Fake Banner
What AI Can't Do: Humanity’s Last Exam

By this time 26 years ago, the "Dot-Com Bubble" was ready to burst. People who wanted to raise...

Does NBA Income Inequality Impact Team Performance?

A new paper says that players where a few superstars get the money leads to less cooperation and...

Dogs And Coffee: Finally, Epidemiology You Can Trust

In 2026, it is easy to feel intellectually knocked around by all of the health claims you read...

Chloe Kim And Eileen Gu In Media As Anti-Asian Narrative

Olympians Chloe Kim and Eileen Gu are both Americans but have Asian descent. Yet Kim competed for...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for picture for Fred Phillipspicture 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.