perception of science

its often that people ask me things like "what does a scientist actually do all day?" "how do you discover stuff?" "do you have to stay up all night?"

no, i dont usually stay up all night. i go to observatories with big telescopes every couple months for a week or two to collect data (optical data can only be collected at night, but radio observations can be taken 24 hours a day!), but mostly i'm sitting in front of my laptop (mac, in case you were wondering) working away at various tasks.

its hard to portray in movies the thrills of data reduction, statistical analysis, computer programming, or the time it takes to think through problems after inevitably getting stuck a few times.  so they dont.  instead, they show flashy lab equipment or the eureka! moments or scientists using computers to zoom into fuzzy images to miraculously increase the resolution! oh, if only the universe worked that way!

in reality, my day-to-day office work is completely different every day.  to give an idea, here is a list various things i've been working on over the last few weeks:

• organizing recent research into a paper to submit to a journal
• writing a talk for the Astronomical Society of Australia's Annual Scientific Meeting
• finishing a proposal to use the parkes telescope early next year (ie. learning how radio astronomy works) 
• learning to use python
• finally getting my webpage up to date
• responding to the comments a journal made on a research paper i recently submitted
• helping to clean up a data set ("data reduction") taken at the AAO so that it's science-ready
• organizing travel trips to advertise my research results and get feedback from experts around the world
• trying to keep up to date with the literature and what other astronomers are doing
• refereeing a journal paper submitted by another astronomer somewhere in the world
• brainstorming about developing new instruments for old telescopes  and their potential science
• helping organize professional workshops taking place in sydney
• and probably other things that i cant remember right now.

usually i focus on one or two tasks to accomplish each day and priorities are set by hard deadlines. for instance, the telescope proposal is due early this week, so thats what i'm focusing on right now. but i also told my collaborators i'd finish the data reduction for them by the end of the week, so thats important. and i'd like to present some new results in my talk at the upcoming meeting so i have to test something i think i found in order to make sure it is a robust result and not caused by an observational bias of some sort.

and to be honest, i'm a bit spoiled right now because i do not have large time-consuming obligations to the observatory where i work, nor am i solely responsible for advising any PhD students, or teaching any classes.  so i'm in the lucky position of really being able to focus on research productivity, pursue new collaborative projects, and engage in public outreach (visiting schools, talking to amateur astronomy groups and teachers, public science writing, and writing songs about previous planets, etc..:).  

there are many different science questions i'm thinking about at any given time, with the goal of actually learning something towards their solutions that can be shared with humanity through discussion and publication.  each idea pops around the different stages of the "science in reality" section below with the hope that no research gets lost in the doldrums! 

so anyway, all of this was sparked by this "flowchart of the perception of science in popular culture versus actual science" i saw at electron cafe.   enjoy!

pendulum waves

this video of a series of swinging pendulums of different lengths is a lot cooler than i thought it would be! the time it takes for a pendulum to go through one swing back and forth (its "period") gets longer as the string length grows. longer string = longer period.

dirty space news: NASA reveals heptane fuel

i'll let the folks at NASA do the explainin' after i show the photo...

credit: NASA (!)

i mean...!?!

"Because of the absence of gravity, fuels burning in space behave very differently than they do on Earth. In this image, a 3-millimeter diameter droplet of heptane fuel burns in microgravity, producing soot. When a bright, uniform backlight is placed behind the droplet and flame and recorded by a video camera, the soot appears as a dark cloud. Image processing techniques can then quantify the soot concentration at each point in the image. On the International Space Station, the Flame Extinguishing Experiment examines the combustion of such liquid fuel droplets.

This colorized gray-scale image is a composite of the individual video frames of the backlit fuel droplet. The bright yellow structure in the middle is the path of the droplet, which becomes smaller as it burns. Initial soot structures (in green) tend to form near the liquid fuel. These come together into larger and larger particles which ultimately spiral out of the flame zone in long, twisting streamers."

i dont really know why there is a mirror-image affect. not really the point though.... ;)

where did the women go?

i helped organize a Women in Astronomy Workshop for the astronomical society of australia that took place in sydney this past friday the 13th of may. a major goal of the workshop was to raise awareness of general issues that face women, who ultimately drop out of the field in huge numbers within a few years of getting a PhD, and work towards finding solutions that can be applied by institutions and individuals to retain women in the profession and help them succeed.

so what is the problem exactly? the good news is that half the students attaining undergraduate science degrees from universities are women. not everyone is interested in attaining a degree beyond a bachelors degree, and that is absolutely reasonable, but of those that choose to pursue a PhD, roughly 40% are women (in australia anyway, the percentage worldwide is probably between 30% and 40% for astronomy). but within a few years of getting a PhD the percentage of participating women starts dropping dramatically, such that less than 8% of science professors are women and less than 4% of the top level positions at science institutions, universities, and observatories are appointed to women. from a management standpoint, it is an incredibly poor business practice to invest in the training of so many women only to lose all their knowledge, expertise, and training within a few short years.

keep in mind that this isnt a problem unique to astronomy or even academia: in the corporate sector, women hold something like 15% of the highest positions and board seats, and of all the people in parliament in the world, only 13% are women (source: see video below). it is not possible just simply to say - women have babies and then decide to drop out of their profession. this is true for some, partially because there is not yet adequate support and flexibility to help parents get back into the swing of things after such a career break, but overall the reasons are much more complex and not discussed openly enough, in my opinion.

one point made at the workshop that i had not fully appreciated before is that women tend not to say things in meetings (big or small) unless they are almost certain that what they are about to say is absolutely "correct." it is more common for men to throw out speculative ideas without regard to whether someone might show they are wrong, or without considering whether their statement might hold up an otherwise very tight meeting agenda.

one of the many reasons for this might be something called "the imposter syndrome," which affects most people to some degree, but much more often women, and potentially to a career-debilitating degree. the imposter syndrome describes the fear or worry that eventually someone will figure you out and realize you're not actually as smart and capable as they think you are! this can prevent you from negotiating contracts, asking for promotions, or applying for grants or positions that you think you probably wont get. of course women and men are equally capable, but the trouble is, you can never get something you don't apply/ask for, and the numbers show that men more often ask for promotions and apply for grants than women.

i recognize that it is my responsibility to speak up at meetings and make a vocal contribution of substance in order to be noticed, heard, acknowledged and appreciated, but i have to admit that it's almost always a challenge. when i attend a meeting or listen to a talk and a question or comment pops into my mind, inevitably my heart pounds loudly and i feel myself shaking a little from nerves over the prospect of speaking out to the group. you'd think after attaining a PhD, thinking about this astronomy stuff for so many years, and genuinely believing that i have ideas to offer the discussion, i would have gotten over these feelings, right? wrong. i still have to force myself to be brave and make the statement, to let my face turn beet red and risk sounding unknowledgeable or stupid.

i know i'm not the only one with these feelings and fears and the only way to help get over them is to be aware of them, admit them, talk about them, and have courage (i hope!)! that is part of what the workshop was about. almost 70 people showed up last friday, including several heads of university astronomy groups and the directors of observatories. considering there are only about 400 professional astronomers in australia, i thought the turn out was a great success! there were many female PhD students present, but the audience was noticeably lacking young male PhD students.

photo credit: bryan gaensler

unfortunately, i think the tendency for most people is to think "well, i'm not sexist (or racist, etc...) and i don't understand how anyone could openly express such discrimination, so i don't have anything to gain by attending such a workshop."

it's not enough just to believe that you do not practice these behaviours and then ignore the issues entirely, because  
we all have "unconscious biases" and many of your colleagues are systematically suffering because of them.   we need to be aware of these biases in order to change the current state of career progression and not lose female talent from continuing along the academic (or corporate or political) pipeline.


instead of going on about more potential problems that lead to the decreased number of women at the highest levels, i will refer you to the video below for some other issues, and move on to sharing some practical suggestions that came out of the workshop that can be implemented by institutions and individuals.

action points for institutions:

• appoint diverse committee members to select speakers for conferences and recipients of awards and jobs. our unconscious natural tendency is to want to work with people who are like ourselves. this is mostly ok, or at least understandable, but ever notice, for example, how invited speakers at conferences are almost always men despite the fact that attendees are much more gender balanced? of course there are fewer women who have reached the career stage to give invited talks, but we have to start recognizing and encouraging and exposing the women that are in the field. diversifying selection committees is one way of taking action towards this goal.

• supply childcare at professional meetings, especially national meetings, so that parents can also benefit from the community and the networking possibilities for themselves and their students. and since we all know that a lot of ideas and new collaborations happen at the pub and over dinner, offer a few evenings of childcare as well so parents can spend some time with contacts outside of the rigorous daily conference sessions.

• offer more flexible working arrangements and small grants to encourage mothers and fathers to return to work while dealing with all the unpredictable time frames of children. examples: if you are advertising a position and it is possible to hire someone at part time, mention that in the ad! monash university offers a populate and publish maternity leave grant (what a name!?!). offer an option to take unpaid holidays for school breaks, provide onsite childcare, support a child friendly work environment (and tell employees!).

• encourage employees at all levels to participate in organized mentoring programs. if there is no program in place, develop one.  dont make the mistake of assuming that "hard work and merit" are the only factors necessary for advancement for every individual. people also need encouragement and mentoring.

• in applications, ask for selected 5 years of publications, instead of just previous 5 years, to account for career breaks.

• institute a double blind academic journal refereeing system. (can someone explain to me why this isnt already in place? that's not the only problem with the academic journal racket though.)

• have open discussions about these issues inside your working groups!! encourage the acknowledgement of unconscious bias.

action points for individuals:

• speak up at meetings (be brave), network broadly, find mentors, set goals, know when to say no, apply for things!! do not let people assume that just because you do a task once that you will always be responsible for it, especially if it isnt gaining you any prestige or career benefit! dont fear that because you say no you wont be "liked." the point is not to be liked, but to be respected.

• goals should be specific, measurable, attractive to you, realistic, and time-framed (short- and long-term).

• find mentors!   seek senior members who can be active mentors (both men and women), or widespread university programs, and do this at every stage in your career!  recognize who in your department or institution is useful, successful, powerful, and/or influential and get to know them! seek their advice and mentorship.

• pay attention to words used when writing recommendation letters. (as a test, search through the adjectives you have written in a letter for a man and a letter for a woman. it was a telling exercise in unconscious bias for one speaker at the workshop) 

• use appropriate titles (Dr, Prof, etc...) consistently for all colleagues regardless of gender.

• surround yourself with happy (not miserable) people in your working environment.

• make sure your romantic partner is a real partner in every sense of the word.

• be self aware of personal biases

please share any other ideas in the comments and i'll update this list if possible.  for further reading, the american astronomical society provides a nice page of resources for all.


i'll leave you with yet another excellent TED talk by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg on "Why we have too few women leaders." she articulates some of the above, but also brings up several other very interesting points, including why it's true that "success and likability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women."

UPDATE: if you're interested in this post, i recommend reading through the discussion happening inside the comments. i also encourage everyone to participate!

why dark matter matters

this is an excellent pencast from phd comics.

Dark Matters from PHD Comics on Vimeo.

storm, by tim minchin

i'm impressed by the story told by tim minchin's in this beat poem and also the art of STORM the movie.

enjoy!

the aurora

an aurora is a colorful dance created by energetic particles from the sun interacting with a planet's magnetic field.

i. must. see. earth's. aurora. in. person. one. day!!!

this is just beautiful...

The Aurora from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

nuclear reactors in japan

i wanted to share some information about the issues surrounding the nuclear reactors in japan since the massive earthquake and tsunami hit last week.

you can read an informative article by maggie koerth-baker: nuclear energy 101.

or watch below as the professor from the periodic table of videos sits down to have a chat about what's going on inside the nuclear reactors in japan:



here's another video that really shows in the strength of flowing water. its amazing how quickly the volume increases. (thanks to commenter kevin for the public link!)

the elements, a song

what do you get when you combine the periodic table of videos, a song called "the elements" by tom lehrer, and brady's editing skills? watch:

what confuses physicists?

sixty symbols continues its series of videos answering viewers' questions. in this installment we were asked "what parts of physics confuse you?" the short answer: a lot!

the big bang explained

thank you SMBC for giving a plausible explanation of the cause of the big bang :)

bioluminescence

photgrapher phil hart captured this incredible image of the gippsland lakes in victoria, australia in 2008.

the cause of the blue glow is bioluminescence: light produced by a chemical reaction which originates in an organism, and this case, it was an organism that lived in the lake for one summer only!

the whole, fascinating story is on his website, but i'll summarize here. fires and massive floods starting in 2006 caused nitrogen rich water with high salinity to concentrate in the gippsland lakes. after a summer of these conditions, a new species to the lake began to prosper, called noctiluca scintillans, or sea sparkle. whenever there is motion or agitation in the water, it glows more brightly!

what a strange and interesting world we live in!

why your star sign is wrong

mike shares some very nice explanations in this video from sixty symbols.

holy cactus!

Léon Diguet took this photo as part of his research in 1895 in the baja california peninsula. the cardón cactus is the world's largest type of cactus and can live for several hundred years. incredible...!

adenocarcinoma

too bad adenocarcinoma is a cancer, because this photo of it splitting into two cells is gorgeous.

via fresh photons

space

(via its called science)

fire and ice

spotted in NYC in december 2010:

antihydrogen

its nice to hear my old colleagues talk about interesting things! here the folks of sixty symbols talk about an experiment at CERN that is "trapping" antihydrogen.

calvin on gravity

via fresh photons

arsenice and old life

you may have heard the buzz around NASA's press release last week regarding the bacteria found in california's mono lake which can build DNA using arsenic instead of the typically used ingredient phosphorus?

brady haran's university of nottingham project, periodic table of videos has tackled the topic in a very interesting way. watch below to learn more!