(click to enlarge)

Source: Gallup poll; December 10-12, 2010 and BASE: Canadians; March 15-17, 2011

UT: Kissing: MyFoxAUSTIN.com

I LOVE the new Women@NASA website encouraging young women to pursue careers in science, math, and technology! It includes 32 videos and essays from women across the agency who contribute to NASA’s mission.

You’ll hear stories of women overcoming almost every obstacle imaginable to pursue their dreams and make a difference in the world. In the future, we hope that the website will support a collaborative and supportive community of women at NASA, and serve as the hub of all activity related to women’s issues at the agency. In addition, we hope that these stories will inspire girls everywhere to reach for the stars, and explore the myriad of opportunities available to them through pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Go visit!

Kate Zernike has an important piece in today’s New York Times entitled, Gains, and Drawbacks, for Female Professors. The article resonates for me and touches on many of the same issues we discussed last Fall at L’Oreal/Discover’s “Women in Science” Capitol Hill Briefing.

While the tremendous accomplishments of women in science speak for themselves, ridiculous statements by those who should know better–like former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers–continue to echo in the public discourse. For example,  Zernike points out that male undergraduates at M.I.T. tell female classmates they were only accepted because of affirmative action.

Faculty members face new struggles as well. While universities are working to increase diversity, some criticize these efforts because they believe women gain an unfair advantage. Compounding matters, women are frequently sought for committees and panels to satisfy gender requirements. Since there are still not many female faculty members, individuals are overburdened, leaving less time for research, consulting, and other opportunities. But perhaps, most frustrating:

stereotypes remain: women must navigate a narrow “acceptable personality range,” as one female professor said, that is “neither too aggressive nor too soft.” Said another woman: “I am not patient and understanding. I’m busy and ambitious.”

Despite an effort to educate colleagues about bias in letters of recommendation for tenure, those for men tend to focus on intellect while those for women dwell on temperament.

You can read the full piece here. I discuss women in science often, and continue to believe that the system will need to undergo fundamental changes to accommodate more of us. Further, if we are to achieve equal status in the ivory towers, it will take both women and men to get there. So no matter how far we’ve come, we still have a long way to go.

Andrew Revkin‘s posted this amazing “explainer” for kids on what’s happening at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan:

Noticed via @lilliloquy on Twitter (and her blog): “Unique way to explain the situation in Fukushima..” She’s not kidding. The English translation of the animation includes: “Everyone jumped as Nuclear Boy let out a big bang… Did he just poo?? We measured the stinky level around Nuclear Boy…”

(Subbed) Nuclear Boy うんち・おならで例える原発解説 (by GenkiRadio)

What do readers think?

Over 100 million children in the developing world need–but lack access to–vision correction. Today Dow Corning and the Centre for Vision in the Developing World announced that they have teamed up to do something about it. Through the use of silicones, a new initiative called Child ViSion will provide 100 million self-adjustable eyeglasses to children by 2020, which reportedly correct nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and age-related difficulty focusing:

The Child ViSion initiative will design, manufacture and distribute a child-specific version of self-adjustable eyeglasses to children in the developing world. The aim is to increase the effectiveness of classroom-based education by improving children’s ability to see the blackboard from which they are being taught.

Read more about this terrific program here.

Unfortunately, not a single Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee seems to agree. The Hill reports that all 31 House Republicans rejected amendments calling for “Congress to accept the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, it is caused in large part by human activity and it is a threat to human health.”

H/T Political Wire

Two months ago, I had the pleasure of co-hosting a session at Science Online 2011 with Kate Clancy, Anne Jefferson, and Joanne Manaster entitled “Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name.” Our conversation soon became a science web-wide phenomenon (with special thanks to Ed Yong!) and the video is now available:

I’ve been thinking a great deal about nuclear energy lately in preparation for last week’s Energy at the Movies event at UT. We included clips from 1979′s The China Syndrome followed by real news reports immediately following the Three Mile Island accident–which took place just 12 days after the film premiered. Some energy experts believe that movie contributed to halting nuclear development in the U.S.

Thirty-two years have passed, so I became interested in whether attitudes on nuclear energy may have changed. A few days before the earthquake, I conducted this poll via facebook and twitter:

Within hours, I had 71 response: 63 yes, 2 no, and 6 undecided. How do you think the same question would fare now?

It’s too soon to speculate how U.S. energy policy will be influenced by the weekend’s tragic events in Japan, but regardless of advances in technology and safety measures, public sentiment will likely play a tremendous role in what happens next.

Our thoughts are with Japan today after an 8.9 magnitude earthquake–the seventh largest in history–struck the Pacific Ocean near Northeastern Japan, triggering a tsunami. Google has created an information page on the earthquake with tools to help find missing persons. UN Dispatch has also posted a list of Twitter accounts reporting on the disaster.