion, philosophy, etc.?
2. Do you think social media would be more or less effective as a means of conveying ideas, inventions, opinions, etc. if it were more heavily regulated by state or federal agencies? If so, what kind of regulation would you suggest? Would this regulating of information allow bloggers inclusion under laws such as the Shield Act? Would they then be beholden to the same standards that journalists outside of social media are already required to meet?
Hi John,
In response to you second question, I’m not a big fan of government regulating the Internet. That being said, it would be interesting if they could create some sort of well-known copyright associated with blogs. In this way, scientists could post data and theories without worry of having them stolen.
Though I think there should be a bit of regulation, I also like that anyone can make a Web page and shoot out their opinion to the series of tubes online. I think the more regulation and standards people are held to, the less of these rarely heard opinions will come about.
Cultivating wonder: If darkness is crucial for our physical health, what does it mean for our mental health?
When I was a kid, nearly the only time I looked at the stars was when I had to pee. Every year, the week before Christmas, my family and I headed north out of Los Angeles to a campground on the beach just outside of San Luis Obispo. Three a.m. trips to the bathroom—crunching over pine needles, through icy air and eerie quiet—were a family affair. Bladders burning, my sister and I made our parents venture out of the tent first to confront the terrors that were lurking unseen beyond the thin nylon. By the time we had laced our shoes, zipped our coats and tripped out of the tent, our parents’ faces would be lost skyward. Knees locked, shoulder slumped, mouths agape, they craned their necks toward the blazing darkness and the spackle of light superimposed upon it.
“Girls!” my dad would gasp. “Come see this. You gotta see this.”
“Not now,” we’d say. “After the bathroom. Come on.”
Yet night after night, we looked up. Bladders forgotten, cold ignored, we would be sucked in once again—once again, subsumed by the enormity, the enormous and irreversible spottiness of it all. A night sky in three dimensions.
In Los Angeles, as in cities across the world, the night sky has long been lost. For the first time in history, a majority of the world’s population is urban; for the first time in history, millions of urban children grow up without this smack in the face, without the realization that there is so much more. As cities grow bigger and their streetlights grow brighter, little by little, darkness is disappearing. Behind the electronic brightness of billboards and office buildings, what was once an interactive canvas of sky becomes a spilled bucket of black paint—a vague nothingness.
Does it matter? Do we need darkness?
Humans do not—have never—gone happily into the darkness. We are diurnal beings—we live in the day, and so do our eyes, their rods and cones entirely dependent on light to make sense of the shapes around them. It only makes sense that we would want to illuminate the dark.
But scientific and medical studies have long suggested that this impulse might well be dangerous to human health. Just as artificial lights disrupt the rhythms of natural ecosystems and species dependent on dark-light cues for migration, mating and feeding, a brightly lit night similarly disrupts human circadian rhythms. In 2008, a study in Chronobiology International showed that women who live in communities with the greatest amount of artificial nighttime light are much more likely to get breast cancer than those who live in naturally dark areas—73 percent more likely. This is consistent with other studies that have shown that nurses, flight attendants and other women with night shift occupations have 60 percent higher incidences of breast cancer than their day-dwelling counterparts.
It’s something to consider in the face of predictions that by 2050, 70 percent of the world’s population will be urban. There are lots of factors to consider in the face of this massive demographic shift, but I wonder if darkness has been overlooked. If, as it seems, our physical health depends on natural darkness, is there something in the dark for our mental health?
Even as the darkness makes our insides squirm—we are all still children wondering what’s beyond the tent—that which comes out of that darkness—the stars!—ignites our capacity for wonder. Wonder, and hope—that light, and so much of it, could exist in such a dark and empty universe. The burst of a firefly does the same for a child’s understanding of dusk—that even as the sun disappears, the world can still have light.
Darkness reveals to us our fears, and the lights that blink back at us out of this darkness demonstrate the cause for hope.
I am grateful that someone made me linger, when my bladder was full and my fingers were cold; grateful that I had the chance to look up at the sky and consider something more—to realize, year after year, when I was eight, nine and ten, that I lived in big universe. It was big and dark and empty, yet it was a universe that continued to burn, scary and beautiful, whether or not I was looking at it.
Just thought I’d say that I really enjoyed your piece. I love the dashes, such a wonderful punctuation. As a semi-nocturnal college student, I agree that unnatural sleep patterns are draining. The only thing I found interesting was that you claim people dislike the dark. I’m sure you’re right. Most people do dislike darkness, but I actually like being in the dark. I feel like sometimes when I’m really emotional or overstimulated, I just need places that are dark or quiet.
Darn, my links didn’t copy from my word document to this post. Not sure how to fix that…
Anyway, questions:
1. Do platforms like Twitter and Facebook force scientists to reduce complex ideas to sound bites? Is that okay–if it means that someone who’s reading sound bites about politics and economics gets a sound bite of science, too–or is there a way to maintain nuance?
2. I got completely overwhelmed by the quantity of links in today’s readings. It was like a vortex, sucking me in, click after click, and when I realized how long I had spent clicking and clicking without much reading, I got a bit frustrated. I wonder, as a blogger, what the line is between directing your reader to a new and interesting source, and directing them away from you so much that they won’t return. What’s the line between enough links and too many links?
Hi Megan,
I think that science soundbites are awesome. Most people don’t want to hear about the intricacies of particle physics but think that smashing protons at 99.99999% the speed of light using magnets cooled to temperatures lower than the space between stars is awesome.
Smashing Particles and Patriarchy: High Energy Physics
To those involved in the sciences, physics seems to be one of the last strongholds of overt sexism. There are far fewer female professors, fewer research staff and fewer graduates than their male counterparts. In my own department, I’ve heard comments as juvenile as, “You only got an A because you have boobs” to deeply offensive “They just aren’t as smart as the men who come through.”
So when I began to work for the High Energy Physics department, I expected more of the same. More awkward silences after a superior made an inappropriate comment. More women being interrupted practically every sentence. More of an unspoken “No Girls Allowed” sign place over every lab door.
After four months of working, I realized that I never had the awkward encounter that I was expecting. Women were certainly under-represented, but not to the degree I was expecting. There were female graduate students and post-docs all working closely with the on-campus group I was with.
The real shift started when I began to partake in weekly CERN meetings with scientists from all over the world. These meetings were held online at the ungodly hour of 6 a.m. Arizona time (3 p.m. in Switzerland). There were anywhere form 15 to 40 people in attendance, and we were discussing the best way to study a fundamental particle, the Top Quark. The group was headed by a woman, an experience I never really had before, and many of the major contributors were also women.
The biggest moment for me was when we invited a highly regarded scientist to look at our work and tell us what we could be doing better. We worked for a week to prepare for what this scientist had to say, because this person could set us back a few months if she really disagreed with our science. As I nervously logged on at 6 a.m., I was surprised to find this heavy hitter was a woman.
I fully understand that society, and specifically science, has a long way to go before gender equality is ever reached. I am also a man, writing this with all the male privilege that comes with it. It should also be noted that my experiences might not be representative of anything other than a few good experiences of an undergraduate. But, at least for me, it was refreshing to see a step in the right direction.
1) It seems to be more acceptable for journalists to have political/activist blogs than scientists, and I think this isn’t a good thing. How can scientists use social media to push for policy they know to be the right choice without losing credibility?
2) If a scientist were to go public about some research, they risk losing that material to other scientists looking for information to publish. How do journalists work around this sort of thing, and how could scientists adapt these practices?
Hi Sam,
I think journalists probably get scooped at least as much as scientists. My scorpion story has been written about so many times that I am having to work hard to make it original. I also think that science should be more in the public domain than it is. Scientists should be more collaborative and shouldn’t have to fear being scooped. Good science comes from collaboration, and bad science can result from secrecy and fear of having an idea stolen.
I have heard of occasions where grant evaluators took idea from grants they had reviewed. Now that’s not a good thing!
Susan
Hi Sam,
I like your story! Things sure have changed. When I went to college the first time around, there was quite a bit of sexist stuff going on. I had one professor say that women with children should not be in graduate school. On essay questions, we would fearfully write “s/he” instead of “she”, wanting to be brave about being female students. The concern about retaliation was always lurking in the wings.
I know quite a few female scientists who are successful. There was only one male in the last lab I worked in.
Susan
Oops, I mean we wrote “s/he” instead of “he”. My fingers were faster than my brain!
Susan
Just thought you might enjoy hearing that MLA now requires the use of “humanity” or another gender-neutral alternative to “man/mankind” as well as the use of she/he. I just had an experiment where an older woman in my church volunteered with my sister and me and overheard us talking about physics (she is also in college). She commented how she loves that our generation thinks girls taking physics is normal because when she went to school, it almost never happened. It’s interesting for me because I had never even thought about it.
I think that in both cases it’s a matter of putting a cause above power and prestige. In some ways it seems like a lot to expect. If you spend years working on a project, it become yours. Sharing research sounds great, but let’s be honest. Sharing anything involves getting less yourself. I think the trick is to love your subject enough that you are willing for that little bit of sacrifice. The other option is to make sure that scientists get recognition in cases where one researcher had research that led to another’s discovery. Ultimately I think the phrase “life isn’t fair” sums it up pretty well. And imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Meditating on Consciousness
Perhaps the only thing that Descartes really got right was his eternal statement “I think, therefore I am”. Within that statement lies the reality of what makes us human, our consciousness. What is consciousness? Good question. No, really, good question.
I’m not even sure I know the answer, and believe me, I’ve been trying hard to figure it out. For now, I just tell myself it’s the difference between me and the zombies. Or, more realistically, the difference between me and the computer that is so much “smarter” than me. Unlike the computer, I can self-reflect. It is that simple, and that complex.
Philosophers and scientists try to determine its essential nature, artists paint it and religions attempt to place it beyond human understanding. Or do they?
Recently a “religion,” or more accurately, a non-religion, has lead to a new chapter in scientific research into consciousness and other related ideas like emotion. Buddhism, unlike theistic religions, seeks to understand one’s own being through meditation. They have cultivated what a typical mind lacks–discipline. It even changes the structure of the brain.
Beyond being totally cool, this also has some interesting implications for research. Scientists can’t get inside your mind, literally or figuratively. In the past, scientists have tried to use first-hand reports of thought process to determine how the brain works. This seems like a good idea until you realize that everyone thinks differently, and people are awful at explaining how they think.
Enter . . . the meditation masters. Buddhists, who have spent years mastering focus, are much more accurate at reporting what they are thinking, feeling and focusing on. Now, they are being tapped to gather first-hand reports in conjunction with neural imaging and other sophisticated techniques. Together–pictures, words, religion and science–are moving toward a better understanding of consciousness.
Questions:
1. Do you think social media helps to “humanize” scientists? Is this always a good thing? In politics sometimes we associate being a “bad person” moralistically with a bad politician. What if this started happening in science?
2. There is a tendency in the science world to view “showman” or those who seek out media attention as being less reliable (though that isn’t necessarily the case). Does social media fall into that category?
3. Sorry, extra question I was just wondering about. Isn’t part of the problem that scientists tend to be 30+? In 10 years I think the gap might start to close as more people from our generation become scientists. Just a theory I wanted opinions on.
Hi Amy,
I think social media can humanize scientists. It’s nice to see a picture of the scientist and get a flavor of the personality. However, it could make scientists seem too quirky or showy under some circumstances. This could be bad for the perception of scientists. I think it’s all a matter of balance.
As a person who went back to school later in life to change careers and become a scientist, I don’t think age necessarily makes a difference. Maybe I’m wrong, though. It’s worth talking about!
Susan
P.S. Amy,
You really tackled an interesting topic! I think a blog just about consciousness would be really cool. You should start one!
Susan
I realize now I probably should have been clearer. The reason I thought age might make a difference is that social networking is relatively new and often the primary domain of the younger generation. Not that older adults don’t use it. I have just noticed that they tend to underestimate its power (not having dealt with the major drama it can cause lol) or not fully know how to make it work for them.
Social media doesn’t need to “humanize” scientists because they already are. 😉 However, what it will allow for scientists to do is become more open about their personalities, their minds to a wide audience with the public who already reside on Facebook and Twitter (hint hint, Cecil, haha).
I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. I think scientists can really key into the market or segment of the World Wide Web to which their research appeals and address them from across whatever pond is in between.
And, Amy, you’re being silly. We don’t have “bad” scientists…. Just “mad” ones.
I love Dr. Horrible. Even though I now know that laundry mats are depressing and annoying, I still sing laundry day in my head every time I go.
On Blogging and Questions
For a long time, I have wanted to learn more about optimizing my Web presence. I have a seldom-used Facebook page that is exclusively for communication with close friends and family. I also have a beginner’s blog on WordPress, which has been fun. I know I must be making some basic mistakes on both, so I really appreciated these readings.
I looked at many of the websites of scientists and scientist/science communicators. One of the concepts that is really important is Jakob Nielsen’s “screen space shouldn’t be hoarded, it should be spent”. The sites I like the best have great visuals and great content.
I also like the advice not to pollute with pop-ups. Pop-ups on my favorite news websites (CNN, Huffingtonpost, MSNBC) drive me absolutely crazy! I retaliate by turning on my popup blocker. Then, when I least expect it, I miss something important because I’ve forgotten to turn off the popup blocker. There has to be a better way!! (Excessive punctuation violates AP style, but I couldn’t help myself.)
Questions 1. Does blogging about science tempt the blogger to be less formal and to relax the rules of good journalism?
Question 2. Do you have a blog? If so, how often do you make an entry to your blog?
A Scientific American
By Susan E. Swanberg
My father didn’t go to college, but he was a scientist. After he died, I inherited his old copies of Scientific American, dating from the 1960s to the early 2000s. My father could be a prickly man, and we were estranged when he died. His death came as a surprise to all of us because we thought he was made of more durable stuff. I’d hoped there would be time to mend things.
Soon after he died, my mother presented me with a trove of my father’s magazines, saying, “He would have wanted you to have these.” I gasped as I thumbed through each dusty issue and recalled how my father had planted the seeds of a scientist’s curiosity in my young brain, seeds that would blossom years later when I returned to school to study for a Ph.D. in genetics.
I remembered some of the covers—the gull experiment picture on the cover of the October 1967 issue, the pre-Columbian medallion on the cover of the April 1966 issue and the salmon in a water tunnel on the cover of the August 1965 issue. I recalled how each magazine would sit proudly on our coffee table until the next month’s issue arrived.
As I examined my father’s collection, I saw on each cover—recorded in his handwriting—notes about the stories that most interested him. Each note elicited a memory or revealed something new about my father. “Holograms” he scrawled on the February 1980 cover. He and a buddy invented an aircraft trainer—the first that used holographic images, he would tell me.
My father was trained in the Navy as an electronics technician. His first job after receiving his discharge papers was with AMF, the company that invented the electronic pin spotter. He mastered calculus, physics and optics on his own. Along the way he worked his way into the aerospace industry. Eventually he became a licensed engineer, and by the end of his career his business card said “Senior Project Scientist.”
My father’s favorite section of Scientific American was “The Amateur Scientist.” “Seismomoter” [sic] he wrote on the cover of the September 1975 issue. Inside at page 183 was the design for a seismometer, which my father might have used to build the “earthquake detector” in the backyard of his Southern California home.
Notes about lasers appeared on the covers of a number of issues. In our living room for many years sat what he called his “laser.” I never saw a demonstration, but I have no doubt that it worked. When he died, my father had more than a dozen patents in his name and the name of whatever company he worked for at the time each invention was conceived.
Some of the notes were cryptic: “Lemon meringue pie,” “Judo,” “Sailing,” “Hang gliding.” The pie was probably a reference to my father’s favorite desert, which my mother often baked. Were the other notes about dreams unfulfilled? I will never know now, but when I pick up one of the brittle magazines, I can imagine how excited he must have felt when a new, shiny issue of Scientific American arrived in the mail.
End
First, hands down, most interesting post I’ve read today. What a great story! You relate the character of your father through the use of hand-written notes on magazines! You could write a whole book–I’ll pre-order! 🙂
Second, I’ve written a number of “blogs” over the last decade or so, mostly just random writing practice, notes and opinion. Some fact-based, others not. The problem with frequency is just time–schoolwork, grocery shopping, laundry–these all take a toll, and I end up forgetting.
I edited the little community college newspaper at the school I transferred from, and I did make a habit of posting my editorials into a blog to share online. It had a nice response rate too–I guess that’s something. My postings generally focused on the history of something related to a major article within the edition of the paper; a holiday, economics (I once wrote about a fiscal snob acquaintance and numismatics (the history of money). It pissed him off, but people didn’t know world economies were founded as “gift economies,” not trade and barter systems. People liked it.
Thanks John! I spent quite a bit of time today looking at those magazines again. I’ll bring a couple tomorrow to share with the class.
Susan
This was a very personal blog post that still managed to relate to science. It was especially touching because my Dad, who is a special ed teacher, is the one who got me to love science as well. Even now that I don’t live at home, he sends me articles he thinks are interesting, and he was the first person to read through my article for this class. Thanks for sharing this 🙂
Hi Susan,
What a great blog! It was personal, and that personal history made me very intrigued to keep reading! I think you are a very good writer, and I like how your words flow.
Wow! You’re father seemed like a very fascinating person! I’m glad you picked to write from your own perspective about the person you saw him as. You could even use your shared love of Scientific American and how something as fundamental as science journalism can provide endless possibilities for anyone, college graduate or not.
Dara
Despite being a twin for pretty much, hah, my whole life, I just recently stumbled upon a neat phenomenon that happens in identical (or maybe not? More to come later) twins.
It is called “mirroring.” I came across this neat little trick of nature last fall while having coffee (most likely an iced tea) at my usual coffee place, Caffé Lucé, on Park Avenue in Tucson.
For good reason apparently. According to Dr. Nancy Segal, a renowned researcher on twindom from the University of California, Fullerton, there is not much research going on about them because they are “a messy group.”
Mirror-image twins, as they are more apt to be called, happen when a pair of twins mirror certain traits, such as handedness (left versus right hand dominance), scalp patterns, teeth, freckles and, in some extreme cases, internal organs, fingerprints and even brain structures and verbal abilities.
“[Mirror twins] is a misnomer because only some traits are mirrored,” Segal said. A “fraternal” twin herself, Segal has worked with twins since her graduate studies back in the late ’80s. “Hand dominance, whorls in the hair, some cases of fingerprints” are some of the more common traits mirrored in these kinds of identical twins, she added.
Segal, whose research was featured in the January edition of National Geographic magazine, said that some research has shown the mirroring to occur later in the embryo splitting after the left and right sides have already been determined.
Not so fast, says Charles Boklage, a researcher from South Carolina State (CHECK), whose works have looked into the embryogenesis of twins. Boklage, who has a pair of “identical” twin girls himself, says there are “no such things as identical twins. No two people are identical.”
So let’s just say his twins are monozygotic –- meaning they come from one zygote, the fertilized egg.
Well, I guess that’s okay because Penelope Francis, the mother of the mirror-image twins Derek and Zachary whom I met at Caffé Lucé, insists that her sons are not identical.
“Mother’s are the worst judges of twindom,” Segal said.
-30-
Q1) What’s your take on crowd sourcing? I’m running into so many cases now of younger journalists who use their social media as a way of doing passive reporting. It drives me nuts. When did we lose the art of going out into the public and talking to people?
Q2) How open should you be in your social media? Personally, I keep almost very distinct lists with different privacy settings on my Facebook account. Twitter, I mainly use to cover or publicize specific events. Passively, I use it to read headlines. In the case of the society reporter from the Houston Chronicle getting fired for her job as a stripper, should she have kept that part of her life more under wraps?
Hi John,
I also think your Q2 is great! As an older generation sort, I have trouble with the privacy issue myself. I think it’s a good idea to have a personal blog or Facebook page and a profession blog or page. That way you can keep better control of your Internet image. I recently started blogging on Open Salon, but do not use my full name (which is permissible).
What do you mean by passively reading headlines?
Thanks for an interesting post, John! I have always been interested in twin studies. So you’re a twin? Could you tell us about your personal twin experiences? I think that would be a good addition to your tale.
See you tomorrow!
Susan
I meant to say a “professional” blog or Facebook page.
I think your second question is great.
The idea of intellectual property and laws surrounding it are antiquated. Transparency, open sourcing and sheer information volume make the idea that “this person had this first” a little bit ridiculous. Both science and journalism claim to function, at their cores, for the betterment of that ill-defined concept of “greater good.” If this is truly the case, and if we (be we scientist or journalist or both) want to prove that it is the case indeed, we have to be willing to share information without placing emphasis on “Sally said it first so should get the money and credit.” It’s no longer about what kind of hush-hush is demanded by Journals or gatekeeping institutions–there are too many forums of expression that bypass them, with more on the rise every day. It’s time to use the Internet for the information-sharing purposes it was designed for. Social media is r-defining “of, by and for” the people–it’s actually making it true.
What needs to be emphasized more rigorously during formative education is not just how to find information in the digital age but how to discern between information based on opinion, consensus or mountains of research and how to synthesize parts of information from many sources into a cohesive theory or idea.
The idea of “losing information” is ludicrous and ego-based. Share openly, actually do something–with help, input and criticism–and move on to something else.
No Need to BEE Scared
Why care to know and be knowledgeable of bees? A simple explanation could be that bees are simply fuzzy and cute. Especially bumble bees! Well. . . to me, they are.
Not only are they cute, but they are one of the most important pollinators on the planet. I think it is crucial to continue to communicate about bees. These global pollinators are just as important to talk about, just as environmental issues and endangered species are important to talk about to unaware people and to future generations.
In 2006, many people started to notice that bees were disappearing. After many studies and theories, scientists decided to call this disorder Colony Collapse.
There are many theories about what causes the bee die-off, but no one can really give a definite answer. There have been many suggested culprits. Some of these include pesticides used for monoculture (learn more about the controversy here), fungi, diseases and countless more. Still, it continues to be a mystery that the majority of humankind is oblivious to.
David Benton, a small-scale beekeeper and owner of Tucson Honey Company, tells me that the problem is obvious. He explains that through his experience with beekeeping, he has never had issues. He knows people who have lost thousands of bees. His belief is that it is pesticides used for monoculture crops and traveling with bees. He says it is not a healthy lifestyle.
He hands me a bee suit and mask. I take it, not knowing if the bees in the box will sting me. I decide being scared of these creatures is not worthwhile, plus… I’ve never been one to run away when a bee decides to interrupt my picnic.
I think back to my life-guarding days when getting stung by a bee was fairly common. I guess it didn’t hurt that much. I don’t hesitate and suit up. No, not that kind of bee suit. If you haven’t seen a bee suit, they are simply a walking mosquito net. Runway ready!
It’s a hot day outside in the Tucson desert, but being close to the bees is worthwhile. This is the type of experience that I live for.
1. Personally, I stay updated on many science issues through Facebook. I know it’s not the best way, but I have found it convenient for my busy lifestyle. (Also, I don’t have a Twitter account.) Do you think that bringing science into the social media industry could change the way the future generation looks at science? To expand on what I’m asking, do you think that science being a part of social media and not simply being something to learn will change young people’s perspective on actually understanding it?
2. Do you think that other than Google Scholar and various websites, there should be a new social media approach to scientific literature? For example, a complete social network just for scientific literature and open board to discuss a specific literature? (Same format as Facebook with access to creating both a personal and business-related account.)
All this social media talk reminded me of a clip from the show “Portlandia.”
Also, this one is pretty funny and relevant…
Luckily, there are MANY scientists who blog, tweet and in other ways participate online. ScienceSeeker.org is a good starting point for finding them. There have been many, many articles and blog posts written over the past decade or so about the need for scientists to be active online, how to do it, pros and cons, some great successes, etc. and I have compiled some useful links – far from an exhaustive list, but good as a starting point – here:
http://boundaryvision.com/2012/04/03/borazuofa-linkfest-a-further-collection-of-the-sites-and-posts-referenced-in-boras-talks/