Fake Banner
Batteries Are Stuck In The 1990s Because Solid-State Batteries Keep Short-Circuiting

The electric car industry is held back by reliance on conventional energy. Despite spending trillions...

Dogs Have Been 'Man's Best Friend' For 14,000 Years

The bond between humans and dogs is one of the oldest stories in anthropology. It may also be a...

Is This The D'Artagnan Made Famous In 'The Three Musketeers' By Dumas?

“I have lost D’Artagnan, in whom I had every confidence,” wrote King Louis XIV to his Queen...

No Danger, How A Stranger Can Be A Game Changer - A New Book About Making 'Small' Talk

The future career arc for my house is a library bed-and-breakfast. It will be just like it sounds...

User picture.
picture for Fred Phillipspicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for picture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Atreyee Bhattacharyapicture for Patrick Lockerby
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll

I wrote about this briefly in our nifty new 'quick blog' feature but I thought it merited more consideration so I wrote down some thoughts and you can tell me if I'm off base.

I just found out we are a 'conservative' science site, ostensibly because we don't have an ideological litmus test for writers. This was third hand from the blog in the link so I don't know how literal we can take it. It seems odd to me that unless you are overtly left, and your writers are overtly anti-religious across the board, you must be 'conservative.' We'll let anyone write here and other places will not. If that makes us conservative, I am okay with it.