What do food, creationism, and language have in common?

The day after the Bill Nye- Ken Ham debate [1] was a lively one online for extremists in both camps. Scientists shook hands, patted each others' (virtual) backs, and congratulated each other on the clearly superior position of science. Young Earth Creationists (YEC's, the people that believe the Bible as interpreted literally) too, held hands and praised the power of God to act through the voice of Ken Ham against the "secular humanist" view of Nye.
All of the people I personally know came away from watching that debate (mostly live) saying that Nye had stomped all over Ham. "Ham had no answers, no evidence, no proof," went the chorus. And online blogs largely followed suit. American Atheists, Inc. took only hours to release this "summary" [2] of the debate which excerpted from the Q&A section at the end.

Click link above for full image. Source: American Atheists, Inc.

Buzzfeed, too, released a listcicle* shaming creationists' reactions to the debate. While not representative of the population at large, it is meant to suggest YEC's inability to grasp reality and evidence. Its voice is tailored to say that YEC's are simpletons that won't change their minds because it is incompatible with their faith. A follow up to that article showing doctored (sarcastic) translations of those questions can be found on the web.
But there are a few writers that were unsure if Nye's goals were even compatible with the horse and pony show that Ham was setting up. Nye was in the lions' den, since the debate actually took place in the auditorium of the Creationist Museum.
Sean McElwee and Abigail Salvatore of Huffington Post [4] write, "The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness...The irony of debates like the one between Bill Nye and Ken Ham is that they pit two fundamentalist readers against each other."
Some writers supposed [5, 6] that Nye meeting Ham as an "equal" gave undue authority [7] to the YEC viewpoint against that of science. Each man came to the debate with a main point to make.

Analysis after the debate doesn't exactly show a thoughtful discussion about the differences between each philosophy. Name-calling and hyperpolarization are replete within each side. YEC's claim a moral superiority while "the humanists/atheists/rationalists/etc." claim a realistic or logical victory.

Ham contends that Nye's "Naturalism" will undermine all that religion stands for.

But this debate is a flash in the pan. At the end of the day it is unlikely that any YEC was impressed by evidence to leave faith behind and I have heard no stories about anyone deciding that YEC worldviews make more sense to them than factual evidence.
This is, however an interesting illustration about something else that parallels in chemistry today. Companies over the years are responding to public pressure- generated by marketing companies- to remove "chemicals" from their products. Chemists are famous for their long-standing and typical approach to this situation of a)mutual back-scratching and asking "Why does the public believe all this nonsense?" and b) trying to "educate" the public through dry and emotionless fact-based lecturing. This isn't limited to chemists, of course.
When Ham asked Nye to provide evidence for his assertions- Nye was obviously prepared for it. He presented evidence in droves. Much of the message of why it all matters was lost in the sheer volume of the science given, and it was all given at a high enough level that unless you're fairly proficient at science the "so simple a child can understand" points asserted by Ham gain traction. His "historical vs observational science" [debunked in 8] point is a perfect example of all this. It's a subtle trick that doesn't hold water under scrutiny.
How does this relate to the battle over chemophobia? It's all a matter of attention fatigue. When we don't specialize in an area of study we can easily be fool into thinking that the simplest explanations are the most reasonable. A blogger that calls herself "Food Babe"* recently took on Subway because she asserts a chemical in their bread (azodicarbonamide) should not be there. Since the chemical is also used in the production of "yoga mats and running shoes" she fearmongered until the company gave way. Battling chemophobia in the ways I mentioned above has historically been mostly ineffective. Recently a post [9] about what other chemicals Food Babe should ban "because they're used in plastics" made it onto reddit.com [10] but a comment in the thread points out "Of course none of this will be heard outside the chemist's community..." [11]

We need a new tactic. Science communication is a vicious battle. It has become clear that fighting fire with water is ineffective. We, as the scientific community need to start fighting fire with fire. Flashy marketing in the modern age will not yield to dispassionate facts. It may be time to put our money where our mouth is and counter those who would spread misinformation with marketing strategies of our own. I know that I won't win everybody over to my line of thought overnight. I don't care. We are losing ground on a slippery slope but the fight isn't over yet. The enemy predicts how we act and plans for that. Changing that pattern could turn the tide, and we could really learn something in the process.
We need to sell ourselves better. We're trained to believe that facts will stand for themselves in the wild, but it simply isn't true. Marketing needs to become a part of our new strategy.

Antoine Lavoisier once said noted, "As ideas are preserved and communicated by means of words, it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science, without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." [12]

If we improve the way we talk about science, we can improve the science along with it.


[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
[2] http://i.imgur.com/T7Zz0R2.jpg
[3] http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate_b_4723766.html?utm_hp_ref=religion&ir=Religion
[5] http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0205/Bill-Nye-versus-Ken-Ham-Who-won-video
[6] http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/01/02/i-think-bill-nye-is-great-but-i-think-hes-making-a-mistake/
[7] http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham
[8] http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science
[9] http://www.rheothing.com/2014/02/what-else-do-we-need-to-ban-besides.html
[10] http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1xm6yb/a_partial_list_of_other_chemicals_used_in_both/
[11] http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/1xm6yb/a_partial_list_of_other_chemicals_used_in_both/cfcu01n
[12] http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v1/n5/full/nchem.302.html

*Yes, that's right. I'll link to a Buzzfeed article over her drivel. That's how bad it is. Normally I feel free to link to others' work that I reference but what she presents is so repulsive and toxic that I simply refuse to feed her click-through rate.

From http://urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-DEBATE.jpg

Quotes from Chemistry...Part 6!

"A bond of any sort, whether between planets, molecules, atoms, nuclei or quarks, is just a happenstance when when two or more particles together have a lower total energy than when they were apart. Like if you're married, and your taxes go down."

-Henry Reich of Minutephysics

Three Minute Thesis- now live!!!

The above video is my final competition entry into The University of Alabama's first-ever Three-Minute Thesis competition. The competition took place on November 11, 2013.

Molecular electronics is working on the further miniaturization of circuits for new devices and materials beyond what silicon can already do. Here's my little contribution!

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 3)

Continuing coverage from Part 1 [1] of the series of my reactions to the NYT article on the future of STEM education in our country, Christopher Emdin [2] chimes in with a few cents to address his experiences with urban students from New York. His proposal, narrowly stated, wants to marry the pervasiveness of the hip hop culture in his area to the training of new scientific thinkers. In a video produced with NPR [3] he narrates the story of a group of young students writing and performing their own raps in a contest designed to promote multiple lines of thought and build confidence in the youth.

From [4]

"My father told me the program wasn't going to work and it was going to fail like every other program." says Victoria Richardson out of Bronx Compass High School [3]. She performed with two friends of hers on base pairing DNA and despite not winning the contest- they were still proud of what they were able to accomplish. Not only were they able to simply memorize rote base pairing schemes but they understood the material enough to create a work of art and communicate that knowledge enthusiastically.
Dr. Emdin says in the video, "Not every student a part of Science Genius will be a straight A student and go to college...and be the next Einstein. But you know what? We are definitely going to have more scientifically literate young people." [2]
That's a powerful point to note. In his article, he notes that the hip hop culture isn't completely general.
"I argue that the more teachers can consider the unique culture of their students, the more relevant and accessible their education will be." [2]
He basically says here that teachers should feel free to pull from whatever is popular in the kids' lives wherever they teach. Make it accessible and make it fun. Then, maybe a few, will ask those really probing questions that get them started down a really academic path. But no matter what field or endeavor these students choose- we will be all the better for a literate public.

[1] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html\
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/in-teaching-stem-use-hip-hop-as-a-bridge
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQrj4NPefd8
[4] http://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/media/9099_SciGenius-161_MarieCurieHighSchool.jpg

NY Times "Debate", and my reaction to it. (Part 2)

The first article in the lineup, as I briefly mentioned in Part 1 is by Miyaim Bilaik, who has her PhD in Neruoscience but is also now an actress most notably playing Amy Ferrah Fowler on the show "The Big Bang Theory ." (BBT)

I liked her thoughts on the matter, noting that "[t]he confines of a classroom, combined with teaching methods that are not engaging or inspiring..." [1] were not effective at getting young minds excited about the world around them but only fearful of what will be on the next exam. She posits the idea of using modern entertainment- television, movies, and games- to help supplement people in new and interesting ways to help people think about and grasp otherwise esoteric information. This is more than just bringing nerd culture into the limelight for shame [2]/ ridicule[3]. The battle over the net effect on "geek culture" by BBT is one that will wage like the battle at Helm's Deep outside of this discussion.

SOME PEOPLE ENJOY BBT DESPITE BOTH CHAMPIONING AND DEMEANING ITS CHARACTERS AND THEIR FLAWS!!!!

Science-literate producers and directors can wield incredible power in telling a story by not only the story elements it weaves, but the concepts it has the opportunity to explain. Think about it. If Glee or High School Musical could make singing in show choir cool again- what could we do with a show about kids making science interesting and approachable? Like Beau Lotto [5] and his "Blackawton Bees" [6] kids show us- ground breaking science can really be done.

I understand there will be limitations. Story will always take precedence. But breadcrumbs of learning are always better foundation than the black pits of despair that could be found on TV today.


Let's be real. Who would you rather your kid be watching?
[0] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/12/ny-times-debate-and-my-reaction-to-it.html
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/10/math-and-science-for-more-than-just-geeks/use-hollywood-plots-and-characters-to-teach-stem
[2] http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory
[3] http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-2013-officially-marked-death-nerd/
[4] http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130117112538/lotr/images/b/b4/Theoden_leads_the_attack.png
[5] http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html
[6] http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/2/168.abstract

Get pumped....for SCIENCE!!!

So recently there has been a lot of activity going around me about science communication. And in this vein, it spawns from a number of different sources all with different intents- and these are all very good things. But the boiled down basics of it all comes back to one thing, and that's getting the public excited about science. Yes, the public, YOU!!!

I was watching a TED Talk the other day (Okay, it was more than one!) on a layover flight home from NASA (more on that later!) and there were two that really stuck out in their messages to me. Arthur Benjamin [1] was giving a lecture on the fascinating patterns hidden within the Fibonacci Numbers and how, "mathematics is used for three things: calculation, application, and last and unfortunately least- inspiration." He uses the illustrative nature of the Fibonacci sequence to make his single sentence point:

"Mathematics is not just solving for X. It's also figuring out Y." Source: [1]

A tangentially related video from Stuart Firestein [2] talks about the value of "high-quality ignorance" or, in other words, knowledge just beyond our current scientific understanding. His motivation behind this is to let non-specialists know that science is a lot less like the so-called scientific method we learn about in school but "more like farting around...in the dark."
These two messages, combined with the wonderfully inspirational video [3] from my new friend Saramoira Shields (@mathematigal on Twitter) point to a very simple statement that holds a lot of complicated weight. Science, math, engineering, whatever it may be- is hard. BUT! It's not impossible. It doesn't take some genius to whip up an answer to a problem on the fly or be the first kid to raise his or her hand in class. That's not the point. The point is to become a thinker, a rationalizer.
It takes patience. It takes perseverance. And it takes a little bit of caring attention to cultivate the knowledge base to make the leap from Calculation to Application. After a while and no short amount of effort, "farting around" can lead to wonderful "A-ha!" moments that make every bit of frustration well worth the trouble. And that, my friend, is where we can really reach Inspiration.

On a related note, my last post [4] was about the Three-Minute Thesis [5] competition going on at UA as I was soliciting some feedback for the Semi-Finals, as I was a representative for the Chemistry Department. I am pleased to report that not only I but the other two chemistry representatives, Greg Dye and Steven Kelley, have all been passed on to the UA 3MT Finals- competing for top thesis presentation at UA! Congratulations are in order for them as well as all of the other finalists.
We go on stage at 6pm next Wednesday, Nov. 20 in Russell Hall 159. So if you're in the Tuscaloosa area, come drop in! I and the other contestants would really appreciate the support! Next year will be even better with as excited as the administration is about this event. Click the link above to check out the original idea from the University of Queensland.

"The best thing to come out of Australia since me!" said Crocodile Dundee never. Source: [6]

I want to be able to talk about science. I want to talk TO YOU about science. And, maybe with a little bit of effort, we can feel the glee of discovery together.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_the_magic_of_fibonacci_numbers.html
[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance.html
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs9aGVUZ3YA
[4] http://jsphmeany.blogspot.com/2013/10/after-hiatus.html
[5] http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/three-minute-thesis
[6] http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/main_hogan.jpg

Investing Your Humanity

"There's something about investing your humanity, your eccentricity, your exuberance in the things you do. Why do people watch tightrope walkers? Not to see them get to the other side. Its because they might fall. Not everything you do is going to be successful, but that's part of the allure. It's also what makes the work valuable: that you're really present and invested in what you're doing."- Louis Rossetto, Wired Editor and cofounder.

Last month, Wired Magazine celebrated its first twenty years with a special edition of the magazine. Rossetto closed the article with the above quote and it really struck a chord with me, not because I want to start a magazine but because I understand his passion. Originally I started this blog as a part of a fellowship requirement. But since completing that project, this has taken on a life of its own. I never knew that a somewhat mature ecosystem of different chemistry blogs existed, not just as a part of the major publishers but coming from research groups, PhD students and interested hobbyists alike.
I got onto Twitter for the same reason. and in addition to using it to keep up with the latest literature, @CrimsonAlkemist has become a vehicle to interact with other professionals on a social level- presenting cool quirky things and sometimes lamenting about #phdlife. The cool thing about all this is that in addition to creating a non-traditional networking system, I have been able to create something on my own to be proud of. Biz Stone, cofounder of Twitter said once in an interview,

"By simply announcing himself as a genius on his business card, Wile E. Coyote epitomized the spirit of the Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When you're starting a company, you sometimes have nothing more than an idea. You have to begin somewhere so you declare yourself an entrepreneur just like Wile E. declared himself a genius. then you make a business card and give yourself the title 'Founder and CEO'."
Biz went on to create Genius Labs (which was later acquired by Google), and then Twitter.

I find that science isn't so different. We, as inquisitive minds, invest a little part of ourselves in each question we ask and are fulfilled by each question we answer. Experiments and observations, hypotheses and data. Even the failure of a reaction is an act of creation- albeit a minor one. To continue asking different questions until you find the right one is no short act of will. It's valuable. To me, that's what makes my work in the lab and on this blog alluring.

So to my readers I ask, how did you find your passion? How did you come to blogging about chemistry, about science? What about Twitter's ecosystem keeps you hunting down little tidbits of information to share with people you may or may not have met (yet)?

+Joseph Meany