SciLogs.com Bloggers Shine At Science Seeker Awards


SciLogs.com bloggers won two of the eleven Science Seeker Awards, announced last night. Nathalia Holt and Pete Etchells won the Best medical sciences post and the Best post about peer-reviewed research respectively. SciLogs.com bloggers Nsikan Apkan and Jalees Rehman were finalists in the two categories as well. Huge congratulations to all four of them!

As you’d expect, all four posts are excellent reads so check them out:

Nathalia’s post, Weaving together the DNA of parenthood:

“In 2007, Anne Morriss and her partner brought their newborn son home from the hospital. They were brand new parents, filled with both fear and delight at the tiny little person they held in their arms. At the hospital, their new son had received a blood test, commonly given these days to detect genetic disorders. Their son had been home only a few days when they received the phone call that all parents dread. After a quick introduction, the doctor on the other end bluntly asked “Is your child still alive?” Anne, becoming fearful, replied yes to the startling question. The doctor on the other end responded, “Can you go check and come back to the phone?””

Pete’s post, The pseudoscience of anecdotes:

“The results from the TREAD study (TREAtment of Depression with physical activity) came out today in the British Medical Journal – you can check it out here. TREAD was a long term randomised controlled trial (considered the ‘gold standard’ in clinical testing) which aimed to figure out whether giving people who were suffering from depression a bit of help with their exercise regime (in other words, having a facilitator provide advice and encouragement to the patient) actually improved their mood or not over time.”

Nskian’s post, Llamas: Vaccine Factories for HIV:

“Llamas could be the clue to finding a vaccine for HIV/AIDS, according to virologists at University College London. By harnessing a peculiar quirk in the llama immune system, the researchers were able to generate a special antibody that broadly neutralized the most common HIV strains known to man.”

Jalees’s post, Science Journalism and the Inner Swine Dog:

“A search of the PubMed database, which indexes scholarly biomedical articles, reveals that 997,508 articles were published in the year 2011, which amounts to roughly 2,700 articles per day. Since the database does not include all published biomedical research articles, the actual number of published biomedical papers is probably even higher. Most biomedical researchers work in defined research areas, so perhaps only 1% of the published articles may be relevant for their research. As an example, the major focus of my research is the biology of stem cells, so I narrowed down the PubMed search to articles containing the expression “stem cells” [...]”

The Science Seeker Awards are presented by ScienceSeeker, a project of ScienceOnline, perhaps better known for organising the ScienceOnline conferences. ScienceSeeker is, in a way, the science blogosphere’s directory although it goes further by collecting science blog posts, as they are published, and compiles them in its database. It is also the main tool that The Library Of Congress is using in decision-making for preserving all science blogs.

The judges were Fraser Cain of UniverseToday, Maggie Koerth-Baker, science editor of BoingBoing and Maryn McKenna, a well-respected  journalist and author who writes about public health and global health amongst other topics. Other winners and finalists include the likes of Virginia Hughes and Carl Zimmer, both of whom are now blogging at National Geographic.

The Nature Publishing Group (NPG) blogosphere, of which SciLogs.com is a part of, is heavily represented at the awards. In addition to SciLogs.com’s two winners and two finalists, Scientific American boosts one winner and six finalists while two Scitable bloggers are finalists

So, all in all, many congratulations to all winners and finalists. And look forward to seeing some Science Seeker Awards badges on SciLogs.com in the near future.

Leave a Reply


one + = 2