Banner
Neil Tyson On The Politics Of Science Denial

Spend any time in American science media and you may find some of them are pretty far out of the...

I'm Marvelous Now - Why I Stopped Being Awesome

George Clooney used to copy my haircuts.People who knew me in the 1990s always marveled at my classic...

Why Isn't Science Cloning People? The Science Of Sci-Fi On Dweebcast

Science 2.0 fave Ora TV has a fun show-you-should be-watching-if-you-are-not-already-watching called...

When There Is A Penis Mystery, Just Blame Endocrine Disruptors

Endocrine disruptor.No one knows why Hypospadias, a birth defect where the urethral opening is...

User picture.
picture for Luis Gonzalez-Mestrespicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Josh Bloompicture for Norm Benson
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes. Probably no one ever said the WWW or Science... Read More »

Blogroll
In team sports it is often difficult to determine the value of an individual.   Some sports can do it easily enough, like baseball(1) or basketball, but during the World Cup, casual fans who hear commentators talk about the quality 'form' of a player are lost when the game is 0-0.

Jordi Duch, Joshua S. Waitzman and Luís A. Nunes Amaral of Northwestern University say they may have an answer.  
I have nothing against BP.  BP was our biggest advertiser last year.  I think BP is generally one oil company that generally cares about the future of energy and reasonable use of the planet's resources.

But it must be at the VP level and down that people have a clue.  Because at the top they are Klondike Kops.

BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, not learning any lesson at all from Tony ("I want my life back") Hayward's many public relations misfires, decided to rescue his company's reputation by responding to a reporter about President Obama's comments that BP should "keep in mind those individuals, that they are desperate, may lose business that have been in their families for two or three generations" by saying ...

"We care about the small people." 
People who have been around a long time know the somewhat convoluted history of Science 2.0 in general and Scientific Blogging in specific but the top question I get after people say, "Oh, you're that guy!" is "Why did you call it Scientific Blogging?"

Why not Science 2.0?   Well, there's a practical reason and a philosophical one.  The practical reason is that the way domain names work it isn't really possible.   In order to make Science2.0.com I would have to make Science2 a subdomain of 0.com and that has been in existence since 1985.   Yes, 1985, well before Tim Berners-Lee blessed us with an elegant way to make a World Wide Web.  VeriSign owns it and they are unlikely to give it to me.
Extinction is nothing new; more than 99% of all species that have ever lived we will never know about.  Extinction is entirely natural and, if you've ever watched someone's car weaving on the highway while they talk on the phone and drink a coffee, you have probably hoped it will remain a fundamental process of evolution.

But survival of the fitter(1) can be a fickle mistress.  Why, after 800,000 years of successful survival did the Hundsheim rhino (Stephanorhinus hundsheimensis) suddenly and irrecoverably disappear?
It's no secret social media is big - every marketing group latches on to the latest fad (even us - we gots the Tweetypages, we gots the Faceyspaceys) and people are using it more and more.   But in the recent past, for many the Internet was just another way to get 'traditional' news, preferably for free.
Advocates of good science breathed a sigh of relief when Andrew Wakefield was finally lambasted for questionable methods and shoddy science, basically eliminating the validity of the fundamental text of the 'anti-vaccination' movement outside science circles.

What about another fundamental text inside science circles?  Namely Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, by Christine Wennerås&Agnes Wold (Nature 387, 341-343, 22 May 1997,  doi:10.1038/387341a0 ), who claimed they did not receive Swedish postdoctoral fellowships because of male chauvinism.