From the Pulitzer price winning author, and all around naturalist/biology champion E.O. Wilson wrote another thoughtful piece in the New York Times.
He writes about the history of discovering species, and finding out too late that we are killing them all off.
If you are interested, think that the NSF shouldn’t have stopped funding collections (herbaria and museums) or just generally want to ready E.O. Wilsons eloquent prose read it here!
I know friends who celebrate every paper they submit. I think that is awesome.
But by the time I get a paper submitted, back for revisions, revised, submitted again, accepted and final edited, I hate that paper. I have seen it so many times, and written each sentence with exacting intention that I never want to see it again.
Which is why a post over at the blog “Ecology B1ts” entitled Reflections on my first first-author pub (and the seven years it took to get there) was so interesting to me. Margret Kosmala talks about how life, mentorship and rejection can all influence getting a paper published.
Well worth the read!
Across the world, natural-history collections hold a multitude of species, some of which have never been identified. In fact, scientists are currently finding more new species by sifting through decades-old specimens than by surveying tropical forests and remote landscapes.
Additionally, museum collections are becoming increasingly valuable thanks to newly developed techniques (ancient DNA anyone?) and databases.
But just as these collections are increasing in value, they are falling into decline.
Read about it over at Nature!
Ricardo Moratelli examines bat specimens in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. (Photo by Chris Maddaloni/Nature)
Like many instructors, all of my lectures are power point slides. I have spent 3 years crafting, refining, and finding the optimal photos for them.
However, one comment I get consistently from students is that there is “too much information”, “The slides go too fast”.
So I was pleasantly surprised by this excellent blog post about Michigan State University Professor Chris Waters, and his experimental abandonment of power point slides for a semester. Instead, he essentially does each lecture as a chalk talk.
While this sounds like it might be difficult for the first time you teach a class, I think it sounds like an excellent way to engage students.
Check it out over at BEACON!
Academic publishing is a 25.2 billion dollar a year industry. I’m not kidding.
Long ago in a land far far away, Forbes predicted that the academic publisher Elsevier’s relevance and lifespan in the digital age was going to be short. “Cost-cutting librarians and computer-literate professors are bypassing academic journals- bad news for Elsevier” the article proclaimed.
But here’s the thing. Elsevier hasn’t been run out of town. In fact, it’s thriving. So are Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley. In fact, Elsevier in 2013 had a higher profit margin than Apple Inc.
Why is this? Brian Nosek, a professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Center for Open Science, has an idea:
“Academic publishing is the perfect business model to make a lot of money. You have the producer and consumer as the same person: the researcher. And the researcher has no idea how much anything costs. I, as the researcher, produce the scholarship and I want it to have the biggest impact possible and so what I care about is the prestige of the journal and how many people read it. Once it is finally accepted, since it is so hard to get acceptances, I am so delighted that I will sign anything — send me a form and I will sign it. I have no idea I have signed over my copyright or what implications that has — nor do I care, because it has no impact on me. The reward is the publication.”
Read more about it over at SAS Confidential.
Here on NiB we often mention the problems that science is having with public perception. From controversies over biological collections, to finding extra terrestrial life in the octopus , to more basics like teaching evolution and vaccinations.
We as a group have trouble relating to the public what we do and why we do it. And it truly is a shame.
In response a recent post on Yale Climate Connections made a desperate call for scientists to do just that.
The article also introduces “Grad Slam“. Started in the University of California system, it asks graduate students to take years of academic toil and work and to present it free of jargon or technical lingo. In just three short minutes. It’s like a Ted talk, an exit seminar and an elevator speech had a love child. Check it out below, and consider throwing one of your own.
Last spring, the journal Current Biology published a report describing something new under the entomological sun: A genus of tiny cave-dwelling insects, dubbed Neotrogla, in which females, not males, have penises.
Or, rather, the females have a thing that they stick inside the males. Once it’s in there, that thing inflates and latches into the male with tiny barbs, binding the couple together in a copulation lasting two to three days, while the thing collects a packet containing sperm and a whole lot of (potentially) nutritious protein. What to call the females’ thing seems to have puzzled even the scientists who described it. In the text of their paper, they call it a gynosome (literally, a “female body”); but in the title, it’s a “female penis.”
This synonymy went from confusing to controversial the moment it hit the popular science press, which almost uniformly chose to go penis-first. “Female insect uses spiky penis to take charge” read the headline in the prestigious journal Nature. “Meet the female insect with giant PENIS whose steamy sex sessions last 70 HOURS,” said the Daily Mirror, caps-locked emphasis sic. Most of the stories, even the Mirror’s, got around to using the word “gynosome” eventually, and many went into more detail about how the organ in question wasn’t really a penis as we know it. LiveScience noted it was “a complex organ composed of muscles, ducts, membranes and spikes,” before adding that its size, relative to the body of a Neotrogla female, was “the equivalent of a man who is 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 meters) tall having a penis about 9.8 inches (24.9 centimeters) long.”