I've got a piece up at the SCQ today, which is (another) failed attempt at publishing at Seed's print magazine. Here, a few months back, I was asked to have a go at their "Why I do Science" section but in the end it wasn't for the editors.
Overall, it sounded like they were hoping for "something bigger, more eye opening. They wanted people to want to do science after reading these by challenging the stereotypes."
Anyway, I quite liked the piece, which is why I put it up at the Science Creative Quarterly. It's also fitting because today is the last day after a 4 week stretch of public school programs in my lab.
I'm a little burnt out actually, which is why I'm gonna lay low for an extra week. The last two weeks, however, were especially awesome. This was the Science Creative Literacy Symposia, which seemed to be such great fun that for sure it's coming back bigger and better in the fall. Keep an eye out at the SCQ for the following two months, where we hope to showcase the symposia pieces produced by these young writers (Grades 5, 6 and 7).
Sounds very worthwhile, even with exhaustion. Schools need scientists.
Have you heard about the Technology Exchange Center at Green Valley? (http://www.greenvalleynetwork.org/Default.aspx?pageId=121929) It's a nonprofit coalition bringing together scientists and businesspeople for sustainable technology.
Like your projects, it looks like science in the public interest and in an accessible form.
SCQ is a cooler publication anyway. ; )
Overall, it sounded like they were hoping for "something bigger, more eye opening.
FWIW, I really enjoyed your essay-I thought it sounded honest. When science writers and bloggers strive for something bigger and more eye-opening, I suspect they are often dishonest as a result. Sometimes it's bad enough to seem weirdly computer game- or fantasy novel-influenced, or to be nauseatingly Mary Sue-ish.