You may have heard that I told a story at the ScienceOnline2012 conference. If you missed it, here you go!
Everything I said is true; there are even photos. (Think carefully before you click this link. You’ve been warned.)
Ben Lillie’s story is right after mine, and is very different, and incredibly powerful. I got a little verklempt. Ben now runs The StoryCollider, which is an amazing project to collect science stories.
I had been mentally drafting something about storytelling and science, but then Emily at This View of Life wrote something so spot on in summary of ScienceOnline I defer to her:
“I think that this tendency to focus on the sexy or the gross, the morbid or the taboo, is not just a symptom of our four days of very little sleep, more than a little alcohol in some cases and a deep sense of intellectual and cultural overstimulation.
No, this is an integral part of who we are as a group. We focus on duck penises because we almost have to.
We are all story tellers, whether scientists, journalists or educators. We take data and create hypotheses. We take facts and construct narratives. We take a curriculum and transform it into inspiration.
What she said. Go read the rest.
I’ll try to put together a more meaningful summary of the Science Online conference later this week, but for the moment I’m enjoying the accomplishment of briefly trending on Twitter. Even if it is for telling a story about Seamonkeys in your Pants.
Before the bug stuff, there is a short discussion of radio isotopes and fracking, which I bet you’ve never heard with a background of owls calling!
They start talking about insects at 19:00, and I arrive to talk about bogus insect control devices at 26:25. We also discussed insect repellents, spandex, and if mosquitoes bite zombies.
Here’s a link to my review of the plant pollinator app I mentioned.
I was interviewed by Drunken Skeptics (Michigan Skeptics Association) about DDT, bed bugs, and my criticism of Brian Dunning for not doing proper research and posting a lot of incorrect stuff about DDT.
I’m actually rather pleased with how it turned out, although you can clearly tell I had a cold. I’m interested in feedback from some of my fellow bloggy entomologists about whether you think I represented the larger entomological community’s views on DDT correctly.
The biggest complaint I have about the whole manufactured controversy surrounding DDT is that it’s a waste of time and energy, and distracts from the real work we need to be doing. DDT boosters like to frame the argument as: “Which is worse, Malaria or DDT?”
They have framed that question so that there is only one possible choice. A forced choice between Malaria and DDT is the WRONG QUESTION. I completely reject that false dichotomy as oversimplification. There are more than two choices.
The real discussion that needs to happen is about the best way to control malaria and improve human health in a particular situation. Over 99 countries have a malaria problem. It is patently absurd to think that one chemical can solve a problem that is global in scope. DDT is part of current WHO treatment guidelines. But it is only one piece of a huge, huge complicated problem.
What is the political, environmental, and socio-economic situation of a particular community struggling with malaria control? What, if any, data do we have on the resistance of the parasite and mosquito vectors to drugs and insecticides? It is not a one-size-fits-all problem with one solution.
Because of the vitriol that is spewed, people like me (and probably a few politicians) are hesitant to talk about Malaria at all. It makes aid to the WHO and Africa a political football that is used to score points. It’s not, really, about DDT at all. It’s about tarring and feathering the environmental movement, and keeping people distrustful of science.
And that is sad.
I’d really like to type up a transcript for the podcast, but I still am under the weather health wise–hopefully I can do that next week.
Aside from a brain fart where I said “spermatheca” rather than “testis”, I think I did ok at trying to keep it non-technical!
I want to try to cover some of the newer research on bedbugs over the next few months, since it’s a hot topic. We talked about some of the new info about bedbug chemical signaling, but that didn’t make the cut into the podcast.
Another neat resource I discovered recently–there are a large number of interviews with scientists online you can download (including text transcripts) in the form of podcasts. The “Ask-A-Biologist” podcast is produced on the campus of Arizona State University.
Not surprisingly, many of them are about insects! (Although “Dr. Biology” seems to be kinda squeamish, unfortunately.)