Hello readers of Taylor’s blog! I’ll be your guest blogger today. A little about me: I’m currently in the
process of getting my Masters of Science degree at a well-respected institution. My thesis is based on
original scientific research and I consider myself a scientist.

Actually, that’s all I’ll say for now, because that’s all you need to know to answer my next question,
which is: if you had to draw me, what would I look like? Also consider, where am I standing? What am I
wearing? What am I doing?

(Take a moment to ponder this. I’ll wait. There are pictures of cats on the internet that require my
attention.)

Ok, so let me guess: I was wearing a lab coat, wasn’t I? Maybe holding a pipette, standing in front of
fancy looking beakers and such? Oh, and I was probably a guy. With bad hair and maybe even a slightly
crazy facial expression.

Well, hate to break it to you, but you’re all wrong. (Gotcha!) Not just about me in particular, but about
the majority of scientists. As it turns out, the average public has a very specific view of “science”
and “scientists.” To investigate this phenomenon, researchers came up with the “Draw a Scientist Test”
(DAST), which is basically what I just asked you to do, except with pen and paper instead of solely your
imagination. (Like any good scientist, I’ll provide data to back up my claim – here’s an example of a DAST
checklist.)

But like I said, you were probably wrong about me and you’re not the only one. So let me break
down a couple common stereotypes about science and scientists. There are more misconceptions/
preconceptions than these, but since this is a blog post, not a dissertation, I’ll stick to a few basic ones:

1) Science is always conducted in a laboratory.

This isn’t true, for many reasons. For example, part of my research, the actual collecting samples part, is
conducted out at sea. (I didn’t mention that part, did I? Surprise!) In my field, ecology, data collection is
predominantly an outdoor activity. In fact, a lot of disciplines under the broad umbrella of “science” take
place outside a laboratory; the image of a scientist as someone wearing a lab coat and gazing pensively
through a microscope or expertly wielding a pipette applies to only a small portion of “scientists.” Even
then, I guarantee that those scientists don’t spend all their time in an actual laboratory. Which leads
me to a point that some of you may find depressing: most science takes place at a desk. I’m sorry to
dispel your illusions, but the majority of a scientists’ time is spent slogging through data. Consider my
life: every month, I spend maybe three days out in the field collecting samples with my lab, four days
sorting and identifying organisms (yes, I do use a microscope!) and the rest of the time working with
spreadsheets. In fact, I spend most of my time working with a huge data set collected over a couple
months back in 2010. That’s two YEARS ago and people are STILL working on it. Which leads me to the
next preconception…

2) Scientific tools are pipettes, microscopes, beakers, and other such “science-y” equipment.

Sure, this is partially true, but again, this only applies to specific disciplines and even they spend only a
minority of their time working with these tools. I spent one summer working on nutrient analysis, and
let me tell you, I felt super science-y in my lab coat, handling acid and such, using all kinds of “classic”
science equipment. But after one day in the lab, I’d have a bunch of data and I’d spend the rest of the
week (or month) analyzing that data. This becomes even more pronounced the higher up the academic
ladder you climb. My office mate (yes, I have an office, weeee!) recently commented that being in grad
school feels less like science and more like learning computer programs. That’s not far off the mark:
in the past year, I’ve had to learn four (count ‘em, FOUR) new programs to help me with mapping/
interpreting/analyzing data. I spend the majority of my time in front of my computer, using these
programs to (attempt to) transform my data into something meaningful.

Because what does raw data (collected with “science!” tools) actually mean? Nothing helpful, that’s for sure. Scientists spend most of their time on analysis and interpretation because those are the big questions. (“What does it all mean?!”) And although this analysis and interpretation most often occur outside of a laboratory, using “non-traditional” science equipment, the general public has the image of scientists as laboratory-dwelling geniuses. Which brings me to the final (for this post, at least) preconception:

3) Scientists are only the elite; science is intimidating and a non-scientist couldn’t possibly understand it. Don’t even try.  

Let me begin by saying that variations on this preconception are well established in the scientific education literature: “science” appears hard, cold, and very much out of reach for many people. This simply isn’t true, but the perceived inaccessibly of science is extremely widespread and ultimately damaging: if we can’t get kids interested in science at a young age because they’re scared off, they’re going to miss out on something amazing.  And it’s not just kids we need to worry – most members of the voting public have only a rudimentary (and often inaccurate) understanding of science. With the politicization of science and the debate over “policy-neutral science” (topics which are worthy of another blog post or twenty), being science-savvy is becoming a requirement for being a well-informed citizen. 

But back to me: I truly believe that science can be for anybody and everybody can do science! Science is fun! (And you get to wear lab coats!)

For those of you who have been paying attention, right about now you may be thinking “Gee, mixed messages much? You just told me that science is boring computer work in an office and now you want me to believe it’s all a good time in a lab coat? You can’t have it both ways.”  My answer is: Yes you can! It’s ALL science!

As it turns out, nature is incredibly complex and multifaceted (surprise!) and in order to investigate this complicated earth, we have a hundred different types of science and just as many types of scientists. Science is beakers and microscopes, but it’s also computer programs and spreadsheets, tromping through forests and spending months at sea. Science is all around us. And it takes all different disciplines (ecology, geology, physics, biochemistry, genetics, oceanography, etc.  – I could literally fill pages with scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines) to make sense of what we see around us.

From my perspective, this third preconception exists because of the first two preconceptions: most people simply aren’t cognizant of the fact that science is more than beakers and lab coats and scientists are found in all kinds of places – in a lab, in the field, in a classroom, in an office building. Furthermore, while science used to be reserved for the “elite” (read: upwardly mobile white males), those days are pretty much gone. My program and my lab are dominated by women. (Of which I am one, surprise!) Institutions put a lot of effort into recruiting minority groups and outreach efforts are often designed specifically for underserved populations. These days, if you have a passion for science, there are endless opportunities to get involved, whether it’s through traditional classes and internships or through citizen science projects. Science is much “friendlier” (for lack of a better term) than most people realize and most scientists are more than willing to reach out and demonstrate this.

So please, next time you meet a scientist, don’t ask “Where’s your lab coat?” (It gets old.) And don’t assume that if a person doesn’t work on what you consider “science,” he or she isn’t a “real” scientist. (True story: during a community outreach activity, I had a kid tell me she wasn’t interested in hearing about my work in benthic invertebrate communities because she was only interested in “real” marine science: “like whales and stuff.” As if the only things going on in the ENTIRE OCEAN are whale-related.) Instead, ask about that person’s research, what he or she does during an average day. More often than not, the answer may surprise you.

- Your Friendly Neighborhood Scientist

This past weekend my uncle (really my dad's best friend -- whose initials also happen to be "TK") came to visit and we discussed the surprising amount of science he learned from comic books as a kid. Now, I'm not exactly a Comic-Con regular but I enjoy learning about fun ways to explain science. So, here are five superheroes who have taught young readers a thing or two about everything from ants to atoms.

(Proceed with caution: It's really difficult to thoroughly research superheroes, so I depended on my uncle, my dad, and not-so-scholarly sources from the Internet to educate me. In other words, please send me a  comment to let me know if I've messed something up royally. Also, this post is BY NO MEANS saying that any of these characters consistently feature quality science.)

1. Metal Men: A group of robots who each represent -- and are made of -- a single metal. The characters were Gold, Iron, Lead, Platinum, and Tin.
Lessons learned: Each character took on features of their namesakes. Gold could be pounded very thin and was a good conductor, Iron was strong, Lead could stop radiation, Mercury could liquify (and was hot headed), and Platinum could stretch or flatten. As far as I can tell, Tin was rather useless. One Metal Men website (which is fairly educational) quotes him as saying, "I turn to powder at 200 degrees centigrade but I'll do my best to be worthy of you all, if you'll give me a chance."

2. The Atom: The Atom is a superhero who has the ability to shrink down to subatomic size while maintaining his usual mass. Therefore, he could be microscopic but still weigh as much as -- and have the strength of -- an average sized man. In at least one version of the character, the Atom also had an "atomic punch."
Lessons learned: There are things called "atoms" that are really small. Mass is determined by more than just size. Large amounts of energy can be produced by atomic (nuclear) power. 

3. Metamorpho: This superhero has the ability to embody any element found in the human body or any combination of those elements.
Lessons learned: Different elements have different properties and can be combined. Metamorpho also offers readers a glimpse of which elements reside in the human body. (Here is some of what those elements do.)

4. Superman: I will assume you know who Superman is but I learned in some incarnations he only had his superpowers under a yellow sun and that his super strength was due to the fact that Krypton's gravity was stronger than Earth's.
Lessons learned: There are different kinds of suns (stars), gravity can vary on different celestial bodies, and the sun can serve as an energy source.

5. Ant-Man: Another small guy, like the Atom, he is able to shrink down to the size of an ant while maintaining strength proportional to his regular size.
Lesson learned: Ants are crazy strong for their size.

*6. The Flash: Again, you're probably familiar with this guy but he can get some extra credit for his ability to create sonic booms.
Lesson learned: Sonic booms occur when an object moves through air faster than the speed of sound.

Got any more instances of superhero science? Let me hear about them in the comments section below.

*I know, I cheated, there are six.

Apologies for the unintentional hiatus. I'm interning 30+ hours a week (at Women's Health Magazine), while also going to school, and surviving my first NYC heat wave. Now that I've also gotten through my requisite bi-yearly cold, I should be back to blogging!

Anthropology is the study of humans. At UC San Diego I majored in biological anthropology (also called physical anthropology) which, in short, is the study of human evolution and primates. There is also sociocultural anthropology (study of human society and culture) and paleontology (using a whip to recover ancient artifacts while dodging poisoned arrows and giant, oddly-spherical boulders).

The following is a list of 5 things anyone interested in human evolution should know:

1. Evolution is not about perfection. There is no end goal. Just because one species has taken on more mutations than another or seems more complex doesn't mean it's evolutionarily superior. Oftentimes a specific trait is advantageous at one point in time, then hurtful at another (humans' excellent ability to store calories for example). Sometimes species seem to lose some of their complexity as they evolve (consider "blind" cavefish). All in all, evolution is not interchangeable with a time line from worst to best.

2. There is no such thing as The Missing Link. Contrary to the drawing on your witty t-shirt, the evolution of humans does not go 1) monkey 2) monkey/man thing 3) caveman 4) us. There aren't clear steps, evolution is gradual. For that reason we will never find that glorious half-ape, half-human creature that proves evolution to everyone. If you really want to hold on to your missing link, consider every individual hominin a missing link because that's as close as your going to get.

3. "Survival of the fittest" is a ridiculous saying.  It's redundant. "Fitness" in evolution means the ability of an organism to survive and pass on its genes. Thus, this saying means "survival of an organism that is the best at surviving." (Also, my mom would never let me hear the end of it if I didn't take this opportunity to mention that, if you say "ATM machine," you are saying "Automatic Teller Machine machine.")

4. It is pronounced NeanderTAL, not NeanderTHAL. I see that there is a "th" but it's a German word so it's pronounced like "t" is pronounced in English. Yes, I'm being an anthro-snob but if you want to speak Anthropologist, there you have it.

5. Chimps are not monkeys, neither are gorillas. I know this is annoying to most people but it's an important distinction. Are you a monkey? I didn't think so (but if you are, give me a call because I would love to interview a monkey that reads). It's like believing a killer whale is actually a whale -- not the worst thing in the world but a little irritating. Need help telling the difference? Apes (us, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, siamangs) don't have tails, whereas most monkeys do.