Oh, The Places I Go

Like the RoboGames. What a fun event. It is absolutely amazing what people are building these days. The robots at the games ranged everywhere from little remote controlled humanoids to giant steel combat drones to autonomous explorers. I was doubly impressed by the number of kids involved in robot building. Robots are definitely not only for adults anymore. Young or old, all the builders at the games shared a love for creating that was fired up a notch due to the intensity of the competition.

Thank goodness I brought a camera along to record some of the experience.

Click To Play

Banishing Dragons

A friend of mine, Brian Dunning, host of the Skeptoid podcast and producer of the Skeptologists tv pilot, recently made this video on critical thinking. I think it is a fabulous introduction into the tools that all people should have in order to critically consider the deluge of information that bombards us on a daily basis. The video itself is of decent length (40 minutes) and without lots of fancy effects, so may be a slog for the ADD among us. But, Brian does a great job of clearly describing critical thinking and its importance, which makes this video something that I think every teacher should consider playing for their students.

As an aside, it might be nice for someone to develop some classroom tools to supplement this video.

Anyway, on to the video:

A World of Science

This past week I attended the World Science Festival in New York City as a reporter for the Science Channel. I ran around the multitude of events with Melissa, the outstanding producer,

and a camera crew (Thanks, guys!)

wrangling all too brief interviews with scientists. I have never interviewed so many people in such a short period of time. It was fun, but I wish that I had more time with each of the scientists. I had so many questions to ask. Ah, well… I’ll just have to schedule them all for some time on TWIS!

For those of you who are not aware, the World Science Festival was a meta-event, encompassing something like 70 events within the city of New York. There were lectures, panel discussions, movies, performances at venues throughout the city, which managed to interlace science and culture in a way that I don’t believe has ever been done before. The whole shebang was brought to life by theoretical physicist, Brian Greene, and his wife, news reporter/journalist, Tracy Day. Scientists from all over the world were in attendance, and a majority of the events sold out with many experiencing lines down the street hoping for last minute tickets. In all, I think that everyone involved considers this inaugural year a massive success.

I thought they did a fantastic job with the multimedia presentation aspect of the various events. It gave a depth to the events that is not normally part of science lectures or discussions. Also, many of the events were designed with kids in mind. This was an essential part of the entire festival in my mind. It’s great to give adults the mental stimulation that might come from a discussion on quantum physics, but kids are the next generation of both scientists and voters. Creating events that stimulate a child’s scientific curiosity should be a major component of any science festival.

What specifically did I do at the festval, well here’s a synopsis…

Day one: We started with a presentation called Pioneers in Science, which brought two such pioneers, Leon Lederman and Cynthia Breazeal, to the stage to be interviewed by two teams of thoughtful high school students. The audience was filled with kids, and everyone seemed to react positively to the format. I got to interview both Leon and Cynthia after the event was over, and was highly impressed with how strongly they both felt about educating and working with youth.

Next it was off to a documentary premiere called Parallel Worlds, Parallel lives in which Mark Everett of the indie rock band the Eels delves into his now deceased father’s (Hugh Everett) body of work in the field of quantum/theoretical physics. After the film, three prominent physicists discussed Dr. Everett’s theory of parallel worlds, which has made quite a splash in recent years. I was able to interview all of the panelists: Mark Everett (who was interesting in his position because he doesn’t really have an interest in science, but knows the importance of his father’s ideas), Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, and Brian Cox.

Finally, we raced across the city to NYU to catch the end of a panel discussion/presentation called Illuminating Genius: Unlocking Creativity. Unfortunately, we were late and I was unable to see much of the discussion. Given my interest in neuroscience and memory this was one of the sessions that I really wanted to see. However, I was able to meet and (briefly) interview V.S. Ramachandran (a.k.a Rama), Nancy Andreasen, and David Eagleman. All three were fascinating, and I just wish I had more time, but it was already 10pm and everyone was getting tired. Knowing I had a full day coming up, I politely turned down an invitation to go out with Dr. Eagleman and friends.

Day Two: With a full day under our belts, this second day of the festival went a bit smoother. We also weren’t running around the city quite as much. First, was an event called Cool Jobs, and boy were the jobs represented cool. A monkey researcher – Laurie Santos, a forensic scientist – Peter Diacek, an oceanographer/research diver – Eileen Prager, a Disney Imagineer – Ben Schwegler, and a NASA researcher – Christopher McKay. I interviewed everyone except the monkey researcher, and I want all of their jobs. Although, I am quite aware that what I am doing is amazingly cool as well. How many people get to talk to their scientific heroes and share it with the world? My life is definitely not boring.

Later in the evening, we attended the presentation called Invisible Reality: The Wonderful Weirdness of the Quantum World, which was a fascinating discussion between leaders in the realm of theoretical and experimental physics and philosophy. I got to speak with Brian Greene, David Albert, and William Phillips after the event. We set the interviews up to look very red-carpet because scientists should be celebrities afterall.

Day Three: This our final and longest day of shooting and interviews was also by far the most fun. We attended a session called Your Biological Biography: Genes and Identity, which discussed the Human Genome Project and DNA testing in light of how this new knowledge might change the way we as humans think about ourselves. The take home message that all panelists seemed to agree with was the fact that we still don’t understand enough about the genome to make many useful inferences from genetic information. Afterwards I was able to speak with Dr. Francis Collins, director (until August at least) of the Human Genome Project, Paul Nurse (my third Nobel laureate of the week!), and Nikolas Rose.

Then it was time to hit the street fair. We ran around Washington Square Park taking a look at all the sciencey booths, performances, and interactive stuff. Most of it was aimed at kids, and there were many in attendance of all ages. My favorite interview from the fair was with the Imagineer who developed the most advanced animatronic robot to date, Lucky the Dinosaur.

After a rejuvenating sushi meal, we headed back to the festival for Powering the Planet: a Townhall Meeting. Although informative if you are new to the green arena, I wasn’t much impressed by the overall discussion here, and unfortunately the person who I thought would be the most interesting was not so much. Ah, well… you can’t win them all. And, maybe I was just tired. The interviews were not my best either. I think this was because I wanted to ask more complex questions that might have provoked argument, and really didn’t have the time to get into them. Also, this whole thing with the Science Channel was pretty much an audition. Not such a good idea to get people riled up during an audition. So, I was left frustrated and the questions I did ask suffered as a result. I spoke with M.Glen Kertz of Valcent Products, Saul Griffith of Makani Power, and Dan Nocera. At least I got to hug a chemist.

The final group of interviews were after a session that I wish I had time to attend, What it Means to be Human. The panelists were certain to play against one another in viewpoint and practice. I heard it was a vibrant discussion, and considering the hour the scientists brought that energy to our interviews quite readily. I had a lot of fun interviewing this lot, and again it might be due to my own scientific inclinations. Pat Churchland and Daniel Dennett were both interesting and inspired me to many more questions that could not be asked. It turns out that Dr. Dennett has worked with one of my graduate advisers, and I probably met him while I was in the early years of my graduate study. Unfortunately, I was oblivious to the greatness that was before me at the time. Heh. What a difference time makes.

Sunday was my last day in NYC, and thankfully I was able to get out a bit before heading home. I was able to connect with my adviser, Dr. Max Gomez, from my AAAS Mass Media Fellowship at WNBC back in 2005. It was a very pleasant lunch…

Oh, and this was the view out my hotel window…

And, this was the spyglass that came with the room…

Been To The East

Recent events have had my head spinning, so when the opportunity came up (thank goodness for conferences in stunning locations) to visit Florida’s sunny Gulf coast I jumped at the chance. My favorite things about Captiva Island were the beaches and the birds. Osprey were nesting everywhere I looked. What a treasure trove of bird activity!

I mentioned on Twitter that I took a few pictures of said birds and beaches. Enjoy:

Pixie Dust?

From the BBC.

I don’t think it’s pixie dust persay, but it is something special. It will be an amazing day when we discover the secrets of tissue regeneration.

And, some basic info from HowStuffWorks.

Thanks for the story, Ted!

Amazing Female Scientist

I just read a profile of an amazing female scientist, named Susan Greenfield. She’s a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, and the director of the Royal Institution in London. She, being a woman and having reached such a place of distinction within academia, is a rarity in science.

According to statistics from the Association for Women in Science, in 2001 women made up 20.6 percent of those people employed in tenured academic positions for more than 10 years. Career longevity for women in the sciences appears to be something that’s lacking.

A more recent report suggests that the reason for the attrition rate (52% of women in sciences leave with the greatest rate being approximately 10 years into the career path, which coincides with the average woman’s thirties) may be due in part to hostile work environments that fail to take the female role as mother into account.

A brief look at Susan Greenfield’s life suggests that she continues to contend with the male dominated scientific environment, and may have made some compromises to her personal life in order to be so successful.

“It’s unfair. I publish three or four papers a year in peer-reviewed journals,” she says. She fits it all in by “not doing what other people do: gardening, watching television, sleeping in late. I wake up between four and five. If it’s a London day, I get the 6.30 train from central Oxford, where I live. I’ll have a working breakfast here with my second in command, then a day of meetings or interviews. In the evening, I may chair an event or go to a reception.”

On Oxford days she wears T-shirt and jeans, but is still in the lab by 7.30am, planning experiments, applying for grants, analysing and writing papers. She plays squash three times a week. With a trainer. “He pushes me to improve my skills.” At weekends? “I write, read, prepare talks.”

Her marriage to Oxford professor of physical chemistry Peter Atkins ended in 2005. Is all this activity a way to escape loneliness? “You can be lonely when you’re with someone,” she says quickly, “as much as when you’re by yourself.”

It is somewhat of a chicken and egg question, however. Is it only driven personalities, male or female, who are able to succeed so outstandingly? Or, is it the environment that engenders the sink-or-swim behaviors; people learning, and thus believing that if they do not work 16 hour days they’ll never get anywhere, and only those who do so being rewarded. It puts most women in a position of having to choose between family and career.

Usually, family will win.

Yet, I’m among a growing number of women who have put off starting a family in order to pursue my career. Is this a wise choice? I will certainly find out sometime down the road. It’s certainly both a blessing and a hazard to be a woman in this century.

Making Things…

A few weekends ago I went to the Maker Faire in San Mateo, CA. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but having been to Burning Man several times I think I was hoping for more fire. Lots more fire. What I did see was surprising and entertaining, but alas I left before dark and missed the fire. There were robots, bartending robots, battlebots, rockets, diy projects galore, a camera obscura tent, steam punk beauty, power tool races, and much, much more.

I went to the faire with a few friends (Colin, Kepi, and Marshall), and ran into many friends while there. It seemed like everyone I know had either brought something to the faire, or was there to see what everyone else had brought. And, I think everyone else who attended had the same idea. The place was packed. The parking lot was full by noon. It seems that the Maker Faire has hit upon a very successful model.

Interestingly, Marshall and I were talking recently about how there aren’t many festivals in the US that really make science fun and engaging to the public. Sure, there’s the occasional festival for smart kids in which they compete in various contests of engineering, science, or intelligence. But, what about festivals that just make doing things based in science fun for everyone? From what I saw, the Maker Faire does just that, bringing together scientists, engineers, artists, actors, and diy-ers from all walks of life.

My favorite moment had to be when a young girl who couldn’t have been more than 9 years old told me about the potential for carbon nanotubes in creating cable for a space elevator (all this while playing with the robot she had built and brought to the faire with her dad). Her dad informed me that she had recently completed a report on nanotubes for school. What school does she go to?!? Or, is just a matter of parental guidance? Either way, that young girl has a brilliant future ahead.

All around, I had a great time. Check out some of my pics from the day:

The Reason Why

I simply have to put this comment from Trish up front and center.

My 9 year old daughter (who always showed an interest in science) has spent this year struggling with the “tween syndrome” of her friends thinking her interests are “uncool”. After showing her your podcasts, she has discovered that it is not only possible but very rad to be both smart and interested in science but to like fashion and lip gloss at the same time. She even did her science fair project on water based on a recent pop siren episode! (I plan on emailing the pop siren’s a picture!)
So, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! If I could send you flowers I would. You are not only a rock star to my kid, you helped bring her back from Hannah Montana hell!

Thank you, Trish, for sharing. I hope you don’t mind that I brought your comment to the front. This is why I want to keep doing what I do. Girls need to know that it is ok to be smart and a girl. Somewhere along the way it seems that the idea was spread that if you are a girl and interested in science, you shouldn’t act like a girl, shouldn’t play with make-up and clothes, put away your curling iron, and just do science. While some girls might find that a relief, many more really enjoy the girlie things in life. Either one should be ok, as long as you’re doing what you enjoy.

I was recently chided for being too sexy (a comment that I found hilarious). The commenting party suggested that because I use a nice looking profile picture I am being disingenuous. It’s sad that some people see it that way. Should I instead find a picture in which I purposefully look comely, “nerdy”, or unapproachable? Should I do away with the profile picture in preference of an ungendered symbol?

I think either tack would do a disservice to females everywhere. A “nerdy” picture or a neutral symbol would promote stereotypes, and undermine the work that I’m trying to do to show girls and women that they can be anything they want, make-up or no. I doubt I would have made much of an impression on Trish’s daughter that way.

Besides, I like playing with my hair and make-up, and feeling fancy from time-to-time. I’m fancy on the inside, and my exterior should reflect that. When I know I look good, I feel good about myself, inside and out, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Trish, I can’t wait to see the science project picture. I know all of us at PopSiren will be thrilled. Tell your daughter that she’s totally rad.

KDVS Fundraiser This Week!!!

You can donate at http://fundraiser.kdvs.org

The Skeptologists