SARAH: Daddy, were you in the shower? DAD: Yes, I was in the shower. SARAH: Why? DAD: I was dirty. The shower gets me clean. SARAH: Why? DAD: Why does the shower get me clean? SARAH: Yes. DAD: Because the water washes the dirt away when I use soap. SARAH: Why? DAD: Why do I use soap? SARAH: Yes. DAD: Because the soap grabs the dirt and lets the water wash it off. SARAH: Why? DAD: Why does the soap grab the dirt? SARAH: Yes. DAD: Because soap is a surfactant. SARAH: Why? DAD: Why is soap a surfactant? SARAH:…
The Science Creative Quarterly
By Stephen McNeil
Stephen McNeil is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at the University of British Columbia Okanagan in Kelowna, British Columbia. To date, he has been interviewed on the radio four times: twice he was talking about chemistry, and twice he was talking about pirates. His favourite element is the element of surprise.
PROJECT STEVE: 889 STEVES FIGHT BACK AGAINST ANTI-EVOLUTION PROPOGANDA
As many scientists and science educators are aware, the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, maintains a list of signatories — the Institute calls them scientists, and calls the list “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” — under the following claim: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” In short, it’s a list of people with advanced science degrees that think evolution isn’t true.[1] Not to be outdone, the National Center…
VH1 PRESENTS “I LOVE THE 90S, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDITION”
UAACAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGUACUAUUAUGGAG* – – – * we’ll leave it to you to figure this one out.
PROKARYOTES OF AMERICA UNITE
– FROM THE ARCHIVE – The biotechnology community has been taken aback by a sudden and aggressive attack by an organization calling itself Humans for Bacterial Suffrage (HuBS). The group claims that an insidious culture of what it calls “eukaryotic oppression” is enslaving trillions of bacteria, subjecting them to perverse genetic experiments, and exploiting their labour in the execution of profitable biochemical reactions. Says HuBS president David Clostridium, “Bacteria are routinely abducted from their natural habitats, sold on the open market, unwillingly subjected to invasive genetic manipulations, and forced to breed in captivity. Multiple generations of enslaved lifeforms are set…
A CHEMIST RESPONDS TO “A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.”
– FROM THE ARCHIVE – (A review and/or rebuttal to “A Scientific Experiment” by Jaime J. Weinman) Well, it’s a good thing that science experiments on webpages aren’t subject to the traditional anonymous peer review process. It they were, Jaime would probably get a reply something like this: “Dear Mr. Weinman, “We regret that we cannot accept your manuscript for publication in its current, or likely any, form. The reviewers have pointed out a number of glaring deficiencies and omissions, briefly summarized below. “Although your scientific curiosity is to be applauded, your experimental methodology seems exceedingly limited, and lacks many…
PROKARYOTES OF AMERICA UNITE
The biotechnology community has been taken aback by a sudden and aggressive attack by an organization calling itself Humans for Bacterial Suffrage (HuBS). The group claims that an insidious culture of what it calls “eukaryotic oppression” is enslaving trillions of bacteria, subjecting them to perverse genetic experiments, and exploiting their labour in the execution of profitable biochemical reactions. Says HuBS president David Clostridium, “Bacteria are routinely abducted from their natural habitats, sold on the open market, unwillingly subjected to invasive genetic manipulations, and forced to breed in captivity. Multiple generations of enslaved lifeforms are set to work expressing secondary metabolites…
A CHEMIST RESPONDS TO “A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.”
(A review and/or rebuttal to “A Scientific Experiment” by Jaime J. Weinman, Issue One, Part II) Well, it’s a good thing that science experiments on webpages aren’t subject to the traditional anonymous peer review process. It they were, Jaime would probably get a reply something like this: “Dear Mr. Weinman, “We regret that we cannot accept your manuscript for publication in its current, or likely any, form. The reviewers have pointed out a number of glaring deficiencies and omissions, briefly summarized below. “Although your scientific curiosity is to be applauded, your experimental methodology seems exceedingly limited, and lacks many important…