Figure 1: Dr. Isis doesn't think her post was bad behavior at all
Still, the meat of the issue is that Dr. Isis disagreed with the authors' over-simplified conclusions. Apparently, so did Bora over at A Blog Around the Clock. He has crafted a wonderfully-logical and well-planned explanation of why the authors' conclusions are drastically oversimplified -- the same thoughts that Dr. Isis abbreviated with a bear on a potty. For those of you who are interested in the science behind this issue, check it out here because it really is brilliantly constructed.
For those of you who are interested in really hot shoes, earlier today Dr. Isis bought these:
Figure 2: That's Awesome by Naughty Monkey available for $22.49 (a steal!!!) at Amazon. Dr. Isis cannot wait to kick these up onto the table at Friday seminar
20 comments:
... The safeword is circadian?...
It is necessary to invoke neither gluttony nor beating (though, of course, both may contribute, they are not necessary). There are an awful lot of comments and whole posts spawned from a single (rather adorable) teddy bear on a toilet. Therefore, the post was a success by blogging standards. We all know the ultimate purpose of all blog posts is to attract attention.
I think the picture of the teddy bear on the toilet should be used as an icon on all the posts that fisk a paper that deserves it, in place of the BPR3 icon.
becca, stop getting all your info from greggie!
coturnix--woooooot!!!! (and it was a really good post you wrote on the topic of the day dude.)
I wonder if Bora is offended by having his name associated with a post that includes a picture of Bettie Page getting spanked?
LOL! Of course not! Love the picture ;-)
DM, don't be absurd. Greggie gets all his info from me. Except the parts that are wrong. Those he pulls from where the teddy bear sits.
Am I the only one working down the hall from somebody studying the effects of cortisol on the immune system? Bora's post actually makes me more suspicious of proinflammatory cytokines!
Want the shoes. Want the shoes. Want the shoes. Can't wear the shoes -- I hobble around in orthotics and "light hikers" -- but I sooo love those shoes.
Isis, I would pay good money to see you kick those shoes up onto the table at Friday seminar. Nothing like redefining academia... :)
CE, if you think I am not going to, I encourage you to line up with your dolla dolla billz in hand, sister.
At last week's seminar I drew a large heart on my notepad and held it up to a speaker when he answered a question to my liking.
Back on my blog I wrote a lengthy comment about the way this 'incident' highlights the current tensions due to changes in the rhetoric of science. We are at the moment when some scientists, most notably the most popular science bloggers, are at the cutting edge of this transformation.
But there are still thousands of straight-laced scientists who are very much behind the curve and do not yet grok the changes that are happening. They do not yet understand that stuffy old "Dear distinguished colleague, I respectfully disagree..." crap is far more dangerous for individual careers as well as science in general than a light-hearted chiding in the form of, for example, a cute Teddy Bear. The former intends to destroy, the latter simply points out at an error, expecting the person not to leave science but to keep working and just not make the same error again. It is a much more human and humane way of communicating.
My distinguished colleague, Bora,
I reviewed this comment on your blog and found it to be, as always, pointed and insightful. I commend you for your excellent analysis of this particular issue and look forward to our interactions in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Isis, Ph.D., etc., etc.
At ScienceOnline09 we will have a session on the Changing Rhetoric of Science which should be interesting.
But there is also a question of pseudonymity and authority. If the authors google themselves and see my post, which I purposefully wrote in the old, stuffy (and thus much more devastating) tradition, how will they react? If they respond more politely to me than to you, will that be because:
1) I am writing under my real name, or
2) I am a man, or
3) I am an expert in the field, or
4) I work for PLoS so they don't want to rub me the wrong way in case they are interested in publishing with us.
None of the above are valid reasons for treating me any more politely than they treated you. Your criticism was 100% exactly the same as mine, right on the money. What you wrote shows that you know what you are talking about. So, why were they nasty to you?
Bora:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes (But so is Dr. Isis, but you'll have to take her word for it)
4) Eh -- What the heck is PLOS anyway? Is that kind of like Wikipedia for science? ;)
But, this is all the point of being Dr. Isis. By every sense of convention, the real-life Dr. Isis is a bit of an oddity in the traditionally white male dominated field of biomedicine. I am a woman, very secure in her femininity (in case that doesn't come through on the blog), the mother of small children, the first child in her family to obtain a bachelors degree let alone an advanced degree, and the product of a household where English was not the only language spoken. When I began blogging I chose to do so under a pseudonym because I thought that it would allow me to directly address some of the more delicate issues related to my oddity status in an environment that equalizes me against white male academia, especially in the sphere of my real life where I still have to work and do science. Dr. Isis values the ability to mentor other female scientists at MRU.
I suspected that, when I chose to blog about findings in my particular field, people would be able to interpret my thoughts in the same way they would an anonymous article reviewer - albeit a reviewer who says exactly what she is thinking instead of crafting a response with false formality that, let's be honest, most of us don't really mean when we write it.
As it turns out, people are quite willing to accept Dr. Isis as an oddity and worship at the altar of her hot shoes and glittery vagina, but less willing to accept scientific criticism without knowing all the letters after her name, her academic rank, or the univertsities at which she trained. And I think that is really a shame because I suspect there are many people outside of the realm of the ivory tower who have a lot of important ideas to contribute to the discourse.
You know, I was just about to email you on the subject of Bora's coverage. Yay Bora! Brilliant as always.
But unfortunately, I cannot actually back those shoes. I'm sure they look amazingly hot on you, Dr. Isis, but the rest of us...
HA HA HA, Becca!!! Safeword! I just got that, 12 hours later.
Scicurious, I think you are selling yourself short if you think you can't pull these shoes off. Didn't we recently have a chat about waist length blazers and Sephora? These are merely the next step.
The Toilet Teddy could be like a Razzie or a Rubber Dodo award!
But there are still thousands of straight-laced scientists who are very much behind the curve and do not yet grok the changes that are happening.
Yeah! Whiny-ass titty-babies!!!!!!!
Not only are you a domestic and a laboratory goddess... but if you actually do walk around in these (gorgeous) shoes all day, then I really do worship you.
"HA HA HA, Becca!!! Safeword! I just got that, 12 hours later." Really? Alas. I guess I won't be dreaming about Dr. Isis afterall. At least the savvy-detection ploy worked.
Post a Comment