As a thorough data nerd (please see my new brunch site, in which I insist all my fellow brunch goers fill out a survey so I can skip home and tabulate the data), I spend a lot of time thinking about colors in charts. What are color blind friendly? What are the best colors to demonstrate the idea I’m interested in? Are they consistent throughout the presentation/report/paper/poster?
Which is why I found this medium post about gender and colors so interesting.
“So with the impact of the #MeToo movement and the widespread reporting of the gender pay gap, perhaps now is the time to uncouple pink and blue from their gender associations. The question is: are chartmakers ready to step up to the challenge?”
*Also, before I get emails: I know this isn’t a biology post. It’s a data nerd post. I can wear many hats, deal with it.
The spectacled (or Andean) bear – which turns out to be more common around Machu Picchu than previously believed – is the only South American bear, found in the ranges of the Andes from Venezuela in the north to Peru and Bolivia in the south.
But the species isn’t unique just for being the only bruin on a huge continent: it’s also the sole remaining representative of a bear family that once encompassed some of the all-out most formidable mammals ever to exist.
Want to read more? Check it out here.
In an awesome piece over at the Genetic Literacy project, Ricki Lewis what is known (and what is largely overblown) about transgender genetics.
TL;DR: It’s a bit too soon to screen for transgender genes, beyond the usual genome wide association studies, and we really should be asking ourselves if, ethically, this is a road we want to go down.
Also, journalist can run with an abstract and things get out of hand quickly. But I’m fairly certain we all already knew that.
“In his newly published book Who We Are and How We Got Here, geneticist David Reich engages with the complex and often fraught intersections of genetics with our understandings of human differences — most prominently, race.
He admirably challenges misrepresentations about race and genetics made by the likes of former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade and Nobel Laureate James Watson. As an eminent scientist, Reich clearly has experience with the genetics side of this relationship. But his skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups.
As a group of 67 scholars from disciplines ranging across the natural sciences, medical and population health sciences, social sciences, law, and humanities, we would like to make it clear that Reich’s understanding of “race” — most recently in a Times column warning that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races’” — is seriously flawed.”
Read about it here.
This is a signal boost post. Read the original medium post here, but the full letter is replicated below.
500 Women Scientists’ Leadership team sent the following Letter to the Editor to Science magazine following their recent Working Life column “Why I don’t use Instagram for outreach.”
Dear Science Editorial Board,
We’re writing to express our disappointment at poor judgment that led to the publication of publishing “Why I don’t use Instagram for outreach,” which singled out and criticized a successful woman science communicator for her Instagram presence promoting and celebrating science. Science is one of the most highly esteemed journals, yet this article reads like a smear piece worthy of a tabloid. The job of an editor is to ensure the best possible argument comes through, and there is certainly an argument to be made here. For instance, women and underrepresented minorities take on a great deal of science communication, mentorship, and outreach work without recognition or professional reward from their institutions. Though there’s an increasing institutional pressure to communicate about science — whether to increase a university’s public profile or meet NSF’s Broader Impact requirements — many institutions expect that work to be done on personal time without compensation or additional resources. While the piece hinted at these systemic issues, those arguments were undermined when the work of another woman was criticized with an unabashed tone of condescension and without an opportunity to respond.
Rather than address the roadblocks facing women and underrepresented groups in STEM or grapple with the author’s personal misgivings around science communication, the piece was framed as an attack. The tone implied that anything beyond basic research is a frivolous waste of time, belittling meaningful approaches to science communication and public engagement. It offered a false choice between an authentic and relatable social media presence and effective advocacy for institutional change. The kindest interpretation for running this article is a lack of thoughtfulness on the editor’s part. At worst, Science made the choice to run an inflammatory article for the sake of increased website traffic.
The pages of Science are meant to mark advances in scientific discovery. But pinning one woman scientist against another is destructive, irresponsible, and perpetuates unreasonable standards for women and underrepresented groups in STEM. It is antithetical to the open, accessible, and inclusive future that we at 500 Women Scientists envision for the future of science.
— 500 Women Scientists Leadership Team
I am rarely aware of what the date is. Along with struggling to remember which is “right” and “left” this is one of my most basic flaws.
So I’m almost never aware when it’s April Fool’s Day, and when I read the tweet from Richard Lenski:
I was fooled. I’ll admit it. But then I read the post, and realized, while hilarious, he was kidding.
See follow up post for confirmation. 30-years, 70,000 generations and we’re just scratching the surface.