Academics Andre's Research Biocuriosities Books Graduate School History of Science Hot off the Press Igor's Research Interdisciplinarity Molecule of the Month Open Access Philip's Research Philosophy of Science Physics Physicsworld.com
Backreaction Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics Cocktail Party Physics Cosmic Variance The Daily Transcript Easternblot Everyday Scientist The Evilutionary Biologist Freelancing Science The Futile Cycle Good Math, Bad Math iMechanica in singulo Incoherently Scattered Ponderings Juniorprof Klara Stefflova Life of a Lab Rat The Loom Metadatta Mixed States Morning Coffee Physics Not Even Wrong Notes from the biomass Notional Slurry OpenScience Project Pharyngula PLoS Blog Ponderings of a fool Recombinants The Sandwalk SciAm Observations ScienceBlogs Scientific Clearing House Shtetl-Optimized Three-toed Sloth Uncertain Principles What's New by Bob Park
There’s been some recent discussion sparked by Peggy’s and PZ’s posts on how biology gets treated poorly in science fiction, particularly compared to physics. Rob Knop and Chad Orzel respond that physics is treated poorly enough, thank-you very much, and Razib has some reasonable things to say.
Now, this week’s issue of Nature includes a timely interview with four science fiction writers with backgrounds in biology to get their opinion on the role science fiction can play in communicating good science, how even bad science fiction can play a positive role, and how they use aliens and artificial intelligence in their work.
So, the only question you should be asking is did the Nature editors use their time machine to get this story out on the heels of the discussion in the blogosphere or did they just use their mind control rays to make sure it was discussed once they had the feature ready?
Molecule of the Month: Thymine Dimers Biocurious: year two in review
Biocurious is written by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, since 2005. Content of the weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
