We are pleased to announce that a recent co-authored article we wrote has been chosen to appear in The Best American Science Writing 2010, edited by the New Yorker‘s Jerome Groopman and Jesse Cohen.  Our piece, entitled Unpopular Science, originally ran in The Nation last July. It was our documentation of the death of science journalism, and the failure of science on the web to fill the gap, and we are honored to have it featured among the year’s collected essays. Here’s an excerpt:

In light of the media upheaval, scientists can no longer assume that a responsible, high-minded press will treat their ideas with the seriousness they deserve, delivering them to policy-makers and the public for sober consideration. Instead, partisan media will convey diametrically opposed versions of where science actually stands on any contentious subject–consider, for example, the difference between how Fox News and NPR cover climate change–even as most of the public (and many policy-makers) will tune out science more or less completely, besieged by other information options.

That’s the media reality we live with, and facing it head-on is necessary not only for scientists but for everyone who cares about the impact of science and good information on public policy. We must stop assuming today’s media will dutifully carry the best and most reliable knowledge to policy-makers and the American public. Rather, it falls to us to shift gears and carry that knowledge to the entirety of the remaining media, and well beyond. In the latter endeavor, we may have to create media of our own.

The 2010 anthology arrives in September and you can pre-order your copy through Amazon here.

When I brought my iPhone in for repair at the Barton Creek Apple store in Texas on Wednesday night, the nice folks at the Genius Bar were kind enough to take a look at my MacBook Air, which had gotten bumped around during our move to Austin. They offered to fix it immediately through AppleCare, so I left my computer with a friendly fellow named Rej.

This morning–the same day as the highly anticipated iPad release–they delivered my laptop looking shiny and new. I’m very appreciative of the help and service I received and the good folks at the Barton Creek store. Thanks Apple!

According to my understanding of the new reform, courtesy of CNN:

Citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 (or up to 2.5 percent of income) in 2016. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. After 2016, penalties are indexed to Consumer Price Index.

Um, okay, so I will definitely have to buy health care by 2015 or so. That I get. After that, dodging it starts to hurt.

Meanwhile, my current MIT health care ends in May with the end of the Knight Fellowship. At that point, it seems likely that I’ll return to being a freelance writer, so for about 3.5 years, I’m not sure what I’ll be doing for health care.

My previous strategy was to buy something relatively cheap with a high deductible–catastrophic coverage, essentially. But I can’t say the approach was particularly satisfying. I spent some $ 1300 per year (premiums increased each year) and barely went to the doctor, because I essentially had to pay 100 % for anything routine, like a check up or a bad cold that wouldn’t go away.

To obtain significantly better coverage, I would have had to pay considerably more, and never felt I needed it. And more than once, I was tempted to just eat small portions and go running a lot, and pass on the health care completely.

So here’s my question: Will the passage of the new law affect the price of real health plans significantly before 2014? Will they be getting more affordable over time, so that someone like me, a freelance journalist–or someone like my brother, a musician; or like my sister, an aspiring writer–can spend $ 1000-$ 1500 a year and get something significantly better than catastrophic coverage? Something that doesn’t discourage doctor’s visits?

Or do we all just wait and hope we stay healthy til 2014, and only buy insurance to cover the worst case scenarios?

I’m back in Durham packing the house, office, and preparing for our move. This afternoon I’m also delighted to be speaking to the Duke Retirement Community about Unscientific America. Tomorrow, David and I are off to Austin, Texas for good.

For the time being, I must concentrate on boxing up life in North Carolina, but you bet I’ll have a lot more to say about the American Physical Society conference and the terrific four other speakers on my panel–Jon Miller, Murray Peshkin, Judith Scotchmoor, and Art Hobson–who are involved in extremely interesting initiatives. And of course, I’ll begin addressing energy over the coming weeks too, so stay tuned!

I’m thrilled to announce that Stuart “Indy” Pimm has just been named one of two recipients of the 2010 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement: “the premier award for environmental science, environmental health and energy conferring great benefit upon mankind. Through their work, Tyler Laureates have focused worldwide attention on environmental problems by their discoveries and the solutions that resulted.”

Stuart is one of the most incredible individuals I’ve had the pleasure of working with. It has been an honor and privilege to reside in The Pimm Group and I’ll miss him most of all from Texas. He has been a mentor, a source of endless encouragement, and most of all, a friend during my time with The Family. Stuart’s research, intense curiosity, and passion to make a difference takes him from the field to the classroom and onto Capitol Hill and the big screen, yet somehow, he’s managed to maintain a terrific sense of humor along the way.

Earth is truly a better place because of scientists like Stuart Pimm and we are all lucky to have him fighting hard everyday to save the planet’s biodiversity.

From the Press Release:

Stuart Pimm has a long career in conservation research, teaching and public policy, and when Pimm’s colleagues refer to his work, they frequently cite its influence as well as its substance.  His Tyler Prize award is made in recognition of his work to delineate the structures of ecological food webs, to understand the expected lifetimes of plant and animal populations, and to determine the populations that are most vulnerable to risks of extinction and those that have the capacity to recover most rapidly from disturbances.  In his letter of nomination for the Tyler Prize, Edward O. Wilson, an emeritus Harvard University professor and himself a Tyler Laureate, said Pimm’s achievements “serve as an environmental conservation template.”

Pimm has studied the structure of ecological communities and the consequences of diminished species diversity across the trophic levels of ecological communities.  In addition, Pimm has developed theory and empirical analysis to address the conservation of endangered species in terms of their communities and populations. Pimm has contributed to more than 200 journal articles, many of them as the lead author or sole author, has managed research projects around the world and has worked as a university-level professor for 36 years.

Pimm is well known for working beyond the scientific community as a policy advisor and source for media interviews.  One of his colleagues, in a letter of support for his nomination for the Tyler Prize, said Pimm’s contributions to conservation science are notable because he cares enough to “find a way to make a difference.”

I’m delighted with this morning’s wonderful news! Stuart shares the 2010 Tyler prize with Laurie Marker, co-founder and executive director of the Cheetah Conservation Fund in Otjiwarongo, Namibia. Congratulations to both!

It has been brought to my attention that a number of readers and science bloggers seem to be wondering if Monday’s post means I am retiring from the blogosphere. I’m not, but am glad to see that reflection on the devolving state of science blogs–and their tendency to be more sport and spectacle than science–seems to have resonated broadly with over 400 comments and counting. I will have more to say on science blogging shortly, but first a few words on why I’m posting less frequently…

Foremost, blogging should not be a daily requirement. For me, it began in 2006 when I lost a bet with students–as Cornelia Dean explained in her terrific book. I found I enjoyed the interactive exchange and the way it helped me to make sense of all of the endless ideas spinning around in my head everyday. But a good blog post is the result of inspiration, and over time it started to feel like homework. I’d work a full day at Duke, or edit my book for hours, and scramble for something to get on the blog as an afterthought. Blogging stopped feeling cathartic and became more burdensome while juggling work, travel, talks, some semblance of a social life, and wedding planning. So I’ve decided it’s time to change the way I contribute. From now on, I’ll write only when inspired. This may happen a few times a week or a few times a day. We’ll see how it goes.

And more importantly, I’m busier than usual this month because David and I are headed to Austin, Texas! I’ll be very sad to leave the incredible Pimm Group at Duke, but I’m also so excited about what’s coming next! While I’ll always stay connected to the marine realm, there’s another crucial area I’ve been growing more and more interested to pursue and there’s no better place to do so than Texas. So here’s the big–related–announcement:

The Intersection is about to become an energy blog. I’ll have more to say on that soon so keep watching… you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Around this time last year, an unexpected trip to the hospital led to an anesthesia mistake giving me aspiration pneumonia. Although I recognized how serious the situation was, I was also very sad to miss my favorite annual science event: The 2009 AAAS meeting in Chicago–including The Science of Kissing symposium I had helped organize for Valentine’s Day.

As you can imagine, one year later I’m extremely grateful to be healthy, fully recovered, and on my way to attend the 2010 meeting with David. And I’m also delighted to be joining the AAAS program committee. Most of all, I’m looking forward to catching up with friends in science, journalism, policy–and especially, a few former Sea Grant Fellows. And CM too of course.

Blogging may be light during the conference, but expect some upcoming posts on what’s happening in San Diego…

Under the Microscope is a cool website ‘where women and science connect.’ It’s the online component of the Women Writing Science project at The Feminist Press featuring stories from women about science, technology, engineering, and math, and aimed to inspire the next generation of STEM pioneers. Last week I was delighted to chat with one of the hosts, Kristina Necovska. Here’s an excerpt from our Q&A:

UTM: I’m curious whether you’ve found that the public’s ability to distinguish credibility and sound arguments is going out the window?

SK: I’m very concerned. We just saw this hack into e-mails of climate change. Most people made very quick judgments without fully understanding the context of what they were reading. [There is] a survey just released by George Mason University and Yale Center for Climate Change Communication. It’s a dismal report, people more than ever don’t “believe” in climate change.

The big point here is that pseudoscience is on the rise. … It’s dangerous and I’m not sure what it means for the future of science and it’s a big red flag in terms of where we’re going. Science needs a better platform. It’s certainly not about PR in a traditional sense but we have to think about how we’re represented when we’re working against so many other forces that have a certain vested interest. We’re trying to emphasize the best research and [research] is very dynamic. There’s no black and white in the way that the pseudo-scientific [groups] want to represent things. (more…)

As I’m writing, blogging, and more, there’s a guy who patiently stands by me through everything. He doesn’t mind listening as I endlessly discuss the trials and tribulations of a postdoc while he tirelessly works to prepare for his. It doesn’t upset him that my perspective occasionally ruffles the feathers of others in his field–including those friendly with his awesome advisor John Willis. He doesn’t even complain about how late he needs to come collect me from the airport constantly. Instead, he helps me get the details right whenever I have a question, brings me along on cross country road trips to the field, and has a kind word no matter what the DNA sequence looks like on any given day. And he always supports my crazy ideas with boundless encouragement and enthusiasm.

So today I want to congratulate my wonderful, brilliant fiancé David Lowry, who just received his Ph.D. in evolutionary genetics and genomics at Duke. (Photo left was taken just before his final seminar talk). David’s a damn good field and lab biologist who’s taught me everything I know about speciation, adaptation, Mimulus–and so much more. His research on understanding ecotype formation amazes me and I’m so excited to see where it goes next!

And directly to David: You continue to inspire me every day and I love you.

While North Carolina is buried in snow, it’s good to remember Spring is on the way…

H/T Zuska