16 December 2010

Comments for first half of December 2010

Arsenic life

Byte Size Biology looks at blogging on the controversial claim for bacteria living without phosphate. He wonders if anonymity issues are why more people don’t make these posts.

Berkeley Science Review reported very positively on the arsenic life story, even after a couple of days of criticism of the paper’s conclusions.

Embargo Watch looks at NASA’s division of “real media” and “blogs.” NASA aren’t the only ones who have problems seeing that there isn’t a difference any more.

Larry Moran referred to the name of the arsenic tolerant bacteria, GFAJ-1.

Ed Yong wonders if he did enough to critique the arsenic bacteria paper, and how other journalists could have done better.

The Curious Wavefunction suggests journals should have a section for speculative ideas.

The Promega Blog also looks at how the arsenic life story serves as a lesson for science communication.

Rosie Redfield asks if journals could compile all the external links about a paper.

People who dared blog about things other than arsenic life

Biochem Belle writes about personal statements and leadership. I don’t know what she was thinking; December was supposed to be arsenic month.

Dr. Becca gears up for an interview.

Hannah asks who’s reading her blog Culturing Science and why. I have a simple answer.

Gerty-Z discusses “chalk talks” – which will probably continue being called that even after whiteboards have replaced chalk everywhere – which are apparently routine in some areas.

Scicurious makes a guest post on Science of Blogging about writing under a pseudonym.

Finally, not a comment of my own, but a pointer to Thoughts in a Haystack, which found my post on the evolutionary origin of bone useful.

No comments: