Avatar

@the-environmentalologist / the-environmentalologist.tumblr.com

Environmentalist, Microbiologist, Molecular Biologist, Geneticist. Ask me things! Personal Blog: keweenaw-biologist.tumblr.com

On poverty and pronunciation in academia

Oh.

Why I never mock or even bring attention to mispronunciation in a conversation, and will snap down anyone who tries to

Besides poverty, for many peoplevEnglish is a second (or third+) language and has weird rules too. Most of the time, even when words are mispronounced, they’re still understandable if you make an effort. Just be patient and don’t look down on people who mispronounce!

most online dictionaries (and Google translate) now have audio clips so you can hear the pronunciation of a word without asking someone

Anonymous asked:

hi, what do I do if I really, really want to be a scientist when I grow up but I feel I’m not smart enough?

If you really, really want to be a scientist, then that’s all you need to be! 

Dedication is all it takes! 

Explore different fields as you get older and find the one that fits you. There are so many different kinds of scientists out there, each with their own specific skill set. Some are really good at math and visualization, some are good with their hands (probably where I fall in), some are good working with computers and writing code, and so many other things. Find what you love and pursue it!

Anonymous asked:

Hi do u have any tips for science writing in general? I have to write a paper analysis for a microbio class but since most ppl in the class are in 4th year (I'm only in 2nd) the prof says she's expecting higher quality. I'm worried bc the only science writing ive done is lab reports

hello!

that sounds quite intimidating! let’s see if i can help you out. so these are tips that have worked for me (or i’ve seen work for others based on what i’ve read/edited/etc). for science writing in general:

  • know your audience. how much prior knowledge of the subject do they know? what is the purpose of them reading this article? who your audience is will dictate how you write your article. in your case, it’s your professor, so they probably know a lot about the subject (or maybe not! maybe you’ll write about some niche topic they haven’t studied yet), they’re reading to grade, so they’ll be paying attention to things on the grading rubric, etc. these are all things to keep in mind when you’re prepping, outlining, drafting, and editing. 
  • structure your essay so it’s a story. just like any other essay, science articles should also have a beginning (intro and statement), a middle (paragraphs to support your statement), and an end (conclusion). usually in science essays the conclusion also serves as a discussion where the writer can finally insert their own opinions on things, and further discuss why the results in the article are important for broader implications. 
  • be concise. science writing is not like some other styles of writing in that it’s best to avoid fluff, unnecessary descriptions, flowery language, etc. keep it short and simple.
  • if you need to use jargon or abbreviations, be sure to define them (for jagon), and give the full phrasing (for abbreviations) the first time they’re used.
  • avoid using absolutes unless it really is an absolute. in science, hardly anything is 100% certain. that’s why phrases like these are used a lot: “the data suggest”, “x may be caused by y”, “x has been shown in controlled experiments to be caused by y”, “thus it can been hypothesized”, etc. unless it’s a law (like gravity), then we can never use an absolute to describe it, and biology especially is a lawless land. 
  • related, keep in mind that the word “data” is plural for “datum”. so it’s “the data are” not “the data is”. (i still catch myself making this mistake alskdfj)
  • like most writing, avoid the passive voice whenever possible, and keep to the same verb tense.
  • practice summarizing research results into concise sentences for your supporting points. it can be difficult to wade through all that jargon and data in an article, so it definitely takes practice. it’s almost like reading comprehension dialed up to 12. article titles and abstracts help with this a lot, as the authors have already summarized their main findings there. reading good examples can also help (like science news articles from reputable sources–you can see what kind of language they use to summarize key points). 
  • present data in an unbiased way. you may be writing an essay that argues one point over another, but that opinion should not leak into when you present study results. Ex. “60% of animals treated with ABC survived to the study endpoint, versus 10% of animals receiving the control” is unbiased, whereas “ABC had exceptional results in a study where the majority of animals treated survived” sounds pretty darn biased in favor of ABC, and may not be an accurate reporting of the results (maybe the drug actually sucked upon further studies?). Of course, if your essay statement is arguing in favor of ABC, then you can follow up your unbiased presentation of the results with something like “This study showed the efficacy of ABC in a controlled in vivo setting, and thus has promise for further studies”. 
  • however, “laundry-listing” data and results can make for a very boring read, so be unbiased, yes, but state things in a way where there’s a clear direction or train of thought. this part is tough; i have to admit i’m still practicing this “art” (which it definitely is). take my above example about ABC for instance. which one is easier to follow? the one i gave, or this: “Six out of 10 animals treated with ABC survived until day 42. One out of 10 animals treated with control survived until day 42.” you’ll notice this 2nd option is really stilted, boring, dry, and if the entire results section is presented like this, the reader will surely get lost as to what the point of it all is, and possibly fall asleep. so although personal bias should be avoided, there should still be direction and flow. take care to guide the reader. 
  • unless it’s your own opinion, every statement needs a citation. i use the free reference manager mendeley (it has a browser plug-in that adds articles you find online to its citation library, and then you can sync it with word doc and it does the citations for you). 
  • proofread and edit a lot (no one’s first draft is ever perfect), and if possible, send a draft to your professor or TA to look over it and see if you’re on the right track. 

phew! that’s all i can think of for now! i’m sure there’s sooo much more that goes into writing for science (and academia, in a more broad sense), but these are just a few main ones from me. 

if anyone else has something to add, please do!

and good luck anon! you’re going to do great :)

Avatar

Don’t use “thusly” because your committee will call you out on it in front of everyone.

I WILL SURVIVE

it’s time to talk about a weird animal again here at bunjywunjy dot tumblr dot com (my house), and what better way to begin the new year than with an inspirational survivor to motivate us all with its sheer bullheaded tenacity?

you see, this animal has been around a very, very, very, VERY long time. 

it’s called the Coelacanth, and it’s your grandma.

SEE-la-kanth. say it right sonny, my ears aren’t what they used to be

Coelacanths are the oldest form of lobe-finned fishes on the planet. their  relatives first appeared 400 million years ago, and immediately made themselves famous by being the very first vertebrates to wiggle onto dry land. (they immediately wiggled right the fuck back into the water, as they had forgotten to evolve lungs first)

these fishes later evolved those weirdly buff fins into actual legs and developed into the first true land animals, though tragically they lack the Coelacanth’s roguish sense of style.

there’s a lot of stumpy little legs in this picture

while these lobe-finned fish did go on to become literally all land-dwelling vertebrates ever INCLUDING YOU, the Coelacanth was content to retain its fishy shape and continue on as it always had. for 400 fucking million years

they probably barely even noticed all those major extinction events. meteor who?

it’s coelaCAN, not coelaCAN’T.

today, Coelacanths are still more closely related to you than they are to most other fish. think of it as the weird cousin that never gets invited to the mammal family reunion.

the Coelacanth’s relationship to land vertebrates has long been known from fossils, but Science believed it had gone extinct sometime in the Cretaceous period more than 60 million years ago. so imagine Science’s surprise when a live Coelacanth was pulled up by a fishing trawler in 1938, off the coast of South Africa.

surpriiiiiiise! bet you thought you’d seen the last of me

this makes them the first ever example of a Lazarus Taxon (which is an absolutely badass phrase that would make a damn good name for a rock band), meaning it’s an evolutionary line we thought was extinct but they lived, bitch.

today, the Coelacanth is known to live in the Indian and South African oceans, where they thrive in deep water far away from the prying eyes of their nosy hairless ape relatives. 

they are mostly active at night and can grow to be 6 and a half feet long, and live more than 60 years. they don’t have much personality, but BOY are they tenacious.

I make up for it with my stunning good looks

Coelacanths mostly drift with the current, eating whatever happens to pass by that’s smaller than they are. this just goes to show that laziness does pay off in the long run! 

it’s a valid survival strategy, MOM.

Coelacanths don’t have many natural predators, as they taste completely disgusting. sharks are pretty much the only predator who will give it a try, but sharks also eat outboard motors and license plates so that’s really not saying much.

all that aside, these ancient fish can motivate us to face the challenges of the new year. just remember, if a weird fish with demi-legs can survive for 400 million years on the benefits of laziness and just being kind of weird and disgusting, so can you!

coelaCAN, AND SO CAN YOU!

if you read in a frog paper “specimen was released in the field immediately after capture” chances are very good that what it actually means is

“i dropped the damn frog and despite the fact that we fell all over each other no one could recapture it”

sometimes when i am sad i go read through the tags on this post, because they are 70% other biologists saying things like “AND ALSO FUCK FIELD MICE” and “THAT CRAB ALMOST BROKE MY FINGER” and I am reassured that I am not the only one who has bobbled a wood frog right into their cleavage.

plus six or seven people who just….can’t figure out what a frog paper could possibly be. (guys it’s…a scientific paper. about frogs.)

and this one

which made me laugh despairingly because i mean

bro you don’t even know.

what is the code entomologists use for “i stepped on it, i’m so sorry, it was dark out and the specimen was very small”

“Impromptu dissection was performed under less-than-optimal lighting conditions.”

‘impromptu dissection’ is an alarming phrase in any context and i thank you for it

For the environmental microbiology/water resources papers: “samples site used approximate GPS coordinates for consistency from season to season” which is code for “the undergrad who did this that last 3 seasons graduated and all we have are the GPS flags so the sample site could be any place on this river for 50 yards”

How fast does a bacteria gain resistance towards an antibiotic?

Avatar

This is a very interesting question, and one that many great scientists have been trying to answer for a many years. 

The answer is, as far as we know, it depends on the organism, and too many other random factors to count. Penicillin took decades for widespread resistance to develop, but newer antibiotics are becoming obsolete faster than we can create new ones. Because the question of the the development of resistance is at its core the same as the question of basic evolution, the answers tend to lie in probability. The questions scientists are asking lately are what are the probabilities of resistance development? and what factors increase that probability? We don’t have definitive answers yet, but its being worked on all the time.

Why the fuck would you taste it?!

you’ve clearly never talked to someone who excavates bones for a living

Well since the quickest way to find out if something you pulled out of the ground is a fossile or a rock is to lick it, they may have been pleasantly surprised by the taste.

Scientists have discovered a new type of bacterium, that most hardy of organisms, which can survive solely off the chemicals in air – and the discovery could change the way we think about life living on other planets.

The microbes have been found in Antarctica and can exist off a diet of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, staying alive in the most extreme conditions where other food and energy sources are scarce.

Could low-level life forms on other planets be living off nothing but the gases in the atmosphere? It’s a possibility we’re now going to have to consider, according to the team from the University of New South Wales in Australia.

“Antarctica is one of the most extreme environments on Earth,” says lead researcher Belinda Ferrari. “Yet the cold, dark and dry desert regions are home to a surprisingly rich diversity of microbial communities.”

The findings have been published in Nature.

Avatar

Science wasn’t actually certain how fungi like cordyceps “hijacked” their host’s behavior, and we always kind of assumed it was causing some simplistic damage to the brain.

As it turns out, it works much more elaborately and much MORE like the dramatized sci-fi horror parasites constantly inspired by it.

These fungi integrate themselves on the cellular level with the host’s tissues, actually seem to send signals to the host’s muscles and even alter the host’s genes with their own.

All the while, THE BRAIN ISN’T INVADED AT ALL.

These fungi, all along, have been converting their hosts into animal-fungal hybrids they control while the host’s brain and consciousness remain helplessly alive and largely unaltered.

noooooooOOPE

Cymothoa exigua is a parasite that is also know by the name the ‘Tongue-eating louse’. It is an isopod with the unique identifiable feature of being the only known parasite that functionally replaces a host’s organ. The louse enters the fish’s body through the gills, attaches to fish’s tongue and extracts blood, causing it to shrivel and eventually fall off. Once this has been achieved the louse attaches to the remaining stub and acts as a replacement tongue, receiving nutrients by feeding on the fish’s blood and mucus. While the majority of fish found with these parasite’s are underweight, there is no evidence that this parasite causes a significant amount of harm to its host. 

These parasites, while aesthetically disturbing, are also not harmful to humans. While a person has brought a lawsuit against a supermarket chain after finding cymothoa exigua in fish they had eaten, the legal case was dropped. This was a result of there being no evidence that these parasites were in any way unhealthy for humans, they are not poisonous and can be incorporated into a healthy diet. 

The story of an invasive species.

Dozens of studies have looked at the effects of Japanese knotweed on natural communities in Europe and North America. Yet Bucknell University professor Chris Martine still felt there was something important to learn about what the plant was doing along the river in his own backyard.

“The more time I spent in the forests along the Susquehanna River, the more it seemed like something was really going wrong there,” said Martine. “In addition to the prevalence of this single invasive species, it looked like the very existence of these forests was under threat.”

What Martine noticed was similar to what local nature lovers and biologists with the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program were also starting to see: these forests, specifically those classified as Silver Maple Floodplain Forests, were not regenerating themselves where knotweed had taken a foothold.

In a new study published in the open access Biodiversity Data Journal, Martine and two recent Bucknell alumni conclude that Japanese knotweed has not only excluded nearly all of the native understory plant species in these forests, but it has prevented the trees already established in the canopy from leaving behind more of themselves.

Fun statistical fact: Cows are about 300 times more likely to kill you than coyotes.

Minor sidenote to statistical fact: If it was common for people to keep several hundred coyotes on their property and routinely chase them into a corral and handle them, this statistic would be different.

Data representation/context matters