The Evil Monkey has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from a southeastern U.S. university. After a postdoctoral nightmare of Inquisitorial proportions, he is currently working in a laboratory and an adjunct assistant professor at a nearby state university.
Scicurious has a PhD in Physiology from a southern institution. She is a nerd, a geek, and also a dork. And yes, that really is her brain.
NotoriousLTP is an MD-PhD student in New York City. After finishing (hopefully soon) his PhD in behavioral neuroscience, he will re-enter the fun vortex that is medical education.
Disclaimer: The opinions on this blog do not represent any organization to which we may belong, or employers, or basically anybody but us. So there.
Life has an interesting symmetry to it. No I'm not talking about bilateral symmetry or any Endless Forms Most Beautiful. I've just completed my orientation for a 1 year position at my undergraduate alma mater, where I'll be replacing the person who got me into lab work. In fact this is being typed on his computer. Very, very strange. I believe I'll have to track this experience.
First off- tracking down my review copy that was supposed to arrive 2 months ago. Second, get that damn course management system up and running. Third, clean the lab. Ew.
There's a slick new online Sci Fi rag called Lightspeed. I like this one because they also publish nonfiction pieces that are relevant to their fiction stories. Ok I'm a bit biased because they asked me to write a nonfiction piece for them. In the same issue there was a story called Manumission by Tobias Buckell, which used intentionally created memory loss as a plot device for a story that is part noir, part Heinlein, and all funky fun. My piece loosely relates to the story, but explores a bit more of what memory loss means for an individual's perception of themselves.
Do drop by and read both, and explore the webzine. It's pretty entertaining stuff from fresh faces and old standbys in Sci Fi/Fantasy.
More about Lightspeed, from their About page:
Lightspeed is an online magazine focusing exclusively on science fiction. Here you can expect to see all types of science fiction, from near-future, sociological soft sf, to far-future, star-spanning hard sf, and anything and everything in between. No subject will be considered off-limits, and we encourage our writers to take chances with their fiction and push the envelope.
Each month at Lightspeed, we bring you a mix of originals and reprints, and featuring a variety of authors--from the bestsellers and award-winners you already know to the best new voices you haven't heard of yet. When you read Lightspeed, it is our hope that you'll see where science fiction comes from, where it is now, and where it's going.
Lightspeed also features a variety of nonfiction features, fiction podcasts, and Q&As with our authors that go behind-the-scenes of their stories.
Our regular publication schedule each month includes two pieces of original fiction and two fiction reprints, along with four nonfiction articles. New content (Fiction and Nonfiction) will be posted on the first four Tuesdays of each month. Ebook editions and editorials will be available on the 1st of the month.
I'm putting this post under "education" because I define a new term at the end of it. Which, of course, qualifies it to be educational.
By now you've probably picked up on the Sexiest Female Scientist list being passed around by some atheist guy, so I won't bother to link to it and drive up the turd's traffic. I will, however, give my quick 2 cents on this particular brand of sexism.
Sheril and PZ already hit this topic, among many others, but I think Janet's take comes closest to my own position. She writes:
However, it's pretty assy to dismiss not just the intuitions but the actual experiences of a significant number of people who tell you (repeatedly), that they are harmed by X. To dismiss these experiences while saying, "No, give me an argument against X," is clueless at best.
Look, central to the project of being ethical is recognizing that it's not all about you. It is not enough to evaluate courses of action on the basis of first principles that seem plausible to you, or of actual experiences you have had -- how things impact others matters. That means that listening to what people are telling you about how X impacts them is a pretty crucial step -- one that ought to inform not just your thoughts but your actions.
There. That's it. That is the definition of male privilege. When you, as a man get to substitute your own version of reality for a woman's, you are exercising male privilege. As a practical example-- if you, as a man, decide that no, actually women aren't or shouldn't be offended by posting their pictures in a Top 15 Science Hottie post, and then dismiss the opinions of actual women including some of whom you posted about because "they should be flattered", you are exercising male privilege. You are also a dick.
With that in mind, I take credit for introducing my own term to the blogosphere.
labia puncher (n)- A man whose privileged status allows him to substitute his own opinion/interpretation on the appropriateness of a comment or situation directed at a woman, in lieu of actually considering said woman's opinion. The labia puncher differs from a mansplainer in that the mansplainer merely reiterates a position already taken by a woman and gets credit for it, while a labia puncher is just a cum-chugging cock gobbler who can't get a date for obvious reasons.
Sci has just tendered her letter of resignation to the Overlords at SEED. This was a very, very hard decision, and it hurts Sci more than she can say. Sci would like to let you know, though, that she hasn't given up blogging!!! She has merely moved back to her old digs. You can find her at Neurotic Physiology, her old place. Please do drop by and visit!
As for my reasons, well, I just want to say that it was not specifically Pepsico that made me feel like I couldn't continue here. There were a multitude of contributing factors, and Pepsico was just a last in a long line.
But don't worry, Sci will be around! I'll see you on the blogs, kids.
If you've been around the blog for the past day, I'm sure you've seen that there's been a new...blog...from PepsiCo. Sci's not sure what she thinks of it, but it's not positive. I know we had GE and Shell and stuff...but that felt different, somehow. Being as Sci has recently been looking in to a lot of food and reward related mechanisms and issues associated with things like binge eating, she is more than a bit uncomfortable. So she needs some time to think about it. Posting will resume when I've had my think.
In the meantime, thanks so much for the responses to my meme! Sci is thrilled to see all the people who read and why. She promises, no matter what, her blogging has by no means ended.
You may not think of our flesh-eating diseased brethren as being the thoughtful types. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
As Sci mentioned, I'm gonna be holed up in the Costco for a while so I got time to think about it. They're the slow-moving-undead zombies, not those ultra-quick "infected" (I hate those creepy bastards). I rolled down those big steel doors, barricaded them with anything heavy I could find here, gathered up all the lighting supplies for when the power goes out, bandaged up that bite on my arm, and I've taken to making jerky out of all this meat I've got laying around the store. I even got chainsaws in case they break in. Not my weapon of choice by a long shot since all it does is attract more zombies, but they'll do. I should be able to last a while. Other survivors are knocking on the door. I can't let them in, I might put myself at risk. Maybe I'll toss them some supplies from the roof later. If they make it.
So while I slice up all this beef and prep it for low heat cookin', I'm thinking about these buggers. Are they just driven by a bunch of chemical reactions in their diseased brains?They got a rudimentary consciousness in there someplace, right? Or do they? People normally think of consciousness as the ability to self-evaluate, to reflect on one's own mental state. Consciousness is frequently referred to as an emergent phenomenon, or one that can't readily be predicted by knowing all the properties of its constituents. For example, we can't really predict "wetness" from knowing the properties of a water molecule.
Some philosophers suggest that mental processes supervene on physical processes. That is, you can't reductively just break down all the physical processes of the brain and get a true understanding of mentation. That being said, though, you can't have the mental process without the physical. At least that we know about or can explain.
Hmm I'm getting hungry and these granola bars aren't cutting it. Guess I don't have to wait for the meat to cook, I can just start eating it as I slice it. Hey, it ain't that gross! Whole cultures make a dining habit of eating raw beef. Ever heard of carpaccio, huh? Steak tartare? Kitfo? Mmm. Funny thing is, the more raw meat I eat the less that bite on my arm itches.
Some philosophers would say that it is possible to imagine a universe just like ours in every way, with all the same physical laws, except that this property of supervenience doesn't apply to mental phenomena. That is to say, there's another universe out there with an identical "you", down to every last molecule, doing exactly what you are doing right now. Like making jerky. Mmmm jerky.
God I wish those survivors would stop banging on the door. I can't think with all that racket!
The difference between You and 2nd you (called Ewe) is that Ewe doesn't have the ability to self-evaluate. Ewe is not aware, Ewe is just playing out the fucktillions of molecular interactions going on in Ewe's body. And since all the same physical laws apply to You and Ewe, You and Ewe will continue to live out the exact same life. The only difference is, Ewe isn't aware of any of it. Kind of like those ravenous, flesh-eating fuckers out there right now, hunting down the last of humanity and tearing us to pieces with their jagged little teeth.
I don't really buy into this as an explanation for how consciousness works, because in this case consciousness really can't impact thought processes at all. It is a passive, useless thing. Personally I prefer to think that evolution shaped our mental processes by shaping our physical processes, meaning that self-evaluation serves a useful role in our survival. If I get out of this mess, I'm gonna head to the library and read up some more......
Dammit, stop banging on the damn door!!!!!!! RRRRRRRRRRR.
So anyway... self-evaluation. Yeah. What was I saying? Shit. Can't think. Hungry. Arm itches.
Tried raw beef, pork, chicken, turkey. I'm craving some long pig, and Costco doesn't carry that. Really craving it.
Chris Mooney- a man with his heart in the right place and absolutely no idea what do do after that. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy. He's a force for good when dissecting a scientific issue for the public. But Mooney has been trucking out this same "communication" bullshit for a few years now. As usual, nothing much is offered other than "listen to them". I agree, communication is important, and scientists need to listen as much as talk. Ok..... then what? If, as he says, so many people only consider science as a small part of forming their opinions, what makes him think that they're even open to changing their minds? By his own logic in the article, antivacc'ers are more interested in the science than the general public, yet impervious to sound interpretations of it. So are anti-evolution folk. So are climate change deniers.
Mooney: Listen the Fuck UP. Just because some segments of the population are interested in cherry-picking data doesn't mean they have any interest in dialogue, in sharing information, in reformulating their opinions, in understanding the process of science, or in interpreting the data in light of the larger framework that they are willfully misunderstanding. This is true by your own logic.
Secondly- stop making the false dichotomy of scientists vs "the public". Um, hello, we're not always this misanthropic insular group that only shuffles between home and the lab by moonlight, shunning all interpersonal interactions. We have families, we take our kids to ballgames, we do our own sports clubs, we volunteer at churches and animal shelters, we go out on the weekends. Some of us engage in public outreach quite regularly, we tell the public about our research in a host of settings from evolution dialogues at colleges and churches to practical public health dissemination at dormitories. We answer questions and discuss the consequences of our research.
In fact, Chris, we are the public. Not every scientist is an expert outside their field. We rely on the news, Scienceblogs, Discoverblogs, SciAm, the NYT, and other popular outlets for our info and interpretations. We don't always go to the primary literature for the same reasons "the public" doesn't. When I need to know about global warming, I hit realclimate.org and The Intersection, because these sites distill the science well (btw thank you Chris and Sheril).
Mooney cites a Pew study that says the general public is generally positive on the scientific community, it's the scientists who are wary of the media. Maybe if those in the media and popular press would stop treating us like a different species, "the people" who we don't reach would feel less wary about trusting us when the data we generate challenges their preconceptions. Maybe if the media would stop treating everything like a "controversy", and stop giving free air time for dissemination of misinformation, we wouldn't have to spend our time debunking crap that was debunked 150 years ago (in the case of evolution) and could focus more on education. Here's an example; anybody even remotely familiar with the "controversy" surrounding mercury and autism knows who Andrew Wakefield is. He gets mentioned in practically every article and gets the media's "equal time" treatment, even though the guy is a total slime and we've known it for years. How many legitimate medical researchers, on the other hand, get more than a two-sentence quote? How many autism researchers fighting the good fight get profiled to the extent that Wakefield does? If you're not in the field, can you even name an autism researcher on the other side of the line from Wakefield?
So what can scientists do? Well, we have to pull double-duty debunking misconceptions of the data and of scientists in general. Universities and especially tenure committees need to be more supportive of scientists devoting time to outreach, especially for those conducting the so-called "lightning rod" research. That means more settings where scientists take the practical side of their research and tell the public about it, before it becomes an issue (which admittedly is about the only thing Mooney lays out as a strategy, even though he doesn't get into the nuts and bolts). Kids need to be made aware of how vaccines benefit them and the population as a whole. The general public needs to understand how evolution impacts their local ecosystems. We need to get out there and engage the public more, as scientists we've always fell short here. More scientists need to consider media-based careers, like Phil Plait. More scientists need to speak up in church if they hear bullshit getting peddled. More scientists need to sit on school boards. If you're a scientist and you're active in politics, find somebody like-minded in the opposing political party and organize a politics-free teachable moment where both sides of the aisle show up and see each other as human beings with common science-based problems that transcend their petty politics. Find ways to have teach-ins with legislators and staffers at the state and federal levels, if possible.
There, I've already done more than Mooney. I've made a couple concrete suggestions for how the problem needs to be addressed. Go check out PalMD's blog post for a good response to Mooney's article.
I was thinking about the difficulties that women have defending their reproductive rights, and the constant intrusion from a predominantly white-male-run government has slowly eroded women's ability to control what happens to their own bodies. Ok, ok, maybe birth control and abortion are all too radically new for a country that just allowed women to vote a mere 90 years ago, and men just aren't ready to let women have full control of their uteri (I mean come on, you've have had them for millions of years and you just let the damned things wander all over your body at the slightest provocation), but this whole exploding oil rig/Gulf oil spill kerfluffle and the debate over what responsibility British Petroleum has in the cleanup has given me an idea how we can finally end any politicizing of abortion, decisively, once and for all.
Ladies, the time has come to incorporate your uteri.
The Evil Monkey has a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from a southeastern U.S. university. After a postdoctoral nightmare of Inquisitorial proportions, he is currently working in a laboratory and an adjunct assistant professor at a nearby state university.
Scicurious has a PhD in Physiology from a southern institution. She is a nerd, a geek, and also a dork. And yes, that really is her brain.
NotoriousLTP is an MD-PhD student in New York City. After finishing (hopefully soon) his PhD in behavioral neuroscience, he will re-enter the fun vortex that is medical education.
