A Blog Around the Clock

• New URL for this blog
  2:15pm | Jul 5, 2011

  Earlier this morning, I have moved my blog over to the Scientific American site - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/. Follow me there (as well as the rest of the people on the new Scientific American blog network

  
• New URL/feed for A Blog Around The Clock
  9:17pm | Jul 26, 2010

  This blog can now be found at http://blog.coturnix.org and the feed is http://blog.coturnix.org/feed/. Please adjust your bookmarks/subscriptions if you are interested in following me off-network.

  
• A Farewell to Scienceblogs: the Changing Scienc...
  5:00pm | Jul 19, 2010

  It is with great regret that I am writing this. Scienceblogs.com has been a big part of my life for four years now and it is hard to say good bye.

  Everything that follows is my own personal thinking and may not apply to other people, including other bloggers on this platform. The new contact information is at the end of the post, but please come back up here and read the whole thing - why I feel like I must leave now.

  Sb beginnings

  Scienceblogs.com started back in January 2006. On that day, several of my favourite science bloggers moved to this new site, posting the URL on their farewell posts on their old blogs. I took one look at the homepage - which at the time was a simple, black-on-white version of the current Last 24 Hours page - and said to myself: this is where I want to be. My instant feeling was that whoever does not get on this site will bite the dust - become invisible in the shadow of the network. I e-mailed several of the original 14 bloggers with a simple question: "How do I get on?" They all assured me that the site will add more bloggers and that my name is already 'in the hat'. In June of that year, I was one of the 20+ bloggers in the "second wave" of migrants to Scienceblogs.com.

  How the move to Sb changed my blogging

  You can hide on your own little Blogspot blog. You cannot hide on a network. My first instinctive and unconscious change, something I only became of aware later, was that I changed the way I made factual statements in my posts. What does that mean?

  I started thoroughly fact-checking the statements before posting instead of learning the hard way that readers will do it for you.

  Of course, I started (in 2003/4) in political blogging where much is a matter of opinion, stakes are high, tempers are short, speed of blogging is important, and stating things confidently and even ferociously is important as a persuasion method. If I have heard some useful factoid somewhere, I would often boldly claim it as true without checking first.

  But then I gradually switched to blogging about science. This is the domain of verifiable facts. The goal is education, not so much political action. I wrote about my area of expertise, and I wrote in a way that built on that expertise and made it accessible to the lay public. I wrote about things I knew a lot about and was very familiar with the literature. So I referenced, cited and linked to a lot of supporting documents - peer-reviewed scientific papers.

  When I moved to Scienceblogs, I doubled up on that effort, even when writing on other topics. Sometimes I wrote purposefully provocative posts, stating extreme positions and playing Devil's advocate. Such posts were written as mind experiments, or as "let's see how far the blind following of the logic can take us, even if it sounds crazy" and I hoped that nobody would mistake them for my real positions. But I tried not to make statements of fact if I was not sure they were actually facts. I became a better blogger. My place here requires I be trusted. For that, I needed to trust myself first.

  Getting invited to blog here is an honor, and the only correct response is to blog with maximal integrity, even during online fights and kerfuffles that alight in every corner of the blogosphere, including the science blogosphere, with predictable regularity. Every single blogger on scienceblogs.com, even those who I may disagree with 99% of the time, blogs here with strong personal integrity (yes, human beings sometimes make mistakes, but they correct them once the onslaught dies down and it is possible to do it without losing face). And that is one of the greatest strengths of this network - just wander around the Web randomly for a while and you'll see some interesting contrasts to this.

  How getting hired by PLoS changed my blogging

  Most of you probably know that I got the job with PLoS in the comments section of my blog. It is the support for my application for the role at PLoS voiced by my commenters that sealed the deal in the eyes of PLoS. Would I have that kind of support if I was not on Scienceblogs.com?

  As an Online Community Manager at PLoS, I try to model myself and learn from the experiences of people like Robert Scoble, one of the first "corporate bloggers" (and everyone who thinks there is anything new or wrong with being paid to blog, should read Say Everything by Scott Rosenberg, a definitive history of blogging which will open your eyes). I have been a supporter (and promoter) of Open Access model of scientific publishing well before I got this job and I often blogged about PLoS papers because I - and everyone esle - have access to them. PLoS is a fabulous organization to work for. Its goals match my own. And I love all the individual people working there. Working with them is a blast, and I am proud of it. It is unfortunate that, in this economic situation (and my own personal economic situation), I can only work there part-time.

  I assume that many of my readers are also interested in Open Access and may also be interested in what PLoS does. So, I blog (and tweet, etc,) about news from PLoS. As I see which new papers are coming out in PLoS ONE (and other PLoS journals) a couple of days in advance, I pick those that catch my attention, that I personally find interesting, and post links to them here once they are published. Nobody at PLoS has ever asked me to blog (or not blog) anything work-related on my own individual blog (that is what everyONE blog is for). I do it because I am genuinely excited about some of the papers, or am proud of what the PLoS team at the HQ has accomplished - new functionalities or benchmarks, etc. Like everyone else, I am promoting a cause I believe in, and I am blogging what I want and like.

  One of the things that changed in my blogging comes from self-awareness that I am an online public face of PLoS. I need to behave in ways that are appropriate for this role. Thus I try to avoid (as much as that is possible) getting into big online fights and I am more careful about my use of language, especially profanity. The fact that I am much less likely today to blog on very controversial topics reflects much more my own tiredness of such topics and the endless flame-wars and troll-hunting that always follow such posts. It gets really boring after a while. I just don't have much appetite and energy for that any more (if you think battling Creationists is nasty, try debating nationalists of various stripes from the Balkans on Usenet during the wars there - those people WOULD really kill you if they could physically get at you). I want my blog to be a positive force (while fully understanding that would be impossible if others were not doing the dirty trench warfare at the same time, providing the environment in which a positive blog can exist) and I want it to be a creative place, an informative place, and a peaceful and welcoming place for everyone interested in science and in science communication. And for my Mom. Hi, Mom!

  So, while this is supposed to be my individual blog, I think of it as such, and it is seen by others as such, it is impossible to completely separate the personal from the professional. I am one of the lucky few for whom life and work are perfectly integrated - I do what I love, with great support (emotional and financial) from my wife. One of the things I am is a promoter of Open Access and PLoS, so this part of my persona is bound to find its way onto my personal blog - it would be self-censorship NOT to allow that stuff onto my blog.

  Metcalf's Law, or why are we here at scienceblogs.com

  It appears that many commenters during the recent l'affair Pepsi did not understand the difference between blogging on Scienceblogs.com and blogging independently on Blogspot or Wordpress. It is not so much about the direct traffic. It is not so much about payment (I earned through Blogads, back on my old blog in 2006, the same amount as I am getting here today). It is the 'network effect'.

  Let's say I keep blogging my usual stuff day after day. I get some regular readers, some people coming from searches, some people coming from external links, etc. I also get a lot of traffic from other blogs here, from the homepage, Last24H page, from the various widgets (e.g., Reader's Choice, Editor's Choice, top page banner), multiple kinds of RSS feeds (e.g., Select Feed), etc. But if I have to say something really important, something that may require action, or something that many people need to know, or an important question that I may ask, there is a group of people that I can rely on much more than just my usual daily readership - the SciBlings (the name given to my fellow bloggers on Scienceblogs.com). I know they will pick up an item, link to it on their own blogs, and dramatically increase my reach for that one particular item. I don't need to beg, or e-mail anyone, this happens spontaneously by the virtue of me being piece. Remember that still very few people read blogs through RSS feeds - they come via searches and links. These days, some of those links are posted by my SciBlings also in other places like Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook. Then others, outside the network, start linking to it and blogging/tweeting about it, spreading my message far and wide. This is something that would be much more difficult on an independent blog. This is what I call "indirect traffic" - a potential instant reach that I get just by virtue of being on this network.

  This kind of network effect resulted in an explosive rise in the online reputation and ranking of Scienceblogs.com. Technorati does not count Sb as a single entity (it used to), but ranks each blog independently. The most high-trafficked blog here, Pharyngula, is ranked at number 68 today. The 68th most influential blog in the world right now. Even if Pharyngula accounts for as much as half of the traffic here (I think it is at around 40%...OK, just checked, it is 42.15%) and half of the number of incoming links to the site, the site as a whole is probably up around top 30th of all the blogs in the world. That is serious visibility and influence for all of us.

  

  All that interlinking between us, as well as links from outside, result in all of us having Google Ranks of about 6 or 7. That is huge. Much of my traffic comes from searches (of course - I have more than 10,000 posts on many topics, some very long, using many different words and phrases). If I click to see a particularly interesting set of search keywords that brought someone to my blog, I discover that my blog is one of the top ten hits for that search string. And studies have shown that most people only check the top ten results when they do a search.

  Furthermore, such a significant rise in traffic and rank of scienceblogs.com resulted in all sorts of other deals. Choice posts of ours are linked from the New York Times science page. Likewise with the National Geographic site. Our blogs are sold on Amazon.com for Kindle. And the site is indexed not just in Google but also on Google News.

  This means not only that each one of us gets more direct traffic, and more potential indirect traffic from our SciBlings due to being on the network, but also an even larger and more powerful indirect traffic and visibility outside of the network. We are being closely watched, both by thousands of other bloggers and by the mainstream media. Whenever Scienceblogs.com explodes with a story, MSM takes note. It is not by chance that some of the first reactions to the Pepsi scandal, even faster than on individual's blogs, appeared in places like The Guardian and the Columbia Journalism Review. As Jay Rosen and Dave Winer noted in their weekly podcast, the distance between us at Sb and the global media is very small. We are not just a loose collection of individuals blogging just for fun any more.

  That is huge power. I keep mentioning this power every now and then (see this, this, this and this for good examples) because it is real. Sustained and relentless blogging by many SciBlings (and then many other bloggers who followed our lead) played a large role in the eventual release of 'Tripoli Six', the Bulgarian medical team imprisoned in Libya. Sustained blogging by SciBlings (and others who first saw it here) played a large part in educating the U.S.Senate about the importance of passing the NIH open access bill with its language intact. Blogging by SciBlings uncovered a number of different wrongdoings in ways that forced the powers-that-be to rectify them. Blogging by SciBlings brings in a lot of money every October to the DonorsChoose action. Sustained blogging by SciBlings forced SEED to remove the offending Pepsi blog within 36 hours. And if a bunch of SciBlings attack a person who did something very wrong, that person will have to spend years trying to get Google to show something a little bit more positive in top 100 hits when one googles their name (which is why I try to bite my tongue and sleep over it when I feel the temptation to go after a person). The power of the networks of individuals affects many aspects of the society, including the media.

  With great power comes great responsibility, and I am not sure that all of my SciBlings are aware of the extent of this power. A Scienceblog is not a personal diary or a hobby any more.

  Scienceblogs.com is Media

  Scienceblogs.com has always been the project of the Seed Media Group, thus at least a self-designated media organization. But since the moment our blogs got indexed in Google News we de facto became writers for a media organization. I am not sure some of my SciBlings really understood the importance of that day and how that changed who we are and what we do.

  Most of us here do not consider ourselves to be journalists or even have goals of wanting to become journalists. A few of us are. And a few of us are not sure what we are any more. But by virtue of being searchable on Google News we are journalists, whether we want it or not.

  Do we write news? Some of us sometimes do. But videos, cartoons, quotes, linkfests, etc. are considered not not to be News only if one adopts a very narrow and traditional sense of the term - reporting on an event that just happened. If you open a newspaper, you will see much more than News in that sense - there are obituaries, comic strips, classifieds, horoscopes, quotes, photos, poems, crossword puzzles....all of that is News in a sense that most consumers of news think: News is what comes in the Media.

  I think it is much more productive to think of media in a different way. Media is a means to disseminate and exchange information. Some of that information is important, some is informative, some is entertaining, some is educational, some is aesthetic, some is comic, some is analytic, some is opinionated, some is relevant to many people, some is relevant to just a handful, and yes, some of it may actually report on "what event just happened". Some of it is distributed by legacy media companies, some is distributed by individuals to each other.

  We here at Scienceblogs, by virtue of moving from our individual blogs to the network, have largely left the realm of "distributed by individuals to each other". We are the Media. Which means we need to be aware of it, and behave accordingly. This does not mean we have to change anything about our blogging. After all, we were picked and hired in the hope we would continue to do exactly what we were doing with our blogs before the move to Sb. But the same picture of a cat posted on Wordpress just for fun, as a hobby, becomes News once posted on Scienceblogs.com. Gotta keep that in mind at all times.

  We have built an enormous reputation, and we need to keep guarding it every single day. Which is why the blurring of lines between us who are hired and paid to write (due to our own qualities and expertise which we earned), and those who are paying to have their material published here is deeply unethical. Scientists and journalists share some common ethical principles: transparency, authenticity and truth-telling. These ethical principles were breached. This ruins our reputation, undermines our work, and makes it more unpalatable for good blogger to consider joining Sb in the future. See also Jennifer's post on this issue for a clear-headed take.

  Seed is not in magazine business any more

  Seed Media Group was founded in order to publish Seed Magazine. And it was a very nice magazine, glossy, lush, filled with awesome visualizations. Some articles were awesome, others a little flakier, but nothing nearly as bad as some other (don't make me name it again) popular science magazines managed to publish under their own banners. I liked Seed Magazine. My kids liked it. It was a cool, modern and novel way to design a pop-sci publication.

  In a happier time, before the meltdown of the media industry and then a general meltdown of the economy, Seed Magazine would have survived. But it was not meant to be. About a year ago, the last issue of Seed Magazine appeared on the newsstands. Its brand was not big enough, with enough longevity and reader loyalty, for any other corporation to step in and buy it out. It's gone.

  But if you think you are in the magazine business, if you think that your main product is a magazine, and if you have an office full of writers, editors and graphic designers, what do you do? You retain the mindset of a magazine publisher. Instead of rethinking the mission of the organization as a whole, Seed was only rethinking how to repackage Seed Magazine. They did not let the magazine die. They moved it online instead, retaining most or all of the editorial and writing staff. As Jay Rosen likes to quip about Washington Post, "the print guys won". The print mindset won.

  Yet, at the same time, Seed had a bunch of "side-projects", including some cool visualization stuff and yes, Scienceblogs.com. Some of those projects, including the magazine itself, fell by the wayside. But Scienceblogs.com was going from strength to strength:

  

  Looking at the graph (I know, PageRank measures one thing, other services measure it differently, but the take-home message is the same), it is obvious that the main product of the Seed Media Group is Scienceblogs.com.

  One could argue that traffic is not the proper measure, but I cannot think of a better one. If it was a scientific journal, having a middling traffic would not be so bad if other metrics, e.g., citations, media coverage, incoming links, proportion of visits that result in a PDF download, etc., are high. But there is no such thing to measure for a magazine. Impact of an article in a magazine is measured only by traffic, and traffic is also an important metric for advertisers.

  What used to be a fun side-project, Scienceblogs, became the centerpiece. Or so you'd think. But remember that the print guys won. Seed never realized that they were not in the magazine business any more. It is telling that some commenters during last week's fiasco said they never heard of Seed Magazine until now (I had not heard of it before I moved to Scienceblogs either). It is squirreled away on its obscure website, with miniature traffic, no brand recognition, not even much linking from Scienceblogs.com to it to drive at least some traffic there. We do not hear about new articles there to help promote them (except when Dave Munger writes one and tweets the link). If we are not aware that there are new articles in the magazine, how are others going to be?

  Several months ago (in the wake of a loss of a couple of our top bloggers) I suggested they move the magazine onto Scienceblogs as an "editor's blog" and let us pitch stories for it and use the existence of in-house editors to make our stories more polished than a usual blog post. It did not happen.

  What Seed Media Group is doing right now is trying to run a magazine, while treating Scienceblogs.com as a source of revenue. What Seed Media Group should be doing, what every media group should be doing, is become a tech-oriented company (one of the reasons PLoS is successful is that it is essentially a technology-rich publishing company, with an incredible and visionary IT/Web team working with the editorial team in driving innovation). Instead of trying to produce content in-house, which is expensive (all those salaries!), Seed should realize that they already have 80 (now more like 60 and getting smaller every day) producers of content. Barely paid producers of content. I know, it is really hard to fire all those wonderful people - but keeping them can just speed up the end-point so everyone ends up jobless in the end. If Seed Media Group (SMG) has money for employing twenty people, fifteen of those should be tech folks, driving innovation, serving Scienceblogs.com, making it bigger, better, more powerful.

  Everything at Seed should be set up to be in service of Scienceblogs: administrators, legal staff, editors, and most importantly a large, powerful, innovative technical staff. The experiment was run, the results are in, scienceblogs.com was shown to be a successful endeavor, and the rest of the experiments, magazine included, were failures and need to be thrown out and forgotten. I guess that many people in the office are emotionally invested in the magazine, but tough luck - the thing is a corpse. Mourn for a while, and move on.

  Who gets to be on Scienceblogs.com?

  A couple of years ago I heard the statistic that Seed got an average of seven applications per day to blog here. That is thousands of bloggers over the years to date!

  The network had a succession of several excellent Community Managers who made decisions on who to invite next. As the site grew and changed, their visions also changed, which determined what kinds of blogs they were looking for. Sometimes, they would accept a new blog, and let us know about it only about a day in advance. But in most cases they consulted with us. They would ask us to recommend who we thought were the best bloggers in a particular area, e.g., technology, infoscience, art, food, chemistry, etc., whatever they thought we lacked and needed more of at any particular time. And they would usually consider our recommendations and invite bloggers we respected. There were even times when we ganged up on them and relentlessly lobbied for a particular blogger to get invited and they would have to agree eventually.

  Not everybody who was invited said yes, either, but most did. And over the years there was a natural cycle - as new blogs got added, some of the older ones shut down or left. Often life and work interfered and people decided they could not continue blogging any more. Or just got tired of blogging. Some felt too much pressure to blog more frequently than they were comfortable with. Some bloggers fused their blogs into a single multi-author blog. Some invited co-bloggers to help. Some got better-paying gigs elsewhere. Some left due to personal conflicts with other bloggers. And now several have left due to the damaged reputation of the network that started with a sale of a blogging spot to a corporate entity.

  And more are leaving, and will be leaving, due to "Bion's effect":

  "You are at a party, and you get bored. You say "This isn't doing it for me anymore. I'd rather be someplace else. I'd rather be home asleep. The people I wanted to talk to aren't here." Whatever. The party fails to meet some threshold of interest. And then a really remarkable thing happens: You don't leave. You make a decision "I don't like this." If you were in a bookstore and you said "I'm done," you'd walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said "This is boring," you'd walk out.

  You're sitting at a party, you decide "I don't like this; I don't want to be here." And then you don't leave. That kind of social stickiness is what Bion is talking about.

  And then, another really remarkable thing happens. Twenty minutes later, one person stands up and gets their coat, and what happens? Suddenly everyone is getting their coats on, all at the same time. Which means that everyone had decided that the party was not for them, and no one had done anything about it, until finally this triggering event let the air out of the group, and everyone kind of felt okay about leaving.

  This effect is so steady it's sometimes called the paradox of groups. It's obvious that there are no groups without members. But what's less obvious is that there are no members without a group. Because what would you be a member of?"

  Yes, suddenly everyone is getting their coats on, all at the same time. This party is not as fun as it once was. Time to go.

  Scienceblogs.com - The Good

  Four years is eternity on the Web. But try to think back to early 2006 and understand how revolutionary that concept was at the time: grabbing a bunch of already popular bloggers, putting them all on the same site, paying them a little bit, and giving them complete editorial freedom. Anything goes! The editorial hand is in the initial choice of bloggers. Once you choose the people whose work you like, just let them lose.

  The existence of Scienceblogs.com as a one-stop shopping place for all things science resulted in the high visibility of science and of science blogging and spurred the explosive growth of the science blogosphere. In 2006, I could read every post by every science blogger in the world. Today, there are thousands out there that I don't even know about. And there are many other media companies who tried to emulate Seed and build their own networks, with, to be generous, mixed success so far.

  The Seed motto, "Science Is Culture", also contributed to opening science for the lay audience. Many of our readers are not scientists. The stereotypical image of scientists as socially inept recluses who speak in incomprehensible lingo was dispelled.

  In many ways my feeling that "who is not here will bite the dust" was not realized. Instead of building an isolated elitist community, we felt the responsibility to be generous, to constantly look for, seek out, link to and promote bloggers who are not on the network. Instead of acting as "we are elite bloggers producing elite content", we acted as "we are elite filters, finding and choosing the best content on the Web and showcasing it to everybody".

  Thus, much of what we did as SciBlings had, as a goal, the building of the science blogging community that is much broader than just our own internal network community. Nobody got rich from, and many put a lot of work into, the Open Laboratory anthologies which not only showcase the best of science blogging to the audience outside of the Web, but also promote new and upcoming bloggers outside the network. The ScienceOnline conferences (now a full-time job to organize, but still done for free on our own time) also contribute to a similar effort to get people on and off networks together. The DonorsChoose action every year brings us all together, as well as many other such actions. Scienceblogs.com was definitely a key player in the emergence and building of the science blogging community.

  Scienceblogs.com - The Bad

  The network has evolved over time. The initial offering was composed of bloggers who were already popular - they brought their readership with them. They just happened to be mostly bloggers - and this is probably why they were popular in the first place - whose blogging covered those aspects of "science is culture" that are quite controversial, from beating up on pseudoscience and medical quackery, to the relationship between science and religion, to the politics and politicization of science. This made for quite a lively discourse on the network, bringing up discussion topics that were important to have yet were considered taboo before. This did not sit well with all of the audience, many still squeamish about breaking of such cultural taboos (especially bold defenses of atheism), and the network got somewhat of a bad reputation in some circles, as a hotbed of godless, pinko-commie, liberal whateverwhatever people. That reputation, even during the most recent period when only about five out of 80 bloggers focused much on politics and/or religion, seems to persist.

  Since the continuous additions of popular bloggers did not add many new readers and traffic (they were all already reading here anyway), and as the erroneous perception which Sb-haters promulgated that "there is no science on scienceblogs.com" needed to be countered, Seed invited many bloggers who never touch controversial topics and only blog about science. They also invited a couple of bloggers who are openly religious and a couple of conservatives. More recently, several bloggers who joined were reputable science writers and journalists. A new idea was to try and pick up some very new and not-yet-established bloggers, especially very young ones with talent, and bring them here and help them grow.

  But none of this helped dispel the nefarious myths about Sb being an atheism network. In this effort to dilute politico-religious content with science content, Sb grew, in my opinion, too big. I think 80-something blogs with 90+ bloggers is too big. Internal rifts and formation of cliques was inevitable in such a large group, which led to some hidden and some very public fights, and resulted in some of our prominent bloggers leaving in a huff. This did not look good from the outside, I'm sure. And it did not work well for the bloggers' morale either.

  The chronic inability of the Seed management to communicate to and with bloggers did not help either (I feel the Overlords who tried to represent our interests were sidelined in the Seed newsroom). As a result, there is not much loyalty to the Seed brand. We are here for the network effect and traffic (and even the little money we get is important grocery money for some of us, including me), not because we are in love with Seed.

  This is not about Pepsi

  Two weeks ago, as most of you probably know, Seed started a new blog on Scienceblogs.com. It was to be not just sponsored, but authored by people from PepsiCo, a continuation of their Food Frontiers blog (go take a look). It was to be hosted, I believe, for three months, for a fee that PepsiCo would pay Seed (out of which, I guess, we bloggers would also get paid, perhaps even get up to date on payments - I just got my April check).

  We have hosted a few corporate-sponsored blogs before, but the main bloggers on them were either independent journalists or some of our own bloggers. Those blogs were introduced to us in the backchannels in advance, we were consulted, changes were made as needed, and some of us still protested on our blogs or wrote posts that are quite damning to those corporations, their shady corporate behavior, and their products.

  It is not well known - at least I did not see anyone mention it - that Seed tried to hire an outside freelance science journalist to host the Pepsi blog. Apparently, they could not find anyone. So, when the date came when they promised Pepsi they would start, they launched the blog without an independent host, with just Pepsi employees blogging. Huge mistake! They should have quickly asked some of us to pitch in that role, but instead they did not even tell us about it - the appearance of the blog was a total surprise to us all. Orac was the first one to spot it on the Last24Hour page and alerted the rest of us. Understandably, we all went berserk (and if you think our anger was strongly worded on our blogs, can you imagine what it looked like in the backchannels!?). This is a flagrant breach of the wall between content and advertising. A huge no-no in any kind of media. We are Media and this was the (un)ethical straw that broke the camel's back.

  Greg Laden was not the first one to think of it, but explained it the best the other day how the blog could have been made much more palatable to us and readers, if Seed just thought to ask us (even if that meant a delay of a couple of days before launching) to blog there. We have many bloggers here who could have contributed their expertise on various aspects of food. We have bloggers who could write with authority on obesity from physiological, medical, public health and sociological perspectives, on the chemistry of food, on poisons, on neuroscience of appetite, on nutrition, on raising one's own food, on evolution of food plants and domesticated animals, on endangered seafood, on the economics and politics of the food industry, on useless dietary supplements, on the reason why a piece of bread always falls on the buttered side, how to desecrate crackers, and even how to roast a zebra and share it with locals in Africa. Not to mention pie recipes! That could have been fun and informative. And if Pepsi scientists contributed as themselves, not as frontmen for the company, their perspective would have been interesting as well.

  Instead, we got an infomercial posing as one of us.

  It is completely irrelevant that it was Pepsi.

  It is completely irrelevant that it was about food.

  It is completely irrelevant that they never got to post anything on the blog before it was removed under the storm of criticism by us, readers and the media.

  It is completely irrelevant if their content was going to be good or bad.

  What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.

  What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?

  Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?

  Even if you know me and trust me, would you be able to trust any new addition to the network? All those thousands of bloggers who applied to Sb and did not get invited to join? What are they all thinking now about someone paying to blog here? Do you think anyone will ever apply again?

  Is Scienceblogs reputation permanently damaged?

  In the wake of the Pepsi scandal, other things started coming to light. Things like this and this and this and this, all adding up to the realization that Seed is not what it makes out itself to be. So yes, I think the reputation of Seed is permanently damaged. The quick reversal, under pressure, and removal of the Pepsi blog is not enough.

  Will it survive? I don't know. Probably it will, but smaller (this also depends on the biggest-traffic bloggers remaining). But the scienceblogs.com stable is shrinking rapidly, and I do not see it growing in size or reputation again any time soon. Without it - the only profitable enterprise in the SMG - I am not sure the company can survive. We won many big races, but our racing career is now over, and we should retire to some pleasure riding in the meadows now (not ready for the slaughterhouse yet, not me).

  Where will bloggers go?

  Some of the most prominent bloggers who have left - or will leave - can quite easily go solo. Since 2006, the Web ecosystem has evolved and now has mechanisms, including social networking sites, that can keep an already popular site from fading into oblivion by going solo. One's blog is now only one part of one's online presence.

  Others have been approached or will be approached (as soon as they make their leaving Sb official) by many other existing or incipient newtorks out there. Field Of Science is a new network, GenomesUnzipped is a new group-blog for people interested in genomics, All Geo may try to collect geobloggers, and Southern Fried Science new network may accumulate more ocean bloggers. Panda's Thumb offered evolution bloggers defecting from Scienceblogs.com to post there (I am not sure how to think about the division by topic - does it mean that general science networks can never attract a geoblogger and an ocean blogger any more?).

  SciBlogs NZ is a wonderful network, but limited by geography to New Zealand bloggers only. There are German Scienceblogs and Scienceblogs Brazil (in Portuguese). There is a growing North Carolina group science blog.

  Ira Flatow offered to host bloggers on Science Friday. And so did Wired UK (and US?) and apparently The Guardian as well. Scientific American is bound to jump into the fray, picking up defecting SciBlings. National Geographic has a blog network - I guess they are watching these developments as well. These media-run blogs/networks may well be changing their technological architecture as we speak in order to absorb multiple new bloggers they are trying to attract.

  Blogging on Huffington Post is an instant loss of credibility - a day of a Pepsi blog is nothing compared to years of pseudoscience, medical quackery, Creationism and Deepak Chopra's posts there. Nobody in their right mind would want to be associated with such a cesspit of anti-science.

  There are awesome blog/news networks for students of science journalism at NYU (Scienceline) and their counterparts in the UK, mainly at City University (Elements).

  Nature Network whose target audience are primarily scientists rather than lay public, and Science 2.0 (formerly Scientificblogging.org, not to be confused with the similarly named but very new and interesting Science 2.0 network that does more than just blogging) seem to be pretty open and approachable and have nice internal communities, but are essentially invisible from the outside. Likewise for Discovery Networks Blogs. The Psychology Today blogs is a very big network, but they do not seem to have anything like a community, and seem to be pretty unselective as to who they accept. I have heard of at least three new networks still in the making.

  But going to any of these is potentially a step down and a big loss of visibility and traffic. The only network that has recently started to come close to the clout of Scienceblogs.com is Discover blogs, but they have a specific type of blogger in mind and do not appear to have an appetite at this point to suddenly invite dozens of new bloggers - they seem to be building the network as a small, but highly elite place for people with some existing journalistic and professional writer cred. Definitely ones to watch!

  New scienceblogging ecosystem

  The potential step down and loss of visibility by leaving Sb may be an illusion. It makes sense in the existing ecosystem in which Scienceblogs.com is The Borg and everyone else is biting the dust. But the ecosystem is changing. Scienceblogs.com is rapidly losing reputation and bleeding bloggers. A number of other networks are absorbing these bloggers and adding more, growing in size and visibility very rapidly. Very soon - and I mean SOON as in weeks - instead of one big place to watch, there will be two dozen medium-sized places to watch. Instead of one site that everyone reads, there will be a number of sites that will have to read each other instead. Networks that get too large will be viewed, perhaps, with suspicion they are not selective enough. Networks that are too small will get lost and invisible in such a crowded ecosystem. The trick is to find the Goldilocks solution - just the right size.

  Many science bloggers are personal friends, and many are also heavy users of social networks like Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook, so the ties will remain. The popularity of blog carnivals may come back up, at least temporarily, due to their well-established effect of building and maintaining the community. ResearchBlogging.org, apart from building respect for science bloggers in the outside world, is also beginning to serve as a center of the blogging community (and I hope it survives, funded by Seed or, if that becomes impossible at some point in the future, by whoever else can be lured to do so).

  Instead of one big network, there will be a network of networks. Nobody can afford now to ignore or be ignored by others. I bet we will see aggregators springing up that link to all the networks, perhaps networks will carry each other's RSS Feed widgets on sidebars to facilitate cross-linking and traffic between networks, and thus raise visibility of all. And the legacy media will have to adjust to the new ecosystem as well, and instead of just watching Scienceblogs.com, find a way to monitor all of the networks at the same time.

  When science blogosphere was young, existence of Scienceblogs.com was a boon - it lifted all the boats with it, made both the science and the science blogging visible and prominent. Today, having only one overgrown site so visible is toxic - it takes the oxygen out of the system, and makes the other networks and independent bloggers invisible. With the current process of Sb being cut to size, and concomitant process of other networks growing in size, visibility and relevance (as well as brand new networks springing up), we are reaching a point where being on Sb is not the pinnacle of one's potential science blogging career - it is one of many places where it is good to be.

  Many who are, for now, deciding to stay on Sb, are doing so because they are terrified of becoming invisible by going solo. But in the new emerging ecosystem, going solo is not necessarily going to mean invisibility. People who go solo will still be a part of the community - yes, the same science blogging community that Scienceblogs.com was a key to building in the first place.

  Going solo also makes one "fair game". Other networks will not approach Sciblings who are not officially leaving as they do not want to tread on Adam Bly's territory or be seen as poaching. But they will approach people who go solo. And they will also approach independent bloggers who were never on a network before - because those bloggers are really good and have been left out so far, because there are not enough Sb defectors to build sufficiently large networks just out of them, and because they do not want the perception that they are growing and building networks entirely on the ashes of Seed.

  A growing number of networks and growing visibility of all the networks, also means that bloggers will have many choices. Seed is not the only game in town any more. Some networks pay bloggers, others don't. Some have advertising, some don't. Some have posting frequency requirements, others don't. Some are run by for-profit organizations, others by non-profits, and others are bloggers' cooperatives. Some have complete editorial freedom, some have limited restrictions. Some have excellent tech support, some lousy or none at all. Some are smaller and highly selective as to who they invite, others are big and also accept bloggers who are not really up to par. Thus, each blogger has a range of choices and the ability to choose according to what each individual finds important for their own goals. And those bloggers who think of this as a hobby and do not want to be seen as Media, can easily go solo and remain connected to the ecosystem in a variety of ways.

  What will I do?

  My first impulse when Pepsi blog suddenly and surprisingly showed up on the homepage was to bail out immediately.

  But I decided instead to take some time to think and decide. My wife also told me to wait and watch the events unfold instead of saying anything myself. Wise.

  Not saying anything publicly also made me open to others - I was approached by many with questions, fears, confusions, and their own plans. I have heard a whole lot from various people - who is courting them, where they are going to go, what new networks are being secretly built, etc. which gives me a pretty good lay of the land. I have a pretty good grasp of what is going on out there, I think (though I can be surprised, I'm sure). Most people are quite secretive about their plans, and I will NOT reveal anything that anybody told me until they themselves go public, but I am also not ready to completely reveal my own plans just yet.

  After agonizing for almost two weeks, I finally made a decision. I will leave Scienceblogs.com, effective today.

  I am not making this decision lightly. A number of factors played a part in this. On one hand there are negative factors - the loss of reputation by Sb, the complete lack of technical support here, the deflated morale of bloggers here, and the indications that all the recent changes at Seed are not a sign of losing the print mindset, which makes it unlikely that meaningful changes will happen. There is also a feeling that SMG is financially a sinking ship. On the other hand are positive factors - I am excited by the swift evolution of the new science blogging ecosystem and want to position myself well within it. I feel that this is also an opportunity to make something better once the dust settles. But the main reason I am leaving is the ethical breach that has seriously placed our reputation in jeopardy.

  Unlike some others, I have nothing personal against Adam Bly. We have met once and he seems to be a really nice guy. We loved going to the New York City meetups in the early years and meeting with him there and being hosted at his house. He has interesting ideas and I think his goals are quite in sync with my own - increasing the prominence and relevance of science in our society. I just think that he is consulting with (and sometimes hiring) people with the old legacy media mindset, getting outdated ideas from them, and not being aware how the world has changed even in the past four years and how those changes require a much more dramatic change in direction.

  I also want to acknowledge how much being on Scienceblogs.com has meant to me both personally and professionally. This is where I got my job, many other gigs, invitations to give talks, preview copies of books, and a general prominence and reputation in the worlds of science, publishing and the Web. Without Scienceblogs.com, there probably would never be Open Laboratory and ScienceOnline. I have made many fast friends here, both SciBlings and readers, and I am optimistic that these friendships will continue, wherever any one of us end up blogging.

  Though many other solutions are possible for me, I have decided that I want to be solo for a little while - I want to see who approaches me and with what kinds of offers. Perhaps something great comes out of it. With my wife on disability leave our finances are shot, and I need to find a way to get paid for all the things I do so I can support my family. And even if no good offers come about, at least when I make up (and announce) my final decision, I will be sure I had all the necessary information I need to make the best decision for myself.

  So, farewell, Scienceblogs, it was honor to be a part of this community for so long.

  You can find me, in the meantime, at http://coturnix.wordpress.com/. I will continue blogging at everyONE blog and Science in the Triangle blog as well. And you can follow me on Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook, so you will know when I make other moves in the future.

  Read the comments on this post...
• Open Laboratory 2010 - submissions so far
  12:40pm | Jul 19, 2010

  The list is growing fast - check the submissions to date and get inspired to submit something of your own - an essay, a poem, a cartoon or original art.

  The Submission form is here so you can get started. Under the fold are entries so far, as well as buttons and the bookmarklet. The instructions for submitting are here.

  You can buy the last four annual collections here. You can read Prefaces and Introductions to older editions here.

  Read the rest of this post... |
• Clock Quotes
  8:54am | Jul 19, 2010

  At bottom every man know well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.

  - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  Read the comments on this post...

ChemSpider

• ChemSpider at heart of new partnership between ...
  9:36am | Mar 26, 2012

  For some time now it has been possible to access relevant SureChem patent information from a ChemSpider compound page in the Patents Infobox. ChemSpider compounds are also linked to and from the relevant RSC articles, which has allowed us to form a new partnership between RSC Publishing and SureChem which relies on ChemSpider taking the [...]
• New ChemSpider Newsletter Released Before ACS S...
  1:00am | Mar 20, 2012

  A lot happens in a a few weeks and this past couple of months has been no different. There have been numerous developments for ChemSpider and its related projects including working on the GUI, adding in new data and a lot of infrastructure work on the core of the ChemSPider platform. We have the ACS meeting in [...]
• ChemSpider invests in high-performance web serv...
  10:37am | Mar 8, 2012

  As the ChemSpider content and data mappings have continued to expand, the demands on our web services have increased dramatically. With the popularity of the site continuing to increase we anticipate even heavier usage of our web services. This is true for our involvement with the Open PHACTS project as well as from a number [...]
• New RSC ChemSpider Search Add-in for Accelrys D...
  2:56pm | Feb 15, 2012

  James Jack from Accelrys has developed a great example of using ChemSpider web services to add ChemSpider search functionality with the structure drawing tool Accelrys Draw. It is now possible, with a new add-in to perform advanced searches on ChemSpider with the Accelrys Draw program itself, searching by text, structure searches (exact, similarity and substructure), [...]
• Adding the SORD Database (Selected Organic Reac...
  10:02pm | Feb 3, 2012

  We will soon be depositing data from the SORD databases (Selected Organic Reactions Database) onto ChemSpider. This will be done as two separate but related datasets until the SORD data source: Reactants and Products. If you don’t know what SORD is then who better to explain than Dick Wife, the “host” of the SORD database. Dick wrote [...]

Coastwatch

Conifer Reproductive Biology

De Rerum Natura

• Testing
  6:28pm | Jun 20, 2011

  Testing...
• PICS-Ord: unlimited coding of ambiguous regions...
  1:37am | Jan 26, 2011

  I’ve had the good fortune of having some papers published recently. The first one is a methodology paper concerning a way of extracting phylogenetic information from regions of multiple sequence alignments that are full of indels and difficult to align:...
• Calix Cari 2010: End of Regular Season
  4:00am | Dec 22, 2010

  I haven’t been keeping up with my Calix Cari polls this year for collage football. But now that the regular season has ended, I have found time to produce one. The events of this season have been rather unpredictable. Of...
• Ngila 1.3 Released
  4:15am | Dec 9, 2010

  It has been a long time coming, but I have finally released Ngila 1.3. This version fixes a few bugs and includes many new features. Use CMake for compilation and installation New scaling option enabled by default (identical sequences default...
• The Working Life
  4:16pm | Oct 26, 2010

  I apologize for things being slow on this blog. I’ve been knee deep in programming, manuscripts, grant proposals, and teaching. I’m hoping to have results to share in the near future. In the mean time, you can follow some of...

Duke Lemur Center

Duke Research

• Follow news of Lola, the bonobos and Ekolo on.....
  8:20pm | Mar 18, 2011

  To follow news of Lola, the Bonobos and the reintroduction at Ekolo please follow the link bellow:
  http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/news/
  
  You can also find us on facebook: "Friends of Bonobos"
  
  

  
• BONOBO HANDSHAKE OUT NOW!
  2:19pm | Apr 25, 2010

  
  
  Hey everyone - it's finally here! I'm just about to move the blog to Psychology Today. But to order your copy, see where I'm speaking, or just general bonobo news, visit www.bonobohandshake.com

  
• There's still time!
  3:17pm | Apr 14, 2010

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-inner-bonobo/201004/primate-palooza-tonight
  
  
  
  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-inner-bonobo/201004/primate-palooza-tonight

  
• Primate Palooza tonight!
  12:08pm | Apr 14, 2010

  Tonight, at Duke University in NC we are celebrating primates, especially bonobos.

  Because bonobos get ignored back front and sideways as demostrated by this family tree:

  

  which happens ALL the time (ironically this image was on the post "know your family tree" ) WHERE ARE BONOBOS???

  So like the fat kid at school, to make up for all the times they are left out, forgotten, uninvited to the party, Claudine Andre will be coming to dedicate the evening to our long lost cousins.

  If you don't come for bonobos, come for signed men's basketball memorabilia.

  So if you're on Duke's campus, watch out for:

  

  which is a lemur chasing a banana (we couldn't get a bonobo suit made in time). But come see for yourself.
  

  
• What it takes to be a hero
  6:07pm | Apr 13, 2010

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-inner-bonobo/201004/what-it-takes-be-hero

  

Duke Research (blog)

• We've MOVED!
  5:03pm | May 19, 2010

  We're changing channels here at Duke Research blog -- moving from the friendly confines of Blogger to a Duke server inside the Duke Research site.We'll have the same great action-news team, (well, minus Monte the Weatherman, who has retired) and the same great coverage. Please tune the RSS feeds on your mobile devices and neural implants accordingly.Vansh and Becca are off campus this summer,
• College Substance Abuse Is a Lot More Than Alco...
  7:43pm | May 18, 2010

  Guest post from Jamese Slade, NCCU Summer internUnderage drinking and drug use may not be a big deal to most college students, but these behaviors can have effects that will last a lifetime.At a two-day forum on college student drinking and drug use sponsored by the Center for Child and Family Policy, drug abuse researchers touched on the issues of not only alcohol use, but also marijuana, and
• Build-A-Brain Workshop
  9:14pm | May 12, 2010

  That snap-crackle-pop sound you hear around a newborn human's head is the baby's brain being assembled at an alarming rate. The manufacturing of brain cells and getting them wired into meaningful circuits in the first months of life lays a foundation for abilities – and deficits – that seem to last a lifetime. And though the program is remarkably robust, parts of it can be derailed.A
• Bonobo Business
  5:32am | Apr 16, 2010

  Do you know what a bonobo is?Only about 10% of people do, according to Duke evolutionary anthropology professor Brian Hare. By comparison, roughly 90% of people know what a gorilla is.Bonobos have many remarkable qualities, including the fact they “are the only really peaceful ape,” according to Hare. “They don’t kill each other.” Bonobos are more closely related to humans than any other kind of
• Bouncing Off The Walls
  1:35pm | Apr 15, 2010

  Guest post from Cara Bonnett, Office of Information Technology No, it’s not your imagination: Those clouds really are following you, and the sunflowers are waving.Students walking past the huge media wall at the Link in Perkins Library may not realize that the tiled display is responding to their movements. But thanks to Duke researchers and computer science students, they now can interact with

EagerEyes

Forth Go

• Google Code Jam 2012 Qualification Round
  8:38pm | Apr 15, 2012

  I’ve been inactive recently at Project Euler, so I’m not sure how sharp I’ll be for the puzzle programming problems in this year’s Google’s Code Jam 2012. Yesterday was the qualifying round with 25 hours to earn 20 points on … Continue reading →
• Tie-Dye Soda Ash Experiment
  5:32pm | Aug 20, 2011

  One of the steps in tie-dying is to soak the shirt in a “fixer” solution of sodium carbonate, also known as soda ash. I think of soda ash as a dye-cotton binding agent. My informal experiment is to see the … Continue reading →
• 18 Days of Tie-Dye
  10:05pm | Jul 24, 2011

  I finished my summer run of consecutive tie-dye day earlier this month with a final count of 18 different shirts in 18 consecutive days, beating last year’s record of 16. I could have done a few more, but I imagine … Continue reading →
• Google Code Jam 2011 Round 2
  9:09pm | Jun 4, 2011

  My luck ran out in Round 2 of the Google Code Jam 2011. I placed 626th but needed to be in the top 500 to advance. At least I qualified for a T-shirt for being in the top 1000. There … Continue reading →
• Chapel Hill Flooding Video
  10:13pm | May 29, 2011

  I was eating lunch downtown at Mint with Joe and Anli when the heavy rains rolled in last Friday. We tried to wait it out, but it didn’t follow the usual pattern of a brief summer storm. After about an … Continue reading →

Hard science

Julian Lombardi's Blog

• Julian Lombardi's Blog Has Moved
  2:20am | May 20, 2009

  I've moved my blog to another address and will no longer post here. Please go to julianlombardi.blogspot.com to see all my posts, both old and new.
  
  -Julian

  
• Collaborative CAD in Cobalt!
  11:50am | Dec 11, 2008

  
  
  Thanks again to the work of Aik-Siong Koh and his team, Cobalt now makes it possible for users to work in a deeply collaborative CAD environment. This video shows how two Cobalt users on separate computers can work with relatively sophisticated CAD capabilities over a LAN. This newly-implemented collaborative CAD capability in Cobalt opens up a wide range of possibilities for engineers and others at a distance to develop sophisticated simulations and architectures in Cobalt worlds. The ability to develop animated content within a full-featured virtual world CAD environment sets Cobalt apart from other virtual world technologies in a very significant way.

  
• VNC in Cobalt!
  1:16pm | Nov 22, 2008

  
  
  Rajeev Lochan has just been successful in getting VNC to work within a shared Cobalt space! VNC is a graphical desktop sharing system which uses the RFB protocol to remotely control another computer. This is a big breakthrough for our open project. It means that a Cobalt-based VNC client can connect to a VNC server on any other operating system. Cobalt users will soon be able to view and interact with remote applications (including full featured web browsers) or even collaboratively access remote desktops within the Cobalt application. Because the VNC protocol can use a lot of bandwidth, we still have some optimization to deal with - but this progress is great to see. Thank you Rajeev!

  
• Immersive Workspaces
  10:37pm | Oct 21, 2008

  
  
  Linden Lab has announced that its now going to be moving into the enterprise 3D collaboration space. It recently announced a new product called "Immersive Workspaces" which is basically an area in Second Life set aside for corporate meetings. That more secure area represents "a completely exclusive and secure experience, with no connectivity to the Second Life mainland." Their intent is to develop a complete collaboration experience for the enterprise. I guess that is Linden Lab's attempt to try and ensure that business meetings are not disrupted by griefers or by unwelcome barrages of flying penises. Looks like the enterprise virtual worlds space is getting a bit more crowded. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

  
• Another KMZ Import
  11:23pm | Oct 19, 2008

  
  
  Another test of the new KMZ importer from Aik-Siong Koh. Note that the textures are mapping nicely onto the relatively complex model! Soon we will be able to import lots of content from Google's 3D Warehouse into Cobalt. That will be nice...

  

Mister Sugar

• Make another martini, tell another story
  8:45pm | May 18, 2012

  Wednesday’s martinis-and-mentors party was a blast, and went just the way I had hoped it would, with tasty barbecue prepared by our host, Jason Roberts, perfect martinis, great conversation among the 30 friends and guests, and stories from our visiting star, Michael Ruhlman, and others.

  Michael was in town for a celebration of the life and memoirs of his mentor, the writer Reynolds Price. Holding a stack of letters that Reynolds had written to him, Michael read one four-page letter that was filled with intricate phrases and simple, powerful advice. I hope Michael finds a way to share his correspondence with Reynolds with the world — it’s sure to be an instructive and loving look into mentorship, friendship, writing.

  We then had stories about mentors from Jason (college professor), David Thomas (editors), Stephen Jenkins (college professor), Rose Hoban (grad school professor) and Dean McCord (Dean Smith). Jeff Polish, who usually is impresario of The Monti, recounted his experience prepping Elizabeth Edwards for her Monti story (my blog post about my 5 minutes with Edwards is here).

  When we were finished, Michael wrapped up with this: “We all have someone who made a difference in our lives. Tell them about it, while they are alive.”

  Once, after I’d published my father’s Peace Corps memoir, dad sent me a message that said, “At my funeral, all you need to do is stand up and say, ‘I told him what he meant to me when he was alive.’”

  Yesterday, my friend Beck Tench let me know this:

  I wonder if <a href="https://twitter.com/mistersugar">mistersugar</a> knows how good it feels to know that he believes in you?</p>&mdash; Beck Tench (10ch) May 17, 2012

  
  

  And here’s what Michael had to say about the party:

  <a href="https://twitter.com/mistersugar">mistersugar</a> that was a grt evening. Like the salons of old. You made it new!</p>&mdash; ruhlman (ruhlman) May 17, 2012

  
  

• Martinis & Mentors - drinks & stories w...
  10:46pm | May 6, 2012

  Michael Ruhlman DM’d me recently to say he’d be back in North Carolina to attend From A Long and Happy Life to Midstream: Reading and Celebrating the Works of Reynolds Price at Duke University on May 15. Would I want to get some local foodies together for another event? Of course.

  Back in November when Michael was here, Andrea Reusing hosted and prepared an amazing multi-course dinner at her Chapel Hill restaurant, Lantern. Michael wrote about his visit and that dinner in his post, Book Tour Blessings.

  This time, I thought, we’d do something a bit simpler.

  Michael has been blogging about cocktails on Fridays, including The Manhattan and The Perfect Martini. (My friend, Ilina Ewen, also blogs about cocktails in her 5:00 Fridays posts on Dirt & Noise.) Michael also had an inspiring post about teaching his son to cook, Chicken Curry: Teach Kids to Cook.

  I’ve had a total of one martini in my life, and that one not very good. Like Michael, I’ve had mentors who have helped me become the writer and person I am today (explored in my recent post). And, just today Malia was at my side learning to make strawberry jam.

  So, why not a Martinis & Mentors event, to mix some drinks and share our stories about the mentors in our lives?

  That’s just what we’ll do on Wed., May 16 from 7:30 p.m. on at the home of my neighbor, Jason Roberts (a Ruhlman fan, too). We’ll have space for 40 or so, and are asking for $20 per person to cover the cost of the martini mixings and appetizers (perhaps something from Ruhlman’s Twenty or another of Michael’s books about chefs, restaurants and good eating).

  Join us! Register now (popup form) form.

• A life boat would do
  12:49am | May 5, 2012

  My work at Duke finished for the week, I pulled into nearby Waller Family Farm to pick another bucket of strawberries. On the radio, SiriusXM channel 33 – 1st Wave, She Blinded Me with Science by Thomas Dolby came to an end, and DJ Richard Blade mentioned that Dolby had recently been on the radio talking about his home in East Anglia, where he had placed an old lifeboat in his yard, the lifeboat outfitted as a recording studio powered by wind and sun.

  Given my lifelong desire to park a decommissioned submarine in my own backyard, I was delighted by the story.

  Read about Dolby’s lifeboat-studio in this Treehugger post.

  And, I now know that Dolby is connected to TED, for which he serves as musical director. Maybe we can invite him to ScienceOnline2013 to talk about his hit song, lifeboat and more.

• Knowing when to listen
  8:48pm | May 4, 2012

  It’s my decade for narrative, and I see stories all around me.

  Yesterday, I learned a lesson.

  I was walking back from a meeting across campus, and I came upon Irving Holley, emeritus professor of history. Normally, he’s walking and talking with another gentleman, a librarian, and I catch a snippet of their conversations as I stride swiftly past. Once, I stopped and asked them who they were and why they were always talking about the past.

  Yesterday, Holley was walking alone, slowly making his way down the long, new concourse that connects the buildings of Duke University Hospital. I pulled up to him, and asked if I could join him. Together we ambled along, he using a cane and me enjoying the relaxed pace so I could listen to his recollections and sage advice, including “Stay away from old age as long as you can.” Holley is 93, and still writing.

  When I parted ways at the hospital cafeteria, I’d realized my lesson: never walk past a story.

• Come back, but silently
  8:29pm | May 4, 2012

  This summer, I’ll be headed back to John Carroll University for a reunion of the Class of 1992.

  It’s been 20 years since I graduated with a degree in communications, ending a very enjoyable four years in suburban Cleveland. As I was preparing then to move far away to Hawaii — to hang out with my dad, learn to surf and work to pay off my student loans (just $5,000) — a mentor said to me, “Anton, don’t forget, you can always come back.” That advice meant more than just returning to JCU. It was really a lesson in empowerment, a reminder that I didn’t need to feel stuck anywhere.

  And so when my loans were paid off, I’d realized I was too blind and clumsy to surf well and my love affair with Erin wasn’t diminished, I did return to Cleveland, and gladly (also mentioned in my Cleveland Plain Dealer essay about running the Honolulu Marathon with dad). As Erin finished her fourth year at Carroll, I roamed the city working as a writer, bookseller and failed one-day waiter.

  Lately, I’ve been thinking about a specific string of days during my college experience.

  You know from my previous posts — A family orientation and Found in the archives: My story on The Story — that I contemplated the priesthood. As part of my discernment, and because JCU is a Jesuit university, one fall break I attended an eight-day silent retreat, in which I walked in the snow, read at length, wrote in a journal and generally contemplated where my life would take me. I spoke only briefly each day when I met with a spiritual advisor, and I listened intently for the voice of god, although only the cardinals and the brown squirrels seemed interested in talking to me.

  Those eight days were a luxury, and I’m envious of my 20-year-old self. Now, my life is so much more full — wonderful family, great job, list of projects and plans (more about that in a post coming up) — and I’d love the opportunity to take 8 days for a silent retreat, or even the full 30 days for the Ignatian retreat that Jesuit novices complete before being ordained.

  Two years ago, I took two days for a self-guided silent retreat to the North Carolina coast, and there I had an epiphany: Thinking places, or I am before I am reinforced the importance of quiet contemplation. As I wrote then, being a reader is fundamental to me being a writer and a thinker.

  I was honored that my friend, Beck Tench, was inspired to take a retreat of her own.

  This week, seeing that Harry Marks is giving up on words for a year made me chuckle, and shudder.

  Just give me silence for 30 days, or 8, or 2, or tomorrow. I’ll be refreshed, and ready to come back.

Nicholas Insider

• Farewell Nicholas School
  12:00am | Jan 1, 1970

  ... but not Good-Bye!
• It's a Confusing World
  12:00am | Jan 1, 1970

  One Mom's Attempt to Live Sustainably in an Unsustainable Society
• Treevival: A Tour Recap.
  12:00am | Jan 1, 1970

  Treevival Tour: Leaf on the Road. The power of art and strength in numbers.
• Remembering We Are Big
  12:00am | Jan 1, 1970

  Thoughts on Treevival and astral dust.
• When We Forget to Remember
  12:00am | Jan 1, 1970

  It’s been 2 years since an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil gushed from BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig and into the Gulf of Mexico. The incident highlighted the plight of all Gulf States. But when was the last time you thought about our southern neighbors?

Primate Diaries

• Now at Scientific American
  6:13pm | Jul 24, 2011

  You are being redirected to the new site. One moment please . . .
  
  
  
  If for any reason you were not redirected, please click the screen capture above or visit: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/

  

  
• The Primate Diaries Has Moved to Science Blogs
  1:37am | Jul 2, 2009

  My new home is at http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries.
  
  Update your RSS feed by clicking here and I look forward to hearing from you on the comments page!

  

  
• Nature is calling . . .
  3:05pm | Apr 10, 2009

  
  
  The Primate Diaries has now been picked up by the journal Nature's online network. Click on the RSS button below to update your feed and click the image above to see the new site.
  
  

  

  
• Superorganisms and Group Selection
  11:58pm | Apr 3, 2009

  Unicolonial ants pose challenge to "selfish gene" theory.
  
  
  Unicolonial ants, such as these Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), are genetically unrelated but will cooperate to defeat a much larger adversary.
  Source: Alex Wild / Live Science
  It has been a mainstay of evolutionary theory since the 1970s. Natural selection acts purely on the level of the individual and any cooperation observed between organisms merely hides a selfish genetic motive. There have been two pioneering theories to explain cooperation in the natural world given this framework: the first was William Hamilton's (1964) theory of kin selection and the second was Robert Trivers' (1971) theory of reciprocal altruism.
  
  However, both of these scenarios break down where it comes to unicolonial ants. In a new paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (subscription required) Heikki Helantera, of the University of Sussex, and colleagues at Rice University have investigated how previous theories to explain cooperation don't apply for these unique supercolonies.
  

  Unicolonial ants carry polydomy [multiple nests in a supercolony that all individuals rotate through] and polygyny [multiple queens in one nest] to extremes. Colonies are huge, each being a network of hundreds or thousands of nests, each with multiple queens. There is no worker aggression, and there is free movement among nests on a vast scale. The energy that might have been put into fighting and territoriality flows into the common good, more ants.

  Such a concept, a form of genuine anarchism in the animal world, was thought to be impossible given existing theory. These ants live in colonies where relatives exist but, with so much migration throughout a network stretching thousands of kilometers, each ant worker is mostly surrounded by total strangers that share none of their genes. Only one other species has ever been known to organize themselves in such a fashion (and if you're reading these words right now you know who you are).
  
  To understand how unicolonial ants have come to be the way they are, we must first understand what they're not. Kin selection has proposed that cooperation will emerge in groups that are made up of close relatives. Hamilton's rule, beautiful in its simplicity, proposed that cooperation occurs when the cost to the actor (C) is less than then the benefit to the recipient (B) multiplied by the genetic relatedness between the two (r). This equation is written out simply as rB > C.
  
  
  Lion siblings often cooperate as teams and benefit through kin selection.
  Source: Scotch Macaskill / Wildlife Pictures.com
  To put this into context: an alpha male lion and his brother share half of their genes, so have a genetic relatedness of 0.5. Suppose this brother recognizes that the alpha male is getting old and could easily be taken down. If so, the brother could potentially have eight additional cubs (just to pull out an arbitrary number). But, instead, that brother decides to help the alpha male to maintain his position in the pride and, as a result, the alpha ends up having the eight additional cubs himself while the brother only has five. The brother has lost out on 3 potential cubs. But, even so, because he assisted his brother he has still maximized his overall reproductive success from a genetic point of view: (0.5) x 8 = 4 > 3. He could have attempted to usurp his brother and, perhaps, had the eight cubs himself but he wouldn't have been in any better of a position as far as his genes were concerned.
  
  Reciprocal altruism follows this same basic idea, but proposes a mechanism that could work for individuals that are unrelated. In this scenario, cooperation occurs when the cost to the actor (C) is less than the benefit to the recipient (B) multiplied by the likelihood that the cooperation will be returned (w) or wB > C. This has been demonstrated among vampire bats who regurgitate blood into a stranger's mouth if they weren't able to feed that night. Previous experience has shown the actor that they're likely to get repaid if they ever go hungry one night themselves. This theory requires that individuals be part of a single group, with low levels of immigration and emigration, so that group members will be likely to encounter each other on a regular basis.
  
  Previously, it was argued that all ants followed an extreme form of kin selection. Because of their unique process of reproduction females develop from fertilized eggs and have paired chromosomes (that is, one from each parent). However, males develop from unfertilized eggs and only have a single chromosome from their mother. As a result, female workers share up to 75 percent of their genes with sisters but only 50 percent with their mother (or their own offspring, if they were to reproduce). Worker ants therefore have greater genetic success by not reproducing but, instead, helping to raise and protect their legion of closely related sisters.
  
  
  Ant reproduction gives rise to genetic sisterhood.
  Source: Unattributed
  This explanation has been somewhat clouded given more recent evidence that queens engage in polyandry (mating with multiple males). A queen will frequently mate with up to five different males and store their combined sperm, around 100 million of them, in a special compartment called the spermatheca. By releasing a single sperm at a time the queen can control the number of eggs she lays. However, because there are multiple fathers, the genetic relationship between the female worker ants is reduced. Female workers may therefore only be related by 25 percent with the females they're helping to raise. Why would female workers continue to be non-reproductive and help rear distant relatives when they could have twice the reproductive success by having their own offspring? While there are strategies female workers employ to maximize their own reproductive success (like preferrentially rearing eggs that they are more closely related to or, in some rare cases, reproducing themselves) it still remains puzzling why ants have been so successful given this seeming contradiction.
  
  If you add to this the realities of multiple queens in a single nest (polygyny) and supercolonies that are composed of thousands of such nests (polydomy), the problem becomes insurmountable. If worker ants share zero percent of their genes with those they're cooperating with, as is the case in these unicolonies, then why cooperate? What do they have to gain?
  
  This is the problem that Helantera and colleagues are seeking to understand in their latest paper. While the authors emphasize a range of possible explanations, I want to focus on just one that has been generating a great deal of interest in the last few years: group selection.
  

  The extreme cooperation of unicolonial ants has been suggested to be an example of selection occurring on levels higher than the individual, such as the superorganism, group or even population.

  Group selection is the idea that, under certain circumstances, genes will be selected for because they benefit the overall success of the group rather then simply the individual. While it is usually assumed that these populations will have a high level of relatedness (making the promotion of the group an extended form of kin selection) the authors suggest a scenario in which group selection could apply even among unrelated group members.
  
  
  Giant ants terrorize humanity in Them!.
  Source: Warner Bros.
  This is a possibility I like to call Ronald Reagan's Alien Invasion Hypothesis. In a speech before the United Nations on Sept. 21, 1987 Reagan stated that:
  

  In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.

  So under this possibility a common threat to all colony members would outweigh the low level of genetic similarity because, unless everyone pulls together, the entire group is in jeopardy. If one colony was competing with a rival colony then selection for individual selfishness could drive the population to extinction while selection for cooperation would allow the colony to thrive.
  

  Under this view, extant unicolonial populations are the ones that have not yet succumbed to selfishness. Relatedness and mutual policing select against selfishness in non-unicolonial populations, but stop applying when relatedness decreases to zero. . . [However], constraints arising from the natural history of the species or pleiotropic effects of selfish genes, might prevent selfish genotypes from arising even under zero relatedness.

  This cooperation could then continue long after the initial threat was gone under the force of phylogenetic inertia. Perhaps, in the future, selection would cause the unicolony to break into smaller, more genetically similar colonies once the impetus for group selection no longer exists? Or perhaps the benefits of cooperating with strangers simply outweighs the costs of competition and natural selection has produced a genuinely altruistic society?
  
  
  Unicolonial cooperation has inspired activist art such as this print from the Beehive Collective.
  Source: Beehive Collective
  At the current time there are 31 known unicolonial ant populations around the globe. This is a small minority given the more than 12,000 described species. However, given that research on unicolonial ants is so new, there is still a great deal of research that needs to take place concerning this unique experiment of the natural world. At the very least, unicolonies provide us with a source of inspiration and the ability to marvel at the amazing beauty and diversity of the natural world. With the knowledge that stable supercolonies composed of strangers continue to thrive in nature, perhaps there's something we could learn from those creatures that first invented this approach.
  
  References:
  
  Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. — Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52
  
  Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology. 46: 35-57.
  
  Helantera, H., Strassman, J.E., Carrillo, J., Queller, D.C. (2009). Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.tree.s009.01.013
  

  

  
• Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions
  5:15pm | Mar 31, 2009

  Anup Shaw over at Global Issues has collected an exhaustive collection of recent analysis on the loss of biodiversity in the last few years.
  
  As I wrote in my recent post Rivalry Among the Reefs, the loss of up to 1/3 of coral reefs in recent years could result in unprecedented extinctions of ocean biodiversity.
  
  

  While occupying only 0.2 percent of the world’s oceans, coral reefs sustain 25 percent of species diversity; an oceanographic public works project that has been in existence for 3.5 billion years. . . Current estimates are that one-third of the world’s coral reefs are in imminent danger of extinction. In an international survey of these most diverse ecosystems in our oceans, researchers determined that global climate change is increasing the average temperature of the Earth’s oceans. This is killing the photosynthetic algae that has adapted into a pristine symbiotic relationship with their hosts. Coral bleaching on a global scale is the result and mass extinction will be the inevitable conclusion unless this trend is reversed.

  But loss of biodiversity in the oceans is only one region currently experiencing crisis. The collection of studies and warnings from experts around the world that Anup has gathered are truly staggering. See below for a sample of some of what he posts:
  
  

  Already resources are depleting, with the report showing that vertebrate species populations have declined by about one-third in the 33 years from 1970 to 2003. At the same time, humanity’s Ecological Footprint—the demand people place upon the natural world—has increased to the point where the Earth is unable to keep up in the struggle to regenerate.

  - World Wide Fund for Nature, October 24, 2006
  
  

  The world environmental situation is likely to be further aggravated by the increasingly rapid, large scale global extinction of species. It occurred in the 20th century at a rate that was a thousand times higher than the average rate during the preceding 65 million years. This is likely to destabilize various ecosystems including agricultural systems.

  - Jaan Suurkula, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology, February 6, 2004
  
  

  If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon.

  - Malcom MacCallum, Journal of Herpetology, July 17, 2007
  
  

  Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil. The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to use in one day, if it gets water at all.

  - Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71

  

  

Rob Zelt - Lighting Up the Web

• ASP.NET Web API Links
  8:26pm | Apr 22, 2012

  After spending some time scouring the web researching some aspects of the ASP.Net Web API I gathered the following collection of useful links and decided to share them here.

  WebAPI for the MVC Guy

  Building and consuming REST services with ASP.NET Web API using MediaTypeFormatter and OData support

  Custom errors and error detail policy in ASP.NET Web API Jimmy

  ASP.NET Web API- How content negotiation works

  ASP.NET Web API- Extending content negotiation with new formats

  RSS & Atom MediaTypeFormatter for ASP.NET WebAPI

  Hyperlinking With the ASP.NET Web API

  Force download of file from ASP.NET WebAPI

  Authenticate, Authorise WebApi with HttpClient

  Implementing [RequireHttps] with ASP.NET Web API

  Request throttling in ASP.NET Web API

  
• ASP.NET MVC 4 Beta Released–ASP.NET Web API B...
  4:03am | Feb 17, 2012

  In case you missed the news, the beta of ASP.NET MVC has been released. You can download these latest bits MVC 4 Beta bits here using the Web Platform Installer or you can download the complete stand alone setup package instead. This installs side-by-side with ASP.NET MVC 3 so you can started working with the latest in 4 without impacted your existing MVC3 projects. Also important to note, this release includes a “Go-Live” license so you truly can start using this release. (Note, that all standard caveats apply, test your stuff, things may change before RTW)

  The top features listed in this new release are:

  • ASP.NET Web API
  • Refreshed and modernized default project templates
  • New mobile project template
  • Many new features to support mobile apps
  • Recipes to customize code generation
  • Enhanced support for asynchronous methods

  And much, much more!

  One of the new and exciting additions mentioned in the list above is the ASP.NET Web API. Originally know as the WCF Web API (Codeplex Link) it has now be integrated tighter with ASP.NET. And why do you care? In this day and age, almost anything worth connecting to on the web has some sort of API, facilitating communication from a wide range of clients from browsers, to phones and tablets. The ASP.NET Web API provides a “modern HTTP programming model.”

  It’s easy to get started by selecting the “Web API” template after selecting an MVC 4 Project type.

  

  The new project will contain a sample ValuesController class that shows how to get things rolling.

  public class ValuesController
  : ApiController { // GET /api/values public IEnumerable<string>
  Get() { return new string[]
  { "value1", "value2" }; } //
  GET /api/values/5 public string Get(int id)
  { return "value"; } //
  POST /api/values public void Post(string value)
  { } // PUT /api/values/5 public void Put(int id, string value)
  { } // DELETE /api/values/5 public void Delete(int id)
  { } }

  Now if you’re familiar with both MVC and common Web API’s, the next step should come as no surprise. Making a call to http://localhost:33214/api/values will call the ValuesController, and execute the Get method. In a browser the result may at first appear like this:

  

  Here’s where you may be confused if you’re not familiar with web API’s. To understand what’s going on I would encourage you to take a look at the browser’s request and associated response returned using a tool such as the F12 Developer tools in IE9, Fiddler, or Firebug or other developer tools in other browsers.

  By enabling the F12 Developer tools, selecting the “Network” tab and clicking on Start Capturing, you will be able to see details for the http traffic.

  

  The key think to note is the Type, or mime type associated with the response. You will see that it is “application/json” instead of the normal “text/html” that an HTML page would normally return. If I go ahead and tell IE to open the file and look at it in notepad we will see the json representation returned by the controller.

  

  This result corresponds directly to the controller code:

   // GET /api/values public IEnumerable<string>
  Get() { return new string[]
  { "value1", "value2" }; }

  Simple, and extremely powerful. I’ll be posting more on the new ASP.NET Web API and other ASP.NET MVC4 features in the days ahead.

  
• TRINUG December Event
  4:03pm | Nov 29, 2011

  In an ongoing tradition, the Triangle .Net Users Group will be hosting a special December main meeting featuring a number of “Lightning Talks” by local presenters and a pot luck dinner. It’s a great way to get a full dose of technical info while enjoying a fun and festive gathering with your peers in the local .Net community.

  sign up to give a talk ...

  sign up for a dinner item...

  Please help spread the word! I look forward to seeing you there!

  NOTE : Meeting is Wednesday December 14, 2011.

  
• Getting Back to Blogging
  2:14pm | Nov 14, 2011

  I’ve been blogging for quite a while now, and I’ve been amazed how my posting here have introduced me to many great people, helped others, and resulting in some really interesting opportunities for me. Over the last year and a bit, with the rapid flow of information through twitter and other online resources I’ve slipped out of the habit of frequent blog posts that I’ve previously done and enjoyed.

  Starting today I plan to change that.

  Now don’t worry, I’m not going to try and make up for lost time with a landslide of new posts today, but I do plan to return to a more consistent routine of posts. If you’re still reading this, thanks for sticking around.

  
• RDU Code Camp – Saturday November 5, 2011
  3:41pm | Oct 29, 2011

  One week from today, on Saturday November 5th a number of North Carolina software developers will be spending the day at camp… Code Camp. If you’ve never attending a Code Camp, you’re missing out on a great opportunity to learn, network, and be both inspired and motivated to expand your skills. A number of speakers from near and far will be presenting on a variety of topics. To top it off, this event is free thanks to the support of a number of generous organizations.

  For more information and to register visit http://codecamp.org.

  

ScienceBlogs

• Weekend Recap: My Annular Eclipse Expedition! [...
  4:11am | May 22, 2012

  "A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success." -Elbert Hubbard

  I've had the great fortune in my life to see a great many wonderful things with my own eyes, including the rings of Saturn, the phases of Venus, a couple of faint, distant galaxies, and a large number of sunsets, sunrises, and lunar eclipses. But as far as solar eclipses go, I missed the only realistic opportunity I ever had to see -- as Cara Beth Satalino would say -- that

  Shimmering Thing.

  Back in 1994, an annular solar eclipse happened just 300 miles from where I was living. While I got to see the partial eclipse that resulted from being off of the ideal path, I'd never seen either a total or annular solar eclipse. But this weekend was my big chance, and I wasn't going to miss it. For the first time, I set out on an eclipse expedition, hoping to catch a glimpse of the spectacular sights that one of my former astronomy students had grabbed hours earlier from Tokyo.

  

  (Image credit: Destiny Fox. Thanks, Destiny!)

  As many of you know, I've been preparing for this for a couple of months, and that started with scouting out a prime location. The one I chose was right on the coast, for the earliest possible view from America, right in the middle of the path of maximum eclipse.

  

  Choosing the middle of that path means that I was going to get to see -- if the conditions were ideal -- the Moon pass over the dead center of the Sun, creating a true ring of fire. The place where this was going to happen was False Klamath Cove, a rock-littered area in very northern California. But this place was "only" about 330 miles from where I live today, in Portland, Oregon, and so I made the trip down. About an hour before maximum eclipse, this was the view I had.

  

  Yes, it was somewhat cloudy, and I knew the clouds and fog would be continuing to roll in, but it wasn't hopeless. You see, the clouds were thin enough that the "binocular trick," where you un-cap one side of a pair of binoculars and project the image of the Sun onto a white screen behind it, was still very effective.

  

  As you can see, you were still able to see the Sun's disk, as well as the fraction of it that was obscured by the Moon. But I wasn't going to settle for a projection of the Sun's disk onto a screen; I wanted to see it with my own eyes. And so that meant bringing a little protective eyewear. In addition to my polarized sunglasses, I also brought along two wonderful pieces of equipment: a pair of shade-5 welder's goggles and a shade-10 welder's hood.

  

  Under sunny, high-noon conditions, you need shade-14 to safely look at the Sun. Thankfully, eye protection is additive, so wearing both of these together meant that I could look at the Sun without concern for safety.

  

  I'm not going to lie: other than a green tint, this view was spectacular. The Sun was crisp, the clouds could be seen dancing across its face, and the fraction that was obscured by the Moon was cleanly and clearly visible. I'm definitely going to be using both of these, together, to watch the Venus transit in a couple of weeks.

  But for photography? That's never been a skill (or even an interest) of mine, so all I could do was experiment. Placing the shade-5 goggles in front of the camera was clearly not enough.

  

  While the cloud cover was light, as it was in the early stages of the eclipse, it turns out that the shade-10 hood, on its own, was significantly better than the goggles.

  

  You could see, with the camera, that part of the Sun was obscured, but the image was still greatly overexposed, making it virtually impossible to see any detail.

  I tried using both the goggles and the hood together. But the combination that worked so well for my eyes was a miserable failure for the camera.

  

  As you can see, the Sun's disk still appeared overexposed, plus now there were problems of multiple reflections between the different surfaces, ruining the image on the camera.

  But as we neared the moment of maximum eclipse, and the Sun dwindled to a crescent, slowly creeping around the edges of the Moon, something both wonderful and horrifying began to happen. Thick, foggy clouds began to roll in, as they do every evening in this part of the world at this time of the year. But it meant something wonderful for my feeble photography skills.

  

  My images were suddenly less over-exposed. And as the fog rapidly thickened, I discovered that I no longer needed shade-15 protection to watch the eclipse. I no longer needed shade-10, in fact. At the moment of maximum eclipse, I had nothing but the shade-5 welder's goggles over the lens of the camera, and this was the photo I got.

  

  Digital cameras, of course, get outstanding resolution. So this perfect circle, this ring of fire, actually showed up like this.

  

  There's no way to describe what it's like to see it with your own eyes, but my experience was probably extremely unique, because rather than watching the Moon move off of the Sun, I watched this ring of fire fade away behind some ever-thickening clouds, and disappear from sight.

  And that's why even though there are no more pictures from my first eclipse expedition, you can bet it won't be my last!

  Read the comments on this post...

  Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club

  
  

  
• An important revelation regarding Heartland Gat...
  4:52pm | May 21, 2012

  Peter Gleick has been cleared of faking a key memo. Who is Peter Gleick, and what is this memo of which we speak? Here is a refresher of events over the last 3 1/2 months:

  You will recall that last February 14th, we were all given an interesting Valentine's Day present: A cache of documents had been acquired from the Heartland Institute, and these documents revealed important details about Heartland's effort to interfere with science education and otherwise agitate and lobby to promote climate science denialism. The documents were released to the public by an as then unknown activist, and then redistributed by numerous bloggers including this one.

  Heartland is the organization that made itself famous by working for the tobacco lobby in their effort to prove that smoking cigarettes was not really harmful. Over recent years, Heartland has received funds from a wide range of organizations and individuals to support climate denialism. Most recently, Heartland gained considerable notoriety (the bad kind) with their noxious and ill-conceived billboard campaign that equated "believing in global warming" with being a deranged serial killer (Tool Time: Heartland, Ted Kaczynski, and Education).

  
  

  Read the rest of this post... |

  Read the comments on this post...

  Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club

  
  

  
• Fracking and Housing... [Casaubon's Book]
  3:44pm | May 21, 2012

  The always-thoughtful Kurt Cobb has a great piece on the intersection between the hydrofracking boom and the mortgage mess:

  One fact ought to tell you all you need to know about the risks faced by homeowners signing leases for natural gas drilling on their property: Wells Fargo & Company, both the largest home mortgage lender in the United States and a major lender to the country's second largest producer of natural gas, Chesapeake Energy Corp., refuses to make home loans for properties encumbered with natural gas drilling leases.

  This salient fact comes from an article (PDF) written for the New York State Bar Association Journal by attorney Elisabeth N. Radow. Written in the form of an even-tempered legal brief, Radow relates one astounding finding after another. Perhaps most relevant to homeowners who either have signed drilling leases or who may be asked to sign them in the future is this: "Signing a gas lease without lender consent is likely to constitute a mortgage default." You read that right. Default.

  The whole thing is well worth a read, particularly in light of the fact that the play out rates for new wells are astonishingly high - much more than the industry likes to discuss. Signing a new hydrofracking lease means an old wellhead on your property in just a few years in many cases.

  Besides the specific impact on homeowners that Cobb discusses, boom and bust cycles are bad for communities generally. That's the last thing rural upstate New York needs another of - low income local residents forced out as new money flows in - and then more abandoned industrial infrastructure. Because, after all, we ain't got any of that already around here...

  Read the comments on this post...

  Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club

  
  

  
• The Grind [Casaubon's Book]
  2:02pm | May 21, 2012

  These fragments I have shored against my ruins. - T. S. Eliot

  The national news trucks hit my neighborhood last fall, as some of you will remember. When Tropical Storm Irene caused severe flooding and destruction in surrounding communities, and particularly to many of my neighbor's farms, we were briefly in the news. Then, as is normal for any community that has experienced disaster, came waves of volunteerism and assistance, and then a gradual diminishing of attention and interest, and the slow, long process of reclamation and rebuilding. As spring came around, the houses in the village of Schoharie that listed, the stories of friends with severe depression and anxiety, people moving out of the neighborhood, farmers thinking about leasing their land for hydrofracking to make back their losses...those were the background of a disaster that most people don't remember happened.

  The FEMA trailers that got people through the winter are being auctioned off, some of the renovations are done, the houses that weren't too bad are back and occupied and people are hoping the mold problems won't be too serious as the weather warms. We're back to a new normal - mostly. And the help and donations and volunteerism is winding down too. And now come the long term expenses - more folks on food stamps and unemployed, more depression, anxiety and stress-related illnesses, no tax revenues from homes rendered unlivable. Our area will come back - but it won't come back the same, and it will be less able to bear the next disaster, whether local or collective.

  There's nothing atypical about this - all over the country, in the last decade, there have been disasters - and their grinding aftermath in which the losses are not fully made good, where people fall through the cracks and find themselves a little bit behind...and a little more. Most of us remember the big disasters of this century so far - and there have been a lot of them. 9/11. Katrina. Most of us don't remember all the other places there were hurricanes and ice storms, floods and fires, tornadoes - we hear and are appalled for a bit, we send a check and good wishes, and then we don't think much about what happened.

  For example, final estimates of the cost of the Joplin tornado are coming in at close to 3 billion dollars. I think, hearing those numbers, the implicit assumption is that the money will come from somewhere to rebuild - and a lot of the money does show up...eventually. Insurers will pay a lot of it - although if our local experience is any example, a lot of insurers will balk and look hard for loopholes, and lawsuits will be required to get some of it out. Half a billion will come from taxpayers. And some of the costs just won't get covered - things that slip through the cracks, and leave people trying to cover too many bases at once. It is the grind again, where everyone involved who survived gets a little poorer - or a lot poorer.

  And this is a real piece of our future. It is hard to associate any given natural disaster with climate change, but we know that the aggregate experience of climate change is that the grind falls on all of us - falls on more and more of us as we wait for our storm or heatwave, drought or floods. It falls on more and more of us as it gets harder to get insurance, and the costs go up. It falls on more and more of us as the resources to cover the costs of each disaster get scarcer. The price tag for 2011 world natural disasters was greater than ever before in history.

  That this is part of an emergent pattern was the judgement of the Stern Report, the clearest full analysis of the economic impact of climate change - that over the next century, unchecked climate change will take a bigger and bigger part of our budget for remediation and response, until it is consuming up to 20% of World GDP - a hit no economy can bear. The Stern Report considered ONLY climate change, however, not stagnant growth and rising energy costs.

  The Grind affects all of us, whether the next storm hits you, your neighbor or far away. It affects us in complicated ways as patterns of relocation and refugeeism change, in our insurance premiums and our neighborhoods as houses sell or don't sell, in our families as we suddenly take in relatives escaping the latest disaster. Right now we can mostly absorb the costs, with only the expected pain - the little things that don't get fixed, the people who can't quite make it out of the quagmire. As we go along into a warming world with energy supply constraints, however, the grind keeps coming back, and its drag upon us gets heavier.

  We were lucky - we lost a lot of plants, some fencing, a vehicle. Not our home, our animals or our farm. Most of the consequences for us have been in watching our friends and neighbors rebuild and helping where we can - we are caught only in the gentlest outer waves of the grind, not at the center. And yet, there's a drag, a pull, an effect that makes it hard to go forward. It seems every week we find that someone we depended on is selling up, no longer in business, thinking of moving on, struggling with things. You can feel it even out here on the periphery.

  Our future is as much about rebuilding as it is about building, and about coming to terms (because we have functionally elected to do nothing about climate change) with The Grind, with the process of loss and imperfect reconstitution. We imagine that disaster comes and takes all away, and we must rebuild. But the reconstruction is never what was lost - and the resources for rebuilding become more tenuous, fragmentary and uncertain - are we rebuilding, or simply shoring fragments against the next ruin?

  Sharon

  Read the comments on this post...

  Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club

  
  

  
• Another Week of GW News, May 20, 2012 [A Few Th...
  3:34pm | May 21, 2012

  Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

  
  This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup
  

  Read the rest of this post... |

  Read the comments on this post...

  Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Inside the Outbreaks on the ScienceBlogs Book Club

  
  

  

The Abstract

• When You Publish A Paper Without Knowing It
  12:36pm | May 21, 2012

  For academic researchers, professional reputation is everything. It’s built up over years, and is essential to securing tenure, winning grants and otherwise advancing in one’s field. Because a researcher builds that reputation (in large part) through journal articles and conference presentations, it can be quite a shock to see your name listed as a co-author
• Hemlock History Repeating Itself?
  8:05pm | May 17, 2012

  Scientists trying to save eastern hemlock trees from widespread insect attacks may have uncovered a case of déjà vu, dating back millennia. “Our hypothesis is that 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, insects hammered the eastern hemlock in a similar way to how it’s being hammered now,” says Kevin Potter, lead researcher on a paper published
• Efforts to Help Homeless Kids Gaining Traction
  12:49pm | May 10, 2012

  Homeless children are at higher risk for mental health problems than other kids, but one researcher from NC State is taking action to give these kids a better chance for a healthy life. Last year, we told you about Mary Haskett’s work with a program called Project CATCH, which aims to provide homeless children with
• Pursuing A Future For STEM Equality
  11:30am | May 9, 2012

  Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Sina Bahram, a Ph.D. student in computer science at NC State who was honored as a “Champion of Change” by the White House May 7 for his efforts to make STEM accessible to people with disabilities. This post first ran on the White House blog. I would
• Why Don’t We Study Bed Bugs?
  12:48pm | May 8, 2012

  Bed bugs have garnered a lot of attention over the past few years, including coverage from mainstream media outlets (e.g., a search of the New York Times website for “bed bugs” calls up 4,270 mentions over the past 12 months). But their high profile has not led to a commensurate increase in related research. Bed

The Real Paul Jones

• Latest in #noemail
  2:07am | May 3, 2012

  The new digital divide By Joel Achenbach in Washington Post Yammer as a Time Inc Game Changer Here are the benefits to scrap the e-mail in ComputerWorld.DK [Danish - use Google Translate or Chrome] US government service improves after virus takes out email
• Wired for Success? Go #noemail says Psychology ...
  3:26pm | Mar 27, 2012

  Ray Williams, columnist for Psychology Today and author of “Breaking Bad Habits,” suggest that you break your email habits and go #noemail. In “Is It Time to Ban Emails Because They Reduce Productivity?” Williams answers his title question YES as he rehearses, with citations, much of the most recent thinking including those who say you [...]
• He invented the email attachment – #noemail
  1:08pm | Mar 27, 2012

  It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. In 1993, Nathaniel Borenstein sent the first MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension) encoded attachment. It wasn’t the picture that he had invented MIME to deliver — that would come later much later 19 years later (according to an interview with the Guardian) — it [...]
• #noemail – interesting forthcoming paper – ...
  10:08pm | Mar 8, 2012

  “A Pace Not Dictated by Electrons”: An Empirical Study of Work Without Email Mark, G.J., Voida, S. & Cardello, A.V. (to appear). “A Pace Not Dictated by Electrons”: An Empirical Study of Work Without Email. To appear in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), Austin, Texas, May 5–10. ACM [...]
• Future of email is #noemail & the past of email
  1:18am | Mar 5, 2012

  Starting with the past, Washington Post got some hoax busting advice from email historians that resulted in a long but not quite satisfying article with some very good links to orthodox and substantiated email histories including a section on email from Dave Crocker’s Living Internet and Tom Van Vleck’s entry that credits Noel Morris as [...]

The RTP Blog

UNC Health Care's Weblog