Blood Pressure Medication Adherence May Not Be Cost, It May Be Annoyance At Defensive Medicine

High blood pressure is an important risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease and premature...

On January 5th, Don't Get Divorced Because Of Hallmark Movies

The Monday after New Year's is colloquially called Divorce Day, but it's more than marriages ending...

Does Stress Make Holidate Sex More Likely?

Desire to have a short-term companion for the holidays - a "holidate" - is common enough that it...

To Boomers, An AI Relationship Is Not Cheating

A recent survey by found that over 28 percent of adults claim they have an intimate, even romantic...

Hank Campbell

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 »

The Physics Of The Vuvuzela

Jun 29 2010 | comment(s)

If you've watched any World Cup games so far (and a record 15 million in the US watched Saturday's match versus Ghana, so statistically, ummm, 50,000 people in our audience have watched at least one) you may have heard an omnipresent buzzing sound and assumed it was a horde of mutant bees in the broadcast booth or a defect in your television.

It was neither. Instead, it was a vuvuzela ("lepatata"), a B flat plastic horn that is loved by South African sports fans and hated by everyone else. Seriously. During that first World Cup match I watched it was so annoying I was convinced that if the people at Abu Gharaib had access to these things, terrorists would have caved in long ago.

23andMe Stumbles Into An Ethical Gray Area - And Why That's Good

Jun 28 2010 | comment(s)

23andMe, Inc., a direct-to-consumer personal genetics company, is arguably the most well-funded and therefore highest profile group out there (being married to a Google co-founder will do that) and by doing a somewhat humorous new study associating traits with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs - a type of common DNA sequence variation), they may have spurred discussion of some new ethics guidelines to help future science policy.

The Value Of Listening In Science Outreach

Jun 27 2010 | comment(s)

Frustrated in dealing with the public? You are not alone. It may seem to researchers that the public is either stupid or intentionally ignoring evidence but it's not that one-sided, writes Chris Mooney in the Washington Post.

Chris generally doesn't think a lot of the science IQ of Americans (and don't even get him started on Republicans!) but he recognizes something more scientists should (and most do here, thus the whole Science 2.0 thing) - making scientifically smarter people does not mean they will always agree with you.

Science 2.0: Can I Share Your Lab?

Jun 26 2010 | comment(s)

Remote access ... for lab equipment?

Labshare Australia wants to create a shared network of remote laboratories. Yep, with costs going up - and science and hospitals are two of very few industries where competition drives costs up, because if Lab X has a new machine, Lab Y may need one to be competitive - while there is current laboratory utilization at less than 10% (they say - things are quiet in Australia?), a group of technology initiatives have joined together to lower some maintenance costs while improving access among students and researchers in labs that have less funding.

Science 2.0 - The Blessing And The Curse

Jun 24 2010 | comment(s)

It's no secret we have done things our own way here - no marketing, no corporate hierarchy, no political or cultural litmus test and no requirement that you already be popular before you can join.

The big net of Science 2.0 is exactly what some people in science resent about it. ScientificBlogging is one crucial part of the Science 2.0 experiment but it's not the only part. Therefore it can be a threat to people who regard science communication as part of their fiefdom, either corporate or perceptual. Basically, a way for them to make money and control the message.

Open Access And Good Citations: The PLoS Factor

Jun 22 2010 | comment(s)

The big war in science during this decade has not been Republicans against human embryonic stem cell research or Democrats against agriculture, it has instead been open access publishing versus subscription peer-reviewed journals.

Open access publishing of science results, freely available to all, would clearly kill subscription-based peer-reviewed journals. Right now, those peer reviewed journals are terrifically profitable for multiple companies despite the fact that everyone is saying print is dead. These companies add value to researchers, they say, by having a higher impact than other companies that do less marketing, etc.