Great little slide show I “found”

I just came across this great little slide show by @cyberdad — great overview of Twitter for newbies, and no-so-new-bies.

Thanks Tom!

Posted in Social media, Twitter. Tags: , , . Comments Off on Great little slide show I “found”

“This week…we threw the scientists under the bus”

Note: As always, this post is my own opinion and does not necessarily represent the opinion of my employer

As I was watching Meet the Press this Sunday, I caught a great quote from NBC’s Nancy Snyderman.  Starting at around 06:12 of this clip,  she sum’s up what I’ve been feeling this week:

nbc-meet-the-press-panel-examines-cancer-screening-confusion#s-p1-so-i0

“This task force did not look at the economics.  Their job was to look at the pure science. And I think in some ways we hear from the scientists, don’t like the message, and this week I believe we threw the scientists under the bus.  We in this country have three hot button scientific issues.  We have stem cells, vaccines, cancer screening.  We need to step back as a society and let the scientists present their data and then, as an informed populace, look at it, talk about it.  And what happened on Monday was that the headlines then ran with the weak…

“…instead of intelligent people saying, ‘OK, what does this mean and how do we mean it’ And the task force basically said to women in their 40s, individualize yourselves, talk to your doctor.  This is all about, and I think Nancy and I agree on this, better technology.”

The science says what the science says, and in this case, it wasn’t popular.  I don’t know that I agree with the new guidelines in terms of the public health message they put out, but I do believe that the time has come for greater discussion about the merits of mammography, and the need for improved technology in this area.  That discussion seems to be getting lost in the discussion, and I am glad that Dr. Snyderman brought it up.

Posted in Health, News, science, Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , . Comments Off on “This week…we threw the scientists under the bus”

New project at NCI

I’ve been so wrapped up in the new blog I’ve been creating at work, that I haven’t been able to post for a bit.  I’ve got a few drafts going though, so I should have new content shortly.  In the meantime, check out the other weblog I manage at http://benchmarks.cancer.gov.  It’s an example of a government site run on the wordpress.org platform. There’s also a YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/NCInews.  Did you know that YouTube offers free branding to government sites?  Or at least, I think they do.  I haven’t been able to find official confirmation of this, but I registered that channel using a .gov email address, and one day noticed that I had “Branding Options” which I hadn’t noticed before.  Branding Options usually cost thousands of dollars, from what I understand, but I had it free.  I saw a blogger say he was told that branding was now free for  government YouTube channels, but as I said, I haven’t seen anything official.  If you have seen official word, let me know in the comments.

Posted in science, Social media. Tags: , , , , . Comments Off on New project at NCI

Utilizing Social Media

A while ago I did a presentation for the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance on utilization of traditional and social media as it relates to media relations professionals.  Since then, I’ve received a few requests for the slides, so I decided to post them here:

If you have questions, feel free to submit them via the comments.

Halloween goes to the Dogs

Shoon-Zhu the bumble-bee

Shoon-Zhu the bumble-bee

My building had a halloween party for the neighborhood dogs today.  It was such a great idea.  There were about 10 dogs at the park, and they gave prizes for the scariest, most creative, and silliest costumes.  We got there after the judging finished, so we didn’t compete, but boy did he have fun.  He ran around so much that he came home and slept for an hour. Ah, to be a dog.

Puppies, halloween costumes, and treats…who could ask for more.

Photos available here: A Doggie Halloween

Posted in Things I like. Tags: , , , . Comments Off on Halloween goes to the Dogs

Wordless Wednesday: Be Back Soon

The Science Writers 2009 conference was awesome, but now I’ve come back to a mountain of writing assignments at work.  Yikes.  So, in honor of Wordless Wednesday, here is the view outside my office…which I have been locked in all day.  🙂

Posted in Writing. Tags: . Comments Off on Wordless Wednesday: Be Back Soon

Science Writers: Day 2

The second day of the Science Writers 2009 conference began the New Horizons briefings, hosted by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing (CASW), a 501(c)3 non-profit organization devoted to improving the quality of science writing. My favorite sessions on day 2 were a session on Information Technology that focused on catching plagiarism, and a Statistics session that highlighted some Florida election troubles (not the election you’re thinking of).

Informatics and Plagiarism Scandal

Starting out the day, Harold “Skip” Garner, PhD of the Univ of Texas and his team created a web-based software program, called eTBLAST, to scan databases, like Medline (online database of biomedical research papers), to look for instances of duplication that may indicate plagiarism.  As someone who works a research agency that is also the single-largest source of funding for medical research, I found his research interesting, and just a little bit frightening.

The modern research environment is extremely competitive.  The cost of doing medical research is increasing, while the dollars available for that research has been in steady decline.  Academic researchers are judged, in large part, by the number of publications bearing their name, and the number of research dollars they bring into the institution.  A common mantra among scientists, in both public and private settings, is “publish, or perish.”  Perhaps it is this pressure to publish the next big paper, so that you can bring in the big research dollars so that you can publish the next paper, that drives some toward unethical behavior.

Previous studies cited by Dr. Garner have attempted to quantify instances of unethical behavior and found that 0.3% of researchers admitted to faking data, 1.4% admitted to some form of plagiarism, 4.7% published the same data more than once, and as many as 10% included authors that shouldn’t have been included.

Using their text analysis software, the researchers created a searchable database, called Deja Vu, which lists “highly-similar” publications found in Medline.  They currently list over 79,000 papers that are strikingly similar to other papers in the database.  The papers must be verified by hand, and currently only 6372 have been verified.  Mixed in that 6372 in that number are papers that were reprinted with permission, papers that are corrections of previous publications, papers from authors that republish after expanding upon their original work, etc.

The team follow-up on 206 papers, which had, on average, 86% of the same text and 73% of the same references as an earlier paper.  They sent surveys to the authors of the duplicate papers, and to the authors of the original papers.  Ninety-three percent of the authors of the original papers had no idea that their work had been copied.  As for the authors of the latter papers, 25% denied any wrongdoing, while 35% admitted and apologized.  So far, over 90 investigations have been initiated, and there have been over 50 retractions. I’m thinking that, in the “publish or perish” world, imitation is NOT considered flattering!

Nobody Does an Election like Florida

The second speaker was Arlene Ash, Ph.D., a statistician with Boston University whose recent work has focused on what she calls vote theft.  Dr. Ash shared data from the 2006 Congressional election in Florida’s district 13, where Republican Vern Buchanan earned a very narrow, 369 vote victory over Democrat Christine Jennings.

The problem, according to Ash, lies in the missing votes.  In Sarasota county, one of the four counties that make up the district, there were 18,000 people (15 percent) who voted for other elections, but didn’t vote for the Congressional race.  Other counties only had three-percent missing votes, indicating a clear anomaly.  Adjusting for the norm, there were 15,000 excess missing votes in Sarasota county.

If the 15,000 people voted in a similar pattern to the rest of the voters, then the missing votes would not matter.  However,  according to Ash, these votes were not lost at random, and therefore one cannot assume that the votes would be distributed as the non-lost votes.  Polls that showed the Democratic candidate having a strong lead prior to the election seem to confirm this suspicion.

It is speculated that many of the votes were lost due to the design of the ballot in that Florida county (wait, this feels familiar).  On the Sarasota ballot, the congressional race did not get its own page, as many of the other votes did.  It was squished at the top of a page, occupying about a quarter to a fifth of the page, while the rest of the page was occupied by one other election.  Also, for some reason, the headers of the  sections with for the other elections were highlighted with bright colors, while this one was just white.

Ash believes that this constitutes vote theft, which, according to her, occurs when the choices of eligible voters who make reasonable efforts to vote are not counted.  In other words, disenfranchisement.

Vote THEFT seems kind of harsh, but it does seem awfully fishy.  Considering the high potential for error when different places have different ballots, why don’t we just have standardized ballots in this country.  If we have standard passports, and are moving toward standardized ID’s, why not standard ballots?

Posted in science, Writing. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Comments Off on Science Writers: Day 2