PBS wants you to THINK Wednesday, especially about your inner ancestors!

I confess, I don't watch PBS on a regular basis anymore (or TV in general really because I don't have cable- instead I opt to follow specific shows). However, it was probably the channel I watched the most as a kid- while I have nostalgia for Hey Arnold! and Rugrats like others of my generation, I have even stronger memories of The Magic School Bus, Wishbone, and of course, Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Perhaps on the tailwind of COSMOS, PBS recently started a lineup called "Think Wednesday", a three-hour primetime block from 8-11 PM of science, nature, and technology AWESOME. The first two hours are filled by PBS standbys NATURE and NOVA, and the third is reserved for special programs. Currently, that third slot is filled with Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish", a three-part miniseries based on his book of the same name. The first episode (which you can view here) aired last week and continues tonight with "Your Inner Reptile".

Neil is a fish paleontologist based at the University of Chicago and teaches Anatomy & Physiology to a bevy of med students. Some may wonder what someone who does their fieldwork with a shovel instead of a scalpel knows about the way our bodies function, but it actually makes sense- as precursors to tetrapods, you see many similarities between their morphology and ours. While Haeckel's "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" is a historical footnote in modern biology, side-by-side comparisons of tetrapods at early embryological states are remarkably alike. At a more molecular level, shared expression gradients like Sonic hedgehog indicate relatedness of animals.

No, not that one. Source: Wikia

The graphics are slick, and not as jarring as many other "3D Ancient Life POW!" specials have been. I especially enjoyed seeing prehistoric animals crawl around Neil's locations, half-translucent so their bone structure could be visible.

Neil is a great guide, too- not just another talking head. We follow along with the Tiktaalik discovery, we visit friends (and learn things in the process).

Incidentally, I found out my ear pits are actually a developmental error showing a remnant of my first gill arch.

I am the 1%! Though your odds may be higher if you live elsewhere.

I hope PBS continues this structure beyond the life of "Your Inner Fish"- it's nice to have engaging science content distributed throughout the week (and especially when it doesn't have to fight with other shows in the same timeslot like COSMOS does with The Walking Dead and now Game of Thrones). Props to PBS! Hopefully this is the start of a new age in edutainment.

Grad school is (surprisingly, but not unexpectedly) busier than anticipated... so my attempted relaunch ended up being another post in a line promising a schedule. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'm going to try and get in the habit. Not going to promise weekly posts, but I'll set the bar low and aim for monthly.

via the NPR article from 2009

I have been writing reviews of books on goodreads as I go along, though, and just finished Don't Be Such A Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style by Randy Olson, and it seems relevant to post it here since I covered his first documentary four years ago. Post is copied below:

This has been on my to-read list for ages, and now that it's semi-relevant to grad school goals, finally took it off my amazon wishlist. I watched Flock of Dodos during Darwin Week 2010; my review of that is here. Curiously, my opinions of his other work reflect what I got four years later in his book.

Dr. Olson argues that since we live in a world of short-attention spans, scientists need to learn to let go of some of the jargon and embrace subjective emotional/sexual/whatever appeal. Arouse the audience, pique their interest, and they'll follow you to your message. It's important for science communication, and here, nearly five years later there's a proliferation of science communication workshops, courses, etc. (I wonder if Randy ever goes to ScienceOnline in Raleigh?)

While his ideas are good, I'm not going to give it a full 4-5 stars because a good portion seemed to be writing out his disappointment in the blogger community on rejecting Sizzle (which I have yet to see). Science blogs are what drew me towards the world of SciComm, and while there are those who are considerably abrasive (PZ Myers, for example), there are many excellent writers out there (Carl Zimmer, Brian Switek, the Deep Sea News team, etc.) who talk about cool things in the science world without getting condescending (I would definitely have a beer with any of them).

Still, readers should take away from this that it's not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. One of Randy's points from Flock of Dodos is that the Intelligent Design movement is full of buzzwords and as I put it at the time, "shiny wrappers" that make it seem like a palatable product. When Bill Nye debated the legitimacy of Intelligent Design with Ken Ham last month, a sizable number in the science community felt it would be validating a worthless idea by even showing up. However, it was watched by millions, and brought Bill's joy in the scientific method to households that would otherwise never be exposed to critical thinking. Sure, Bill's an engineer and didn't have all the technical details right, but he's insanely relatable and easily communicates these big ideas. The reboot of Cosmos by Neil deGrasse Tyson also shares this enthusiasm over science without talking down to the audience. Get rid of the Ivory Tower, and share what you love!

Welcome to the family, Darwinius!

Big news item of the day: Darwinius masillae. New primate fossil, apparently found in Germany in 1983, but purchased by the lead scientist on this particular research cookie in 2006. Why not reveal it then? Because you have to figure out what it is and present it in a neat, crispy package fit for information consumption.

So here we are, roughly two-three years later, igniting a media frenzy of "Missing Link?!?" articles. Myers discusses and links to MOAR discussion about why this label is inappropriate here. Relevant points include the fact that EVERY fossil is a link between other fossils, and that this particular fossil, while important and undoubtedly fascinating, likely isn't going to shake the scientific establishment like an asteroid hurtling to Earth.

However, I'd like to bring up another interesting point which hasn't been brought up yet- such widespread coverage will hopefully attract more people to the pure awesomeness of biology. Much like a recent xkcd (which apparently won't fully show in this format, AGGH. Livejournal: 1, Blogger: 0. so here's the link)

Aha yes. Everyone will be under our will one day. MWAHAHAHA.