Social media is a powerful tool that can be used to bring about positive change for women in science. Two recent events involving senior, highly-regarded scientists demonstrate the growing importance of social media as a catalyst for change in science. It is time for the media to pay more attention to those scientists, who happen to be women, and who are woefully under and mis-represented in all media. Women in science all around the world have found a common voice that has never existed before, on this scale or in this form.
In spite of my own positive experiences, Tim Hunt's remarks come as no surprise as they reflect a very pervasive attitude in our community. His views epitomize the historical dominance of men in the culture of STEM academic research. Women have been pushed to the side, in many cases not given credit for their discoveries, and expected to withstand the rampant sexism and discrimination. Evidence of how persistent and systemically ingrained this attitude has become continues to arise, even amongst women themselves.
The recent news that actress Sofia Vergara is facing a lawsuit from her ex-fiancé over the fate of their frozen embryos is shining a light on the embryo freezing process. If a couple separates and fails to agree on what to do with their frozen embryos, a lengthy and emotionally taxing legal battle could ensue. However, if only eggs are frozen over the course of a relationship, and that relationship ends, there is no dispute over who the eggs belong to and who controls their fate.
Over the past few months there's been a lot of conversation about whether women are getting a fair shake in Silicon Valley. It's fantastic that there's so much focus on gender equality, but most of the discussion bypasses the fact that we still need to get more women to even try to succeed in technology.
Right now, public interest in STEM and scientists is on an upswing. So, it seems to me, that now is the perfect time to continue that upswing by putting some of science's latest and greatest achievements on a big stage once a year. I'm not suggesting that the Nobel prize should be more commercial or should be dumbed down. I'm not even suggesting that the Nobel prize change in any way but there should be another set of awards that is meant for the general public, that is meant to be understood and that helps the people to understand.
I understand people's anger toward anti-vaccination and other "non-scientific" belief systems. But let's use science to help solve the problem, and not let our emotions get the better of us. Rather than type insults on Twitter, our time might be best spent advocating for more research grant money to help better understand this important issue.
What do these study findings actually suggest about human personality? Seeing similar personality trends in other species that have a shared evolutionary history with humans provides strong evidence that biology plays an important role in personality, perhaps even more than social or cultural influences.
Science is a profession of discipline and process. Scientists live in a world of constant questioning: they observe, analyze, theorize and test, and then do it all over again. Guided by facts and data, they strive to drill through uncertainty and draw solid, evidence-based conclusions. That's why a blog I discovered recently is so interesting: it asks climate scientists to step outside of their professions, and speak as mothers, fathers, grandparents and children -- in short, to speak as humans.
Given predictable increases in population and demand, for meat production to take place responsibly in the future, we will have to significantly diversify our eating habits, and with them, our production habits. In vitro meat is one alternative. We don't know enough about it yet. But we know we can make it. It is possible.
The only way to fight ocean acidification is through a reduction in the global level of CO2 emissions. It is vital for Norway and other key players that the climate summit in Paris next year is successful. Norway is committed to the process and to achieving an ambitious outcome as we work towards the two-degree target and a low carbon society.
We use jargon and complicate things with acronyms that are meaningless to those who aren't in the loop. But most importantly, we miss the opportunity to engage, excite and empower others with our news. As academics, scientists and researchers, we have a unique responsibility to ensure our findings extend well beyond the lab bench.
We need social reflection on the topic of religion to be able to separate superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance from legitimate expressions of religion. In learning about what true religion is, we can benefit from what it can contribute towards the progress of humanity and curb acts of ignorance and fundamentalism that are carried out in its name.
Cooperation between Arctic stakeholders is crucial for each country's success in dealing with climate change. We are in a new era of sustainable development as the Arctic presents us with major opportunities and major responsibilities. Cooperation is the only tool to ensure ethical, social, and ecological sustainable development.
On May 26, 300 scientists from across Canada sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him, in the strongest possible terms, to reject the Joint Review Panel's report recommending approval of the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project. Today this letter will be sent. Will it influence the decision Harper ultimately makes?
Along with the inhabitants of Kalachi, the few remaining residents of the nearby town of Krasnogorsk, Russia have also been reporting sleeping episodes lasting as long as six days. Krasnogorsk, which was once home to more than 6500 people during the boom period during the U.S.S.R., when the nearby uranium mine was operated in secret by the Soviet government.
The real problem is that the public doesn't actually get climate science information from scientists. We get it from government departments and international governmental panels. We get it from a sensationalist media and from politicians. While the IPCC tells us there will be 17 inches of sea rise by 2100, Al Gore scares voters by claiming it will be 20 feet.