“The unsolved mysteries of the rainforest are formless and seductive. They are like unnamed islands hidden in the blank spaces of old maps, like dark shapes glimpsed descending the far wall of a reef into an abyss. They draw us forward and stir strange apprehensions. The unknown and prodigious are drugs to the scientific imagination, stirring insatiable hunger with a single taste. In our heart, we hope we will never discover everything. We pray that there will always be a world like this one at whose edge I sat in darkness. The rainforest and its richness is one of the last repositories on Earth of that timeless dream.”
—E.O. WilsonInterested in writing about neat sciencey stuff?
I know it seems like this only just happened, but if you’d like your writing to be featured on sciencesoup in April, I’m now accepting guest articles again! I’ll be going to the land of FREEDOM for three weeks, staying in Texas and D.C., and although I’ll have internet access, I’d rather have a queue set up so I’m not worried about keeping you guys in the science-know.
Submissions must:
- Deal informatively with a topic relevant to the STEM fields (but you have a free choice of topic within those parameters, as long as I haven’t previously written about it)
- Follow my current blog format—that is, short one paragraph articles of under 300 words
- Be your own original writing, and be factually correct
- Be written clearly, concisely, and in an interesting manner
- Include a relevant image (or images) with a source link
Instead of emailing your submission(s) to me like last time, I’ve opened my submissions inbox so you can submit articles directly to this blog. Of course, if published, you’ll be fully credited, so please include your URL in your submission. There’s a limit of two submissions per person, and the deadline will be the 31st of March.
I’ll be choosing the articles I think are interesting and well-written, so I look forward to seeing your best work. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to message me or email me—even if I don’t reply promptly, I guarantee I’ll reply nicely!
Submit here—good luck!
Searching for Life on Titan
australianscience.com.auI wrote a new article for AustralianScience! 100% guaranteed to be interesting, because it talks about methane lakes, underground oceans, volcanoes that erupt ICE, and the possibilities of life in the frigid outer reaches of the solar system.
Study tries to prove liver disease only occurs in fat alcoholic women: AKA - Example of why popular websites should have science writers on staff
jezebel.comTwo (kinda dubious) UK studies have claimed to have determined a link between weight, excessive drinking and chronic liver disease â not exactly a fascinating new discovery to associate liver disease with drinking, and the way weight’s thrown into it seems a little half-assed.
Yeah. I can bet that the “writer” of this article has little to no science background outside of high school or maybe 1st year university biology. If you don’t know how to read scientific articles, you probably shouldn’t be trying to write about them. Just sayin’. Some of the comments hit it right on the nose:
Llma_230 says: “Ugggh, please get a science writer, Jezabel.” and “I just honestly feel like, being one of the biggest feminist publications out there, Jez should at least try to have some kind of journalistic standard. Which includes not writing about science if you don’t understand what you’re supposed to be writing about.”
Jonah Lehrer Charmed Me, Then Blatantly Lied to Me About Science | Psychology Today
psychologytoday.comWhat Jonah Lehrer’s betrayal of our trust reveals about popular science writing
Well that’s incredibly disappointing.
Roger Highfield on science writing
What’s the biggest potential pitfall when writing about science?
Ensuring that it is interesting, clear and simple enough to grip a general reader yet accurate enough to satisfy a Nobel prizewinner.
Read more tips and the interview at the guardian.
The Best Science Writing Online 2012, In a Print Book
brainpickings.orgWell, it’s not every day that someone calls you “…everyone’s favorite Feynman of the Tumblr era”.
Thanks, Maria :)
Read her review of The Best Science Writing Online 2012, and discover why collecting a bunch of online writing on paper works really well.
5 Ways Lady Hormones (Supposedly) Influence Us
huffingtonpost.comEvery few months a study comes out making a claim about the impact that women’s hormones have on their choices, desires and preferences.
Some of the sample sizes these studies used were shocking - like, 18, really? Although I will say that the last study, if it is the one I am thinking about, is a pretty well-accepted paper that had a good sample size and from an evolutionary biology stand point the results make total sense (while ovulating you are “programmed” to seek out the phenotype that most likely represents the healthiest genotype so that your offspring have the greatest chance of survival - that phenotype will tend to be more “masculine” because the extra testosterone required to look “extra manly” is an honest indicator of fitness, etc. etc. etc.). Basically I just wanted to again point out the issue of popular blogs, etc. writing about science. I tried to look up the author’s bio and all I could find was that she is a McGill grad (yeah, Canada!) but not what she studied. I was interested to know whether she was a science person or not. This relates to a recent post I made about why people who don’t know science shouldn’t write about it. Although let me make it clear that I find this article better written and it makes legitimate points about the flaws in the research being discussed. I was kind of sad when I found that the only link to the research mentioned in the last segment wasn’t the actual research paper but an article about it on the same offending website that clearly lacks science people on its writing staff.
Let me make it clear that I am all about equal treatment for women in all aspects of life and any research that tries to make the archaic claim that “women are incapable of rational though because ovaries” is bullshit. However, that doesn’t mean that men and women don’t have differing average hormone profiles and those “pesky little chemicals” do affect our physiology and that includes behaviour. Not every study highlighting the differences between typical biological male and female physiology/neurochemistry/etc. is trying to support old-fashioned, vomit-inducing patriarchy. And just because you might not personally like the results of a particular study, doesn’t invalidate it.
Also, do everyone, yourself included, a favor and take the time to seek out and actually read the offending scientific article before disregarding it. Because (surprise!) not all pop science articles that summarize research findings are accurate. And for those of you out there who are non-science people who love writing about science - if you find something you don’t understand, ask a person that does know! Most of us are pretty willing to help you understand the gist of these things. Most of us would much rather take the time to explain things than to see poorly written articles completely misinterpreting research findings - especially since more people read these pop science things than the actual journal articles.
Moral of the story: It is ok to not have a double PhD in molecular biochemistry and Astrophysics and still write about science. It isn’t ok to to a crappy job of it. Use the primary sources. If you don’t understand them, find someone who does that can explain it to you.
Mary Roach, Gulp, pg. 280-282:
“By far the oddest reverse delivery on record is the holy-water enema. The first reference I came upon, a passing mention in an art journal, suggested that the holy-water clyster was a routine weapon in the exorcist’s arsenal. This made a certain amount of sense: Why sprinkle the possessed with holy water when you can pump it right up inside them? Seeking to verify the practice, I e-mailed the public relations office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the stateside headquarters of the Catholic Church. Naturally this went unheeded. Returning to the art journal, I consulted the article’s references, ordered a copy of the cited paper, and hired a translator, as it had been published in an Italian medical journal.
The holy-water enema, by this account, was an isolated case, involving Jeanne des Anges, the mother superior of an Ursuline convent in Loundun, France, in the early 1660s. Des Anges claimed that the parish priest, a raffish, high-ranking charmer named Urbain Grandier, was appearing to her in her dreams, caressing her and attempting to seduce her. He seemed to be having some measure of success, as the contemplative quiet of the convent was being shattered by the mother superior’s nightly shrieks of sexual frenzy. An exorcism was promptly ordered.
Why would one administer the blessed liquid rectally instead of simply having the possessed drink a glass of it? One explanation is that the original Roman Catholic rite for the Blessing of the Holy Water included adding salt to the water. Regardless of the origins of the practice, this had the effect of rendering it undrinkable.
Here’s the other reason: “After many days in which the priest tried to dispel the devil, he learned from the possessed mother superior that the devil had barricaded himself inside…” Here my translator stopped. She leaned closer to the photocopied pages and traced the words with her finger. “…il posteriore della superiora. Inside her butt!”
Sensing that the situation had progressed beyond his expertise or comfort level, the exorcist called for outside help in the form of a pharmacist, “Signor Adam,” and his traveling syringe. (Enemas in those days were the purview of pharmacists and comprised a sizable percentage of their income.) Mr. Adam “filled up the syringe with holy water and gave the miracle clyster to the mother superior, with his usual skill.” Two minutes later the devil had vamoosed.
Books about the Loundun fracas, including a 1634 translation of an account by “an eyewitness,” include no mention of Mr. Adam or rectal exorcism, but they do serve to flesh out the story. Grandier was convicted of sorcery and burned at the stake, and most sources agree he’d been framed by des Anges, acting in cahoots with a rival priest. The “possessions” continued for several years after the execution, spreading to sixteen other nuns and turning the convent into a local tourist attraction, and understandably so: “They…made use of expressions so indecent as to shame the most debauched of men, while their acts, both in exposing themselves and inviting lewd behavior…would have astonished the inmates of the lowest brothels in the country.”
In the words of my translator Rafaella, responding to the material I had engaged her to read, “I am sorry, but nuns should be allowed to have sex.” Or at least an occasional holy-water enema.”
I don’t even know what to fucking do with this book anymore, you guys.
How a little known virus can cause asthma in kids.
![]()
If I were a virus, I think I’d like to be Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV).
What is that, you ask? Exactly my point.
Our lungs are the only organ in our body that is exposed to the filth of our environment. Because of this, our lungs have to fight off bacteria, viruses and pollutants, and yet try to function normally to help us breathe.
Asked to name a respiratory virus, our mind immediately jumps to influenza, the big daddy of viruses that affect our lung. Yet, there is a virus that infects more infants throughout the world (in developed and developing countries), that nearly all of us have been infected by at least once by the age of 1 year, that we have no vaccine or treatment for, that our body is unable to develop long lasting immunity to, and that kills more elderly individuals than influenza. That virus is RSV, and yet, is but a blimp in our collective consciousness.
I will admit, I am partial to this virus. I work with it for my PhD. My aim is to study how infections with RSV early on can cause asthma.
Oh right. I forgot to tell you. If you are hospitalised with RSV infection as a kid, you have a higher likelihood of getting asthma as you get older. Influenza on the other hand? Can’t cause asthma.
See why I said I’d like to be RSV if I were a virus? Infectious, and yet staying under the radar.
There are a number of ways by which we think early life infection can cause asthma, and I might go into those in a later blog post. But one of the coolest suggestive mechanisms, was published by Nandini Krishnamoorthy, at the University of Pittsburgh and her colleagues in Nature Medicine in September, 2012.
They started with the knowledge that in mice, any allergen, if given with TGFbeta (an important cytokine) to a baby mouse through its mother’s milk, then the baby mice develop tolerance to the allergen: by this, I mean that these baby mice will not have an asthmatic reaction to the same allergen as they get older. However, baby mice that received milk without the allergen would develop asthma if they saw the allergen later in life. This process is mediated by a subset of lymphocytes called T regulatory cells (Treg), which are important for tolerance and preventing autoimmune diseases.
Given this, Krishnamoorthy et al exposed new mouse moms to an allergen called OVA derived from eggs, so that these allergens are passed onto their pups through breast milk. These pups, when they were older, did have any asthmatic symptoms when exposed to OVA. However, the same pups, when infected with RSV virus and then exposed to OVA, developed severe asthmatic symptoms. Somehow, virus infection of these mice was breaking tolerance to the allergen, and causing disease.
How does the virus do this? Turns out, infection with the virus changes the nature of the cells in the lymph nodes of these tolerised pups, so that the Treg cells present are now Th2 expressing-Treg cells, rather than normal Treg cells. Th2 type immune responses have been shown to be crucial in mouse and humans for the development of asthma, and RSV’s ability to push Tregs down the Th2 path causes these cells to break their normal roles, and push towards asthma in mice.
What does RSV get out of this push towards an asthmatic-Th2 immune response? Both mouse and human babies (and probably babies of other species) have an immune response that starts off as Th2 biased. The reason this happens is because the alternative, a Th1 inflammatory response, while great for fighting off viruses as adults, also causes damage to normal cells and this would be bad for a still developing young baby. RSV has learnt to exploit this chink in our immune armour, and predominantly infects young children when their immune systems are still developing and are Th2 biased. This way, the virus can infect and replicate, before the Th1 immune response of our bodies evolve and stop the virus in its tracks. Additionally, there is some evidence that RSV actively induces a Th2 response, in order to carry along its merry way. Therefore, the virus doesn’t try to actively cause asthma— rather, it is the nature of our immune system, along with the viruses’s innate desire to live and replicate, that drives our immune system to develop asthma.
Not all kids who are infected however, get asthma. Why this happens, is a whole other mystery. Welcome to science.
Reference:
Krishnamoorthy et al. Early infection with respiratory syncytial virus impairs regulatory T cell function and increases susceptibility to allergic asthma. Nat Med. 2012 Oct;18(10):1525-30. doi: 10.1038/nm.2896. Epub 2012 Sep 9.
Medication Protects Men From Seduction By Dangerous Women
popsci.comIf you find yourself in a Brian de Palma movie or a James M. Cain novel, you might want to make sure you’ve got some minocycline on you—it’s been found
The pop articles about potentially sketchy science just keep rolling in! This one does something that all of these articles should do: it actually links to the scientific article so you can read if for yourself and decide! I have a lot of issues with the journal article being discussed in this popsci article, the least of which is the inappropriate use of antibiotics (ummm…antibiotic resistance, anybody? Inappropriate usage is how that happens, fyi). But I will let you read this article and the research journal and decide for yourself: is the author of the pop article correct in saying that this research is “messed up” or not?
“I tell this to all people who ask me about my career, which defines the word “alternative.” “I’m like bacteria,” I tell them. Bacteria — thermophilic or acidophilic bacteria, for example — do not “know” that the hot spot or acidic island is “over there.” They have no overall map of their surroundings to direct their movement in a straight line towards what they seek. What they sense instead is a local gradient — a small change, right next to them. It’s a little warmer that way. They move slightly. They feel it out again. Move. Feel. Move. And feel. The resulting path is a somewhat jagged, but non-random, path toward the thing that they love. And so is mine. I could not have predicted, on that hot, bright day in Guinea, that I would end up writing for science teachers. But I listened to a woman talk about science communication and something perked up inside me. That way, it’s a little warmer that way. And I took a step.”
—Stephanie Chasteen is a physicist, writer, and educator. She’s talking about scientists finding their way to “alternative” careers away from the bench, but I think this is a great metaphor for just about everyone.
(http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2010/01/05/how-a-scientist-becomes-a-freelance-science-writer/)
Deborah Blum on Science in Society
thebrowser.comAn interview featuring five great science books from one of my former professors and favorite science writers. Her picks include:
- Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Story of the Scientific Quest for the Secret of the Universe by Dennis Overbye
-
Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything by Joshua Foer
-
Isaac’s Storm: A Man, a Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History by Erik Larson
-
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans de Waal
-
Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach