I could tell about seven different stories of how this blog came about. As a senior in college, I got a slapped in the face with how insincere science journalism can be, when a project I was working on that involved using a compound derived from licorice root to reduce the amount of cell death in a petri dish due to the presence of proteins related to HIV associated dementia was published as "Eating Licorice Can Prevent Alzheimer's Disease". I've seen people dismiss very valid scientific studies out of hand with catch phrases like "sample size" and "generalizability" and "conflict of interest". I live in a country that somehow seems to be moving backwards in terms of science education, and I've recently entered a political climate where I'm concerned about the future of research funding. News articles are constantly coming out showing how scientifically illiterate our political leaders are. Whichever reason happened to be the trigger, here I am, blogging about my passion: science.
So who is Reviewer Three? Peer reviewed papers and grants are reviewed by three people. A common trope in academia is that Reviewer One is pretty much useless and gives no real feedback, Reviewer Two is pretty helpful, and Reviewer Three is an angry, aggressive jerk who will shred your submission, take issue with literally everything you've done and written, reject your paper, and probably kill your dog and eat those leftovers you were saving for dinner. Reviewer Three is the WORST. And yet, that's what I'd love this blog to be for science as a whole. Picking apart and making you question the things you thought you knew.
The plan for this blog is kind of helter skelter. I'm planning on breaking down science stories in the news and taking a look at controversial issues. Occasionally, you'll see biographies of lesser known science figures, Nobel Prize winners, and stories of how scientific discoveries came about. If you'll stick with me through it, you might get a dash of science and technology policy, too.