Calling All Geek Girls! Apply for the Huffington Post's STEM Mentorship Program

It’s well-established that women face social pressures that push them away from pursuing science as a life passion. It’s also well-established that women who do stay in science face discrimination all the way up the ladder. Women are 50 percent of the population but hold less than a quarter of STEM jobs.

Young ladies, HuffPo has your back. Check it out:

Dear Geek Girls,

We were there once — making a decision about which career path to choose can be a source of great anxiety, especially in tough economic times like these. But having someone on your side to coach you through, and give you practical advice without judgement can make all the difference in the world.

HuffPo Science is offering young ladies 14-21 the chance to be mentored by a female scientist, to show you the ropes and keep you motivated to achieve your goals. Applications are due Jan 31st, so apply here today!

Big round of applause to them for this effort.

Greg Dunn: Neurons Painted As Japanese Scrolls Greg Dunn paints neurons. He uses brushless methods that allow the ink to roll spontaneously across the paper, recreating the ordered randomness of neural projections. He also uses smooth brush strokes that he says “…capture the natural molecular unfolding of nature.” Here’s what he has to say about what artists can learn from science (and maybe vice versa): Fundamentally art and science are ruled by the same principal. You must start any project with a clear idea of what your question is. You start with a clear idea and you follow it up with a clear hypothesis. You are trying to get to the root of this question. And when you start painting you are trying to get to the resolution of this question. If you don’t have a clear foundation you will never produce something that is great.  (via Huffington Post)
Pop-upView Separately

Greg Dunn: Neurons Painted As Japanese Scrolls

Greg Dunn paints neurons. He uses brushless methods that allow the ink to roll spontaneously across the paper, recreating the ordered randomness of neural projections. He also uses smooth brush strokes that he says “…capture the natural molecular unfolding of nature.”

Here’s what he has to say about what artists can learn from science (and maybe vice versa):

Fundamentally art and science are ruled by the same principal. You must start any project with a clear idea of what your question is. You start with a clear idea and you follow it up with a clear hypothesis. You are trying to get to the root of this question. And when you start painting you are trying to get to the resolution of this question. If you don’t have a clear foundation you will never produce something that is great. 

(via Huffington Post)

Source: The Huffington Post

Huffington Post Science – Interview with Cara Santa Maria

Bora Zivkovic (“The Blogfather” and Scientific American blog editor) interviews Cara Santa Maria, HuffPo’s new science correspondent about what to expect from HuffPo Science (considering HuffPo’s questionable track record in the area):

I am a scientist and educator first. I strive to promote rational, skeptical, evidence-based thought and to improve scientific literacy with every word I write and every conversation I have. When it comes to the science section as a whole, my editors and I feel very strongly that scientific rigor is the priority. Generally speaking, when scientists write peer-reviewed journal articles, they often take some liberties in their closing statements within the discussion section, because this is the appropriate place to discuss implications of their work, future developments, and its philosophical/moral/ethical ramifications. Without a rigorous materials and methods and results section, however, the author hasn’t really earned the right to speculate on its implications, no? Similarly, with popular science writing, information must be vetted. This isn’t to say that we don’t welcome writers with differing opinions or questioning, skeptical eyes. Instead, what I’m trying to say is that pseudoscience, junk science, and anti-science are vastly different from views that use scientific fundamentals to challenge the status-quo. I can guarantee that this is a science section, not a pseudoscience section. I can also guarantee that false equivalencies will not find a home here.

Arianna Huffington: Welcome to HuffPost Science (?)

SAY WHA?!

That was the announcement from Arianna Huffington this morning. HuffPo will be launching a science section, a “one-stop shop for the latest scientific news and opinion.” It will be anchored by Cara Santa Maria, and established science writer, and edited by David Freeman, former CBSNews.com health editor.

Science writers at large have made no secret of our distaste for HuffPo’s previous commentary on science. I’m no exception, as I wrote this scathing criticism on my old (now-dead) blog in 2010. My opinion has not changed much since then. Their record on woo medicine and anti-vaccine commentary has been the stuff of legends.

I have to confess that I haven’t read anything on HuffPo in over a year. This is expressly because of their attitudes toward science up to now (I’m also not a huge fan of their habit of not paying their writers). But maybe this is a sign of a new era for Arianna and crew. I mean, HuffPo did invite Seth Mnookin, lead soldier of the anti-antivax crew, to contribute to their launch. Strangely, Arianna’s opening letter made no mention of their past transgressions … so are they departing from them or just ignoring them?

But it might also be a way to capitalize on the growing wave in science blogging and web journalism that the rest of us are helping push, putting a few more ad-revenue clicks in their coffers inflating their reach a bit more.

Needless to say it will be interesting, and we’ll be watching.

Chris Mooney: Science Rocks - If Only it Could Catch America's Attention (HuffPo)

Disturbing highlights:

“• Only 18 percent know a scientist personally. For most, the first thing that probably comes to mind when they think “scientist” is a Hollywood stereotype—or the local TV weatherman.

• 44 percent cannot even name a scientific role model. And among those that do give a name, their top three choices—Bill Gates, Al Gore, and Albert Einstein—are either not scientists, or not alive.

• Information about science is vanishing from the national news media. According to 2008 figures from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, if you watch 5 hours of cable news, you can expect to see about a minute devoted to science and technology coverage. And no wonder: Only 13 percent of Americans now say they follow science and technology news “very closely,” and that number has been dropping in recent years. The media is giving the people what they want.

• Perhaps most disturbing: Far fewer Americans today describe scientific innovations as among the country’s top achievements—27 percent in 2009 versus 47 percent a decade earlier. The same goes for space exploration and the moon landing—far fewer rank it as our greatest overall achievement.”

And some hope:

“We need to mobilize American kids to want to be scientists; and American adults to see how science—and the policies tied to it—affect to their lives and our future. Science has to stop being something those strange other people do; it has to be something we all live and breathe.”

There’s an awesome project mentioned in this article called Rock Stars of Science.