Fake Banner
The Hemp Industry Has A Placebo For Your PFAS Chemophobia

Environmental activists have claimed for decades that PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)...

TSCA: Here Is What You Need To Know About EPA Taking A New Look At Formaldehyde

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has signaled it will once again examine formaldehyde under...

Sending Health Care To Homes Is Better And Cheaper Than Hospital Stays

Due to the rising costs and inability of doctors to own hospitals since the Affordable Care Act...

If You Want To Golf Better, Don't Play With A Republican

Sports used to bridge a lot of cultural gaps. You could walk into any bar and ask what the score...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Fred Phillipspicture for picture for Patrick Lockerbypicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Ilias Tyrovolas
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
Do You Need A Political Ideology To Be A Successful Science Site?

Do You Need A Political Ideology To Be A Successful Science Site?

Jul 06 2007 | comment(s)

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 <a href=

I just found out <a href="http://elfs.

Jul 05 2007 | comment(s)

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.