Monday 18 May 2015

Something to write to.

You might have picked up that I'm currently trying (with trying being the operative word) to write my PhD thesis. Writing up what you've done and trying to justify it can be agony. I'm currently looking back at some of the work I'm putting in my thesis and thinking "Why, oh, why did I do that?!" I'm also enjoying writing an introduction full of 'common knowledge' which is so common it's really hard to reference properly. Yeah, I'm having all the fun.

Due to my general lack of fondness for this writing thing, I really need motivation to keep going I manage to start typing. One of my favourite things to help me get into a writing groove is music. I find it really hard to think and write without some noise going around me and the kind of noise that helps me tune into writing the most is music. So, here's a sample of what you can find on my writing playlist,


Anything from the Doctor Who Soundtracks
My collection of Doctor Who soundtracks is one of the first things I turn to when wanting to focus in and get something done. I don't know what it is about those soundtracks in particular which really help me get into a productive groove, but they do. Maybe it's because it helps me trick my brain into thinking that I'm doing something I really enjoy rather than writing. Or maybe it's because it makes doing science feel that little bit more epic.


Something in Japanese.
J-pop is one of my really not guilty-about-it guilty pleasures. How can you not love it when almost every pop song has a shredding guitar solo in it! What makes it a top pick of mine to write to is that I don't understand the lyrics so instead of singing along in my head I can just let it wash over me and keep writing. My favourite Japanese song at the moment is "Gurren No Yumia" by Linked Horizon, made famous as the main theme from the titanic (haha!) Attack on Titan. Where else would you get a crazy awesome fusion of rock and classical music with an organ solo thrown in for good measure? For something a little bit more conventional I might turn to Magia by Kalifina or Hacking to the Gate by Itou Kanoko.

 

Something From a Musical
There are times when working I need something I can sing along to in my head and, as I'm a musical junkie, something from a musical will always perk me up and make me a happy writing camper. My favourite tracks at the moment are "Nobody's Side" and "Where I Want to Be" from Chess. Actually, just all of Chess with Benny and Bjorn's amazing music and Tim Rice's beautiful lyrics.


Florence and the Machine
Florence and the Machine are amazing. At times when I need something to metaphorically grove to while I work they are one of my most popular choices. At the moment I can't get enough of "What Kind of Man" and I'm counting down to 1st June so I can get my hands on the new album.


An Awesome Parody Song
I often need a motivational boost when writing and for some strange reason one of the best things I can do to get myself back in the zone is to listen to a parody song. Honestly, I have no idea why, but it works for me! My current go to track is "Diggy Diggy Hole" by Yogscast. But Not Literally's Game of Thrones parody Some Character I Used to Know and cover of I Don't Care are also high up on my list.

Tuesday 5 May 2015

This is for girls, that's for boys and never the twain shall meet.

This week I'm getting narked off about the whole for girls and for boys messages we seem to insist upon. It's everywhere, from the toys we buy children, to the activities we get kids involved in to the subjects we encourage them to do in later life. When will we stop? From such an early age we bombard children with messages that girls and boys like separate things and do separate things, it's improving but with books like "The Big Brilliant Colouring Book for Boys" and the "The Big Beautiful Colouring Book for Girls" out there and the march of gendered Lego kits, things haven't changed enough. 

So what's got this particular bee lodged in my bonnet this week? Firstly, its that Marvel have excluded Black Widow from sets in the Avengers: Age of Ultron toy line and from many other items of merchandise. Clearly, Marvel have dropped the ball here. You can't really say you're selling a set of the Avengers toys if one of the Avenger's isn't in it. It makes me wonder how they're going to merchandise Captain Marvel if they have so much trouble putting together items which have 1 woman and 6 men on it. As it stands Marvel and Disney haven't made a statement on their design choices, but why might they be so quick to exclude Black Widow from merchandise? The main answer that comes to mind is gendering of products. Girls don't like superheros, boys don't want 'girl things' therefore, lets not include Black Widow. There have been various anonymous tips suggesting that Disney think they got the female market covered with the princess line and that buying Marvel was specifically to get them a similar dominance in the male market. Erm, hello Disney, girls don't want, and shouldn't just have, princesses marketed to them. I'd say even more so given what the vast majority of their princesses say about what women should be. There are now direct appeals coming from Mark Ruffalo and Clark Gregg (the actors behind Bruce Banner and Agent Coulson) that Marvel and Disney really need to fix this problem. Will this help? Who knows, Disney are still defiantly quiet on the matter and it's likely they will continue to be, as this problem was also present in Guardians of the Galaxy merchandise where Gamora was excluded from a lot of items. Why didn't they learn from this? Especially when it's well known that women and girls are consuming Marvel media? 44% of people seeing Guardians in it's first week were female, so surely that's something you want to tap into.

Next, there's DC launching a re-branded set of female superheroes aimed at girls which will include a toy line and TV broadcasts. So this is a win, right? Someone is acknowledging that girls like superheroes too and are focusing on a female audience. That's fantastic! However, the thing that bugs me is how all the heroes (and villains) have been Disney Princessed up. When I first saw the production art I though they were just using one of the many fun pieces of Disney Princesses as Superheroes fan art. But they aren't. We get a set girls with of almost identical faces and teeny weeny waists yet again. Um... Why? Superheroes are idealised, I get this, but they can't they at least have different faces? Also, why just one show with an ensemble? We have superman and batman with their own TV lines in the DC world. Can't Wonder Woman and her compatriots stand on their own too? I'm also a bit bothered by the whole gendering of the show. I do asking myself why does it have to be just for girls and not for everyone. However, with the strong gendering of most superhero material to boys, maybe we need this one to start bringing in some balance?

I suppose all that we can do is hope that Marvel and Disney take a long hard look at what they're doing. I really hope Disney learn some lessons fast, otherwise I think we may be having this same problem again when Star Wars comes out. I also have my fingers crossed DC don't make a mess of their idea and that they don't go too far in girly-ing up the series. 

Thursday 30 April 2015

Behind the Curtain Again

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about some of the not so great behind the scenes goings on in science. I'm revisiting that after news broke yesterday of a paper by Dr Fiona Ingleby and Dr Megan Head being rejected by a journal reviewer with the following comment.
Images of comments from Fiona Ingleby's twitter
The paper in question was on gender issues in the flow of researchers from PhDs to Post Docs and not only does the review suggest that the authors needed 'to find one or two male biologists to work with', it also included this lovely commentary.
Images of comments from Fiona Ingleby's twitter
Or Mr Reviewer, maybe there are issues of where women get published due to people like you. On top of the drivel above the Reviewer also acknowledges looking up the author's websites and notes their genders and post doc status in the review and appears to see them as 'junior' researchers. Ironically both authors  have over 20 years of research under their belts. You know how I said status matters in my original behind the curtain post? Well, I think this is a perfect example of that point. 

On their twitter feeds, Dr Ingleby and Dr Head have pointed out that this kind of review really shows why we need double blind peer review. At the moment, when an author submits a paper they get reviews back from anonymous reviewers. However, the reviewers get full access to the author's details so can easily find out things like their gender and status in the field in question at will. Does this skew their perceptions of the work they are given to read? Well I think the above comments tell you that it does. Double bind peer review would remove the element of reviewer bias as the reviewer can only judge the work, not the person. Another option is to let the authors know who is reviewing them because, as you find with internet trolls, once you take away the mask of anonymity, people think a lot more before they speak. However, a clear argument against this would be that knowing a reviewer's identity could lead to personal vendettas or bribery. Therefore, double blind peer review is probably the way to go to protect integrity in science. 

The publisher (PLOS One for anyone who cares) who allowed these comments to stand as 'legitimate' criticism have since apologised and state that the paper is under being looked at under the appeal Dr Ingleby and Dr Head have submitted. But frankly, that's not good enough. How could any editor allow such complete and utter rubbish be included as a review? What are they going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again? Will they stop sending papers to the reviewer in question? I hope that this incident sparks a wider discussion and maybe change in the peer review process, but I won't hold my breath. If at least it makes reviewers think twice about what they write about papers and what editors accept as legitimate reviews then that's a small positive result from this. However. until peer review changes, I don't think we'll see the back of dodgy reviewers comments.


Monday 20 April 2015

Does Scientific Accuracy Matter in Fiction?

Science can be found all over the place in fiction. From crime drama to the obvious science fiction, it pops up everywhere; but, does it matter if fiction is scientifically accurate? Validity and accuracy are funny things to apply to fiction as, well, it's not real. However, how does scientific accuracy effect story telling and what does it tell an audience?

The most obvious place to look at science in fiction is by looking at science fiction itself. Sci-fi is awash with amazing ideas of what might happen in the future, but it's also home to some things that are just draw droppingly bad too and can make you want to bang your head against a desk when you notice them.

One of the best examples of scientific accuracy in a story I can think of is Doctor Who's Weeping Angels. Why? The quantum lock. The thing that makes the Angels so terrifying (apart from the fact that they could be anywhere) is that they only move when you don't look at them. In the episode Blink the Angels are described as being quantum locked because there are many things in quantum physics that don't do certain things when you observe them. Those two words are a perfect descriptor for the Angels and is filled with science. For a general audience it sounds cool and opens the door for people to maybe explore what quantum is all about, which maybe, just maybe might encourage someone to pursue physics. However, for people who know what quantum theory is, that description is a stroke of genius. For me, it perfectly encapsulates the Angels in real quantum theory. Like electrons, when not being measured or watched they have a probability of being anywhere and everywhere, but once seen they suddenly become fixed in the most probable place. Its beautiful writing, complete with respect for science and I think its just wonderful.

There's unsurprisingly a lot of science jargon thrown around in Star Trek, and sometimes it gets a little bit muddled. In the original series, the writers originally to use lithium as the Enterprise's power source, but their scientific advisor highlighted that as lithium is a known element with known properties (which didn't include powering warp drives), they should switch to using dilithium crystals, which don't exist. However, in a strange twist, Lithium-6 crystals are being tested as a possible fusion fuel source, which might just be used to power space ships in the future! So we move from a real phenomena to a made up one. Using Lithium to power a starship is bad science, and people will notice it. However, when you make up a new molecule, there's no science base for it. Therefore, this helps to encourage the audience to suspend their disbelief and go, "OK if you have dilithium, this is possible." Another great example of a made up science fudge in Star Trek is the transporter and it's most important component the Heisenberg Compensator. From what I can find the Heisenberg compensator is introduced in Next Generation because physics tells us that you can't know both the position and momentum matter with absolute accuracy, which is known as the Heisenberg Principle. Therefore, how could you transport people without seriously messing them up? Well all you need is a Heisenberg Compensator to remove this problem! How does it work? In the words of Trek Scientific advisor Michael Okuda "Very well thank you". So once again you go from certain sections of the audience going "Transporters? Hmm. How do you fix the Heisenberg uncertainty for that to work?", to "Oh, ok, they have a box which does a thing.", once again creating a suspension of disbelief. The key thing as to why these fixes an fudges work is research, particularly with the Heisenberg Compensator. The writers found ways to understand the world and what governs it, then were able to find reasons why the story breaks fundamental rules.

Now when is science portrayed really inaccurately in fiction? The most prominent example is the age old "I'll just increase the resolution for you" which appears all over fiction when the suspect has been caught on CCTV. It's just so stupid! You can't get information from nothing. What even more frustrating is an easy fix. CCTV cameras collect lots of information, so what if the investigators get a low resolution version of the video which can be sent to them really quickly? Then if they see something interesting they can just ask for a high resolution frame to be sent over! Ta daaaa! You get the number plate without conjuring it up from thin air. There's only one time when this kind of reality abuse just might be acceptable that I can think of, and then it's only just acceptable by a hair. The TV show was Alias (and awesome by the way), and it took them THREE DAYS to increase the resolution. Yep. 3 days, not seconds or minuteness, which in my mind is just about acceptable considering they were using CIA supercomputing and databases to reconstruct the image.

So does scientific correctness matter? Yes and no. When science in fiction is done right, its beautiful. When it's not it's awful. If what you want breaks the rules, make something up! It's simple and effective. There are very few situations when people won't accept it even in contemporary setting. It's really rewarding for a reader when you can can reference and adapt real science to suit something a plot point in a story. When that's not possible, making up a reason why you can break the rules can be just as good. Especially, if you can hint to the real science blocking your way. Either way, if science or technology has a large baring on a story and it doesn't work, it can kill it; especially when all it would have taken was the few moments to read that Wikipedia page in a bit more detail.

Thursday 9 April 2015

Behind the Curtain

One of the things in my PhD which has been the most eye opening is looking behind the curtain  and seeing how science actually works. Let me tell you, it's quite a bit different to how the scientific community like to present it. 

In school you are taught that a textbook tells you the truth and scientists come up with experiments, write conclusions and communicate them to the masses in statements that are irrefutable. When I got my head around that, I though it was great and that science was a pure pursuit of truth, free of prejudice. As time goes on you do A-levels and a degree and you're taught that just because its published doesn't mean its true. People make mistakes, experiments can miss out key factors. You are taught to scrutinise papers and see if the claims they make are valid. That's sensible too, everyone can't be right all the time. Through all this time the messages are consistent. Science is about finding the truth, constantly doing better, all ideas are valid if you can back it up with evidence. If you find something out, it'll be accepted because science has peer review and the community is open to change. Then, you become a PhD student and you realise that although the great scientific method is pretty good, when you look up close it's stained, chipped and not the perfect thing you thought it to be.

People are people. We look out for ourselves, we hold onto our views very tightly and don't like it when others challenge them. We have authority structures where the people at the top have more say than those at the bottom, we need money and some people will not always be moral bastions in their pursuit of it. 

Why am I stating this? Well, however much scientists pretend that scientific truth is all that matters. They're only people. And being only people they bring the flaws of the human race into science, meaning that science isn't always unscrupulously fair. A small number of scientists fabricate results. A small number rig peer review, the very process the scientific community heralds as so rigorous and so just and the cornerstone of research practice. However, the problems aren't just when people try to further themselves. It can be hard to challenge existing thinking, you can get knocked back for challenging the status quo. Sadly, it's very unlikely that Einstein's papers would see the light of day if he'd first written them in today's climate as potentially important ideas can be ignored if they stray too far from generally held opinion. Also, this unwillingness to hear contradictory ideas to the accepted has the potential stop mistakes (unintentional and deliberate) being highlighted, as a new paper may be turned down for obtaining a different result than an already published paper. There's also another reason why Einstein might not have been published if he presented relativity today. Status. Status matters. If you've not published in a field before, sometimes you can be looked on with suspicion. Science can suppress rather than support new voices. 

Beyond this some people actively find ways to make their research go further. Science is competitive, having lots of papers matters and so does the number of times your papers have been used in other work. So, what's an easy way to bump up the number of papers and the number uses of your work? Cut up a project into tiny sections, publish them separately and mention them in the next paper along to give your usage numbers a boost (this even has it's own name in science 'salami slicing'). Basically, this means scientists can make themselves look better, by artificially inflating their performance metrics. Can you blame people for doing this? I don't think so, science is pressurised. You need good paper numbers to get good grants and you need grants to work so, if you can, why not make 3 papers from 1 important result.?

What's the point in saying all this? Well, it's pretty unsettling to find all this out after you've jumped on the science is awesome bandwagon and are bound to a PhD project. A process you've thought was a great system of truth and equality isn't quite as good as it should be and it's better to find that out early. Also, for people outside of science it's important to know that when the media say, "Scientists have discovered..." what they really mean is, "Some people did a bunch of experiments and they claim that...". However much it pretends, science and the fabled scientific method isn't flawless. It's as flawed as the people who conduct it. To claim otherwise is just not true. 

Monday 23 March 2015

The Eclipse!


It was the eclipse on Friday! Hurrah!

I'd was desperate to get a good look at the action as this was the most complete eclipse I've had the chance to see so far. On the left is a picture I snapped just after the peak of the eclipse in Sheffield. We were quite lucky as during my walk to work in the morning it was really cloudy, so I was thinking I might just have to watch it on TV. However, I wasn't going to give up so I made myself an oh so sophisticated pinhole camera and went outside to see if I could catch anything with it. 
The very hi-tech pinhole camera!
With it being so cloudy, it was really hard to get the pinhole to work, but because of cloud cover and the very handy polarising windows in my building, we were able to snap photos and catch the action inside. Also, once everything started brightening up again I managed to get some very good, but small images of the sun from my pinhole, although I had to stop after a while when my arm went into cramp... Oops! 
I think the main problem that stopped the pinhole working as well as I hoped was the ambient light as when I've used one before we drew the curtains around us to see the projection better, but at least I can make a note of that for next time.

All in all I had a great Friday morning, I got some great pictures and experienced a pretty rare event in person! If you missed the Eclipse action (fingers crossed you that you didn't), or if you want to re-live it, you can catch it all over on BBC iPlayer with Eclipse Live from Dara O Briain, Brian cox and Liz Bonnin. For more about eclipses check out the Stargazing Live Resources page here!



Wednesday 11 March 2015

The Tuition Fee Condundrum

Recently, the Labour party have been talking about their plan to decrease tuition fees if they win the next election. Whilst this feels a good thing to do on the surface, the more I read on the subject, the more I come to realise that this isn't really going to help. If you're interested in this topic (like me!), you should definitely have a read of Martin Lewis' response to this potential policy here. He's really great at drilling down into what the financial effect of fees and is an invaluable resource for information on all kinds of financial matters.

So why might lowering tuitions fees not be good news? Well, it looks like only the well off are going to do better out of this. That's the people who get the super high flying jobs with starting salaries in excess of £35000 when they leave university, which is small part of the graduate population. Why do they benefit? Because they are the only ones who'll pay off their loans before they are written off if hey only make the basic repayments. In response to this issue, Labour are saying they'll have a higher interest rate for high earners, but it's only going to be 1% more than the standard rate so whether this will help or not is debatable. However, having said that it's already the case that the amount of student loan repaid on £9000 fees is the most for people on £35000 to £45000 annually. Therefore, people with really high paid jobs get a better deal as it stands anyway! In the past it's been suggested that Labour might move away from fees to a 'graduate tax' system of paying for university tuition. As far as I understand it this will mean that graduates pay a higher rate of tax compared to non-graduates and this might redress the balance of payment with earnings.

Another important thing to think about is that Labour aren't talking about what they'll do to make up this sudden £3000 shortfall per student to the universities. Will it pay an extra £3000 per student? Or will that money go away? If so this could be very detrimental to the long term financial plans universities have, especially if the drop is initiated immediately. Also, will universities be forced to keep their access programmes going? At the moment if universities want to charge top fees they have to provide bursaries for students from less well off families. Will these stay or go?

A more pressing problem is the going suggestion from the current government about when you should start paying your loan back. At the moment you'll only start to repay your loan if you earn over £21,000 and this will go up with inflation each year. However, they're thinking of fixing this figure so that as the years go by people will gradually pay more. That sounds like an ok decision to make in principal if you tell people upfront, but there are rumours that they'll do this to people who have already signed up for university and loans when it was promised that the amount you have to earn to repay the loan will go up each year. Which is not on at all in my opinion.

At the end of the day, I'm a supporter of no tuition fees. I've seen people be put off going to university because of the debt issue. I know my student loan is going up and up while I do my PhD and I don't really mind because either my 9% contributions from when I start work will pay it off, or they won't and it'll be written off eventually, but either way I'll pay what I can afford through the tax system. Would I be in favour of a graduate tax? Possibly, as long as it's fair and means people pay a reasonable amount into the pot it might not be too bad. But we must always weigh the need to pay for universities against the need to ensure that everyone has equal access to education.

Thursday 5 March 2015

World Book Day!

It's World Book Day! So I thought I'd fling some science-y book recommendations your way. 

Let's start with the non fiction:
  1. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
    I reviewed Bad Science a while back on this blog and talked about how important it is in conveying some of the ways science journalism can be inaccurate and over the top. Whether you want to go into any form of science or not this book is a must read to help you cut through the noise that the news spews at us every day and find the truth in science reporting.
  2. In Search of Schrodinger's Cat By John Gribbin
    I'm not going to lie, I initially picked up this as a book as I thought it'd be a good one to put on my personal statement for applying to university. However, it turned out to be a really good, easy to follow book which gives you a whistle stop tour of what Quantum Physics is about and what it means. If you are interested in digging a little deeper into this cool bit of physics, whatever your level of physics knowledge, this is a great book to pick up.
  3. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman
    Of the books I've talked about, this is probably the most complicated, but it's well written and is probably the most interesting. In the book Feynman looks at questions like why does the angle of incidence equal the angle of reflection when light hits a mirror, as well as introducing the concept of matter and antimatter. It's a pretty short book, but when I read it, I felt pretty blown away by it. I'd recommend it to anyone doing A-Level Physics (it was recommended to me as personal statement fodder) or someone who has read other popular science books and wants something a bit deeper.
And on the fiction side of things (which is terribly short as I tend to watch more Sci-Fi than I read):
  1. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy By Douglas Adams
    Hitchhiker's is one of the most iconic science fiction books in the world and it is well worth the read. It's eclectic, bonkers and fun. There is no way on this earth that you could get bored reading this book.
  2. His Dark Materials Trilogy by Philip Pullman
    In many ways His Dark Materials is often held up as great fantasy fiction, and it is. It just also happens to have a lot of science (or pseudo science) going on in the background. From Lord Asriel's investigations, to the General Oblation Board's morally dubious tests and Mary Malone's work, there's a lot of scientists and science in this trilogy. I can't wait to get the chance to pick these books back up.
Finally, a few books that have nothing to do with science, but you should read anyway!
The Black Prism by Brent Weeks (for a more mature audience, yey violence!), The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch (for a mature audience, yey lots of violence!) and The Wheel of Time (starting with Eye of the World) by Robert Jordan (for, well, pretty much everyone who's not put off by it being 4.4 million worlds in total or being over 19 days long on audiobook. Yey epic tales!), oh and A Madness of Angels by Kate Griffin (also for more mature readers).

Have you read any of the books I've mentioned? What do you think of them? What would you recommend?

Tuesday 17 February 2015

Link Round-Up 17th February 2015


Hello! Here's my pick of what's been going on around the internet in science over the past week.
  1. Last week NASA released the highlights reel from their past 5 years of observing the Sun with the Solar Dynamics Observatory. This video is an incredible look at what out sun is really doing every second of every day and is well worth watching.
  2. Strange plumes appeared over the edge of Mars in March and April 2012 and so far, no one has a definitive explanation of what is going on. Although it's been a while since they were seen, these events are still a puzzle nearly 3 years on. The team investigating this phenomenon have a couple of ideas of what might be happening, but if either are true they mean our current ideas of what Mars' atmosphere is like are wrong. Hopefully, some of the new probes orbiting Mars might shed some light on what's really going on.
  3. It's commonly held knowledge that shopping for food while you're hungry isn't a good idea. Seeing all that food while wanting to eat can make you splurge on all sorts of things you don't need (I'm looking at you Pop-tarts). But new work by Dr Alison Jing Xu who studies decision making suggests that hunger can make you buy more of pretty much anything. So it might be a good idea to make sure you're well fed are before splashing the cash.

Currently Listening to Lord of Chaos by Robert Jordan. My Wheel of Time listen-athon is progressing nicely and it's a great way to experience the fantasy masterpiece. 
Currently Watching Brooklyn Nine Nine. So funny, so good, I'm making sure I've seen every last episode.

Monday 9 February 2015

The State of the Superposition

Right then! I've been thinking about where I want this blog to go, so I want to update you all on what might be coming your way in the near future.

Up until now I've been writing about science, degrees, PhDs and some science related things. But, now I'm heading into thesis writing territory I'm going to change the subject matter ever so slightly. The reason for this is pretty simple. I'm going to be writing about science (my science in fact) for long periods of my day and the idea of writing even more about just science or my PhD doesn't feel very fun. I'll probably do an odd PhD related posts about writing a thesis or something else, but don't expect as much university related content. Instead my idea is that Superposition of Sciences will branch out and look at science in the media, from woks of fiction to documentaries to news stories. Why? Well, it's something that I find particularly interesting at the moment and I have opinions on it; so hopefully I'll have something to say and we'll have new a superposition (overlap) of science and the media, instead of just different sciences.

Thanks for reading so far and I hope you still will as I move into this new area of discussion.

Later this week you can expect to see a new link round up and a fresh post will appear next week.

Monday 2 February 2015

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and the Bang (Part 3)

Here we are at part 3 in this series of posts talking about representations of women in STEM on TV and film. I kicked things off by talking about Grimm and the good things it does (find that here) and continued by looking at Star Trek, Hannibal and others (that's here!), with some thoughts about what works and what doesn't in character representation.
Firstly, disclaimer time:
I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.

Now finally, we're going to talk about the biggest current program about (in a loose sense) scientists doing science things in science ways, The Big Bang Theory. I regularly watch Big Bang, after all if there's nothing else on the box E4 is a stalwart for showing How I Met Your Big Bang all day (How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory). But, the more I've thought about writing this post the more I've ummed and ahhed over what to say.  I do like Big Bang, but there are things in it that I'm not a fan of and I don't think it's just about how the show presents women in STEM, the men are not presented in a much better light by any stretch. However, there are certain things that are particularly grating that tend to revolve around the female characters. Now, I really like Amy and Bernadette, they are practicing scientists with PhDs in Neuroscience and Microbiology respectively, they have developed into key characters, but I feel that the show gives them a raw deal more often than the other characters. There are also other women in STEM in The Big Bang Theory, but I think Bernadette and Amy as main characters are where some of the issues with Big Bang really come to light.

The first thing that really gets my back up is the constant "Oh no, women aren't nerdy!" thing which is repeated throughout the show. From the ever present jokes about there being no girls in the comic book store to comments of, "Girls don't game." and "Girls don't play dungeons and dragons". The most annoying thing is whenever the girls (particularly Bernadette) get involved with this sort of stuff, they like it! But, the next to the episode we're right back to "Girls don't". One specific example that annoyed me recently was when Sheldon does a straw pole about which console to buy. Obviously Bernadette goes for the Wii because 'it's for casual gamers', but instead of subverting this by her listing all the great things about the Wii (Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash, Super Mario, I could go on) its just played for the "Oh no she doesn't know anything" laugh, which can only help perpetuate the 'Fake Geek Girl' myth which is very annoying.

My second gripe is the way Bernadette and Amy are presented in terms of dress and interests against Penny and the smart vs pretty dynamic the show seems to go for. In the show it always seems that women are presented as beautiful and sexy OR smart, but not both. Which is exceptionally silly seen as all the actors are Hollywood pretty. The show goes out of the way to make Amy and Bernadette less attractive than Penny, which gives the strong message that you can't be both pretty and successful in STEM. Moreover, they are characterised as odd and out of place with Penny, which isn't a) realistic or b) a great image for women in STEM. Conversely you can say the same about the Leonard, Sheldon, Raj and Howard, as they are presented as other to Penny and normal people. However, the kicker is that they seem to view Amy and Bernadette in the same way as the viewer, as 'other' and lesser than Penny, which lowers their status compared to the male leads.

What about the flip side to my niggles with Big Bang Theory? Well the show does now have female scientists as main characters and not just Penny, which is a positive. They have a lot of screen time, they do talk about their work and they are presented as being extremely good at what they do to a level equal with Raj Howard and Leonard. And, on that theme, none of the characters in STEM careers are presented a way that would make them good role models. Or are they? After all, Leonard gets the girl and Howard goes to space, so aren't those positives that come of their behaviour? Having said that, if the representations of STEM careers aren't great and the women get the worse end of the deal, does that mean much? It's a comedy after all and the jokes are all centred around nerd culture, so should I expect it to have positive messages about women in STEM, or people in STEM at all? Its not like I watch Brooklyn Nine Nine (the best new comedy since Not Going Out btw) and say, "Oh! That's what police officers do!", because well, they don't. However, I think some of the differences between Nine Nine and Big Bang are that Nine Nine seems to mainly joke about police show clichés, it has a diverse cast and really awesome characters on all sides (I point you here for more detail). I also get the feeling that the writing staff respect the characters, a weird thing to say, but I think it's true. Comparatively, I'd say the Big Bang writing staff have a lower level of respect for their characters, which then bleeds through into audience perception.

After all that, why do I watch The Big Bang Theory? Well, it's one of the only show's that touches on nerd culture (especially since The Fades got cancelled) and it's one of the few places that shows nerd culture without having people stuck in their parents' basements. It's amusing, it's easy viewing and it can be really good at times. Also, I do like a lot of the characters; Bernadette is brilliant and I hope one day she'll properly take Sheldon down, Amy is excellent and I want her to realise she's better than her relationship Sheldon and that she deserves more or I'd like to see a lot more development Amy and Sheldon's their relationship at a much greater pace.

The Big Bang Theory is a key show to think about as it has a lot of influence. In the US, last season was watched by an average of 19.96 million people! It's one of the only shows out right now to focus on science as a career and that has the potential to make it very influential. Do I think it's driving people. particularly women, away from science? Probably not. But, I do think it adds to the narrative of "things for boys" and "things for girls" being separate and the air of science not being for everyone. Yes. However, its great to know that although The Big Bang Theory might not be the most inspirational show ever, there are some really good examples of women (and men!) in science out and about on the TV now. This hasn't been an exhaustive look, but I think I've found that there are great characters working in STEM out there on the box and although there's not been a huge shift from past to present, general writing quality might just make the characters of today slightly better than those of the past. Let's hope the positive momentum continues and maybe, just maybe, the next generation of scientists might be inspired by things like Grimm, Bones and the odd re-run of Star Trek.

Did any of the character's or TV shows make you interested in science? What do you think about The Big Bang Theory? Let me know in the comments!

Tuesday 27 January 2015

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and The Bang (Part 2)

Last time I began this mini series talking about the representations of women in STEM in TV and film by talking about the positives I came across in Grimm (if you haven't already, you can read that here).
As with my first post the following disclaimer still applies:
I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.

So, let's begin to look backwards and sideways to find where the representations of women in STEM have come from and whether there is a sense of progression or regression.

I would be extremely remiss to look at this topic and not talk about a certain Star Trek series. Voyager had its television début in 1995 and it did something no other Trek incarnation had done before. It had a female captain. Not only did the USS Voyager have a female captain, it also had a female chief of engineering in B'Ellana Torres and what career path did Janeway take to get to the captain's chair? She was a Science Officer! And that's not all, when Seven of Nine is introduced she becomes the Astrometric's Officer. In short Voyager is a ship full of women in STEM, who are treated (for the most part) in the same way as the rest of the crew.  A much better look at the wonder of Voyager than I've written can be found here, it's a great read and made me feel oh so nostalgic for the days of Trek watching on BBC2 (except when it was swapped for live snooker). It wouldn't be fair to mention Star Trek's women in STEM without commenting on Deep Space Nine (where the protagonists boldly sat where people have sat before) which had Jadzia Dax, as scientific officer. However, I unfortunately don't really have much recollection of what sciencing Dax actually did... But, Voyager didn't appear in a vacuum. In 1997 Stargate SG1 began, featuring Captain Samantha Carter, astrophysicist and officer in the US Air Force. Unfortunately, she is SG-1's only female main character, which is a shame, but I suppose they at least made Sam a good one. This grouping of characters from sci-fi are, in my opinion, a positive set of representations. Ok, they may not be doing modern day science, but they show women in STEM at the forefront of knowledge and expertise on a new frontier. Not to mention all these TV shows aired in the nineties, which, when we're still talking about perceptions of what a scientist is, is both good and bad. On the one hand we have had a set of really positive images, but its looks like they haven't spread into the public conciousness, an interesting thing in itself. 

A genre where women in science are represented very well, is Crime Drama. From Silent Witness to Bones to Hannibal, both in the past and present there's a lot of female characters working in forensic sciences. Long running Silent Witness has featured a female pathologist in every season, beginning with Prof. Sam Ryan and continuing until today with Dr Nikki Alexander. I've only seen later seasons of Silent Witness, so I can only comment on Nikki, but she always came across to me as a touch on the lifeless side. She has work, but what else is there? On a similar theme we also have Bones, which has Dr Temperance 'Bones' Brennan as a forensic anthropologist. On the one had, Bones is the lead character, but she also falls victim to the classic tropes of social awkwardness and lack of empathy. However, in contrast the series also features Dr Cam Sayoran as the head of bone's research institute and fellow pathologist. For my money Cam is a must more positive example of women in STEM as she is feels more believable and real, but she I don't think she gets enough screen time to compete with the rest of the cast. Next, let's think about Hannibal, the dark crime thriller which features Prof. Alana Bloom, a professor of psychology and Special Agent Beverly Katz, a forensic investigator. Beverley is the focus of the three strong FBI forensics team followed in  Hannibal, and it's great to see that she is treated in the same way as her male counterparts. The flip side is that she doesn't get a lot of personal development compared to Alana, but from the screen time she does get, we see Beverley as brave, capable, clever and not afraid to take risks. Even though Nikki in Silent Witness and Cam in Bones have more screen time than Beverley, I'd struggle to write a list like that about them. Alana Bloom is one of my favourite characters in Hannibal full stop, but she's not very science-y. She's an academic but we don't really see her doing research, apart from occasionally when she interacts with Will Graham so its hard to really see her as a scientist, which I think is highly unfortunate, considering how well other aspects of her character are handled.

I think the main thing that has crossed my mind while writing this post is that its important to think about how everyone in STEM roles is represented, not just women. So far I've looked at a lot of good examples of female representation, where many of my examples also have some great male characters in STEM careers too, with Bones, Stargate, Hannibal and Silent Witness being pretty good in these respects. However, I think where things fall down, is where characters are scientist first, human second. That's something that particularly comes to my mind some of the Crime Drama's I've talked about; they are full of character's defined by their jobs, which isn't very reflective of real life. I think it's also becoming clear that the best characters, like those in Grimm, are those who have more to them then their work. On the whole I think there is a growing trend towards writing scientists with lives, but I also don't think it would be fair to say that women in STEM career's were 100% poorly represented in the past especially when we have the greatness of Voyager to look back on. However, I think there is room for improvement in how all STEM professionals are represented in the media and it's that shift away from mindless stereotyping for major and minor characters which might just be on the rise.

Next time we get to the big one. We're looking at The Big Bang Theory... This could get very interesting.



Monday 19 January 2015

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and The Bang (Part 1)

The way in which women in Science, Technology and Mathematics (STEM) are portrayed in TV shows, films and all other kinds of media is something which, unsurprisingly, interests me a lot. Whether its a female presenter or expert on a science program, like Professor Tanya Byron on last week's Horizon Specials, or a fictional character like Bernadette in the Big Bang Theory, they all shape our perceptions of what it means to be a woman in STEM. I've been thinking more and more about how women in STEM careers are represented recently thanks to watching lots of The Big Bang Theory and binging a very different show, Grimm. In turn, I started wondering if the way in which women in STEM are represented in the media at the moment is better or worse than it was in the past? That's a question I won't be get anywhere near to answering conclusively here, but I am going to look at some of the good and not so good shown in some of the characters that I have recently, and not so recently, been spending time with. However, before I begin I must say that the big caveat of this post/series is this:
I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.
Got that? Then let us begin.

The big kick-start which made me want to write this post is Grimm. In short Grimm is about Nick, a police officer who also happens to be a descendent of the Brothers Grimm. This interesting family history makes Nick capable of seeing the not-so-humans hiding in the city of Portland and, as a Grimm, it's Nick's job to make sure humans are kept safe from this hidden threat. The show has a very wide supporting cast which includes Juliette and Rosalie, who may not be 'scientists' in name but, who are the font of most scientific knowledge and support in the show.

Rosalie is a strange person to class as having a STEM career as she actually owns a herbalists shop, where she makes up various remedies to supernatural ailments. I can feel people going "Nope. Nonsense! Not science.", but in the world of Grimm herbal cures are essential for dealing with various supernatural threats and the way in which Rosalie works is part pharmacologist, part chemist, part researcher. Therefore, I think she is a portrayal of a woman in a STEM career. Rosalie often is shown working with various pieces of chemistry equipment, researching and inventing medicines and providing advice to 'regular' customers at her shop, all in an extremely competent way. If mistakes are made its very rarely her that makes them, and the most mistakes made by male members of the cast. Why? Well, they're cops and clock makers who don't really know what they are doing! She's the expert so they defer to her. Rosalie is also presented as intelligent, through making mental leaps and deductions when books don't give her a full picture of the remedy needed, and through coming up with strokes of genius to deliver some of the concoctions she does make. In short, she's characterised as a capable (and complex) woman who is good at her job, which happens to be technical. She's a person, not a caricature of a person in a STEM-esque career, which is what I would like to see so, so, so, so, so much more often. 

Next in the parade of Grimm greatness is Juliette. Juliette is pure awesome in human form, seriously, I want to be like her when I grow up! But I'm getting off track, Juliet is a Vet, a STEM related career, but she provides scientific support to Nick (even if she doesn't know the whole truth behind why he's asking her for help) mainly in the form of immunological and physiological know how. Juliette is not a biologist by trade, but she obviously keeps up to date on relevant developments in her field. She's a really great example of someone using their science training outside of its original sphere of context, which, as far as I know, is not very common in film and TV. If you don't mind about mild spoilers with where the plot goes she bounces off Rosalie really well and together they solve all kinds of problems in the later seasons. Also, she could have easily been killed off in the first episodes for the sake of male character development (a la Supernatural), but she wasn't, making her a trope breaker in lots of ways. (Just highlight the blue strip with your cursor to read that bit).Once again she has that key feature of being a person who isn't defined by her job and I think that's the major thing which makes both her and Rosalie's characterisation special. They're people first, professionals second, which is not only good writing, it's also surprisingly refreshing to see, particularly in technically minded female characters. 

The bonus feature of Grimm is that along side Juliette and Rosalie there are also a lot of women in STEM presented in one shot episodes and as recurring minor characters, such as the Medical Examiner who keeps popping up and the one shot female game developers who resisted a lot of common stereotypes. It's really good to see a world populated with female characters that aren't just there to scream and run away. It is a show about monsters, so there is plenty screaming and running away, but it tends to be done by everyone, not just the female portion of the cast. 

To sum up, Grimm is not just a great TV show which is worth watching, but (in my opinion) it also has some really interesting female characters, who happen to have STEM related careers and are presented in a very positive way. So, the next question is, are there other good representations of female STEM professionals out there in current media and what is it that makes good? Also, were positive "women in STEM" characters present in the past and have we gone forward or backward in recent years? I'll be looking at some of these questions next time, with a look Star Trek, Hannibal and more.

Have you seen Grimm? Do you agree with my comments? Or do you know of other good or bad female characters in STEM? Let me know in the comments!

Thursday 15 January 2015

New Year, New Things.

So I er, didn't quite manage to get a post up last week. In short it's to do with a myriad of job hunting factors and a busy Christmas, but yeah, no post. I apologise and hope to get on track from now onwards!

2015 is here and everywhere has look backs at 2014 or previews of what's to come in 2015. I don't normal do the whole look forward/backward thing myself, but it feels like 2015 is going to be a particularly big year for me. If nothing else it will be a year of change, so here's some of what will be coming up for me in the next 12 months.

An End
2015 is the year I will complete my PhD. Hopefully. I finish my day to day work for sure this year (mainly as I stop getting paid), and I want to get my thesis in, but that could drag on for a bit longer. However, I'm aiming for a 2015 hand in for the sake of my sanity.

A Beginning
As my PhD is ending, I'll be starting a new career. I don't know what that will be yet, but hopefully there will be a job for me to start in September! *Crosses all fingers and toes very tightly*

Something Exciting
As well as the big things I've got quite a lot of smaller, but important events happening from things I'm going to see to things I'm in. I've got two performances which I'm a part of to prep for in the coming year, from the imminent Made in Yorkshire in February to A Midsummer Night's Dream in the summer. I'm also already booked to go see the Kaiser Chiefs in a few weeks at the Leeds Arena, where I'll also be seeing The Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular in May (Note to self remember tissues in case of Angels Take Manhattan or Regenerations). To add to that I'll once again be trotting off to various conventions this summer including Nine Worlds for definite and likely either MCM Expo or London Film and Comic Con.

Things to Watch, Read, Play and Listen
There are so many things that I'm looking forward to watching/playing/reading/listening to this year. I'm already looking forward to more Doctor Who and, of course, The Force Awakens next winter. But, in the near future I want to sink my teeth into the Wheel of Time audio-books, read Catherine Webb's  new and newish books under her new, new  pen name Clare North and watch Agent Carter, the new Marvel TV show following Peggy Carter after the events of Captain America. Sprinkle in some Dungeons and Dragons and a good deal of time playing the new Super Smash Brothers and that's my year in no way wrapped up. Come on! I also need to catch up with Hannibal and the Lightbringer books and Clariel and Tokyo Ghoul and Red Seas Under Red Skys... Oh! AND....