Content Outline

My final video outline.

Content outline

My content outline.

Peer review for Alexis Morrison

I gave a brief peer review of Alexis' It’s Singular They, Or So They Say on Not Very Onomatopoeic.

I mostly gave content suggestions. I suggested that both of the counter-arguments be strengthened to better fit the form of a public argument. I also gave a resource recommendation. I know that professors in the linguistics department could help with information to ground the subject in.

I think I helped show an area of weakness in the essay and showed how it could be improved.

Alexis did an excellent job in making her essay interesting by connecting it to the human struggle underlying the argument. I hope to due the same in my essay though it may not be as effective since string theory is not nearly as personal an issue as gender identity.

Peer Review A

http://fernatua.blogspot.com/2016/04/production-schedule.html?showComment=1459752741518

I made a resource recommendation on Fernando Coronado's production schedule on Fern's Blog.  I did a podcast for my last project and have a few pieces of advice.

I pointed out the Gear to Go Center as a useful equipment resource and gave my thoughts on Audacity as an editing program though I couldn't fully recommend it.  Choosing your tools wisely can smooth out the production of an unfamiliar medium like a podcast.

I also recommended that he put more time into script writing as I found that writing for audio recording had unique challenges and hurdles.

He did an good job in planning to spend a lot of time early in the project recording.

Editorial Report A

I've modified my introduction to the topic of my writing in Physics podcast to better introduce myself and establish credibility.

Old version
New version

I added a slight ethos appeal in mentioning my Major and university.  I hadn't introduced myself or established my credibility well enough before.

I added a backing track from here to give the audio a better overall texture and retain listener attention.  The track doesn't seem to be playing in the version linked.

Reflection on Post-Production

   I will admit that some things went rather well for my post-production cycle.  What the project needed to be and how I had to improve my Rough cut was really cleared up.  I think my peer reviews were helpful and the ones I received were definitively helpful.  My rough cut was lacking in evidence and dynamic audio.

    What went wrong is rather clear, I have yet to submit my final cut.  I found that I simply did not have enough time to finish it.  Having a Physics test tomorrow morning didn't help either.  The standard answers to do better next time would be to better plan ahead and do more work ahead of time.  I do generally have trouble with such thing but this week I felt I did the best I could with the time I had.

    I think Project 3 will go far smoother because I've gotten the hang of the structure of this classes assignments and I'll be doing the standard college essay.  The essay of course means far less room for technical problems.  And I won't have to deal with audio recording.

    Overall, I think my project will turn out well, if late. I know and can use the genre conventions, and I think that I have some genuinely interesting things to say about my topic.

Peer Review B for Jason Boley

    I recently reviewed The Future of American Podcasts by Jason Boley and made some suggestions along the lines of copy-editing.  I focused on how language and pacing could be used to more effectively engage his audience.

    The changes I suggested should make the podcast better maintain a listeners interest.  When dealing with a technical subject in an audio format any lapse in attention can cause the audience to miss an essential piece of information and become completely lost.  Speeding up and varying the pacing can help audience engagement as can wording choices.  Brief and precise wording helps convey essential information.

    I was impressed with how the interviewees in this podcast were established as interesting characters.  I found myself far more likely to care about what they said because of that.  I'll try to incorporate that kind of personality in my podcast in some way (I'll have to do it differently than this as interviews are nearly so important a piece of my podcast).

Peer Review A for Rhiannon Bauer of Overenthusiastic

    I reviewed Rhiannon Bauer's podcast on writing in biology.  I made several suggestions centering on the form of her podcast.

    Most of my suggestions were directed at the flow of the podcast and how it could be changed to be more easily comprehended.  I said that improvements could be made by tightening the script, polishing the audio quality, and integrating music, effects, and external audio clips.  I think that these changes could help this podcast explain its difficult subject in a more interesting manner.

    I suggested the inclusion of podcast conventions such as the intro and outro as heard in our class genre examples.  This podcast could use the cohesion granted by such standard elements.

    The thoroughness of the content in this podcast impressed me.  I've had trouble with the integration of technical documents into my podcast and was impressed at how well they were integrated here.  I'll be trying to bring the content of my own podcast up to this standard.

Reflection on Project 2 Production- a tired

    That was a production.  I have decided that I am not a fan of audio recording.  Though I think that I've learned my program well enough that the next section should go rather smoothly.

    I think that I'll mainly be doing Global revisions next week as I think I have a fair grasp on making the podcast workable, but I really need to rework some of my project.  I need to better organize the whole thing and make it more evidence driven.

    My process work took a bit of a tumble this week overall, but I think I've learned from it.

    I think this project will work out with a few more minor catastrophes and some lessons learned.  I am a bit more worried about the video essay than I was before.  Putting "learn video editing" on my to do list.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Here is a link to a rather rough cut of my writing in physics podcast.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJLVdTM3RPeGd2UVU/view?usp=sharing

There are some definitive weaknesses in this cut that I'll be addressing in my next version.  I should be able to sort out the audio's habit of fading out at weird times.  I also need to do a far better job integrating my evidence into the podcast.

I think that the podcast follows the genre conventions fairly well overall, but I'd like to know if you agree.

Do you think that starting the body of the podcast with the grant proposal works or should I open with the research paper?

Production Report B

This is a link to the intro section of my writing in Physics Podcast;


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJa0FseUxYRlktM0U/view?usp=sharing

These are the sections of my outline it was drawn from;

Opener Line

• Clearly introduce self and topic.
• Snappy.
• With Personality- sets tone and gives a reason to keep listening.

   Subject Intro

• Define scope- any professional writing in a physics career.
• Not just research papers.
• Give some idea of research done- establish credibility, do not overdue- that would be boring and pointless.
• Reason to care? -Physics is awesome?

I had to change this section quite a bit to make it really work as a podcast. The most major change was how I added a more through topic introduction to the very beginning to serve as a bit of a hook before my opener. I decided that beginning with the opener just didn't feel like a podcast to me and I remembered that many podcasts I tend to listen to have a section before the opener.

I was also unable to fit the research bullet point in in a way that didn't feel clunky and awkward.

Production Report A

This is a link to the Research paper section of my writing in Physics Podcast;


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJQkxVdzlKNktod00/view?usp=sharing

These are the sections of my outline it was drawn from;

   2)  The Research Paper

• Sterile- Keep it brief and to the point.
• Standard organization- Look at any research paper
• Taught in lab reports
• Conventions designed to promote clarity and impartiality.

   3)  The Narrative of a Research Paper

• Helps convey results and how they were found.
• Keeps interest. -We were looking for x and we found it opposed to we did y and saw x.
• Surprised me; essential to a good paper according to interviewees

Converting the my rather rough outline into audio was an interesting experience. I'm not used to writing for audio so I had to focus on making my script understandable when read aloud and "read able". One challenge I face there is my tendency to write words I have trouble pronouncing, like "exists"; I have a minor lisp that tends to come out when I'm recording.

The technical side went surprisingly smoothly and I really have nothing to complain about there.

Reflection upon Pre-Production

    When I started to think back on how my pre-production went, my brain started laughing hysterically;  that, is rarely a good sign.

   Let's start with what went wrong.  My mike decided to not pick up most of my audio.  It had a cut off point at just below the volume I tested it at.  If I ever have to interview people like this again, I'm not going to take interviews Monday, so I can have time to properly test out the equipment that I have to pick up on Monday morning.

    I also need to take my own schedule more into account when planning interviews.  I scheduled both the interviews fairly close together.  This meant that I didn't have time to go over my first interview before starting my second which would have helped me better conduct the second.  I should be more considerate of my own limitations rather than just going along with my interviewees' first preference.

    On a positive note, my interviews actually went rather well.  My interviewees were kind and informative.  Both my interviews went without a hitch (except for the aforementioned minor technical catastrophe).

    I think that the information I got will be useful to my project.  Dr. Manne's explanations of non-research work can help fill out the podcast and Dr. Wolgemuth compared writing in physics to that in biology in a way that I can use to better explain the specifics of writing in physics.

    They both said some very interesting things about the use of narrative structure in research papers that surprised me.  That will likely become the most interesting section of my podcast.

    I know that I'll end up pulling through and delivering a good project by the end of this.  The risk is more about whether I can do so in a way that doesn't destroy my sleep schedule or sanity.  I need to control my work schedule and keep myself calm.  I'm honestly not sure how well that will work out.

Production Schedule- my attempt at a

Here's a link to my production schedule:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y6NxdJIwZlEqiXAM-H_uHYwZVSOPyT2O1PzX-EcRtK8/edit?usp=sharing

Content Outline- my podcast's

Open: 

    Opener Line

• Clearly introduce self and topic.
• Snappy.
• With Personality- sets tone and gives a reason to keep listening.

    Subject Intro

• Define scope- any professional writing in a physics career.
• Not just research papers.
• Give some idea of research done- establish credibility, do not overdue- that would be boring and pointless.
• Reason to care? -Physics is awesome?

Body:

    1)  Misc. Writings

• Outreach stuff -Manne on why it matters (gets people into the field, opens doors), examples here.
• Recommendation Letters- Manne: Selling strengths, spinning weaknesses, very important to students career, assumed baseline positivity- don't undersell.

    2)  The Research Paper

• Sterile- Keep it brief and to the point.
• Standard organization- Look at any research paper
• Taught in lab reports
• Conventions designed to promote clarity and impartiality.

    3)  The Narrative of a Research Paper

• Helps convey results and how they were found.
• Keeps interest. -We were looking for x and we found it opposed to we did y and saw x.
• Manne quote
• Wolgemuth quote
• Surprised me; essential to a good paper according to interviewees

    4)  Speaking

        Conferences

• Attending talks.
• Thesis defense.

        Class

• Learn as you go -Manne
• TAship?
• Important part of the job; doesn't seem to usually be formally taught

    5)  Grant Request?

• Non-expert level.
• Why is this worth money?
• Necessary to research.
• Wolgemuth on differences with Bio grant-  less hypothesis oriented, can be more of a "interesting question.

Close:

    Writing in Physics is not a monolithic entirely sterile form, though some of it is.  Anyone interested in Physics should get to know its writings beyond the common perceptions.  Knowing the conventions behind the writings helps one better understand appreciate the writings.  A knowledge of such subtleties can also be greatly useful to anyone looking to improve their own writing in the field.

    Outro:  This has been...

Academic Discourse and Genre

    The main of the American Journal of Physics is made up of article simply referred to as Papers.  These Papers serve to communicate a subject on a non-expert level and to show how the subject might be taught.  The text largely follows the standard scientific paper format with well defined, labeled sections.  The introduction and background section tend to be far longer than typical.

    Near the back of the Journal reside the Notes and Discussions.  I see these more commonly called something along the lines of Comments or replies.  They're through responses to previous articles or comments often in the form of "you're wrong and this is why".

    Right at the back are a couple of Book Reviews.  They are highly descriptive, taking up nearly a page.

    The Journal begins this issue with a call for a new editor.  Followed by a letter to the previous one.

     Some definitions;

Papers-  A multi. page text in the format of a scientific report.

Comments-  Through point by point replies to articles and other comments.  Often corrections.

Reviews- Book reviews in about half page essay form.

Help Wanted Ad- job posting for a new editor complete with description of duties and requisites.

Letters to the Editor- A short letter from a reader expounding on a previous article.

Rhetorical Analysis of an Acedemic Journal

    The library didn't carry print copies of any of the journals I looked at in my last post so I chose to examine the American Journal of Physics.

 
    This journal seems to have an interesting policy with its authors.  The authors are listed only by name and place of work.  More interesting, is the variety of authors.  Most of the authors are from US universities, but some are from abroad.  One article even has several high school authors.

    The primary audience of this journal is people teaching physics at the graduate and undergraduate levels.  The content tells how to teach various subjects and explains the same for people with a background in physics though not necessarily in the specific field.  The secondary audience is teachers and students reading to broaden their understanding of various fields.

    The only major current event that I think may have affected this issue is that the journal is seeking a new editor.  I wasn't able to detect any effect this had on the journal.

  I think that this journal exists to better physics teaching.  From the non-expert level of required background to the inclusion of high school authors,  The entire journal seems to say "you can learn/teach anything in physics".

My Major -physics is

    Students in my major are taught to understand and manipulate situations governed by the laws of physics, especially where these situations differ from standard intuition.  The more practical skills learned involve the operation of laboratory environments and complex problem solving.  This training provides a good base, but does not always prepare a student for their particular career.

    Physicists can end up in a wide variety of fields ranging from education to medicine. The skills developed in a physics education can apply to most fields requiring the operation of advanced machinery or analysis of complex operations.

    I chose to study physics because I find the kind of problem solving and discovery fun.  The  most exciting work in the field has gained a good bit of attention recently.  Everything that CERN does is awesome in the old sense of the word.  The LIGO Gravity wave discovery has everyone ecstatic.  Biophysics in general is always doing something interesting.

Some of the bigger journals in Physics follow;
    -Reviews of Modern Physics
    -Nature Physics
    -Physics Report
    -Nature Materials

My Interviewees on Social Media. -the presence of

    Professor Manne, my first interviewee, is not on any social media.  He thinks that new people to the field should probably use it to their advantage, but he feels that he entered the feild early enough that it won't be necessary for him.

    My second interviewee, Professor Wolgemuth, has a brief Linked in page, but his biggest use of social media is Youtube.  His research team has their own channel.  They use this channel to host videos taken in their research for easy access.  The videos on this channel are largely raw footage and are far less polished than the associated papers.

My Interviewees as Professional Writers

My two interviewees are both researching Professors in the Department of Physics.  As such the main of their publications take the form of reports on experiments in scientific journals.

Kristian Mølhave How an atomic force microscope works. for the Opensource Handbook of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 3 October 2013 Wikipedia

CC Attribution 2.5

    My first interviewee is Professor Srin Manne.  Dr. Manne's research focuses on condensed matter physics and often uses Atomic-force Microscopy(AfM), an imaging technique that can study a material at a far higher resolution than any optical microscope.  His publications include entries that instruct in the use of AfM.  Dr. Manne is particularly interested in undergraduate research.  Dr. Manne is well published, and writes in a variety of fields.  Condensed matter research can fall under many different fields.

    Electrochemistry on a gold surface observed with the atomic force microscope is a paper by Manne et al. on an experiment they conducted observing the oxidation of a gold surface with an AfM.  The paper is in the standard form that science students are taught in lab reports.  This paper was published in 1991, 9 years after the introduction of the AfM but before many of the advancements in modern AfMs.

    Atomic Force Microscopy of the Nacreous Layer in Mollusc Shells in Proceedings of the Royal Society B is a paper by Manne et al. about an experiment studying Mollusk shells with an AfM.  This paper follows the same experiment report conventions taught in science classes.  The experiment was a cross department and university effort with UC Santa Barbara's Physics, Chemistry, and Biology departments credited, along with the University of Bath's School of Chemistry.

The Company of Biologists Long-range movement of a midbody remnant over the cell surface of HeLa cell. Jan 20, 2015 Youtube

CC Attribution

    My second interviewee is Professor Charles Wolgemuth.  Dr. Wolgemuth's research studies cellular movement.  He studies how individual cells and groups of cells use the laws of physics to propel themselves.  He publishes in both Physics and Biology journals.

    Crawling Cells Can Close Wounds without Purse Strings or Signaling is a piece by Wolgemuth and Pilhwa Lee.  It describes how cuts heal on the cellular level.  Better understanding the mechanics of healing could prove important to learning to better treat wounds.  The text itself follows the standard experimental report conventions.

 

My Interview Subjects

    For Project 2 I will be interviewing Professor Srin Manne and Professor Charles Wolgemuth of the University of Arizona Physics Department.

Jörgen Nixdorf Reel to Reel Tape Recorder 20 June 2004 Wikipedia

CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported

    Dr. Manne is an Associate Professor of Physics at the U of A.  He received his Ph.D. in 1994 from UC Santa Barbara.  

    Dr. Manne's research is in Condensed Matter Physics.

    I will be meeting with Professor Manne at 10 am February 29 at his office.

Some of the questions I have prepared for Professor Manne follow;

• I've noticed that you do several different types of work for the department; teaching, research, outreach.  How would you define your job as a whole?
• What types of writing do you do the most?  As a researcher and professor.
• How do the different genres you use affect how you write? (conference v. paper v. lecture)
• Has your background prepared you particularly well or poorly for any specific type of writing?
• Could you show me any examples of these genres, or direct me where to find them? (esp. non-written)
• How do you use social media, Linkedin, reddit, if at all? 
• What place, if any, do you think social media should have in the field.
• How is your writing effected by the different audiences you write for? (student v. colleagues v. general publication)
• Would you say that writing in Physics has changed since you first came into the field?
• How do you like to write?  Where?
• Do you ever struggle with time management?  How do you deal with it?
• How would you describe your writing process from start to finish?
• Is there a specific form of writing that you think I and other students at the same place in their academic careers as me should make sure we learn?
• Would you be open to answering a few follow up questions over E-mail as I put together my project?

    Dr. Wolgemuth is an Associate Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cellular Biology.  He received his Ph.D. in Physics in 2000 from the U of A.

    Dr. Wolgemuth researches Biological Physics.

    I will be meeting with Professor Wolgemuth at 1 pm February 29 at his office.

Some of the questions I have prepared for Professor Wolgemuth follow;

• Your research bridges Physics and Biology.  How would you define your job as a whole?
• What types of writing do you do the most?  As a researcher and professor.
• Would you say there's a significant difference between writing in physics and biology?
• How do the different genres you use affect how you write? (conference v. paper v. lecture)
• Could you show me any examples of these genres, or direct me where to find them? (esp. non-written)
• How has your academic background prepared you for your writing in Biological Physics? (Physics background)
• How do you use social media, Linkedin, reddit, if at all? 
• What place, if any, do you think social media should have in the sciences.
• How is your writing effected by the different audiences you write for? (student v. colleagues v. general publication and biologists v. physicists)
• How would you say writing in biological physics and related fields has developed over the past years?
• How do you like to write?  Where?
• Do you ever struggle with time management?  How do you deal with it?
• How would you describe your writing process from start to finish?
• Is there a specific form of writing that you think students looking to study an interdisciplinary field should make sure they learn?
• Would you be open to answering a few follow up questions over E-mail as I put together my project?

Local Revision: Tense Usage

   My QRG is unbalanced in its usage of tense.  I focus heavily on the present and future.

Past	Present	Future
proposed have generated has contested were had made was responded published	are do Break are is answer is better start is find is repeating has propagates occupies moving looking break oscillates consuming conflicts act points out show demonstrate pointing out disproving disprove disproving have is disproved stands gain found manages create disprove is being prepared attempt create prove could shed	would be would oscillate ’ll would extend would be would be would would be could could survive would be would expend decompose will lose wouldn’t be inconvenienced found work will be will continue will
	Disprove- 5  Found- 2  Create- 2	Would- 10  Could- 3

Nicholas Noyes Past Present Future 17-12-2008 via Flickr

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

   The use of the past and future tenses make the controversy seem more alive while past tense is used to show background.  I feel that the tense changes flow naturally and none of my peer reviewers have commented on them.  I may slightly overuse the future tense, especially the word would.

   

My Verbs- an exhaustive list of

    This is a list of every verb in my QRG.  

are do Break are proposed would be would oscillate have generated is answer is better start is ’ll find is repeating has propagates occupies would extend moving would be would be looking would break oscillates consuming conflicts would be could act could survive has contested points out would be were show had made demonstrate was would expend decompose responded pointing out disproving disprove published disproving have will lose is disproved stands gain wouldn’t be inconvenienced found work found will be manages create disprove will continue is being prepared attempt create will prove could shed

Would- 10

Are, is, be- 16

Oscillate- 2

Have- 2

Could- 3

Disprove- 5

Found- 2

Create- 2

    I can only assume that this will make sense in the context of later posts.

Local Revision: Wordiness

    One of the first Local Revisions my QRG needs to undergo is being edited down for wordiness.  A QRG needs to be direct, to the point, and quick to read.

    I've selected the first paragraph from my draft an edited it for wordiness.

Asahiko generic-highlight-red-marker-round 8-7-2012 via WikimediaPublic Domain

Before the edit:


"Time crystals are a theoretical atomic structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate and MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek.  At the simplest level, the structure would be a crystal that has a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure could possibly oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s troubling implications have generated quite a bit of interest."



After the edit:

"Time crystals are a theoretical structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.  The structure would be a crystal with a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure would oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s implications have generated quite a bit of interest."


    This edit streamlines the paragraph and removes information that only serves to distract in the first paragraph.  Dr. Wilczek's position can be clarified later.  In the final sentence I removed the "troubling" because implications are almost always troubling.

    I'm not as certain that the edit helps the two middle sentences.  "At the simplest level," is likely unnecessary, but it does establish that the structure is not easily conceptualized. Changing "could possibly" to would speeds up the sentence, but implies more certainty than I am entirely comfortable with.

I think the edit improves the paragraph, but it is possibly excessive.

Peer Review 2

    I recently reviewed  Alec Eulano's Podcast on Tyler the Creator.  Alec's Podcast reminded me of how I need to make my own project more engaging.

    Currently my project suffers from a lack of a narrative through-line, an insufficient explanation of the time crystal itself, and a lack of any reference points in time.

Peer Review 1

    I reviewed Ben Barnett's QRG on the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  I chose Ben's project because his controversy presents many of the same challenges as mine.  Both are fairly technical and thus require significant explanation of complex topics to appeal to a wide audience.
    Reading Ben's QRG reminded me of how I need to better explain the technical concepts behind the Time Crystal.  It's easy to miss some critical piece of background that most readers won't already know.  Specifically, I noticed several statistics in Ben's text that I had no prior understanding of.
    Ben's QRG quickly and gracefully outlined the impact of his controversy and laid out the stakes.  I need to work on this within my own QRG; as it stands, I don't effectively illustrate the the impact of the topic.  Ben also gives the entire pieces a subtle narrative flow that helps pull the reader through.

Draft of project 1

What in the World are Time Crystals and do They Break Physics?

“I was thinking about the classification of crystals, and then it just occurred to me that it’s natural to think about space and time together, so if you think about crystals in space, it’s very natural also to think about the classification of crystalline behavior in time.”

-Frank Wilczek

Time crystals are a theoretical atomic structure of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate and MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek.  At the simplest level, the structure would be a crystal that has a regular structure across both space and time.  Such a structure could possibly oscillate continuously without external input.  This idea and it’s troubling implications have generated quite a bit of interest.

Cateb, Mauro Lapidated Quartz Obelisk 3, 2011 via Wikimedia

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

What is a Time Crystal?

To answer this it is better to start with a simpler question.  What is a crystal?  One phrase you’ll find in most answers to that question is “regularly repeating structure”.  A crystal has a repeating structure that propagates across the space it occupies.  A time crystal would theoretically extend this property over time as well.

From our point of view, moving along time normally, the structure would be a submicroscopic oscillating crystal.  The effect would be similar to looking at consecutive slices of a normal crystal as a slideshow.

How would this break physics?

The existence of an object that continuously oscillates without consuming energy conflicts with the principles of thermodynamics.  Simply put, a time crystal would be a perpetual motion machine.  The crystal could even conceivably act as a clock that could survive the heat death of the universe.

The problems with the theory.

A theoretical physicist by the name of Patrick Bruno has contested the theory of time crystals.  He points out that such structures would only be significant if they were the lowest energy or ground state of the system.  

Bruno went on to show that a model Wilczek had made to demonstrate the concept was not in fact in a ground state and would therefore expend energy and decompose.  Wilczek and his supporters responded by pointing out that disproving the specific model didn’t disprove the basis for the idea.

Ultimately the final test for this concept will be experimentation.  Until a laboratory manages to create or disprove the crystal, the debate will continue.

The Future.

An experiment is being prepared to attempt to create a time crystal at UC Berkeley.  This experiment will likely prove extremely difficult at the very least.  If successful it could shed light on the strange possibility of the time crystal.

For Peer Reviewers:

The Document

    Any comments about what if anything you find interesting about this story would be appreciated.  I don't know what part of this I should focus on. 

Evaluation of News Magazine Stories-

    The online magazine is a strange blend of classic and new media.  How such sites present their stories can inform a careful reader to any bias in the article.

Grabowska, Karolina Coffee and Magazine Jul. 30, 2014 via Pexels

Creative Commons CC0

    The economist discusses the use of bio-fuels in this article.  Many attempts at developing a workable bio-fuel have failed to pan out.  It may be time to reevaluate whether to continue putting effort into their development.
    In this argument I'm most sympathetic to those trying to develop new fuels.  They come off as innovators, trying to solve a looming problem.  Showing the myriad approaches being taken by many groups gives me hope that bio-fuels may yet succeed.
    The article takes a less enthusiastic view overall.  A list of bio-fuel's many challenges fills the opening paragraphs with a sobered tone.  The final paragraph is used to cast doubt on the entire bio-fuel effort.
    Climate change has been thoroughly discussed, but the Times brings up a less often heard point in their article.  We don't often discuss the potential for climate change to expand the range of tropical diseases.
    Those arguing against  the likelihood of a dramatic expansion of mosquito ranges garner more sympathy from me.  The article portrays such people as Yale's Durland Fish as the more skeptical side, pointing out insufficiency of models.
    The portrayal of those who expect the expansion is less flattering.  Their arguments are presented as simplistic.  No one supporting the idea of a massive expansion is ever quoted directly.

Twitter and What I Found There-

    The sciences, especially physics, have an interesting relationship with various media.  Since a work is often only considered significant if published in a peer reviewed paper, other media are often somewhat unappreciated.  However, the sciences are filled with technically literate people who certainly use social media.

Linforth, Pete No Title December 2015 via Pixabay

Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication

    Twitter is a unique platform for discussion.  It allows for casual public conversations on any topic.  It would seem that people must use it to discuss physics, but I've never met someone who used it for that purpose.
    Much of what I found while searching for accounts about physics on Twitter was simply links to other sites.  It seems that people in the field mostly use Twitter to spread information about items outside of Twitter.  Links to articles from popular science magazines were especial common.  There weren't signs of a robust dialog taking place within Twitter itself.
    I think that people in physics use twitter less than one would expect because the platform isn't well suited to discussing physics.  A 140 character limit can be extremely inhibiting when a conversation gets technical.