JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

From my recent post at The Intersection:

People wonder why the public is skeptical of climate change.  I would argue that it is partly the fault of those on the left who for better or worse get the science wrong when arguing their case.  When people go out on a limb to claim that extreme weather is occurring due to climate change without any scientific support, they clearly open themselves up to criticism when cold weather events like “snowmageddon” hit us.  Similarly, when the impact of oil spills is exaggerated or endangered species protections are misused, there is a natural backlash, especially when the science says something different.  There are metaphors and allegories that relate; chicken little, the boy who cried wolf, Harold Camping, etc.

Indeed, there are cases where the science justifies the outcry.  And in those cases, if activists want to win support for their causes, they should ensure they are using accurate arguments.  Stay true to the facts. And, if they make a scientific claim, show the evidence that supports that claim.  When I say evidence, I mean real, tried and true, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not a story about your cousin who claimed his toilet water caught fire because it was contaminated with methane gas.  There could be other explanations for that.

A hotly contested issue that is popping up in all sorts of places is whether fracking, a process of extracting natural gas, is too risky an operation for Americans to welcome into “their backyards.”  The debate is multi-faceted but largely focuses on whether toxic chemicals used in the process are contaminating drinking water in areas close to the drilling. A second issue is whether the fracking process causes natural gas to leak into wells and aquifers.   Lisa Jackson, Head Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, recently stated in response to a question from the U.S. House Oversight Committee,

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing.”

And yet, opponents of fracking continue to mistakenly claim the opposite is true.  Why is the misinformation lingering out there?  Without doubt, it’s because many people are motivated for various reasons to oppose any form of fossil fuel use.  I can appreciate that.  There’s also a problem when community leaders and other activists promote unscientific arguments.

This happened in a recent episode of The Colbert Report, where Stephen Colbert made a fracking mistake.

Read the rest of the story…

If I didn’t have to sleep, I’d try to be a scientist by day and an artist by night.  But, since that’s impossible, I rely on folks like my friend, Michele Banks, to create art that satisfies my love of the two worlds; Science and Art.  Michele, who goes by “artologica” on Twitter, produces some of the best Science Art I’ve seen. She describes her work this way:

I create paintings exploring cell division and other natural processes.  Watercolor is an excellent medium for this type of work, because its transparency allows us to look at what is happening below a surface.  Watercolor also naturally flows into fractal patterns similar to those seen in the nervous and circulatory systems - in fact, everywhere in biology.

Check out this painting of the stages of cell division:

Buy them here!

Michele will be promoting her art this weekend at the 30th Annual ArtScape in Baltimore.  If you’re in the DC/Baltimore area, I highly recommend that you stop by her booth E16A of the Artist Market, near the corner of Mt. Royal and Lanvale. You can visit www.artscape.org for lots more information on the festival.

Today, I sent out a message to those who have contacted us at the #writeforscience email address, which is write4science @ gmail.com.  If you would like to join the fun, email us.

Here’s the email that I sent:

Just wanted to give you an update on the #writeforscience project.  This is where things stand for now.  Everything is subject to change.

For the record, I do not withhold the specific topic out of my own personal desire to torture you.  I want to be sure that we have settled on something that will lead to an interesting final product. 

This week, we’ve held talks to determine the best means of publication.  Suggestions range from strictly print to E-book with multimedia.  I’ve identified multiple ways of publishing and have concluded that I will likely have to invest some of my own funds to make this happen.  If you have suggestions for publication strategies, email me.

There continues to be tremendous interest. Last night, I received a phone call from a science writing heavy-weight interested in the project.  He helped me flush out some ideas, as well, and left open the possibility that he might contribute.

Many of you have expressed concern about the “time commitment.”  Trust me.  I am equally concerned about time management.  I hope you will be pleased to know that my intention is not to have a 2 year long writing process.  In fact, my goal is to treat this like a #madwriting sprint.  We will model this writing project on the 48 hour magazine: http://gizmodo.com/5530008/48-hours-1000s-of-contributors-1-magazine and the 48 hour film project: http://www.48hourfilm.com/  Of course, it will take longer than 48 hours. I’m thinking of 336 hours.  To give you an idea of the time line that I’m working on, I expect us to begin actual pen to paper writing mid-summer.

We will also need cover art.  And, as contributors, you will decide if you’d like to integrate artwork into your contribution.  It must be original, therefore, we will need science artists. 

Finally, we will also need editors.  I expect to receive a number of disjointed contributions that will require a team of editors who are willing to read and write in order to create a cohesive final product.  If you’d like to be an editor, email me.

Sticking with past efforts to stimulate your creative juices, I suggest you watch the video at this link (ignore the context).  Note the message: http://www.thelinusgroup.com/
After watching that video, read this article at NOVA: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/risky-science.html
These two pieces will give you insight into the subject about which we will be writing. 

Share you thoughts.

Thanks again for taking this ride with me.

http://www.thelinusgroup.com/wp-content/themes/gproject/LNB-025-v3.ogv

An excerpt from one of my favorite TedTalks:

If I should have a daughter, instead of Mom, she’s gonna call me Point B, because that way she knows that no matter what happens, at least she can always find her way to me.

And I’m going to paint solar systems on the backs of her hands, so she has to learn the entire universe before she can say, “Oh, I know that like the back of my hand.”

And she’s going to learn that this life will hit you hard in the face, wait for you to get back up just so it can kick you in the stomach. But getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.

There is hurt here that cannot be fixed by Band-Aids or poetry. So the first time she realizes that Wonder Woman isn’t coming, I’ll make sure she knows she doesn’t have to wear the cape all by herself. Because no matter how wide you stretch your fingers, your hands will always be too small to catch all the pain you want to heal. Believe me, I’ve tried.

“And, baby,” I’ll tell her, don’t keep your nose up in the air like that. I know that trick; I’ve done it a million times. You’re just smelling for smoke so you can follow the trail back to a burning house, so you can find the boy who lost everything in the fire to see if you can save him. Or else find the boy who lit the fire in the first place, to see if you can change him.” But I know she will anyway, so instead I’ll always keep an extra supply of chocolate and rain boots nearby, because there is no heartbreak that chocolate can’t fix.

Okay, there’s a few heartbreaks that chocolate can’t fix. But that’s what the rain boots are for. Because rain will wash away everything, if you let it.

I want her to look at the world through the underside of a glass-bottom boat, to look through a microscope at the galaxies that exist on the pinpoint of a human mind, because that’s the way my mom taught me. That there’ll be days like this. ♫ There’ll be days like this, my momma said. ♫

When you open your hands to catch and wind up with only

Read more

Get your pens, pencils and keyboards ready!

Yesterday, I sent out a query to my friends and followers on twitter. 

“If I had a book idea that would require 100 authors & would be a powerful testament to the beauty of science, would you contribute?”

I was shocked by the pace and enthusiasm of the responses.  I would like to extend my most sincere appreciation to those who have expressed interest in this project.

Because the response was so massive and so positive, I have committed myself to exploring this project more fully.  I have assembled a small group of scientists and science writers who will help guide me through the process of bringing this idea to fruition. You will be informed as we make progress.

Many have asked for more details about the project.  At this time, we are shaping the concept so contributors will be even more excited about making their submissions.  However, I will say that I believe it is a topic that has received too little coverage while it stands as a testament to the human commitment to the advancement of science. 

For more information, I have created an email address write4science at gmail .com where you can email me questions or inform me of your desire to be a contributing author.  You can also follow the hashtag #writeforscience on twitter for comments and updates on the project as things unfold.

In the meantime, I’ll ask you to consider these questions. 

“What makes the pursuit of knowledge such a compelling career path?” 

“How many scientists have come before us to assemble our current body of knowledge?” 

“What price did they pay to enhance our awareness of the world?”  

My friend, Chris Mooney, has given me an opportunity to reach out to a new audience by doing some guest blogging at his very popular Discover.com post, The Intersection.  I have produced two pieces in which I’ve tried to demonstrate a range of interests.  The first piece entitled, My Failed Mission to Hold Holdren Accountable, summarizes my attempts to get to the root of why the government’s scientific integrity guidelines requested by President Obama more than 2 years ago have not been established.  The ending of that post is not at all consistent with my starting position.

In it, I relay a story that provides a glimpse of the impact President Obama is having on the youth of America in regards to the sciences.  Here’s a quote from that piece:

In October of 2009, President Obama hosted “Astronomy Night at the White House.”  I believe Dr. Holdren said there were more than 30 telescopes on the White House South Lawn.  In attendance were 300 middle school students from the DC-area.  Also, attending the event were “space heroes” Buzz Aldrin and Sally Ride and several other astronomers and space scientists including 5 women scientists.  Two of the students, 14 year old Caroline Moore and Lucas Bolyard, a high school sophomore, had each made significant astronomical discoveries.  Caroline had become the youngest person to discover a supernova and Lucas located a pulsar.  After presenting awards to the students and talking about the importance of science education, President Obama finished is comments with a lasting thought.  First, he asked the children in attendance, “which one of you are going to come back here to claim your prize?”  He went on to ask the students “Are you going to find a new star? Or a cure for a disease? Or invent the next iPhone?…What will your great discovery be?”

Dr. Holdren’s wife was in the audience amongst the students.  She described to Dr. Holdren how the children had responded to these questions from President Obama.  One of the students with tears on their cheek said, “The President was talking to me.”

My second piece has drawn much more attention, probably because it’s more of a “hot topic” article.  It’s entitled, “Deathers” Offer a Unique Case Study of the Formulation of the Denialist Mentality.  The title speaks for itself, but in this piece, I tried to apply some new concepts on “motivational reasoning” to understanding the denialist movement.  I chose to focus on those who deny the death of Osama bin Laden.  This is a unique example of denialism because it has developed during a time when we have the tools to analyze the formulation of the denialist arguments as they are emerge.

Here’s a clip from that piece:

We are currently witnessing the de novo formulation of a new denialism in regards to the death of Osama bin Laden.  As I was listening to C-SPAN radio, just yesterday, two callers a Democrat and a Republican agreed that bin Laden was not dead and the entire hullabaloo was orchestrated for political gain.  Because we are now armed with at least a superficial understanding of the mechanisms behind this type of thinking, we can ask questions and test hypotheses while observing the development of this particular case of motivated thought.

Drop by The Intersection and leave a comment.  It’s pretty exciting over there.

Cheers!

The future still has much to offer.

Inspired by jtotheizzoe’s tweet:

1994 feature about “tablet news readers” hits pretty much 99% of our digital life right on the head http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI

which features a video of things to come as based on 1994 expectations:

I used the google to find other predictions of the future.  I was amazed by the accuracy of this video from 1967 which fantasizes about the concepts of online shopping, banking and email. (Digg the background music.) 

Walt Disney, as we all know, made some perhaps overly optimistic predictions as early as 1958. 

I’m anxiously awaiting my “Magic Highway.” 

Are you aware of any additional videos like these? 

The year was 1971.  A young postdoc at NASA named Steve Schneider reads a ludicrous Op-Ed written by Eugene Guccione, the editor of “Engineering and Mining Journal.”  He is so moved by the anti-science rhetoric in the Op-Ed, he decides to write a response to address the obvious scientific fallacies perpetuated by Guccione.  Scheider’s response is printed in the New York Times on Sept. 16 1971.

Did you get that? 1971! 

His boss Robert Jastrow was so agitated by Schneider’s response that he fired him from his post at NASA.  Subsequently, Schneider was reinstated on the basis that young scientists were encouraged by management to do public outreach (a lesson that should not be wasted on young scientists today).  

The debate occurring at the time, to which Schneider was responding, is not unlike the debate we are having over climate change today, with one major difference.  At the time, there was an actual scientific controversy.  The science at the time supported at least two predominate positions. The first was whether particulate matter produced by industry and transportation would raise the opacity of the atmosphere so high that sunlight would be unable to penetrate it.  If so, the Earth could be plunged into a dangerous cooling trend that would threaten our way of life.  On the other hand, scientists were simultaneously making the argument that carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere could have a warming effect that would similarly threaten our way of life. Despite having a dog in this fight (his science supported the cooling hypothesis), Schneider properly points out both sides in his response:

“…serious scientific studies have indicated that CO2 and dust pollution can affect climate, albeit in opposite directions. We do not yet know the magnitude of these influences well enough to be certain which, if either, of these effects will predominate.”

Schneider goes on to make an important recommendation.

“What we do need is an accelerated program of scientific research along with improved international cooperation.”

The prophetic nature of these quotes is quite revealing.  It’s interesting that he did not argue for a policy regulating carbon dioxide.  Rather, he argued that we needed more research to inform our response.  Scientists were just beginning to recognize the impact that humans were having on the climate.  The atmosphere had begun to measurably accumulate pollutants and there was likely to be some impact on our climate.  Thus, we needed more research. 

Schneider went on to cite existing science that attempted to quantify the impact and make a connection to human activities.  (Remember this letter is 40 years old.)

“…a recent study has indicated that if the world population increase and energy demands continue at present rates, man’s “potential to pollute” will increase six- to eightfold in the next fifty years.”

Clearly, there was an opportunity to respond 40 years ago.  And, yet, just as today, there were naysayers such as Eugene Guccione who wrote the whole thing off to silly “environmentalists.” 

Guccione begins his Op-Ed by stating,

“We are winning the war against pollution.”

(sounds a little like, “Tobacco does not cause cancer.” Am I right?)

He goes on to cherry pick data that fits his argument and that conveniently contradicts the scientific point of view.  Convenient because he happens to be closely bound to the mining industry.

By clouding the waters, Guccione along with many other industry-supported folks successfully postponed serious evaluation of the problem and potentially contributed to the problems we’re seeing today.

His tactics are no different from those used by other industries, like tobacco companies, oil companies and chemical companies designed to resist government action.  The difference today is that we have the data to show that the debate over climate change that occurred 40 years ago has been settled.  Schneider’s argument that particulate matter in the atmosphere could lead to a cooling trend lost the debate.  Instead, we have 40 years of scientific evidence that proves that there is a correlation between increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities and increasing temperatures as measured in numerous ways.

The question remains, “When will the American public stop listening to charlatans like Guccione who represent special interests like mining organizations and energy corporations and instead objectively evaluate the data for themselves?” 

Is that too much to ask?  Just look at the data.

Generation of induced pluripotent Peeps without c-Pip from rabbit and chicken Peepoblasts

Shirley Peep ^1,5, Peep Adore¹, Jamie “Peep” Vernon¹

Abstract

Direct reprogramming of somatic Peeps provides an opportunity to generate patient- or disease-specific pluripotent Peeps. Such induced pluripotent Peeps (iPPs) were generated from rabbit Peepoblasts by retroviral transduction of four transcription factors: Poop3/4, Pop2, Peepie4 and c-Pip¹. Rabbit iPPeeps are indistinguishable from embryonic Peeps (EPs) in many respects and produce germline-competent peeperas^{2, 3, 4}. Reactivation of the c-Pip retrovirus, however, increases tumorigenicity in the peeperas and progeny peeps, hindering clinical applications³. Here we describe a modified protocol for the generation of iPPeeps that does not require the Pip retrovirus. With this protocol, we obtained significantly fewer non-iPP background Peeps, and the iPPeeps generated were consistently of high quality. Rabbits derived from Pip^- iPPeeps did not develop tumors during the study period. The protocol also enabled efficient isolation of iPPeeps without drug selection. Furthermore, we generated chicken iPPeeps from adult dermal peepoblasts without PIP.

HaPPy Peaster!

Update: 3/10/11 11:48am - From The Hill’s Energy and Environment Blog:

“Republicans approved legislation to block Environmental Protection Agency climate rules in a key House subcommittee Thursday, the first step in a wide-ranging GOP effort to stop the agency from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. Read More…”

————————————————-

Update: 3/10/11 10:23am - The Democrats on the Energy and Power subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have decided not to offer amendments to the Republican sponsored Energy Tax Prevention Act.  Henry Waxman (D-CA) has stated, “We will certainly revisit the issue when it [the bill] gets to full Committee.”  This assumes that the bill will pass the Subcommittee, which in itself is unacceptable, but at least we should expect to see some real resistance from the Dems in the full committee.  Keep your eyes on this bill.

————————————————-

We have some real problems in our nation’s capitol, these days.  I’ve witnessed some ridiculous policies and programs sponsored by the Republicans, but things are getting scary.  Look I’ve got to say this.  I don’t want to criticize the Republicans, but they are literally putting the entire country (and perhaps the world) in a perilous position.  I hope that before you finish reading this post you will think of a way to intervene and make your voice heard. 

At 9 a.m. today, the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power will vote on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  Most likely, they will have enough votes to pass the Republican sponsored “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011”.  A summary of the Act can be found on the Open Congress website.  It reads:

“H.R.910 - Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 - To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.”
 
This is where I get incredibly frustrated.  What do the Republicans think EPA was designed to do if not regulate the emission of greenhouse gases and other pollutants?

This should clear it up a little.  EPA was created by an executive order from President Richard Nixon via the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.  In this plan, President Nixon clearly states,

“Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.”

and

“In organizational terms, this requires pulling together into one agency a variety of research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities now scattered through several departments and agencies. It also requires that the new agency include sufficient support elements—in research and in aids to State and local anti-pollution programs, for example—to give it the needed strength and potential for carrying out its mission.”

President Nixon went on to specify the roles and functions of EPA to include:   

* The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.
* The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it, the gathering of information on pollution, and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.
* Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means in arresting pollution of the environment.
* Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment.

So, my question is, how can this Subcommittee pass a bill that completely undermines the mission of the agency? 

A look at a statement from the Chairman of the Committee, Ed Whitfield, sums it up.  In his statement, Chairman Whitfield in no uncertain terms argues that the EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases because these regulations will “impose an unfair disadvantage on domestic manufacturers”.  OK, so I hear his reasons for not approving these regulations, but who is truly at fault in this situation?

Is the EPA at fault for carrying out its duties to protect the quality of our air?  Or, are our domestic manufacturers at fault for using manufacturing processes that pollute our air?  I think the answer to these questions is clear, but Chairman Whitfield and members of the subcommittee appear to be blinded by their economic agenda which apparently is “profits at all costs”. 

Shockingly, Chairman Whitfield justifies his position by stating “that unilateral action by EPA would not make much difference, especially given the fact that China emits more greenhouse gases than the US…”  To me, this sounds like a teenage boy arguing with his parents that he should be allowed to smoke, because “Bobby’s parents let him do it, so why can’t I?”  I don’t have to tell you the response from most parents, do I?

To say the least, I’m troubled.  I’m troubled that some in our government are trying to undermine the EPA mission.  I’m troubled that they are justifying their actions by referencing the economic impact rather than acknowledging that the manufacturers are at fault here.  I’m troubled that they are shamelessly ignoring the warnings from scientists that not imposing regulations on greenhouse gases will lead to increased carbon dioxide emissions. 

I encourage you to take five minutes to contact any of the members on this committee and express your concern.  You can find the list of committee members here.  This will be your first opportunity to influence the path of this bill as it makes its way through the legislative process.  Killing this bill in the subcommittee would be a tremendous success for science and the environment.

I didn’t attend the Science Online conference as a “science writer.”  I’m not a writer.  I’m a scientist who tries to write effectively enough to share my opinions about science and politics.  I do so because I believe the health of the science community depends on the policies that govern it.  Modern politics has demonstrated a strained relationship with the scientific community, questioning the authority of scientific “experts” and the motives of various groups of scientists whose research has an impact on corporate America.  In this economic and political climate, science is under as much of a threat as ever.  So, I attended the Science Online conference because I recognize the value that these science communicators offer the political side of science.  I’ve also become quite friendly with many within the Science Online community and I wanted to actualize some of those relationships.  Here, I will share my thoughts on this inspiring group of people and how I feel they are likely to change the world.

As you surely know, public opinion is the key to good policy-making.  Politicians usually respond to the demands of their voting constituencies, therefore it is imperative that the voting public be scientifically literate in order to press their representatives to make good science policy decisions.  Now, comparatively speaking the U.S. actually ranks quite high (#2 behind Sweden) when it comes to scientific literacy among adults, so we have a decent starting point.  However, while our citizens may be factually informed, they still suffer from an inability to translate that scientific knowledge to good evidence-based policy.  Somewhere along the way, there is a disconnect between knowing the science and applying it to solve real world problems. 

What I think we’ve been missing is a trustworthy and reliable source from which the public can draw information when formulating opinions about science-related policies.  The first step toward improved policy is to earn that trust.  To earn the trust of the American people scientists can’t lock themselves up in the Ivory Tower.  They must become valued members of their communities.  I’m not saying anything here that hasn’t already been thoroughly discussed in numerous books and blog posts.  However, I think there is a shift occurring in the system. 

Whereas in the past, scientists have been content to lay up in the confines of their labs and offices, I think there is an awakening occurring in the scientific community.  And whereas in the past, because scientists shied away from public debate, science was largely defenseless in the face of countless blistering attacks designed to turn the public against it.  Today, after attending the Science Online conference, I believe we’re approaching a time when science will finally have the will and the might to fight back.  I believe that will be the legacy of the Science Online community. 

For years, scientists have been slaves to their research.  In order to produce the necessary publications and earn the appropriate grant funding to achieve a tenured position, they sacrificed their free time, their holidays and vacations, even their family lives.  Science is not a career for the 9-5er.  So, when researchers were attacked by law firms, think tanks and public relations firms for discoveries that threatened corporate or religious institutions, they had little recourse.  They had limited time to secure their careers let alone confront anti-science zealots.  The traditional professor would most likely respond by telling his opponents to read the literature.  Needless to say this was quite ineffective.  Unfortunately, those who were willing to engage were often ill-equipped to deal with the media or participate in town hall meetings.  Occasionally, a brave scientist would convince his peers to join him in writing a letter to a major newspaper or even to the President.  But, for the most part, scientists didn’t want anything to do with the politics of science.  It was just a distraction from their “more important” work.  Little did they know that they were ignoring a growing threat.  Because scientists ignored rather than confronted their detractors, the opposition has become wealthier, more powerful, more numerous and more sophisticated than ever before.

Fortunately, as I see it, the days of the defenseless scientist are a thing of the past.  We have our own rising giant.  What I previously perceived to be a fledgling science communications network is much more than just a few clever folks tapping away at their keyboards at all hours of the night.  No.  It is a great deal more than that.  The Science Online community could be the antidote we need for the sick political system that has all too often sacrificed scientific integrity for political gain. No longer.

My fellow Science Online attendees are a gritty and determined group of outspoken science advocates who are honing their skills to win this war.  Whether they consider themselves to be a part of a movement to defend Science or not, they are leading the way in the fight against denialism and general science skepticism. They are a diverse conglomeration of amateur and professional science advocates.  They use media ranging from books and blogs to podcasts and film to deliver their message.  And that message is loud and clear. “Science is vital!”

In the past when I’ve spoken to my peers about the future of science communication, indeed when I led discussions with my SEA science communication interns last year, I always made a special point to temporarily put aside the academic theoreticians and talk about this community.  These are the ones who are fighting in the trenches.  These are the people who will make the difference.  Despite my optimism about the Science Online community, though, my conversations often lead to the obvious final question, “Is there a real impact beyond the blog or is this simply another internet echo chamber?”  

Well, today, I can honestly say that the Science Online conference has helped me come up with an answer to that question.  Even though, I had occasionally read a blog post here and there about anecdotal evidence of impact, there was no study to which anyone could point that confirmed the effect of this community on the public appreciation for science.  However, thanks to the brains behind the Science online conference, Bora Zivkovic and Anton Zuiker, I have been given new insight into the potential of this community. 

By assembling all these people in one place and piecing together their stories, I have confirmed that this is much more than an echo chamber.  That confirmation began on the first night of the conference with the keynote address from Robert Krulwich, who is primarily a radio host but who also has a blog.  His presentation, which cataloged audio clips from years of communicating science on his radio show, was so compelling that by the end there was hardly a dry eye in the house. Indeed, if he had reached none of his millions of listeners, he had greatly impacted an audience of the faithful.  The coup de grace came in the form of a beautiful video clip entitled “Moments”.  (It is a video that I am sure will move you, as well.  Perhaps it will motivate you to learn a little more about his “non-sciencey” science show and so Krulwich’s impact grows.) 

As the days went on, I continued to gather examples of stories confirming the impact of this community beyond their blogs.  One of the most intriguing stories belonged to Ed Yong, whose blog serendipitously brought together a chicken farmer and a developmental biologist for a scientific collaboration that will soon be published in a scientific journal.  You can read more about it here.  

In another session, I heard from students from the Staten Island Academy where Stacy Baker has integrated science blogging as a teaching component in her science classroom.  Not only was Stacy’s pioneering effort a novel teaching method, but she has now passed the torch to at least two of her students who will be blogging at Scitable.  They will be writing about science for kids their age.  So, what began as an experiment incorporating social media into the classroom has now expanded to the broader community. 

On Saturday evening of the conference, I attended a book reading in Durham by Sheril Kirshenbaum whose recently released book entitled “The Science of Kissing” is the epitome of a science online experiment that has emerged into a public outreach jugernaut.  Every chair in the room was taken.  The audience was diverse and was most definitely not composed of scientists.  After reading a few excerpts from the book, Sheril took questions for at least 30-45 minutes.  In my mind, there was no doubt about it.  She had successfully stimulated within her audience that part of the brain that wants to know more.  She had elicited a genuine interest in the science behind the act of kissing, and I had another story about the impact of the science online community. 

On the last day of the conference, I was stunned to see a child with her shirt pulled up to reveal her belly button into which she was inserting a Q-tip.  Soon I realized that I was witnessing a citizen science project sponsored by the Nature Research Center and carried out by Rob Dunn a biologist at my alma mater, North Carolina State University.  Dunn and his students are collecting samples to study the biodiversity of belly buttons from citizens across the state.  Again, it struck me that the Science Online community was reaching people in a variety of ways beyond what I had even begun to appreciate. As I was discussing the project, Dunn pulled out a copy of his recently published book.  Now, that’s what I’m talking about!

The examples continued to accumulate throughout the week, but it wasn’t until one of the final sessions that I realized that this snowball of science outreach was exploding from the internet into the public with magnificent success.  I was completely overwhelmed by the presentation given by Science Cheerleader, Darlene Cavalier.  Although Darlene has gained a lot of recognition for creating the Science Cheerleader organization, I thought her presentation showed the highest level of sophistication of any at the conference.  Darlene has been able to take those ideas that most of us consider for a just a minute before we realize it would be really hard to make happen and she makes them happen.  Yes, the science cheerleaders are great.  They have made great strides to overcome the stereotype that you can’t be beautiful and smart.  I applaud Darlene and the cheerleaders for there efforts, but it is impossible to limit her to this singular accomplishment.  Darlene has created something of an empire of science outreach.  Through her work with the NSF, she has partnered with the NFL to produce videos that explain the science of football that are shown during NFL games.  She has organized a website called Science for Citizens that highlights citizen science projects from across the country.  And, she continues to develop new ideas with seemingly limitless potential.  I have no doubt next year will be even more impressive. 

Others who give me hope include:

My good friend Adrien Ebsary comes to us from Ottawa, Canada where he is founder and producer of Peer Review Radio, a weekly radio show and podcast that tackles important topics in science, using language that anyone can understand.

Someone I met only briefly, Alok Jha, works for the Guardian producing podcasts that reach millions in the U.K. and beyond, most effectively captured the spirit of the Science Online conference in his podcast, which you can find here.  Alok has science policy on his mind and I expect his podcasts to inform many around the world about the American political scene as we enter the 2012 election season.  I was recently pleasantly surprised to find out that Jha has also released a new book.

Not only were there people who were reaching out to the public.  There were also a few attendees who had made it there job to influence the other side of the outreach coin.  Liz Neeley, Assistant Director of Outreach for COMPASS, trains scientists to communicate with the public.  Liz was also there to promote a book entitled “Escape from the Ivory Tower” written by her boss, Nancy Baron.  It is a book that speaks directly to the issue of communicating science to the public. She was attending the conference to network with this community, surely for reasons similar to mine.  How do we build on this network for the purpose of impacting science policy?  In her case, there is a focus on environmental issues, but the outcome is the same, educate and inform the public on issues relevant to science policy.  It’s a beautiful thing to see!

So, the answer to the question is YES, the Science Online community is having an impact. 

Now, obviously exposing the public to science is one thing, but actually convincing them to embrace and invest in science is another.  I admit that question remains to be addressed, however I have no doubt that at least one little girl will become passionate about science because of the efforts of the Science Online community.  I can only hope that it will be more. 

We can look to our history to help us determine if there is hope for improving the state of science in our political landscape.  In the 70’s and 80’s, at a time when we needed a voice for science, it came in the form of a compelling figure, Carl Sagan.  Carl became the face of science and he used the trust afforded him by the public to influence the political debate over nuclear arms.  In addition, he was an effective advocate for science, creating millions of new science enthusiasts.  Surely, a large contingent of the Science Online community was drawn into science because of him.  But, Carl was a single man.  He was limited in how much he could do.  He also faced jealousy and envy from within the scientific community.  Still, he stands as the pre-eminent science communicator, someone we all strive to emulate. 

Carl was able to have an influence and rise to “science stardom” because of many successful books and films.  He was able to make quite a career out of his efforts.  That remains an area that needs to be addressed for the Science Online community.  How can we become financially sustainable?  Who values good science advocacy enough to fund it?  Will the occasional successful book be sufficient? One would think the NSF would make a larger effort to support this community.  I suspect the funds will come from philanthropic agencies like the Wellcome Trust, who share an appreciation for science and sound science policy.  For now, getting rich is not the goal for these folks.  They do this because they love it.  They have the desire to deliver science to the public and they are doing it well. 

Finally, I’d like to make one final prediction for the Science Online community.  Since Sagan’s death, we have been left waiting for the emergence of a new “face of science”, someone who has broad enough appeal to draw in the next generation of science enthusiasts.  If we are to create the next generation of scientists and engineers as was mentioned by President Obama in his State of the Union address, we will need an even greater personality than Carl Sagan to overcome the constant noise from music, tv and video games.  I believe within the Science Online community we are witnessing the emergence of our modern-day Carl Sagan, but as the science communication frontier has changed, so to has the formula for replacing Dr. Sagan.  This generation’s Carl Sagan will not be a single handsome face framed by a black back drop and a red turtle neck sweater.  No, today’s Sagan will consist of the hundreds of faces that zoom by as avatars in a Tweet deck column under the heading “Science”.  They will hone their communication skills by blogging, but they will amplify their impact by getting out there and mixing it up with the public.  These modern day Carl Sagans will not have a singular male voice with a Northeastern accent.  No, our Carl Sagans will have the sweet voice of a young southern female scientist,  the urban slang of an african american science blogger and the british accent of science writer.  Today’s Carl Sagans will not be limited to 70’s documentary film technology.  Our Carl Sagans will be featured in Hi-Def videos produced by the Discovery Channel, grainy smart phone videos recorded in the lab and animations produced in the Jib-Jab format.  Our Carl Sagans will not be limited by a single individual’s yearly calendar.  Our Carl Sagans will be in a thousand places at once.  Our Carl Sagans will be simultaneously speaking to children in classrooms, to crowds in townhalls, to the media, in documentaries and in museums, not to mention via podcasts and YouTube videos.  We must be our own Carl Sagan.

Having come to the conclusion that I had surely met at least a few Carl Sagans at the conference, I knew it was only a matter of time before my predictions would bear fruit.  It took less than a week before the first evidence began to trickle in.  Shortly after returning home, I received a link on twitter announcing an appearance by Carin Bondar on Vancouver’s Urban Rush.  And so it began. 

Since the conference, I’ve seen articles in magazines about Sheril’s book and last week, I caught up with Seth Mnookin who was doing a talk about his book “The Panic Virus” at American University, which is directly addressing the problems with public misunderstanding of vaccine science.  I would say, we’re off to a good start. 

Thanks to Joe Hanson (@jtotheizzoe) for this image: