in the field

Category: Uncategorized (Page 1 of 3)

Undergraduate Next Generation of Polar Scientists in the Vernet Lab

Meet the next generation of polar scientists working with me in the Vernet Lab at Scripps Institution of Oceanography! 

For the 2021 summer (10-weeks), Anesse Pinpokintr and Christian Johnson, two incredibly bright and passionate undergraduate students, worked on analyzing FjordPhyto data as part of the Scripps SURF program (Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship)! 

It has been awesome to finally interact in person, show them the lab, and to also finally meet last year’s SURF student Karina Halliman who worked with Tammy Russell and who just graduated with her Bachelors degree! 

 These students helped analyze years of FjordPhyto phytoplankton data and wrapped their minds around all things Antarctic – all the while learning a splash of bioinformatics, genetics, statistics, and what it means to be a polar scientist!

They presented their findings after 10-weeks of the program at the SURF Student Symposium, in person on campus! This was their first scientific poster presentations and they did an outstanding job! I’m very proud of them and honored to work with them.

 Before the summer ended and everyone had to disperse back to their homes, the Vernet Lab was able to have an in-person BBQ where we could actually interact in person for the first time for some of us!

The Vernet Lab is the best!

Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Climate Change: What do all scientists and governments agree on?

Scientists from around the world come together to write giant reports on everything we scientifically know about how the climate on Earth is changing. The current state of the climate, possible climate futures, climate information for risk assessment and adaptation, and limiting future change. This report is called the IPCC report. 

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since 1988 they’ve been producing reports that are the consensus of the world’s scientists & experts AND the consensus of the world’s governments too. 

They even won the Nobel Prize. 

Over the past couple years, they have been working on contributions to the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (also known as the IPCC AR6). They take these giant reports and then try to distill them down into an even smaller, 42 page, very clear report, with bold headings, summary titles, and summary figures in the hopes that policy makers can have the most current, accurate, high confidence information possible when making their policy decisions. You can read this Summary for Policymakers here

How many people do you think actually know about or read these reports? Lets crack open the pages and be some of those people! 

We would like to challenge you all to download the ‘Summary for Policymakers‘ report and just take a gander. Dont let overwhelm or despair stop you! Dig in. Heck, dont even bother reading the fine print, just read each bold heading, and read each figure caption. 

Additionally, you may be wondering what is going on with the Polar Regions. Well, here is a Polar Fact Sheet with that information as well! 

• Annual mean surface air temperatures and precipitation will continue to increase during the 21st century under all assessed emissions scenarios in both Polar regions (high confidence). 

• There is high confidence that mean precipitation and precipitation intensity will increase, the Arctic is projected to be dominated by rainfall and in Antarctica rainfall will increase over the coastal regions. 

• There is high confidence that glaciers have lost mass in all polar regions since 2000 and will continue to lose mass at least for several decades, even if global temperature is stabilized. 

• Both major ice sheets – Greenland and Antarctica – have been losing mass since at least 1990, with the highest loss rate during 2010–2019 (high confidence), and they are projected to continue to lose mass. 

There you have it. An official, formal consensus of scientists and governments. Depressing. Despairing. Ya, we feel that too. But we have to keep hope, look for solutions, and take action in the ways that we can best! 

We designed the FjordPhyto citizen science project to engage the Antarctic Tourism industry as our way of involving more people in polar science. We hope FjordPhyto efforts, which have had over 13 IAATO Tour Operators, many polar guides and more than 3000 travelers assist in, inspire people to love, care for, and understand these rapidly changing precious regions of the world. 

Chin up! We’ve got lots of work to do! Thanks for being here with us.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Interviews about Citizen Science in Antarctica and FjordPhyto

April is Citizen Science Month!

April 2021 marks an entire month where people around the world are celebrating Citizen Science Month. The citizen science project I co-founded and manage – FjordPhyto – is celebrating too by sharing our work and collaborations occurring in Antarctica between scientists and travelers on tour ships.

Collaborations in this part of the world are incredibly important for increasing our understanding of changes in the polar regions. To get a sense of this importance, my colleague and FjordPhyto scientist Martina Mascioni and social scientist Daniela Cajiao wrote a post about the role of Tour Operators in Polar Research.

I hope you enjoy watching these interviews. I think I’m getting better and better at this each time 😉 Please share the links with a friend, a colleague, your kids, or fellow traveler! I would love to know your thoughts and questions if you want to comment below.

Interview 1  – Viking Cruises TV

Follow an informative conversation focused on citizen science as Dr. Damon Stanwell-Smith, Head of Science and Sustainability for Viking Expeditions, is joined by polar guide Laura Smith and biological oceanographer Allison Cusick. We discuss the role of future expedition voyages, understanding how citizen science contributes to research, what factors make it successful, how guests can participate and why it is relevant to global environmental conservation.

Interview 2 – Hurtigruten Expeditions on SciStarter

SciStarter’s Caroline Nickerson speaks with Tour Operator Hurtigruten Expeditions’ Chief Scientists Dr. Verena Meraldi and citizen science project FjordPhyto co-founder and PhD graduate student Allison Cusick about how Antarctic travelers are contributing to polar research through ship-based citizen science

Interview 3  – Citizen Science Around the World on SciStarter

SciStarter’s Caroline Nickerson leads us around the world speaking to project leaders from Asia, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America (for Antarctica see minutes 17:07 to 25:55)!

How can you get involved:

For projects occurring around your neighborhood, be sure to check out the web-based catalogue of thousands of project at SciStarter.

Whats in a name?

For those of you wondering why there are so many terms for people-powered science – “citizen science” , “community science” , “crowdsource science” – take a look at this blog post and publication in Citizen Science: Theory & Practice on which name to use and why terms matters.

Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

I never liked the ocean …

Many people who are interested in Marine Biology or Oceanography grew up loving the ocean. They have fond memories splashing in the waves, searching for sea creatures, sailing on the sea, and enjoying beach life. Not me.

When my mom was young, she almost died drowning off the coast of Washington. As a result, whenever we took family vacations to the beach, we were never allowed to go in above our knees. I was OK with that because the waters off the Pacific coast are chilly.

The only connection I formed with the ocean was one of distance. Keep your distance. The ocean is powerful. Mysterious. Confusing. Untrustworthy.


As I got older I started to ponder which career I might explore. I loved to travel and thought that being an astronaut would be cool because they traveled to the moon – the most extreme travel any human could make. I looked into the degrees that NASA astronauts got and saw that many went into science. I liked traveling and I liked nature, so I logically chose to declare Biology and Geology as my majors in undergrad. 

One of the geology classes I took brought us to some islands in Washington called the San Juan Islands (near Canada). We went on the Research Vessel Centennial for a day to dig up fossils and rocks from the sea floor. Being in Washington, it was rainy, wet, and cold. I was sea sick. I was not prepared for the weather. I hated it. That day, I vowed that I would never study the ocean. Keep that distance.

Too cold. Too wet. Too windy.

Around that same time, it also dawned on me that astronauts don’t actually travel to space very often. So with my space filled wanderlust dreams shattered and my disinterest in wet ocean related science, I instead focused on becoming a biological scientist studying land animals and birds. Far away from the ocean.


I ended up completing my Bachelor’s Degree in Biology with a minor in Earth & Space Sciences (i.e., Geology) from 2002 – 2006. I then held many jobs in various fields of science afterwards. From 2006 – 2010, I worked in immunology, neurobiology, and field ecology studying birds, squirrels, and land mammals. I felt like I was wandering. Unsettled. Frustrated not finding my niche.

In 2010, I realized I had to leave the seasonal field biology life and I found a job working in a lab studying phytoplankton. At the time I had no idea what phytoplankton actually were. I knew about diatoms in the form of diatomaceous earth from my geology courses, and I figured I could learn what I needed on the job. I would be running experiments and looking at how phytoplankton respond at a genetic level to increasing levels of carbon dioxide (known as ocean acidification). It was a very successful research technician position and resulted in many publications.

Three years later, in 2013, my boss got an offer to go on a research icebreaker to Antarctica for 53-days but she couldn’t take that much time off. Instead, she sent me. I had always wanted to travel to Antarctica, but always thought it would be as a tourist. My luck changed overnight and I couldn’t believe it. That was not in the job description when I applied three years prior!

I was going to Antarctica! And I had no idea what I was doing. I had never been at sea before. I had no idea what these giant scientific instruments did. I opened my ears and read a lot to try and absorb as much information as I could in preparation.

When I landed at the US McMurdo Station in the Ross Sea, I felt like I had landed on the moon. Antarctica felt so extra-terrestrial. My inner astronaut was satisfied. I dont need to go to the moon. I’m already on another planet! I then boarded the icebreaker (RV Nathaniel B Palmer) and lived on board for 53- days doing science with a team of researchers in Antarctica’s Ross Sea. I thought to myself, if I ever go to graduate school I will study Antarctic ecosystems. I didn’t know how that would play out back then, and I didn’t actively seek graduate school for three more years after that experience.

It was also during this time in my life that I tried surfing for the first time. In Washington. I fought past the breakers and sat on my board looking back toward the coastline. Holy Shit. This was the first time in my life I was IN the ocean past my knees!! Yes, I had been swimming in secluded seas, but never the ocean. Especially not the big scary Pacific Ocean that nearly killed my mom. I was 28 years old. My relationship to the ocean was slowly changing.

We fast forward to 2019, now I am working in the coldest, windiest ocean in the world. The Southern Ocean – the mother of all ocean currents. Frigid waters reaching 0 to -1.8C temperatures. Wind speeds that can knock you off your feet and flip a small boat. I love it. The more harsh, the more fun.

I wonder how I went from hating the oceans to loving them.

Over my experiences I learned that working on ships was really fun – and that Oceanography might not be such a bad career choice after all. It allowed me to work in the lab, work on ships, travel to extreme remote locations, and study some of the most pressing climate change issues of our time in a region of the world that is rapidly changing.  It was the lifestyle of science that fit my desired niche.


During my time on board the ship, I also learned about the tourism industry and that it was growing. There was an entire community of people wanting to come learn more about this faraway land. I have always enjoyed getting other people excited about science and thought, whatever future research I do, I want to involved that community of travelers. I myself enjoyed taking vacations on “voluntourism” trips helping researchers with their work just for fun. So I knew there would be an interest within the Antarctic travel industry for engaging people in current polar science. So they could be part of the scientific legacy down on the icy continent. 


In 2016 – 2017 I completed a Master’s degree in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, where I developed the citizen science project FjordPhyto (@FjordPhyto) and I realized, to keep doing this work, I needed to go in to the PhD program. Today, third year into the PhD program, I find myself doing so many things I had dreamed of doing all wrapped up into one. My early 20’s self, who specifically wrote off Oceanography because it was cold wet and windy, is now specializing in the biology of polar oceans.

The oceans remain powerful and mysterious to me, but confusion and distrust have turned into reverence and awe. 

Its been quite the unrealized career dream come true. A haphazard path to get where I am today. If I had any advice to give young students, I would say allow yourself to explore. Explore as many options as you can. Dont feel locked in to one type of science or one job. Try things out. Dont write anything off and if you do change your mind, you can always start over or start new, if you want. Keep your options flexible and above all, at least make sure to find passion in what you’re doing.

Thanks for reading!

If you’d like to read other posts I wrote about my career path check these out:

Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Expedition to the Antarctic Peninsula

Last year, I had been invited onboard as Guest Scientist by Antarctica21 to oversee the FjordPhyto citizen science project I developed with Dr. Maria Vernet at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and to give science lectures with the Expedition Staff each evening. Check out the short mini documentary to see what we were up to!

At the beginning of December 2017, I flew down to Ushuaia, Argentina: the last city in South America, the gateway port to Antarctica.

I boarded the MS Hebridean Sky, a 296-foot cruise ship, and was warmly welcomed by Polar Guide Staff Bob Gilmore and Annette Bombosch (FjordPhyto champions and co-founders of the Polar Citizen Science Collective).

During the month I was on board, we launched twelve citizen science zodiac cruises visiting seven different fjords along the peninsula. You can check out some photos from that trip @womanscientist or @fjordphyto on Instagram! 

Locations where we sampled phytoplankton

With the quick five-day turnaround schedule, this allowed us to sample some of the same fjords repeatedly during the month, capturing changes from week to week.

Each science zodiac ride included six to nine passengers eager to participate. For the month I was on board, that means 72–108 passengers directly assisted in gathering data with FjordPhyto! Those who were not on the citizen science zodiac trips were still able to learn about the project through the evening recap presentations. We were excited to receive extremely positive feedback from the people who participated.

Allison captures a selfie with the FjordPhyto citizen science crew.

The samples collected by FjordPhyto citizen scientists contribute to the PhD thesis work of myself and graduate student Martina Mascioni in Argentina. We are trying to understand how polar phytoplankton are influenced by melting glaciers within fjords along the peninsula. Nearly 87% of the glaciers along the peninsula are in retreat (Cook et al., 2005, 2016) and the west Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming regions in the world. As climate change touches every place in the world, partnering with the tourism industry can help us look over larger geographical areas through a longer sampling season, seeing seasonal changes from November through March.  

We spent a memorable 29-days traveling the Antarctic Peninsula sharing the wonders of this wild place with over 400 passengers in total. Having the opportunity to see the project in action provided extremely valuable perspective on what tour operators, staff, and passengers experience while in the field.

Antarctica is the only continent – set aside by the Antarctic Treaty – where peaceful and scientific endeavors take place. To be able to include the tourism industry in the legacy of polar research provides a powerful way to educate, involve, and share science with the public! 

We all go home having a sense of awe and respect for this region. We become Antarctic Ambassadors. 

You can get more updates about this project at www.fjordphyto.org and if you want to support the work we are doing with the tourism industry in the polar regions take a look at our crowdfunding campaign and share it with your friends and family! We really appreciate your support! 

I want to thank the National Science Foundation for providing funding and travel support to Ushuaia, and Antarctica21 for inviting me onboard as Guest Scientist. I also want to thank my advisor Dr. Maria Vernet, Martina Mascioni, and all of the polar staff and citizen scientists for their enthusiasm and participation in FjordPhyto! 

Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Scientists: Stay Quiet or Speak Up?

Scientists should not be ‘advocates’ or ‘activists’.

I’ve heard this argument over and over in the last couple of years, and more strongly since the elections and recent organization of the March for Science scheduled for April 22, 2017.

The discussion first came to my awareness back in January 2015, when I attended an Association for Women in Science (AWIS) panel called “Social Media and Activism in Science”.  The general feeling was that if you wanted to speak up, be careful about what you say. I was particularly inspired by Kathy Barker, author of At the Bench and At the Helm. She is an advocate for scientists being advocates.

During my 2016 summer graduate ethics course, we discussed that scientists, if they advocate or speak outside their scientific field, should make sure they explicitly state they are wearing different hats and sharing their opinions as “informed citizens”.

The conversation came up again in October during a panel at the inaugural celebration of California Leatherback Day hosted by NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center. One speaker adamantly stated that  scientists should not be advocates in any way to which one audience member publicly disagreed bringing up the point that scientists are the most informed and should be able to speak about what they know.

Then again, as tensions continued to stir amongst the scientific community with the new presidential administration disregard for science  (TimeThe Washington Post, The New York TimesThe GuardianScientific American, Snopes), scientists banded together to organize a march much like the Women’s March on Washington.

“The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.” ~March for Science 

I watched as my science friends circulated news of the march over Facebook.  Some shared confidently, others apprehensively. The reactions ranged, airing a plethora of concerns: from “A march will mischaracterize science”, “It will make science a political protest”, “A march will undermine [scientists] credibility”, to “Its a great thing”, “Shows solidarity”, “This will encourage the scientific community to publicly rally together”, “Science cannot be silenced”. Robert Young of the New York Times even wrote a widely circulated piece on why the march is a bad idea voicing his concerns and alternate suggestions for what scientists can do in the community.  In a Science article, Jeffrey Mervis shared Some Unsolicited Advice to the science march planners.

The whole time, I kept wondering: Why not? Why shouldn’t scientists speak up? And more importantly, I thought: WHO wants us to be silent? Our colleagues, the public, policy makers?

As a young researcher, with no credibility yet gained, figuring out how best to proceed on this facet of my career is a high priority for me.

In my reading of the freely available document On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, I hadn’t come across any mention to keep quiet. On the contrary, the guide addresses this issue in the section titled, The Researcher in Society (see page 48; for copyright reasons I cannot reprint any text without charge, and since I’m a poor grad student, I’ll just paraphrase.).  Scientists have a responsibility to share their knowledge with society. Researchers CAN assume different roles in public discussions and provide expert opinion and advice; they have a right to express their views and to work for social change. The guide even acknowledges the concern that colleagues and members of the public may perceive scientists-gone-advocate as a biased individual, but this perception should not come at the expense of objectivity in the scientist’s work.

In my opinion, scientists have devoted their lives to studying certain issues in their field. Their ideas are scrutinized by peer-review and the scientific collective. As professionals and the most “informed citizens” on the issue, aren’t they the best group of people TO be speaking up about what they know?

This might also strike a chord with me personally because I am a naturally shy person. Speaking up has been something I’ve worked on since the awkward stage of middle school.  It’s also reminiscent of the time when I was learning to speak French and we were told the French are very particular about their language and do not like it butchered. The first time I ever traveled to France I was so paranoid I would mess up the accent that I didn’t speak for the first couple of days. Then I realized, many travelers were visiting France doing their best to communicate, botching the language left and right, and guess what? No one died, no one got beat up, people were talking! So I started talking too.  I had fun interacting with Francophones, and I got better at it over time. As an adult, the idea of “someone” now saying I should be quiet on certain issues, to not ruffle feathers, for fear of being misinterpreted, actually feels like a threat to my own growth as a communicative human. The more we take opportunitites to practice sharing our ideas with a general audience, the better we will get at it over time.

Going back to the issue of scientists being ‘advocates’ if they speak up, I finally gained clarity on where I stand on the matter after hearing speakers at two public events:

On February 18th 2017, the Union of Concerned Scientists held a panel at the AAAS – The American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting titled Defending Science and Scientific Integrity in the Age of Trump. The general consensus was that we should come together, stand up and speak up.

And most recently, I attended a very insightful public lecture by Naomi Oreskes on March 14th, 2017. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography Master of Advanced Studies in Climate Science and Policy (MAS-CSP) program  invited her to speak on “The Scientist as a Sentinel”.

Dr. Oreskes speaking at TED (Image credit: TED)

Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science, a Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. She is also well known for co-authoring Merchants of Doubt,  a book that was required reading during our summer course.

I was excited to hear in person her elaboration of the invitation teaser:

“Scientists are often reluctant to speak in public on contested issues, for fear that this will “politicize” their science and have a negative impact on their credibility. During the lecture, Dr. Oreskes will examine these concerns by exploring historical examples of scientists who have spoken up on scientific issues of broad importance, including nuclear weaponry, ozone depletion, and climate change.”

The talk was solidifying for me. The biggest take-away I jotted down addressed the following:

“Scientists will lose credibility. If we speak up we’ll be viewed as activists or advocates.” 

She reminded us that this is not a modern issue.

Scientists throughout history have dealt with their work being silenced and the need to speak out. Traditional thought has held that ‘facts speak for themselves’. If scientists just put the facts out there, all will be good.

But the catch is, they don’t. #AlternativeFacts

As a historian, Dr. Oreskes looked at many individuals who were well respected in science, and who became strong public figures.  In no historical cases did speaking out undermine their credibility, and no nobel prizes were revoked. In fact, she deduced that scientists weren’t targets because they spoke out. They became targets because of the great implications of the work they were doing (theory of evolution, nuclear weaponry, ozone hole depletion, atmospheric CO2, etc.), which then drew them to speak publicly exactly because their work was being attacked.

Instead of two extremes: keeping quiet, or being so outspoken you get arrested, she argued for a Responsible Scientists Ideal, urging that we as knowledgable professionals have an obligation to speak up and advocate for specific policies that control matters which threaten human health and life on this planet.

And while we cannot specifically answer questions outside of our field of expertise, we can forge collaborations with experts who are able to address policy, economic, and social questions.  She encouraged us that it is OK to do some extra homework and look into what experts of those fields are saying; to offer some potential solutions to our human-caused problems. If we come across situations where facts are totally disregarded, like with the denial of climate change, we can flip the argument and instead talk about values. About losing freedoms, fairness, accountability, realism, leadership in advanced technology, and good ole hard work.

I want to echo what Naomi shared with us:

The facts don’t speak for themselves. Someone has to speak up for them…and that is us, [the scientific community].

I would love to know what discussions you’ve had about this topic and how you’ve approached the argument ‘To speak, or not to speak’.

Update: On April 11, 2017, Nature released an article in support of the March for Science. Read that article here.

 

  Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Seeing the world in 360 degrees – Nikon KeyMission360

A friend lent me his Nikon KeyMission360 camera, so I thought I’d test it out on a recreation dive at La Jolla Shores, San Diego, California. Unfortunately with the underwater lenses the black band cuts the frame. Maybe one of these days the viz will clear and I can get better footage! The plan is to figure out how to use a camera like this so I can film us working underwater during a scientific dive!

Beach entry at La Jolla Shores

Surface swim

Exploring the canyon
Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Illegal Science Pirates are Under Lawsuit

(*Attention – update: April 28, 2016 2pm publication by Science, a must read article on this issue)

Have you heard of Sci-Hub? Its a site which prides itself on being “the first pirate website in the world to provide mass and public access to tens of millions of research papers”.

It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, a researcher native to Kazakhstan and now living in Russia. She has made more than 48 million research papers freely available online.

“A research paper is a special publication written by scientists to be read by other researchers. Papers are primary sources necessary for research – for example, they contain detailed description of new results and experiments.” – Sci-Hub

Sounds like something all researchers should have access to, right? The truth is, the widest possible distribution of research papers to scientists is heavily restricted by copyright laws.

Paywalls.

It is well known in the scientific community that students and researchers have been helping each other to download literature that stands behind these paywalls of publishing companies. Without that exchange, gaining knowledge from the published scientific community, which could help those doing basic research, can be very frustrating.

The catch: Elbakyan with Sci-Hub doesn’t own the copyrights to these articles; the publishers do. Therefore, spreading this knowledge is illegal. One of the world’s largest publishers, Elsevier, has filed lawsuit and on 28 October 2015 New York district court ordered that the site be shut down.

Alexandra is fighting back.

“My goal is not only to make the website run indefinitely, but also to make its operation perfectly legal.” Alexandra says in her interview with Vox Science & Health.

This has sparked much discussion in the community.

New York district judge Robert Sweet argued that “Elbakyan’s solution to the problems she identifies, simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest.”

Fiona MacDonald with Science Alert reminds us that “journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good – they’ve encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.”

However, for years now, over 15,700 Researchers have protested against Elsevier’s business practices.

Alexandra points out “All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold,”

“Scientific publishers are finding themselves in the same spot that record companies faced a few years ago,” lawyer Toby Butterfield says. “It was only when iTunes and other services made it swift, easy and cheap to buy individual songs that people began turning away from infringement to get their music. So publishers, like record companies before them, have little choice but to get redress from blatant infringes in whatever ways the courts will allow.”

It’ll be interesting to see how this lawsuit turns out.  Stay tuned…

Relevant Links

Science Alert – Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge

Interview with Alexandra on Vox

Nature – Pirate research-paper sites play hide-and-seek with publishers

Sci-Hub Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Implicit Gender Biases Creeping Around the Undergrad Classroom

On February 11, 2016 Deborah Bach, with the University of Washington’s UW Today, reported on a recent study (published February 10, 2016) done by University of Washington researchers. Headline read:

Male biology students consistently underestimate female peers, study finds

This article discusses what University of Washington researchers found when they looked at gender bias of ~1,700 males and females who enroll equally in biology courses at the undergraduate level.

“Previous research has focused on gender biases among faculty in STEM disciplines, but less is known about how current college students perceive women in STEM and how their views might impact female students.” -Deborah Bach states.

What do implicit biases mean for the future of young women in STEM?

Read more about the study on UW Today or read the original publication  at PLOS ONE.

  Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

Two Women Devoted to Conservation – Top Finalists for $250,000 Indianapolis Prize

Big congratulations to all six finalists of the 2016 Indianapolis Prize – the world’s leading award for animal conservation.

  • Joel Berger, Ph.D.: Wildlife Conservation Society, Colorado State University
  • Dee Boersma, Ph.D.: University of Washington, Department of Biology
  • Rodney Jackson, Ph.D.: Snow Leopard Conservancy
  • Carl Jones, Ph.D.: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Mauritian Wildlife Foundation
  • Carl Safina, Ph.D.: The Safina Center at Stony Brook University
  • Amanda Vincent, Ph.D.: Project Seahorse, The University of British Columbia

“Our world is unquestionably better off because of these heroes and we hope others will not only take notice of, but also join in their noble work to save wild things and wild places.” – Michael Crowther, president CEO of the Indianapolis Zoological Society.

Special Shout Out

In keeping with Woman Scientist themes, we want to give a special shout out to the two women scientists who are in the top six finalists: Amanda Vincent  and Dee Boersma.

amanda vincent

Amanda Vincent (University of British Columbia) was the first person to study seahorses underwater and started Project Seahorse to bolster conservation of these rare fish. She has also received support from National Geographic. Be sure to look through the photos, videos, and blog posts for more fascinating information about this woman’s career and research projects.

Dr Boersma

P. Dee Boersma (University of Washington) has documented the impacts of climate change on penguins and successfully stopped oil tanker lanes through penguin colonies. She has also received support from National Geographic. Read more about her career in the UW News.

Prize Award

Twenty-eight conservationists were nominated for this year’s prize and join the ranks of recognized conservationists making strides to save species. ​ Six conservationists made it into the finals. To see the finalists from prior years since 2006 click the side tab year links.

From 2006 through 2012, winners of the Prize received an unrestricted cash award of US$100,000, which was increased to US$250,000 for 2014 and subsequent years. This is the largest international monetary prize given to an individual for the conservation of animal species – sponsored by the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation.  Beginning in 2014, five other finalists each received a US$10,000 unrestricted cash award.

The presenting of the Indianapolis Prize and the Lilly Medal will take place during the biennial Indianapolis Prize Gala hosted by Cummins Inc. where the winner and finalists will be honored for their selfless dedication, scientific expertise and lasting success.

Previous Recipients

Thank you to all the dedicated conservationists out there who spend their lives saving the Earth’s endangered animal species! Share this:
Facebooktwitterby feather

« Older posts

© 2024 woman scientist

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑