Posts filed under 'Blogs and Blogging'
Ok. . . just a final reminder that I’ve moved to Scienceblogs, where I’ve just been welcomed by a flattering and totally undeserved accolade from the Neurophilosopher! I’m blushing.
Apologies to any of you who tried to click through last week and found the link to my new blog broken - we had a few moving morning snafus. The new blog link and the new RSS feed should both work now - go ahead and check it out. I’ve got new stuff over there. About brains. You know you want to look. . .
February 14th, 2008
That title sounds pretentious, doesn’t it?
I’ve decided to make a big change. As of today, bioephemera will be moving to Scienceblogs. I hope that all of you will join me there; please update your bookmarks to point to http://www.scienceblogs.com/bioephemera
The RSS feed should be http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/index.xml
but I’ve been told it may not be working yet (sorry - still getting the bugs out).
Never fear; the blog isn’t going to change very much. The format may take some getting used to - a generic, IKEA-esque white background! ack! - but I’ll keep the same categories and the same idiosyncratic mix of topics (which may or may not please you). And I’ll abuse the dashes, semicolons, parentheses and italics even more than usual - just to ensure you feel at home during the adjustment period. 
This site (bioephemera the elder?) will remain on line indefinitely as an archive of sorts, and I may update it periodically, but I’ll be calling Scienceblogs home.
Some of you may wonder why I’m making this change. No, it’s not for the money (I’ve never made money from this blog), although it will be nice to have my bandwidth subsidized, since y’all keep doubling my traffic! It’s not to score a big readership (see previous comment on doubling my traffic). I’m quite happy with the cadre of cognizant, witty readers I’ve acquired over the past year and a half. Moderating a zillion snarky comments has never been my goal. And it’s definitely not because I like Movable Type better than Wordpress; I have more grey hair than I did a month ago, and I still don’t have the new blog formatted just as I want it. Heck, I never got this one formatted as I wanted it, not really.
So why am I moving to a more prominent platform? Honestly, I’m concerned that science blogging is morphing into its own exclusive subphylum - blogs written by scientists, read by scientists. There’s a surfeit of intelligent, informed writing and debate on these blogs. Some of it is as good as peer review. That’s a wonderful development. But blogs that outcross science with other fields, like this one, have not been multiplying at the same healthy rate (could it be hybrid inviability?)
I don’t want the scientific blogging community to become isolated in its own quirky culture, or inaccessible, like a particularly esoteric Wikipedia article. I like science best when it’s informing other areas - art, humanities, policy - and being informed in return. I’m drawn to the interfaces between science and other domains of knowledge, because interfaces, as cellular biologists and chemists know, are where the most exciting, unexpected reactions take place.
Scienceblogs seems like the place to represent that type of interface - I’m very, very fond of Seed (Scienceblogs’ parent publication) and the mix of science, art, and culture it promotes. That mix is something I’ve been striving toward for a long time.
Going back to my very first post here at bioephemera:
If you ask a biologist why he or she chose biology as a career, I’ll bet most will cite a deep feeling of wonder and appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the natural world. But that feeling is not so easy to find in the lab, where we try to be objective and logical (and efficient). How we can initially turn to biology for such emotional, unscientific reasons, and then neglect them afterward, is a puzzling thing. We may never have tried to formally articulate our wonder. We may enjoy the richness and motivation it brings to our work, without needing any articulation. Even so, since art is all about capturing inarticulate truths and inspiring wonder, art may have something practical to offer biologists - a way to recapture that original feeling of wonder and surprise that brought us here.
I haven’t changed my mind one bit.
On that note, please come join me at the new blog, and thanks so much for making the last year and a half a great ride.
February 6th, 2008
Friends & readers, I have to put bioephemera into stasis for a few days. I have a lot of topics backing up, so there is more coming, and I will update you all next week. Till then, hang tight . . .! (I probably won’t be answering emails or comments either - sorry.)
February 1st, 2008
OK - enough frivolous posts for the moment. There’s an election in the offing, and I want to address those of you who care whether the next President is science-and-technology-literate. Which should be ALL of you, right?
Sciencedebate 2008 (of which I am a supporter, along with a zillion other science bloggers) wants to give us an answer to that question. Express your support here, or if you have questions, listen to this NPR interview with Shawn Otto about the process of setting the debate up. Seriously, kids. Support this one.
Unfortunately, until a science-centric debate materializes, you have to retro-engineer the candidates’ science platforms based on what they have said and done in other contexts. SEA (Scientists and Engineers for America; yeah, I’m also a member of this) is contributing to this effort via the SHARP Network (Science, Health, and Related Policies), a Wiki-based platform for tracking the candidates’ positions on key issues. It’s a great idea, but as they note, Wikipedia often falls victim to partisan sabotage, so I’m holding my breath to see if they can keep it cleaned up. If you like Wiki-ing, consider helping out.
Finally, AAAS also has an S&T election website, which although not a Wiki, does cite Wikipedia (is that okay with everyone now? I missed the memo.)
Darn, I wish I was at the science blogging conference right now! Hopefully next year. . . have fun in NC, y’all.
January 19th, 2008
Geoffrey Chaucer is back on his blog after a hiatus almost as long as Lost’s, with a comment on the television writers’ strike. He proposes some shows of his own which sound a tad familiar, perhaps - but in literature, what is wholly new? And the first proposal in particular is oh so tempting:
Sectes in the Borough: This hot and explicit showe wil handle religious dissent yn a more free and open way than evere bifor. Carrie Baxter is an underground writer of Lollard tractes in Norwich and the oonly thynge she loveth moore than questioning the validitie of the institucional church is her III best freendes: sexie Samantha, who seduceth many a preeste, intellectuale Charlotte, who speketh out ayeinst women being unable to preche, and Miranda Kempe, who receiveth visiouns from God. Thei meet every week to rede of the Bible in Ynglisshe and talke smacke about pilgrymage sites. Carrie is alwey resistinge the temptaciouns to submit to the orthodoxie of the Church, personifyed by Archbishop Thomas Arundel, whom she clepeth “Mr. Big.” (Paraventure for a cabel network, by cause main-streme audiences aren not redi for frank depicciouns of heretical practice?)
Cashmere Mafia begone! What could a heretical city girl enjoy more, than talking smack about pilgrimage sites? (If “pilgrimage sites” means “happy hour venues,” and I think it must, I did that every day last week!)
January 17th, 2008
I found this post on the NYT Health blog “Well”, by Tara Parker-Pope (when did the NYT switch to a blogging model? am I just oblivious?) Anyway, the post was mildly intriguing. But then I started reading the comments, and man, they just pissed me off.
The gist of the post is that some nutritional scientists demonstrated that, calorie for calorie, junk food is substantally more affordable than healthy food, especially fresh produce. This supports the premise that the obesity epidemic in this country - which disproportionately affects the poor - is at least partially due to the fact that the poor can’t afford to eat as well as the rest of us. (Other possible reasons include lack of education about nutrition, lack of time to prepare food from scratch, lack of access to quality grocery stores. . . need I go on?)
The annoying thing is that at least half of the comments are by people crying foul and calling the study junk science, because they, personally, are able to eat healthfully and affordably by doing such things as. . . .making large batches of lentil stew! Uh, yeah. The fact that you enjoy living on lentil stew means that junk food is really more expensive than it appeared to the researchers! Or something!
This is an example of a fallacy that simply must have a formal name, though I don’t know what it is: disbelief in the results of scientific research because the implications conflict with personal experience.
First, the validity of the science is independent of its political or social implications. Secondly, your personal experience, while no doubt extremely important to you, don’t mean diddly when addressing populations in bulk (no pun intended).
To balance the anecdote about living healthfully on the cheap by making bohemian lentil stew, I have a story about how my mom (a working single mother) used to serve instant (generic) gravy on (generic) Wonderbread when our money ran out. It wasn’t because she didn’t value health - this is the woman who didn’t let me eat sweetened cereal until I was 12 - but because she knew white bread was an extremely economical source of calories in a pinch. Why didn’t she make organic lentil stew by buying in bulk from Whole Foods? I know this is hard to believe, but we didn’t own a car, and there was only one supermarket in our town - hardly a Whole Foods. (Before you even start. . . no, there were no buses!) Given our impoverished state, did we eat at McDonalds? Rarely - because it was too expensive!
What is your immediate, knee-jerk reaction to that paragraph? Disbelief? Then I bet you’ve never lived in the middle of the country.
Believe it or not, there were and are large swaths of America without Whole Foods, public transportation, internet, cell phone service, Target, bagels, sushi, or farmer’s markets. Yet in my time living on the coasts, first left, then right, I have consistently run across something I call the Coastal Fallacy. This is a bizarre set of blinkers which compels people to deny the possibility of American lifestyles outside their realm of experience. They simply can’t imagine towns like the one where I grew up, because there aren’t any towns like that near them. It drives me absolutely crazy - except at cocktail parties, when I can make good use of the shock value in remarks like “my entire family has lived (or does live) in mobile homes,” or “I never met a Jewish person until college.” If you expect to understand this country as a whole, you need to accept that some parts of it are very different than what you’re used to, and that your personal experience does not define the opportunities available to others.
Tragically, most of the comments on the NYT post show minimal understanding of nutrition, science, or how the poorer half lives. And the commenters who give a location all seem to be, ahem, living on the coasts. But I was impressed by this comment, from msd:
One thing the posters here haven’t commented on is the feeling of psychological deprivation that comes with long-term poverty and how that contributes to poor food choices. It’s easy to live on rice and beans if you’re a grad student or a middle-class person going through a rough financial time. It’s another thing if someone feels they are part of a permanent underclass. It’s no wonder chronically poor people console themselves with of sweet and starchy mass-produced food. It’s the only way they can experience abundance.
That may not be scientifically supported, but it sure rings true, doesn’t it?
December 8th, 2007
In a great post at The Intersection, Sheril takes on sexism, science, and stereotypes. This is exactly why I like “The Big Bang Theory,” yet feel strangely uncomfortable watching it.
December 5th, 2007
The World’s Fair started a meme to identify phrases for which your blog is the #1 Google result. It seems like there ought to be an algorithm to do this for you, but after much trial and error, bioephemera is the world authority on:
museum lust
sawdust viscera
cephalopodmania
susini anatomical venus (or susini medical venus)
miss piggy gets medieval
and of course, the name of the blog, bioephemera. Because I made it up.
PS. In related news, SCQ/World’s Fair is campaigning to ensure that truth is indeed the #1 Google result for, well, truth. It would have been much easier if they had picked a phrase like “sawdust viscera.” But I guess they just aren’t about easy. Typical scientist overachievers.
November 10th, 2007
Loss
collage
Nicole Natri
Nicole Natri is a Swedish collage artist whom I’ve been following for a while. My favorite piece of hers is Loss. . . a simple justaposition that defies simple interpretation. Nicole’s work illustrates that it can be more challenging to create an unpredictable, ambiguous scene than a linear story. As she puts it, “In the progress of making Loss, I made a physical loss a symbol for the psychic one.”
You can see more of Nicole’s work here. Be sure not to miss Halloweenhead and Anguish.
The best part is that Nicole reveals her influences - vintage books, photography, medical art - and works-in-process through her highly individual blog. One of my favorite recent entries include this intimate peep at a vintage fold-out medical book, soon to be subsumed into art. As Nicole says, “I’m obsessed with the cultural history of our body.” No wonder I love her work!
PS. Nicole is stylish as heck (I love her Halloween costume). So jealous!
November 7th, 2007
Mo at Neurophilosophy nominated me for the Intellectual Blogger award. That is an honor, especially coming from Mo, who posts about twenty times as often as I do on twenty times as many subjects. And if you’ve ever had a conversation with him, you know he can talk extemporaneously about all that stuff too.
I just LOVE talking to interesting, smart, and yes, intellectual people, who make me think about things in unexpected ways. That’s part of why I love living in the city, and why I love the idea of this award. I note that many recent recipients of this honor are science bloggers; I hope no one minds if I instigate a little cross-pollination here and pass it on to some diverse artsy types. (After all, I’m at least half artsy myself!)
First up, one of my favorite blogs (and favorite people), Hungry Hyaena. Intellectual art and intellectual commentary. Perfect.
Heather at Cabinet of Wonders writes simply amazing posts on unpredictable topics–I was recently engaged in conversation about the Archimedes palimpsest, then saw the word palimpsest in a New Yorker, resolved to blog about “palimpsest,” and lo! she already has! That’s exactly why you should read her blog before you think of your own ideas. At least, I should.
I am fascinated by the frank commentary of art dealer Edward Winkleman. Don’t always agree with him, but I love a blog that makes me want to argue. I love anything that makes me argue.
I’m not completely sure I’m allowed to nominate Curious Expeditions because it’s written by two bloggers, D and M; but surely two participants doesn’t make it a “group blog”? (I can argue about that too if I must!)
Finally, for something completely different, you should visit The Name Inspector. If you like Language Log, you should love this.
The original post on the Intellectual Blogger Award includes a complete list of winners - an excellent idea, concentrating a variety of amazing blogs in one place. I already have too many to follow, but I did add a few more to my feeds. . . soon I will need to update my blogroll once more!
Incidentally, I release with goodwill all of my nominees from the obligation of listing five bloggers themselves, unless they wish to. Compulsory memes often go unfulfilled anyway.
About two months ago Drawing the MotMot tagged me as a Creative Blogger, with a nod to my “peculiar 19th Century Artist/Naturalist Steampunk sensibility” (which we share)! I never got around to choosing five more to spread the meme, because I was overwhelmed with moving and my new job. By now, I think many of my choices have already been nominated, and five links is probably enough for one post, but I wanted to thank DtM for the honor. (Besides, the bloggers I’ve listed above are Intellectual, Inspirational and Creative).
November 1st, 2007
First, I need to thank Mo at Neurophilosophy for tagging me with the Intellectual Blogger award. I don’t feel very intellectual lately, but I guess he’s cutting me some slack based on past posts? I’d better pick up the pace, read those back issues of the New Yorker, and post some meaningful something before I’m retroactively stripped of my title. I’ll post my choices for the award tomorrow.
Apologies to everyone who has emailed, or linked me in the past few weeks - I know I’m not keeping up on my correspondence. I have about 10K unread posts on my RSS feeds, and I think I just have to give up and start over. It’s been crazy out here in DC. You may have recently seen the poll indicating that DC ranks 24th out of 25 major US cities for attractive people, which is the only possible reason why I won “sexiest costume” at a pub tonight. Yay Halloween! (I personally think there are attractive people out here - but then I like nice clothing, and people here dress well - though not creatively - versus, say, Seattle).
Finally, I need to add a shout out to the Witless Wanderer - a short time ago I had the pleasure of meeting her on her sojourn in DC. We took a “bloggers-in-real-life” photo, but I don’t have it here, so let me just thank her for an enjoyable lunch with her friend GuiGrl. We laughed a lot, which is the measure of good company.
October 31st, 2007
I’ve been working on a PC for the first time in my life, and I hate the way the blog looks on IE. It’s been near-unreadable. On a Mac using Firefox or Safari it’s fine, but on a PC using IE. . . EU! FYI, try not to use IE, OK?
I think I’ve cleaned up the worst font discrepancies, so it should be better now, but I have a stupid frame problem in IE that I can’t seem to fix. . if you see what I mean, and have an idea how to get rid of it in the css, let me know. I can tweak a little, but I am by no means a coder.
October 25th, 2007
Jason at Cephalopodcast.com challenged me to visit this site, sponsored by the New York Zoo, to create my “wild self.” It’s like one of those flip books where you mix and match body parts. As a biologist, such egregious phylogenetic cross-pollination bugs me a little bit, but darn, I like my new look.
October 18th, 2007
How happy did it make me that Al Gore won the Nobel Prize? (Rhetorical question.)
In his honor, I thought of a poem by Judith Skillman, from the latest edition of the online journal Tattoo Highway, edited by Sara MacAulay. (Yes, I loaned them my painting for the cover).
The poem is about the quintessential poster-bird of idiocy, the ridiculous Dodo, literally beaten into extinction by environmentally oblivious humans. Like a mini-cabinet of curiosity, Skillman’s gathered source material models a very human response to the natural world: bafflement, and the odd pain of having lost not something we needed, but rather something we never had the opportunity to comprehend. That’s what extinction is. Yet the poem sidesteps obvious blame and reprisal, aiming for an ambiguity closer to the truth: we won’t always understand what we are fighting to preserve, nor can we deny the parts of our own nature that drive us to destroy it.
Judith Skillman
“The Dodo Bird”
with lines from Holderlin
I found it land-bound, small wings tucked
against its sides. The head naked,
almost human in its appraisal.
I remember hearing about you, I said
and it replied For the gods grow indignant…
It was not repulsive, rather oily, a few black strands
like leftover feathers sprouting from its head.
I thought you were a figment I said,
and it replied if a man not gather himself to save His soul…
I said I was a woman, that I would have preferred
to lose the ostrich, but would not starve my children.
If there had been a famine and the opportunity arose
I also would have beaten the Dodo to death
with whatever was at hand—
club, baseball bat, plank of wood,
but I wouldn’t have laughed.
Women are tame.
We don’t kill unless threatened.
Did you not perceive the Dutchmen as a threat?
Yet he has no choice…
the bird replied, foraging, head down,
diamond eyes shrunken to slits
as it pried grubs from mud.
Why have you grown so large—
three feet tall, walking about
as if you owned the ground
between clouds of idealism and germs of reality.
You had your heyday.
We have your beak in the British Museum
for proof: DNA, some writings and renderings.
It went about the business of the omnivorous—
scavenging, turning its arse this way and that,
always the silly walk of it
and the precious non-birdness of its serious demeanor,
unshaken by extinction: like-
wise; mourning is in error…
October 15th, 2007
Apologies for the downtime. I had a bit of trouble getting it through to my web host that I needed to upgrade my bandwidth!
Thanks for the love, y’all, but you just loved me into a hosting package upgrade - for the second time in a year. Dang!
September 24th, 2007
Previous Posts