Science and the Social Media Revolution

Whether we like it or not, humans born from around 1982 to the year 2000 will forever be labeled as millennials, myself included. When you think of a millennial, I'm sure there are a myriad of different stereotypes that pop into your head! For example, author David Burstein notes that we carry our own brand of unique idealism and are very conscious of causes for social justice. Others say we are a pretty optimistic bunch of folks compared to our parents. But the most pervasive commentary on my generation is that we are population of narcissistic individuals, driven largely in part by what has been known as the social media revolution.

Figure 1. Social media and science are a match made in heaven!

I'll freely admit that I fall under the category of "social media obsessed twenty something". I've got it all: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Google +, Ello, WordPress, and so on and so forth. To those who choose not to plug in to social networks, spending time looking at your friend's vacation photos or pinning cool ways to reuse old shoes on Pintrest may seem like a total waste of time, and it indeed does seem to really put a damper on our work productivity. Just think about it: for every minute that goes by, over a hundred hours of content has been uploaded on YouTube. Over 350 million photos are uploaded to Facebook every day, and Twitter users worldwide send half a billion tweets per day. Who has time for all of that content?

While this may seem like an energy sink, you've got to admit that there is significant power in the social network. It has heavily influenced everything from political elections to armed uprisings around the globe, and it seems like it has reached its tendrils into every facet of human existence. This is no different for science, and I think that we are witnessing a beautiful collision between the two seemingly different worlds.

I've spoken before about how important it is that science communication be a part of our everyday lives. Scientists will never bring down the ivory towers surrounding their fields until the flow of information from academic to laymen is so fluid that the line between them ceases to exist. With the advent of social media, we possess the immense ability to easily reach out to huge groups of people (such as you, dear reader!) simultaneously. We can share our ideas, explain our research, and show the whole world what we are doing to make it better.

Most importantly, we have the ability to start conversations. I don't think science should ever possess a "I say, you listen" mentality. The greatest exchanges of understanding and of knowledge often come moments of disagreement, and while these disagreements can often come in the form of distasteful comments on YouTube videos, I do think that we would be doing the right thing if we embraced social media with open arms. This is certainly easier said than done - the majority of scientists don't use common social networks to promote a great understanding of their science. With new kids on the block such as yours truly coming onto the scene, we will hopefully see that shift significantly in the coming decade.

If you have a science background, I challenge you to explore the different ways that you can use social media to talk about your research with the world. Engagewith others and facilitate discussions. Most importantly, remember that science is easily distilled but should never be diluted. Practice communicating your message in a clear, concise way without losing the core ideas that you're trying to convey. It's not easy, but practice definitely makes perfect! If you don't have a science background, I challenge you to go follow a few science oriented accounts on Twitter (I hear @ATPandMe is a great one), like some pages on Facebook, and make an honest effort to learn something new and have a little fun. The more you integrate the sciences into your personal social media machine, the more routine our conversations about the world around us will be.

Consider this blog my attempt at using these incredible technologies to further those conversations, #NoFilter needed!

This is important, Dr. Oz

Happy Saturday! As a scientist, I'm trained to have a healthy balance of skepticism and open-mindedness. It seems like my skepticism proved to be correct about a certain television physician, who I've considered a bizarre mouthpiece for pseudoscience for some time now. When I would first catch Dr. Oz on TV, I was optimistic. An educated, eloquent physician discussing important health topics to millions of Americans - what could go wrong? This seemed like the perfect medium to communicate real information on real health issues.

Unfortunately, I was mistaken. From promoting "faith healing" as a means for curing miracle ailments to peddling strange energy practices such as Reiki, Dr. Oz has a track record of spreading misinformation. My feelings were confirmed by a paper published in the British Medical Journal (which, you know, has actual scientific information) that determined that almost half (46%) of the claims on Dr. Oz's show over the course of 40 episodes were shown to be either refuted by modern medical science or completely baseless.

This is a huge shame - I would like to think that Dr. Oz is a good person and genuinely cares for his viewers. I always assume the best in people, I suppose. All I'm asking is that the team behind the Dr. Oz Show fully examine the scientific claims they are making or disclose that many of the supplements on their show have not been proven to have any health efficacy.

Full disclosure: if you believe in things like psychic communication and dream interpretation, more power to you! This is a free country, and you should be able to believe in what you want to believe in. But when you begin claiming that these things have clear medical benefits when they have been proven to be useless, that's when things can get dangerous. The power to influence medical decisions is immense and, in my opinion, should only be used when the science is sound.

So the lesson for today is to always critically examine all claims. Just because someone has a fancy background and speaks well doesn't mean what they're saying is the truth!

Case and point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI

Surviving Thanksgiving

Without a doubt, the most troubling (and usually hilarious) comments I hear about science happen around the Thanksgiving table. Whether it's your crazy uncle from out of state or your neighbor's grandma, Thanksgiving small talk tends to erupt into a storm of nonsense. "Global warming? Yeah right - did you feel how cold it was yesterday?"

"You know, the government actually does have a cure for cancer. They just want to help fuel the pharmaceutical industry"

And so on and so forth. To help you prepare for such encounters, here are a few of my favorite videos/infographics summarizing some key scientific concepts. Happy eating and safe travels!

1: The top 10 things you need to know about Ebola, via the CDC

2. This FANTASTIC video explaining climate change from Veritasium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

3. This video explaining the fundamentals of evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

4. Top 10 things to know about stem cell therapies

5. Preparing for landing on Philae

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvkPFXdpOQQ

6. And finally, and perhaps most importantly: what happens when you eat too much?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/c/embed/168a5c54-73e6-11e4-95a8-fe0b46e8751a

Sensationalism in Science: Is this for real?

For some people, reading over science headlines in your local paper or favorite website can be a little scary. With articles talking about "3 parent babies" and the emergency of a new "stupidity virus" infecting half of our population, it's easy to think that we have entered bizarre futuristic world where mad science runs unabated. Is this really what's going on? Today, we're going to talk a little about journalistic sensationalism and why it harms the conversation gaps that we're trying to bridge between scientists and the general public. I'm not saying there isn't any truth to some of these crazy titles. 3 parent babies do technically have genetic material from three people. The so-called stupidity virus does slightly reduce some aspects of cognitive function in humans. These two stories, however, are much more complicated than their headlines may have you believe. I'll talk more about the above two stories in more detail in a future post, but the point is that you can't really convey the subtleties of a new technologies or discoveries in a sentence. In reality, you should be prepared to critically evaluate and engage every headline you see, science or not. There is usually much more than meets the eye!

A few days ago, I saw a post entitled the "9 Disgusting Things the FDA is Letting You Eat" pop up on my Facebook feed. What scandal! If we can't trust the FDA to keep crazy things out of our food supply, how can we trust going to the grocery store ever again? As with most posts of this nature, the truth is really that frightening. Let's dive into a few examples.

Figure 1: Keep out of my pantry, big scary government!

The very entry lists "sawdust" as the first FDA approved disgusting additive. It then goes on to talk about how the actual additive is known as cellulose, which is derived from wood when used in food. So why isn't this a bad thing? Cellulose is an incredibly important polymer that makes up the cell walls of plants. What else has cellulose besides wood? Every plant on Earth. Whether your body receives cellulose derived from wood or from celery is moot, as your cells cannot tell the difference between the two. Harmful? Hardly.

Another post lists "human hair and duck feathers", which probably just sparked horrific memories of you finding a hair in your lunch back in middle school. The post goes on to talk about how the real additive is L-cysteine, which is removed from hair and feathers. Here's an image of what L-cysteine looks like, and what your body sees when it is added to your food:

Figure : The ever terrifying L-cysteine. Gross, right?

L-cysteine is an incredibly important and common amino acid in the human body and is present in a wide variety of things. As with the "sawdust above", we arrive at a common theme that characterizes many food-based science articles. Regardless of where the L-cysteine came from, your body won't be able to tell the difference. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, any way you slice it. Harmful? Of course not!

Another axiom to keep in mind (especially important in food science) is that disgusting doesn't mean harmful. Just because the source of a particular amino acid or vitamin may sound gross doesn't mean it's bad for you!

In the end, many of these articles aren't really so scary after all. Sensationalism is used to grab a reader's attention, but it's usually very misleading and in the case of articles about scientific information, reckless. It's the responsibility of both journalists and scientists to make sure that any discussion we have with a reader is frank and honest. Until we get to that point, expect plenty of misleading articles and topics to gain a lot of attention and traction in the coming years. So the next time you pick up your paper or open your favorite website, make sure you ask yourself:

Is this for real?

Global Climate Change: The fight for our future

Earth. Isn't it beautiful? Rolling hills, deep blue oceans, and lush rainforests. If you take some time to step back and marvel about the wonder that is our home, it's pretty obvious that we'd like for our Earth to remain the way it is. Nourishing, full of life, and full of wonder.

This past weekend, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced The Synthesis Report, a 116 page report detailing the results of nearly a year of comprehensive research performed by the panel. This research centered around a few key features: why climate change is happening and what can we do to stop it. A huge number of scientists and policy experts contributed to the findings (which are far too long to list here), but here are a few key points to focus in on:

1. "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

2. "Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts, globally"

3. "Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people, species and ecosystems. Continued high emissions would lead to mostly negative impacts for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and economic development and amplify risks for livelihoods and for food and human security."

I could really go on and on, as even the summary of the findings is 40 pages long. While the findings request daunting amounts of change to the way in which we interact with the other, I think it's important to note there there are many ways in which we can significantly slow down the effects of climate change.

I feel for environmentalists, I really do. From losses on Capitol Hill to seeing problems exacerbated by climate change snowball out of control, I imagine it's pretty easy to feel a sense of despair!

As I detailed in a previous blog, however, fighting the good fight will lead to victories. Human-induced climate change stands to affect everything we hold dear: biodiversity, water availability, global economic security, and so on and so forth. To slow down climate change is to save animals from perishing. It means ensuring that rural communities will have a little extra water on which to survive. Perhaps most importantly, it means that we are giving our children another shot to get things right. What lesson are we teaching future generations if we decide to give up because the goal seems too far away? Too impossible?

If there's one thing I want you to take away from reading my blog, it's that anything is possible. Anything. This isn't Francis standing on his soapbox (okay, maybe it is), but if you have your doubts, I encourage you to read the reports. Because, as is true with most things, the truth lies in the science.

Interpreting science 101

Alright, so I've talked a lot about increasing communication between the scientific community and the rest of the world, but how can we actually do that? As I pointed out in a previous post, increasing such communication is a two way street. Over the next few months, I'll be periodically introducing some basic tips on how to critically examine everything, from scientific papers to your local election advertisements! One of my favorite concepts in interpreting data was taught to me a very long time ago. In fact, this axiom is something I carry with me pretty much every day. ARE YOU READY?! Repeat after me...

Correlation does not imply causation.

Ah, isn't that beautiful? Believe it or not, applying this statement to anything you see on television or read in a newspaper will help you determine whether or not the claims they announce are true. To explain what this sentence means, I present an excellent example of this reasoning as described by the Simpsons:

Figure 1: Simpsons lessons are the best lessons!

Let's apply this concept to a different, more science oriented setting. Say your aunt gives you a new herbal tea, with the intention of curing your cold. If your cold goes away after drinking the tea for a week, did the tea cure your cold? Not necessarily! The cold could have resolved itself on its own, or you may have taken another medication that treated it! Correlation does not imply causation.

Alright, one more example. Let's say you're sitting in your car during traffic, and you're really hoping that the light will turn green. In desperation, you scream to yourself, "WILL YOU JUST TURN GREEN ALREADY?!" The light turns green. Did your screaming cause the light to change? Audience, now's your chance to write down your answer!

If you said no, you've clearly been paying attention! Correlation does not imply causation.

When you look at a news article, scientific or otherwise, you should always ask yourself two questions:

1. Do I believe that the claims made in this piece true? 2. If yes, how do I know they are true? If no, how do I know they are not true?

While correlation does not imply causation won't directly answer either of those questions, it's a great way of pumping the breaks and realizing that arguments or claims may not be as crystal clear as the author may want you to believe.

At the risk of having this post grow too long, the take away message is this: just because two events happen at the same time doesn't mean they influenced each other! Keep this point in mind and I will guarantee that your likelihood of getting bamboozled by some ridiculous claim will go down by at least 70%!

"Talk science to me"

Okay, maybe those aren't the exact words that Poison sang 27 years ago, but it was the easiest segue I could think of into the topic of this blog. This post is going to be a little different from past ones, where I've highlighted interesting stories or developments in the world of science. Rather, I'll be focusing on the very reason why I started Kitchen Table Science in the first place: communication.

Figure 1: This is me (somewhat aggressively) promoting neuroscience!

Yesterday, I read a very interesting article from the Huffington Post that compiled quotes from various politicians who have shied away from talking about scientific topics. Their general excuse?

"I'm not a scientist!"

This is essentially the equivalent of covering your ears and saying "la la la la la I don't hear your facts". But who is at fault here? I, and many others in the scientific community place a lot of the blame on ourselves. Science is a wondrous thing, built on the backs of giants and heavily invested in by your tax dollars. We work hard to better our collective understanding of the world around us and it's only fair that we bring everyone along on that journey with us. Can I get an amen?!

If you're reading this blog, you've probably already spent some time browsing the internet, be it Facebook or Twitter. My challenge to you, dear reader, is to find a news article in the sciences, read it, and discuss it with a friend. Do you have a friend with diabetes or cancer? Are you curious as to why the leaves seem to be changing slower or faster this year? As detectives Mulder and Scully would say, "The truth is out there!".

My dream is that everyone, including our elected officials, will one day be able to critically discuss and analyze findings emerging from laboratories around the world without having any advanced training. I want to see these discussions being started at your water cooler at work, or over a lovely meal at your kitchen table. You shouldn't need to be a scientist to talk about stem cells or climate change. After all, can we not debate literature without being novelists? Or discuss world affairs without being a diplomat? If your answer to the above two questions was "of course we can", then let's chat!

Increasing public engagement within the scientific community has been a struggle for a long time, but the advent of the internet and social media is making it easier and easier to disseminate knowledge to everyone. While we'll always work to improve our skills, I am making it my personal mission to be the best communicator of science that I can be.

On a side note, let's also stop trying to put spin on science for personal gain when spin isn't necessary. I'll never understand perverting science to bend to one's own agenda; but then again, I'm not a politician!

Figure 2: Not a politician...yet? Photo courtesy of Sean Hickey Photography