Tag: humor

What is so bad about brain doping? Apparently, NIH thinks something is.

UPDATE – FAKE SCIENCE NEWS HERE.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk around the web about brain doping … that is, using some sort of drug to enhance intelligence or intellectual performance in some way. For example see

A key question is – is brain doping bad? I am not so sure. However, NIH apparently thinks otherwise. NIH has just announced the formation of the World Anti Brain Doping Authority in conjunction with the ever so annoying World Anti Doping Authority. For more information see http://wabda.org and I attach the announcement below. Apparently, they are working on making a list of banned drugs and punishment for misuse for anyone funded by NIH. I have also heard they will be doing drug testing to new grant awardees. Lovely.

What is funny is this so fits in with the new top down style at the NIH. Forget about the individual scientist and the need for independence and creativity. There are so many rules about everything now that I think I will just seek out funds from other agencies.

See also other bloggers writing about this:

Here is the announcement:

NIH Announces New Initiatives to Fight the Use of Brain Enhancing Drugs by Scientists

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) today announced three new initiatives to fight the use of brain enhancing drugs by scientists. The new initiatives are (1) the creation of the NIH Anti-Brain Doping Advisory Group (NABDAG), a new trans-NIH committee, (2) a collaboration with the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) and the European Commission to create the World Anti-Brain Doping Authority (WABDA) and (3) the adoption by the NIH of the World Anti-Brain Doping Code – a set of regulations on the use of brain enhancing drugs among scientists.

“These new initiatives are designed to level the playing field among scientist in terms of intellectual activities,” said NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. “These three activities are designed to get NIH ahead of the curve in terms of performance enhancing drug use among scientists.”

NABDAG will serve to coordinate activities across different NIH agencies in terms of regulating the use of brain enhancing drugs. The trans-NIH group will be directed by internationally renowned doping authority Jonathan Davis, Ph.D., current director of research at WADA.

“The priority of NABDAG will be to seek out input from the scientific community and from within NIH,” Davis said. “The availability of tremendous expertise and the remarkable infrastructure at NIH will make our activities more robust and will allow us to tackle questions about brain doping that were not possible to address in the past. For example, new testing procedures will need to be developed and we will be able to bring the entire NIH infrastructure to this task.”

While “doping” is now accepted as a problem among athletes, it is less widely known that so-celled “brain doping” has been affecting the competitive balance in scientific research as well. It is for this reason that NIH is collaborating with the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA), which has led the fight against doping in athletics, to create the World Anti Brain Doping Authority (WABDA). “Because brain doping is not just an American problem,” said Richard Pound, the current Director of WADA and acting Director of WABDA until a permanent head can be found, “we are working with the European Union’s research funding agency, the European Commission Research, to make sure WABDA is effective.

NABDAG will be established within the NIH Office of Intramural Research and administered by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Additional support for the center will come from the NIH Office of the Director, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). The research activities of NABDAG will take place on the NIH Bethesda campus. An additional focus of NABDAG will be to provide training opportunities for students and established scientists from developing countries and from minority groups in the United States.

Together with WABDA, NABDAG will work to develop the international rules for the use of performance enhancing drugs among scientists as well as testing and punishment procedures. Most importantly they will administer the World Anti Brain-Doping Code, a set of uniform anti-brain doping rules. The NIH and European Commission have formally adopted this Code for the conduct of all scientists which receive funding in any form (intramural or extramural) from these agencies. The Code includes regulations on which drugs are prohibited, what the recommended testing procedures should be, and what the punishments should be for positive tests. More information on the WABDA Code can be found at http://wabda.org/. We note that the implementation will include testing of all NIH funded scientists both at the time they receive funding as well as at random times during the course of working on an NIH funded project. Testing will also be implemented at all NIH-funded or NIH-hosted events such as conferences and workshops and at grant review panels.

NIMH, NIDA, and CSR are among the 27 institutes and centers at the NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The NIMH mission is to reduce the burden of mental and behavioral disorders through research on mind, brain, and behavior. More information is available at the NIMH website http://www.nimh.nih.gov. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to ensure the rapid dissemination of research information to inform policy and improve practice. Fact sheets on the health effects of drugs of abuse and further information on NIDA research can be found on the NIDA web site at http://www.drugabuse.gov. The Center for Scientific Review organizes the peer review groups that evaluate the majority of grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. CSR recruits about 18,000 outside scientific experts each year for its review groups. CSR also receives all NIH and many Public Health Service grant applications — about 80,000 a year — and assigns them to the appropriate NIH Institutes and Centers and PHS agencies. CSR’s primary goal is to see that NIH applications receive fair, independent, expert, and timely reviews that are free from inappropriate influences so NIH can fund the most promising research. For more information, visit http://www.csr.nih.gov.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation’s Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Eisen Resigns in Disgrace Over Scandal #FSN #PLoSTitution

By Saul Jacobson and Frank Tepedino, Asociated Press Writers

(03-13-2008) 19:50 PDT San Francisco (AP) —

In a startlingly swift fall from grace, the new Academic Editor in Chief of PLoS Biology Jonathan Eisen resigned Wednesday after getting caught in a pay-for-access scandal that made a mockery of his straight-arrow “open access only” image and left him facing the prospect of criminal charges and perhaps permanent exclusion from journal editorial boards.

“I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work,” Eisen said, his weary-looking brother and Public Library of Science (PLoS) founder, Michael, standing at his side, again, as the closed access-fighting scientist once known as Mr. Open Access answered for his actions for the second time in three days.

He made the announcement without securing a plea bargain with NIH prosecutors, though an NIH official said the former PLoS Academic Editor in Chief was still believed to be negotiating one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Eisen will be succeeded on Monday by Alex Gann, a fellow scientist who becomes PLoS Biology’s first foreign-born Academic Editor in Chief and the nation’s first legally blind chief editor.

The resignation brought the curtain down on a riveting three-day drama — played out, sometimes, as farce — that made Eisen an instant punchline on science blogs and fascinated Americans with the spectacle of a crusading scientist exposed as a hypocrite.

His dizzying downfall was met with glee and the popping of champagne corks among many on Crinan Street, where Eisen was seen as a sanctimonious bully for attacking high prices and abusive access practices in the publishing industry when he was a rising Academic Editor at PLoS Biology. And his resignation brought relief at PLoS headquarters in San Francisco after days of excruciating tension and uncertainty.

“Some rules can’t be broken, and when they are broken there are consequences,” said Harold Varmus, an Open Access advocate and ex-head of the NIH. “In this case, one of the most promising careers I’ve seen in a generation.”

The scandal erupted Monday after NIH officials disclosed that a wiretap had caught the 39-year-old father of two spending thousands of grant dollars on journal articles about evolution at a fancy Washington hotel on the night before Darwin Day.

Investigators said he had arranged for a journal editor named Kristen to take the train down from New York while he was in the nation’s capital to testify before a congressional subcommittee about the publishing industry.

Late Wednesday, the New York Times reported that her real name is Emma Hill. She declined to comment when asked by the Times when she first met Eisen and how many times she had helped him purchase and download closed access journal articles.

It was unclear whether she would face charges; attorney David Bora confirmed that he represents the same woman in the Times story but wouldn’t comment further.

With every development, it became increasingly clear that Eisen, politically, was finished.

NIH enforcement officials said the Editor in Chief — the scientific heir to the PLoS banner — had spent multiple entire evenings downloading articles and had spent tens of thousands of grant dollars, and perhaps as much as $80,000, on high-priced Nature articles which cost as much as $35 each.

Senior Eisen aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Eisen had been informed Friday by NIH prosecutors that he was linked to the grant money laundering ring.

They said he had kept it to himself through Saturday night, when he attended the annual dinner of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. That night a reporter kept calling cell phones of Eisen aides.

Eisen first shared the news Sunday with his brother at his house in Davis, and after several excruciating hours they told their family, the aides said. By Sunday evening Eisen had called top advisers, personal friends and PLoS loyalists. The little band huddled in the house until midnight.

After making a watery-eyed, non-specific public apology Monday with his brother by his side, Eisen continued to talk to family and advisers through Tuesday. By Wednesday morning, aides said, he had decided to resign.

He and his brother rode in a black SUV from the Davis house to PLoS headquarters in San Francisco to announce his resignation — a trip whose every move was captured by TV helicopters. During the news conference, he and his brother stood inches apart, never touching as they entered or left the room.

Speaking in a strong and steady voice, he apologized for his actions and said: “Over the course of my public life, I’ve insisted, I believe correctly, that scientists regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.“

He did not address the allegations in any detail in the less than three-minute statement, and left without taking questions.

Officials said that Gann asked for the Monday hand-over because he needed more time to prepare and wanted Eisen to say the proper goodbye to his staff.

In a statement issued after Eisen quit, NIH Attorney Lisa Coffmancini, the chief grant money abuse prosecutor in California, said: “There is no agreement between this office and Eisen relating to his resignation or any other matter.”

Among the possible charges that law enforcement authorities said could be brought against the former editor in chief: soliciting and paying for journal access; violating the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the 2008 federal law that makes it a crime to publish NIH funded research in non Open Access journals; and illegally arranging cash transactions to conceal their purpose.

Eisen, a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford graduate school, could also be disdoctorated. In California, a scientist can lose his license to practice for failing to “conduct himself both professionally and personally, in conformity with the standards of conduct imposed upon members of the scientific community.”

It was a spectacular collapse for a man who cultivated an image as a hard-nosed scientist hell-bent on cleansing the state of corruption in scientific publishing. He served four terms as an Academic Editor at PLoS Biology, earning the nickname “Sheriff of Open Access,” and was elected Academic Editor in Chief with a record share of the vote in 2008. The tall, athletic, square-jawed Eisen was sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate for president of the American Academy of Publishers.

But he also made powerful enemies, many of whom complained that he was abusive and self-righteous.

“I really don’t feel vindicated,” said Philip Campbell, the Editor in Chief of Nature who lost many papers to PLoS Biology via Eisen’s efforts. But he added: “One of the many things I said was that Jonathan Eisen had one set of rules for himself and one set for everyone else. I never would have imagined it could be so glaring.”

Publishers on the floor of American Academy of Publisher’s annual meeting were transfixed by TV monitors broadcasting Eisen’s resignation, and his ruin drew scattered applause from publishers as they went about buying and selling articles. One said some firms even cracked champagne open — a ritual usually reserved for when subscription fees hit a milestone.

Gann said in a statement that he was saddened, but added: “It is now time for PLoS to get back to work as the people and scientist expect from us.“

Barely known outside of his Cold Spring Harbor political base, Alex Gann, 53, has been in publishing since his election to the Nature editorial board in 1985.

Though legally blind, he has enough sight in his right eye to walk unaided, recognize people at conversational distance and even read if the text is placed close to his face.

While Eisen was famously abrasive, uncompromising and even insulting, Gann has built a reputation as a conciliator, and lawmakers quickly embraced the new order.

“The first thing he can and I think he will do is end the era of accusation and contempt and ridicule,” said PLoS Co-Founder Pat Brown. “I think everyone will be better off because of it.”

——————————————————————
With apologies to those mentioned above and thanks to the real Associated Press story about Governor Spitzer by Verena Dobnik and Michael Gormley

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

See Evolgen for a field guide to seminar audiences

EVOLGEN has a great post on the people at your department seminar. It is worth checking out and bringing with you next time you go to a seminar. Even better than looking around — choose which one fits you the best. Up until a few years ago, I was definitely the pre-schooler

The pre-schooler: This dude uses the departmental seminar as his nap-time. He sits in the back, and when the lights go out, he’s nodding off faster than River Phoenix in My Own Private Idaho. Someone get this guy a good-night’s sleep.

I simply could not stay awake in any seminar so I would have to sit at the back. Now that I have kids, I am used to sleep deprivation and only rarely nod off in a seminar. I am no longer sure which one I am …

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

PCR Humor

Not much to say – other than thanks to Jenna Morgan for sending this …

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Symbionts have feelings too

The Onion, one of the key sources of all things wise and accurate in science is reporting on a sad story all too common among symbionts. They report:

After three rainy seasons together, a black rhinoceros and a parasite-eating tickbird are beginning to suspect that their symbiotic relationship has fallen into a rut, the couple reported Sunday.

And furthermore

“The rhino and tickbird may have evolved physiologically to meet each other’s needs, but it’s clear they haven’t evolved emotionally,” the elephant said. “They need to recognize that in order to go forward. The rhino’s loud snorting is very alienating. And obviously the tickbird is projecting her own feelings of inadequacy when she criticizes the rhino for being a typical Diceros bicornis.”

In other words – mutualisms are not the simple “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” they are presented to be. Symbionts have feelings too.”

PS – Thanks to Sourav Chatterji in my lab for pointing out the Onion story.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

The human genome war from a fun perspective

So I was browsing around Amazon because I have a new Evolution Textbook that just came out. And when I searched for “genomics” and “evolution” up popped a “Listmania” list (which I had never heard of before) for Books about J. Craig Venter. And then I saw a new book by Craig – his autobiography “A life decoded: my genome: my life” coming out in October. And that’s when I discovered that the people who bought his book (even though it has not come out yet) also bought

So people apparently link Craig to atheism and Einstein. So I said to myself – what about other books by the genome-war folks? What else did people buy when they bought them? This is where the fun began.

Francis Collins: The Language of God.

So apparently, Francis has the religious readers on his side but nobody seems to link him to science in much of any way.

John Sulston’s a Common Thread

So it seems Sulston has gotten all the people interested in science history.

Michael Ashburner’s Won for All

So I guess Ashburner gets the people interested in the science itself.

I am sure there is more fun to be had here with these. And as my brother pointed out – the Amazon function here of listing what other people bought does not say it is representative in any way (that is, they are trying to sell books so perhaps they list the most popular other books not the ones most commonly linked to the book in question). But it is kind of voyeuristic and fun to see the types of books people are buying in association with these books.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Fishing for biofuels

Well, it sounds a bit crazy but amazingly it turns out to be true. I originally overheard this at a recent conference on biofuels where some venture capitalists hosted a lunch to discuss new possible sources of biofuel production. And a representative of a major international fishing company said they had been approached by a small Pacific Island nation promoting the following idea. The plan is to harvest ALL biomass in their territorial waters surrounding the island and to turn this biomass into fuel. The way they see it, fish, seaweed, algae, and other organisms contain vast reservoirs of material that if processes efficiently could become a significant new source for ethanol production. The questions they were asking related to how much it would cost to simply design giant nets that could collect everything in the water. Apparently, they were even interested in what it would take to collect algae and other microbes.

The way they see it, biofuel production may be more financially rewarding than selling fish and if they could make use of all the other stuff in the water, they might have enough biomass to produce vast amounts of fuel.

I personally love this idea. People are struggling to squeeze the last little bit out of the light that hits the surface of the land on the planet in terms of balancing food and fuel production. So why not simply collect biomass directly from the oceans and turn this into raw material for biofuels? The key question is – how much material could one get? It turns out, quite a bit. It is estimated that the microbial content of ocean surface water is enormous (in particular if one includes the viruses). All one would need is a way of filtering these organisms out of the water (or maybe precipitating them) to supplement the biomass found in the seaweed and larval invertebrates and other organisms. And much of this material will be much easier to process than plant biomass since one will not have the problem of converting lignin and cellulose into usable carbon compounds.

So I believe the time is ripe for an ocean biomass conversion program to be begun to supplement that biofuel production on land. Seems to me like BP and Chevron and the oil companies should be looking into this since they already know a great deal about harvesting material in a marine environment.

NOTE – this is the first posting in a new biofool initiative here at the Tree of Life. Though I support some aspects of the biofuel movement, other parts I think need some reworking. Stay tuned for more brilliant commentary on the issue.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Scientist Reveals Secret of the Ocean: It’s Him

I have gotten this story from a million people (since April 1) and figured someone had to put it out there on the web …

Scientist Reveals Secret of the Ocean: It’s Him

By NICHOLAS WADE

Published: April 1, 2007

Maverick scientist J. Craig Venter has done it again. It was just a few years ago that Dr. Venter announced that the human genome sequenced by Celera Genomics was in fact, mostly his own. And now, Venter has revealed a second twist in his genomic self-examination. Venter was discussing his Global Ocean Voyage, in which he used his personal yacht to collect ocean water samples from around the world. He then used large filtration units to collect microbes from the water samples which were then brought back to his high tech lab in Rockville, MD where he used the same methods that were used to sequence the human genome to study the genomes of the 1000s of ocean dwelling microbes found in each sample. In discussing the sampling methods, Venter let slip his latest attack on the standards of science – some of the samples were in fact not from the ocean, but were from microbial habitats in and on his body.

“The human microbiome is the next frontier,” Dr. Venter said. “The ocean voyage was just a cover. My main goal has always been to work on the microbes that live in and on people. And now that my genome is nearly complete, why not use myself as the model for human microbiome studies as well. ”

It is certainly true that in the last few years, the microbes that live in and on people have become a hot research topic. So hot that the same people who were involved in the race to sequence the human genome have been involved in this race too. Francis Collins, Venter main competitor and still the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), recently testified before Congress regarding this type of work. He said, “There are more bacteria in the human gut than human cells in the entire human body… The human microbiome project represents an exciting new research area for NHGRI.” Other minor players in the public’s human genome effort, such as Eric Lander at the Whitehead Institute and George Weinstock at Baylor College of Medicine are also trying to muscle their way into studies of the human microbiome.

But Venter was not going to have any of this. “This time, I was not going to let them know I was coming. There would be no artificially declared tie. We set up a cutting edge human microbiome sampling system on the yacht, and then headed out to sea. They never knew what hit them. Now I have finished my microbiome.”

Reactions among scientists range from amusement to indifference, most saying that it is unimportant whose microbiome was sequenced. But a few scientists expressed disappointment that Dr. Venter had once again subverted the normal system of anonymity. Recent human microbome studies by other researchers have all involved anonymous donors. Jeff Gordon, at the Washington University in St. Louis expressed astonishment, “I have to fill out about 200 forms for every sample. It takes years to get anything done. And now Venter sails away with the prize. All I can say is, I will never listen to one of my review boards again.”

Venter had hinted at the possibility that something was amiss in an interview he gave last week for the BBC News. He said “Most of the samples we studied were from the ocean but a few were from people.” When the interviewer seemed stunned, Doug Rusch, one of Venter’s collaborators stepped in and said “Collected with the help of other people.”

Venter was apparently spurred to make the admission today that many of the samples were in fact from his own microbiome due to a video that surfaced on YouTube showing Jeff Hoffman, the person responsible for collecting the water samples, performing a tooth scraping of Venter and then replacing the ocean water filter with Venter’s tooth sample.

Venter said the YouTube video was immaterial, “Well, we wanted to wait a few more weeks to have the papers describing the human microbiome published. But in the interest of human health we are deciding to make the announcement today.”

Unlike with the human genome data however, Venter says all of the data from his personal microbiome will be made publicly available with no restrictions. “If there is one lesson I have learned it is that open access is better than closed access. The more people can access my microbiome, the more they will help me understand myself. Plus, unlike Collins and Lander, who publish only in fee-for access journals, we will be publishing our analysis in the inaugural issue of a new Open Access journal that is a joint effort between the Public Library of Science and Nature. It will be called PLoN, the Public Library of Nature.”

In making his microbiome available, Venter has yet again abandoned his genetic privacy as he did when making his own genome available. Interestingly, the microbiome helps explain one of the first findings that was announced regarding his own genome. Venter said that analysis of the samples that came from his intestine reveal that microbes may explain why even though he has an apoE4 allele in his own genome (which is associated with abnormal fat metabolism) he does not need to take fat-lowering drugs. “Apparently, I have some really good fat digesters living in my gut. They make up for what is missing in my own genome.”

Dr. Venter’s reason for having his own microbiome sequenced, he said in the interview was in part scientific curiosity — ”How could one not want to know about one’s own microbes?” As to opening himself to the accusation of egocentricity, he said, ”I’ve been accused of that so many times, I’ve gotten over it.”

The key question that remains is – which of the samples were really from the ocean and which are from Venter. Venter said “Our funding agencies, including the DOE and the Moore Foundation, have agreed that we should not explicitly reveal which samples are which as this will encourage people to develop better methods of analyzing such complex mixtures of different microbes. Next week we will be announcing an X-prize award for the person who can identify which samples are mine and where they came from in me.”

Rob Edwards, a freelance microbial genomics expert says “It won’t be difficult to tell which are which. In fact, we had already identified an anomalous sample from Venter’s previous ocean sampling work, but nobody would listen to us.”

Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist who used to work for Venter says “I am certain that a few creative evolutionary analyses can reveal which sample is which. In fact, we are starting analyzing the samples already in anticipation of the X-prize announcement.”

Others are not so confident. Ed Delong, an ocean microbiology expert from MIT says “We have spent years carefully selecting our ocean samples to make sure they are not contaminated with sewage from cruise ships or from city drains. And now this – a purposeful mixture of ocean and human. It could take years to clean up the mess.”

Venter does not seem concerned. “If nobody can figure out which sample is from me and which is from the ocean, then we have no hope of making any progress in studies of either human microbiomes or oceans.”

More importantly, many scientists want to know what Venter will do next. Some want to know so that they can make sure to stay out of the way. Others probably relish the potential to go head to head with Venter. In this regard, Venter is not shy. “Biofuels. There is a great future in biofuels.”

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Let Colbert Decide: Francis Collins vs. Craig Venter

Well, I walked into a coleagues office and saw them watching Craig Venter on the Colbert Report. They asked me if that was what he was really like (I said no) and then they told me something I somehow missed. Francis Collins had also been on Colbert recently.

So – lets continue the public versus private fight right here on my blog.

The interview with Francis Collins is available here (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=79238).

The interview with Craig Venter is available here (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=82848)

I will refrain from commenting but I would like to solicit comments from others — pretend this was a debate. Who won?

——————————-
In response to Chris G’s comment I am posting pictures of Ned Flanders and Hunt Willard


——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

Badges – do scientists need any stinking badges?

Thanks to garry Myers at TIGR for pointing this one out.

I just got done browsing through the ScienceScouts Site. This comes from the Science Creative Quarteryly which I have never heard of before and seems to be some sort of blog. If anyone knows more about it let me know.

Anyway, the ScienceScouts site has “badges” like Boy Scout Badges, but for scientists.

Examples include:




“The “inordinately fond of invertebrate” badge.
In which the recipient professes an arguably unhealthy affinity for things of this category. (http://scq.ubc.ca/sciencescouts/index.html#30)”



and

The “I blog about science” badge.
In which the recipient maintains a blog where at least a quarter of the material is about science. Suffice to say, this does not include scientology.

(http://scq.ubc.ca/sciencescouts/index.html#6)

which of course, I am awarding to myself.

Garry suggests that I get them to add an “I support PLOS” badge, which I am going to do … People should check it out and award badges to unsuspecting individuals

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–