Category Archives: Open Notebook

Copyright Law and Science

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about how using Creative Commons licensing can protect scientists while allowing use/reuse of scientific data and figures. Initially I wanted to find cases between scientists over copyright infringement or even misuse of the CC licenses. I quickly realized I needed a broad understanding of copyright law and decided to begin with that.

I now have a bunch of notes on the subject but am afraid to share those for fears of copyright infringement, but will happily summarize those notes and share my thoughts on how copyright can impact science and open science more specifically.

The basics of copyright

Copyright law is essentially very simple, and has been made increasingly simple since it was originally expanded upon in the US Constitution. The most recent addendum to this statute came about in the 1976 Copyright Act, which defined rights to copyright holders (exclusive rights), how copyright is achieved, and even what does/does not constitute infringement (fair use).

While the law is simple in principle, copyright infringement is not necessarily black and white. In some instances it is questionable as to what is even copyrightable. In others, the matter of fair use is debatable. Even when there is infringement, it can be tough to prove because there are varying degrees of copying or “borrowing.”

To illustrate the simplicity of copyright law here is an outline of the basic principles:

  1. Copyright is applied immediately from the moment any work is tangibly recorded, both publicly and privately.
  2. To be protected a work needs to be original (not novel) and there needs to be a minimum element of creativity (known as expression).
  3. There are several exclusive rights provided to copyright holders (scroll down to the infringement section) that include copying and distribution.
  4. Copyright infringement is a federal offense!
  5. Even though copyright is applied immediately, in order to file suit for infringement a copyright needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office.

If you want to know more about copyright continue reading on, but if you feel you understand the basics then skip ahead to my analysis of copyright application to science.

Continue reading Copyright Law and Science

A 2012 Retrospective

I’ve had an amazing 2012 scientifically speaking (but also personally speaking). So much transpired this past year and I have so many memories that I thought I’d share it. Plus everyone’s doing it so why not! Without further ado here is the IheartAnthony’s Research 2012 Retrospective:

Most Visited Posts:

  • Home Page/Archives – 4,305 views – While it isn’t all that surprising that the home page is the most visited page in my notebook, it actually is. The reason is because every day I find that people are browsing the site. The home page is the second click usually for the site and a lot of times there is a third click, or a fourth click, etc. With a blog that’s great, but for a resource that’s phenomenal. I hope I’ve contributed to your knowledge in some way this past year.
  • Why bother publishing in a journal? – 1,111 views – This is my single most viewed post and I feel the most important one to date. If you missed it, I discussed the possibility of using already available tools to publish your research and circumvent the current peer review process. By no means though do I suggest skipping peer review. I think that message got lost a little bit in the post because the comments were on fire with arguments against this hypothetical situation.
  • Active Experiments – 489 views – This page was made to aid in the navigation of my site and to explain the research that I’m carrying out. The fact that people are using it is amazing to me, but even more importantly it’s been a useful resource for myself.
  • FTIR study of differences between D2O, DDW, and DI water – 405 views – I did a brief experiment to study the absorption profile of the waters mentioned above. It was an exercise to see whether FTIR can determine the differences between the D content. I’ve since moved on to a better study that counts the D in solution. I find it amazing that such a normally “trivial” experiment could garner so much popularity.
  • The Open PCR Build – 274 views – I wrote this post when I first started this open notebook to document the build of the open sourced PCR machine known as Open PCR. This post also got me on the front page of OpenPCR.org, hopefully because of the help I provided the community and because of the help I provided the founders of the company. I also did some temperature data collection of the Open PCR unit and shared it on figshare, which got over 500 views!
  • Cut It Out, a new game by NEB – 210 views – Skipping down the stat list a bit, this post is probably my most useless one. Somehow though it managed to be the 8 most viewed page in my notebook. Has anyone actually played this game because of me?

My Favorite Posts:

  • Why bother publishing in a journal? – This is my favorite post because the engagement I received after posting was phenomenal. This is my single most commented-on post, and my thought experiment sparked a great conversation, one that I hope continues in 2013.
  • The Mythical Water Material Safety Data Sheet – One day I received some deuterium depleted water that came with an MSDS, and then hilarity ensued. Words can’t do it justice so just read the post. While you read make sure to drink lots of water, but if you spill any on yourself make sure to immediately rinse it off with water. I wouldn’t want anyone to get water burned!
  • Why I became an open scientist – I have a whole slew of posts dedicated to open notebook science, but this one is one of my favorites (along with my post about why you should be an open notebook scientist). Here I pour my soul to explain how I got started and why I keep doing what I do.
  • Can researchers protect their open data? – This post is just a few days old and is already gaining steam. One of the most frequent questions I receive is “How is someone supposed to be open when they have to deal with scientific scooping?” Well here I brainstorm a bit about available tools to protect your research. I’m currently in the process of learning a bit about copyright law and IP and I hope this will reveal a whole lot more about protecting research in an open environment.
  • Sketch Notes – At Scio12 (last year) I learned the art of sketch noting and I began to apply my artistic skills to science, an endeavor I had always intended. The practice is simple in concept: listen to a lecture and note the highlights. The catch is to do it via imagery and symbols. The final product is a bit chaotic, but it is also quite beautiful and it is downright fun!

Most Important Moments:

  • ScienceOnline 2012 – I consider Scio12 to be my scientific awakening. I have never experienced a conference quite like it, which is why I suppose it is referred to as the unconference. I met so many amazing colleagues, many of which I consider my friends, and began to realize my calling in the scientific world. ScienceOnline 2013 is just a few weeks away and I’m gearing up for Round 2. If you’re going to be there, make sure you stop by the Open Notebook Session, or find me and say hi!
  • Science at Risk Meeting – Because of Scio12 I met a few scientists that are employed by the Library of Congress. They held a special invite meeting in June to gauge the scope of online science and to brainstorm ideas for archiving online scientific information. I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak about open notebook science, and weigh in on how science publication will proceed and how daunting science archiving will be.
  • #SciFund Challenge Round 2 – At some point I learned about the #SciFund Challenge after inquiring about crowdfunding endeavors for science. At that time I had missed the first round and quickly applied for the second round. I was accepted to participate and launched my project to raise $2000 for open science. I was extremely humbled when I hit my goal and managed to raise more than my target. Ever since I’ve been trying to support future challenge participants and hope to continue to do so with Rounds 4 to infinity!
  • The Open IGERT – Ever since I’ve become an advocate for open science and open notebook science, I’ve been met with opposition regarding the survivability of ONS. Lots of scientists are interested in pursuing open science, but no one is ready to participate. I hope to change that and cowrote an NSF IGERT grant that would fund graduate students to participate in an open science environment. The results of the grant should be arriving any day now, and if our grant gets accepted then the scientific world is going to change.
  • Physics 308L Junior Lab – I was asked to TA the Electronics Junior Lab course with Steve and he pretty much gave me free reign to do whatever I wanted. So we told the students they would have to use open notebooks but were free to do just about whatever they needed to complete the labs, we would guide them and show them some useful ways to contribute. The result was a fun lab experience full of real-world skill development, and was an experience that I’ll never forget.

Fun Stats:

  • This notebook has had over 16,000 hits since its inception in August of 2011!
  • OpenPCR (or some form of that) has been the most common search term used to access this notebook. But searches looking for anything deuterium related greatly surpass that total. Every now and then I get a hit for “water msds,” which always gives me a good chuckle.
  • 18% of traffic here comes from direct traffic (ie people typing the url into their browser), that’s over 1400 people! Surprisingly that’s more than the visits via Social Media which is just under 1400 visits, most of which comes from Twitter.
  • I have had visitors from every US state and from most countries (Google Analytics doesn’t easily tell me how many), most of which come from the US. And I’m happy to announce that 20% of my visitors return for seconds! Thank you!

2012 is in the books and 2013 is just underway. I have a lot in store for this year and I thank all of you for your contributions. Happy New Year!

My 2012 Year in Review (by WordPress.com)

Tomorrow I’ll do a little summary of my favorite open notebook endeavors of 2012 and my most popular/favorite posts. But until then enjoy the report compiled by WordPress.com:

http://jetpack.me/annual-report/26114405/2012/

What is Open Notebook Science?

Most scientific information is stored in countless journals, recorded in infinite articles produced by scientists from all over the world and across many decades. And in the age of the internet, this content is easily found all over the web. Journals have adapted to host .pdf versions articles, they host blogs to make the content more approachable, and there are some that are built on open access or have preprint hosting capabilities (also open access).

Despite the digital revolution, science publication hasn’t changed. Even though information is right at our fingertips, it is still locked. Locked behind a paywall. Locked behind technical jargon. And locked behind interpretation. The worst part is scientists accept all these barriers. We accept that results won’t be published many months after a study is completed. We accept that we have to spend time to digest those results. And we accept that we will spend even more time replicating or building on an experiment.

But what if there was another way? What if the speed of science could be improved so it isn’t an excuse anymore? And what if access wasn’t a barrier anymore?

The truth is a solution exists. It’s called open notebook science, and I do it every day and have been doing it for the past 5 years.

Open notebook science is simply the practice of making your entire research project available online as it is recorded. This online location is known as an open notebook and is the online analog to the paper notebook most scientists keep in their lab. It is the storage center for project plans, experimental protocols and setups, raw data, and even unfiltered interpretations.

Open notebook science was first coined in 2006 by Jean-Claude Bradley (Drexel University), to clarify a subdivision of open science (at the time open source science) and to avoid confusion with the term open sourced software. The term itself is an umbrella for several types of notebooks that are classified by publication time (from immediate to delayed posting) and content (ranging from all research content to some content, usually parts of a project).

Ideally, every scientist would maintain an open notebook in real-time which would encompass all aspects of their research. But many fears about dealing with complete open access, conflicts with patent applications and publications, and online data overload hamper this movement. To combat this, practitioners (like myself) encourage any form of open notebook contribution, even if that means uploading some information for a project from many years ago that never saw the light of day.

The goal of this practice is to enhance research. Through open notebooks, scientists would no longer need to repeat the mistakes of other scientists. There will be no need to sift through pages of an unorganized paper notebook. Access to data will be available, and better yet access to detailed protocols will improve the speed and reproducibility of research.

If you are interested in further details of open notebook science, I have a lot of information in the “Open Notebook Science Info” category and even more if you search “open notebook science” in this notebook. In addition, feel free to email me questions or comments, or better yet leave a comment on any post here in my notebook!

My Dissertation

It’s time to get this party started! So here is my dissertation edited in real-time. Feel free to refresh periodically over the next several months to witness the evolution, or just come back in May when it’s all done!

In Google Docs

And feel free to leave a comment in the document with a correction or question or anything!

Can researchers protect their open data?

One of the biggest arguments I hear against open research is the fear about not being able to protect your intellectual property, aka the fear of being scooped.

Can it happen? Of course, but it happens now and in the past in a mostly closed environment. I don’t believe that open publication of research and data is inviting more data theft.

My answer to the point of data thievery is always, you can’t steal what is being shared. But I’ve come to realize that isn’t always the answer, and especially not the answer to which most scientists are looking. That way of thinking requires a major shift in thinking, which science may not be ready for.

With that said, I think the idea of providing information openly to a broad audience is very appealing, if the fear of scooping wasn’t so predominant. Researchers still want their research to remain theirs, so how can we ensure that what we publish on the web remains ours?

I think the answer lies in the legal system.

In industry, and scientific institutions as well, patents exist to protect intellectual property (IP). If a patent is violated, a legal course of action is pursued and the courts decide the verdict and the punishment (should there be one).

Many people forget that copyright laws exist for those who publish on the web. The only real challenge is monitoring for potential violators of those laws. Sure the broadness of the internet makes it difficult to track use and reuse of information, but at the same time new technologies are developed that make this a little easier. For instance, any link to any of my notebook entries notify me, and I check the source.

But in the event that your research is used/reused in a way that you do not approve, there are courses of action that you can take (of course as of this writing I’m unaware of what those may be). There are also measures you can take to help dictate the use of your research. The most famous of which is the use of Creative Commons Licensing.

The Creative Commons essentially did the legal work for content creators to provide them the platform to allow sharing, use, and reuse of their work. You can either waive your copyright completely and put your IP in the public domain (CC0), or you can maintain your copyright but allow it to be shared and allow for others to make derivatives of your work (CC). Essentially the use of a CC license inhibits unlawful usage of IP, while encouraging proper use/reuse and attribution.

While the system isn’t perfect and there are arguments for and against the use of CC licensing, the truth is that something is better than nothing and CC licensing certainly is something. To prove the point, there have been a few cases of lawsuits over the potential misuse of CC licenses (see here, here, and here). I’ll need to do more research into this, but with the support of the science branch of Creative Commons (formerly Science Commons) scientists will be able to (hopefully) ensure IP protection for research and technological development.

While trademarks and copyrights are nice in practice, there is still a lot of theft on the internet, although I would guess that most of it is unintentional. Simply put most people don’t take the time to make sure that they aren’t violating any usage rules. “If it’s on the internet, I can use it as I see fit.”

The only way to stop IP misuse is over proper legal action (as demonstrated above). While I personally wouldn’t pursue that strategy, I am a proponent of this because there is a need for precedents. If no one ever enforces their copyright (or copyleft in the case of CC), then bad behavior may be reinforced. And if scientists knew they could be sued over breach of CC licensing, then many would be inclined to obey the law and potentially adopt it.

If you can be protected while sharing your research, then why not share it?

Epilogue

I have always declared that was research was in the public domain, but have never officially added the CC0 license. The motivation for this was that I wanted to encourage use and reuse without the need for attribution, and so I can avoid the whole gray area and need for legal recourse should the rights be violated.

Finally this past Sunday, I added the a Creative Commons license to officially allow use and reuse of the IP contained in this notebook. Note however that I did not give it the CC0 license. While I still am allowing the sharing of this research, and the ability to adapt it, I’m trying to encourage the sharing of the research used here. So it is all fair game if you attribute the work, and share your work like I have shared mine.

If there is any question about using the research contained in this notebook, feel free to contact me. It’s that easy.

 

 

 

All #SciFund Expenditures

I’ve been posting my expenditures as I buy them, but I thought it would be beneficial to everyone (myself included) to document the total spent. So, here it is for your viewing pleasure:

If you have any questions about any of the line items, ask in the comments!

#SciFund Rd 3 with Audrey Joslin http://rkthb.co/11909

#Scifund Round 3 is underway and each day I will highlight a new proposal from the Challenge to give you a more in-depth understanding of each participant and their research.

Today I present Audrey Joslin. Her research looks to understand how Payments for Ecosystem Services with regards to water services affect labor practices in the targeted area.

Tell us about yourself, where you are from, and where you see yourself going.

My name is Audrey Joslin, and I am a PhD student in Geography.  The geographic answer is that I was born and raised at 45°33′52″N 93°13′42″W (Cambridge, MN), study at  30°36′05″N 96°18′52″W (Texas A&M University) and am doing my research at 0°00′00″N 78°09′22″W  (near Cayambe, Ecuador).

To answer in another way, I am a very curious person who is fascinated with the world and the people in it. I am concerned about the environment, and also with issues of social justice.  I see people as a part of nature, and am intrigued by how people interact with and shape their environment.  I enjoy learning languages, and speak both Spanish and Portuguese at an advanced level.  During my MS degree, I studied the social aspects of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.  I switched my focus to the high-altitude grasslands and water management during my PhD because of how important this ecosystem is to the well-being of people, and how overlooked it tends to be in the academic research.

How did you get involved in your research project?

As a geographer, I like to read about interesting places.  I saw a few photos of the paramos, and I decided that I wanted to learn more.  After reading quite a bit about the humid grasslands, I discovered that this ecosystem was the target of several Payments for Ecosystem Services programs, with the most advanced and influential being the Quito Water Fund (FONAG).  I became curious.

Why is your research important to you? Why should others fund it?

There has been almost no research on the social aspects of this program, even though it has been in existence for 12 years.  It is regarded as an example of success by the United Nations Environmental Programme, The United States Agency for International Development, and The Nature Conservancy.  Yet, there has been nearly no research about how this program interacts with people’s lives that are the target for intervention.

Why did you decide to participate in the SciFund Challenge?

I thought SciFund e was an excellent opportunity to raise some much-needed funds. I have learned that it is a challenge to find funding for lesser-known but equally important ecosystems as the Amazon rainforest.
More than that, I thought it would be a good opportunity to receive training in presenting my research to a broad audience.

What was the most difficult aspect of building your SciFund Proposal? What was your favorite?

My favorite aspect has been receiving encouragement from fellow Scifunders, and trading feedback and experience with them on the proposal. That said, the most difficult aspect of the proposal has been creating the video. This is the first that I have ever created.

Tell us something random. Something funny. Something borrowed. Something blue.

The Spectacled Bear is the only species of bear found in South America, and it calls the paramo home! They are notoriously shy, but I hope to see a wild one someday.

Thanks Audrey for sharing your science! And to save you time from scrolling up, you can read about her project and contribute here.

#SciFund Rd 3 with Amelia Hoover Green http://rkthb.co/11859

#Scifund Round 3 is underway and each day I will highlight a new proposal from the Challenge to give you a more in-depth understanding of each participant and their research.

Today I present Amelia Hoover Green. Her research focuses on understanding the degrees of violence (“repertoires of violence” as it is referred) against civilians during wartime.

Tell us about yourself, where you are from, and where you see yourself going.

I’m a political scientist, an expert cookie baker, a data geek, a dog lover, and an Assistant Professor at Drexel University, where I started in the Department of History and Politics this fall. I got my Ph.D. from Yale, but my heart belongs to Swarthmore College, where I did my undergraduate degree. I grew up in Grand Forks, North Dakota and have been thinking about politics pretty much since I could think. (Everyone at home is pretty surprised that I ended up working on international human rights issues rather than American politics.) Where do I see myself going? In the literal sense of that question, I’ll be spending a lot of time in transit the next few years, as I work with interview populations in El Salvador and several US states. More figuratively, I’m excited to get my SciFund project off the ground, because the Armed Group Institutions Database plays an important role in the book I’m writing now. I also expect to continue working with (and for) human rights advocates who need help with data gathering and analysis.

How did you get involved in your research project?

During my first semester in graduate school, I took a course called Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict, from Elisabeth Wood (who later became my Ph.D. advisor). At this stage, I was still planning to research American politics — but the topic wouldn’t let me go. I ended up writing a dissertation on repertoires of violence in armed conflict — and realizing in the course of the dissertation project that political science, as a discipline, was doing a lousy job incorporating the insights of social psychology in its thinking about violence. The Armed Group Institutions Database is basically an attempt to get a handle on the structures that groups build to influence individual soldiers’ psychology and behavior. What’s interesting to political science here is that decisions about whether to build institutions for education, in particular, are highly politicized and often strongly influenced by political ideology.

Why is your research important to you? Why should others fund it?

Why is it important to me? Mostly because it’s my baby. I built it, I believe in it, and it’s part of an intellectual community that is making real changes in the ways that we protect civilians during armed conflicts. The part of the project funded by SciFund — six months of paid research assistance — is particularly important because it gives me the opportunity to mentor and collaborate with an undergraduate student. I think that too often we are asked to look at research and teaching as opposing sides in some sort of tenure-track war of attrition. This project directly contradicts that message…which I suppose is one of the main reasons that folks should support the project financially. We’re doing good in so many directions here — producing a public good for political science researchers (the database), making research that has real-world benefits, and at the same time, training a young researcher.

Do you have a favorite story that came from working on your research project?

I have lots of favorite stories. The weekend I spent with my research assistant and her family in Chalatenango, El Salvador, was a real highlight. I went swimming with the kids of the family, interviewed my RA’s mother and older sisters about their experiences during the war, helped an aunt with her English homework, and practiced making pupusas, which if you haven’t had any recently, well, you should. (Pupusas are thick tortillas filled with beans and cheese or (less frequently) meat, and forming the masa just the right way — so as to hold in the filling without being too thick or tough — is an art.)

Why did you decide to particpate in the SciFund Challenge?

There’s a lot of complexity and social science formality in what I do — and that’s a good thing. Many of the conventions that have grown up in political science research are really important to our ability to understand each other and evaluate research across the discipline. Unfortunately, as with any specialty, sometimes our language and processes distance us from the people our research is intended to help, particularly when those folks have less access to education than we do, or when their situations are difficult and dangerous. More generally, when we don’t practice translating our research to everyday language, we lose the ability to talk effectively to people outside the discipline. Which sucks, because I think this research is interesting and important to a lot of non-academics. SciFund is a way to raise awareness (and, yes, money), but it’s also a way to get out of the Professor box for a bit and communicate more broadly about my work.

What was the most difficult aspect of building your SciFund Proposal? What was your favorite?

GAAAAAHHHHHH VIDEO EDITING IS HARD. (But also YAY I LEARNED A NEW SKILL.) My favorite part of the process was coming up on the fly with the sentence “War is bad for your brain” — this is the sort of shorthand that wouldn’t fly in a more strictly academic setting, but it is exactly the right way to express a big concept in my work, which is that there are a lot of factors in war zones that make people more violent, and that controlling violence is really difficult in that context.

Tell us something random. Something funny. Something borrowed. Something blue.

I am really into disaster narratives these days. Have you read _Endurance_, Alfred Lansing’s account of Ernest Shackleton’s ill-fated voyage to the South Pole? I have, and I will never complain about my job again.

Thanks Amelia for sharing your science! And to save you time from scrolling up, you can read about her project and contribute here.

#SciFund Rd 3 with Alex Warneke http://rkthb.co/11798

#Scifund Round 3 is underway and each day I will highlight a new proposal from the Challenge to give you a more in-depth understanding of each participant and their research.

Today I present Alex Warneke. Her research looks at how heavy metal contamination affects the predator-prey relationship of algae.

Tell us about yourself, where you are from, and where you see yourself going.

Hello all! My name is Alex Warneke and I am a first year Masters student in Dr. Jeremy Long’s lab at San Diego State University. Currently, I am just starting out with my thesis looking at how human contaminants like heavy metals and other horrible things that we unfortunately let into our oceans are messing with chemically-mediated interactions between algae and the consumers that eat them. But more on how I became interested in this later. Beyond the lab, I am also quite passionate about public outreach which is why the #SciFund challenge is something near and dear to my heart. Getting people excited about science and research in unique and interesting ways is probably my favorite thing to do. In the future, I am hoping to merge my two loves of science and outreach to work for an NGO at the grassroots level, where I can encourage society to alter their perspectives and behaviors to preserve aquatic ecosystems.

How did you get involved in your research project?

Funny story actually…In the third year of my undergraduate work, I took a Chemical Ecology class with my current adviser. One of the requirements for the course was to create a music video explaining a topic we had learned about in class. This is where it all started for me. My peers and I created a video on Chemical Defenses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBYSx01z8g) and I fell in love with Chemical Ecology (and making science videos). I thought it was so cool that organisms could use natural chemicals to keep predators away.

Wanting to continue on in this field (because it was awesome), I mulled the topic of chemical defenses over in my head for a while. For my graduate work, I knew I wanted to do something 1. With chemical defenses and 2. That looked into how we as humans were interfering with the oceans. After a substantial review of the literature, I realized that the chemical contaminants ending up in our oceans are doing more damage than we might know. I had read that many algal species could absorb these contaminants at levels that were not toxic to the algae. This got me thinking… how would this effect the natural chemicals that some species already have to defend against their predators and how would this interfere with this basic predator-prey interaction? Thus, my masters research was born.

Why is your research important to you? Why should others fund it?

Growing up in Southern California, the ocean has always been a playground for me. I was literally SCUBA certified at the youngest age you can possibly be certified at and I can still vividly remember the first kelp forest I ever frolicked through. It was pristine and beautiful and ultimately a life-changing experience. Eight years later, I still play and work in those same kelp forests, but they’ve changed and it hasn’t exactly been for the better. Pollution in our oceans is a problem plain and simple… and just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. I am hoping the research that I am doing will further our knowledge on how human pollutants are altering aquatic ecosystems and help to inform managers and improve risk assessments. More importantly, I hope that I can help educate people around me and engage them in what I am doing so that they too can be invested and realize that our actions do matter in bigger ways than we might think.

Why did you decide to particpate in the SciFund Challenge?

As I said before, I love getting people involved and excited about Science. #SciFund is allowing me to do just that. Yes, getting money to do my research is definitely a cool thing and this is way more fun than all the other grants I have been writing. But at the root of it all, I just want people to believe in the work that I am doing and want to get involved too.

What was the most difficult aspect of building your SciFund Proposal? What was your favorite?

Most difficult, I would have to say…Coming up with rewards. Holy cow…trying to think of cool things that people will actually want AND can’t get anywhere else…that mess is hard. Favorite thing…DEFINITELY putting together my #SciFund REMIX video. I LOVE to rap about Science and I love to dance. This video allowed me to do both. My little brother makes fun of me for it, but haters gonna hate. I just hope that people will enjoy it and actually learn something. And at least I know now…if Marine Ecology doesn’t work out as a good career path…the Music industry is waiting. Move over Kanye West. 

Tell us something random. Something funny. Something borrowed. Something blue.

Top 3 people I would give anything to have lunch with: 1. Sylvia Earle (renowned ocean explorer) 2. Eminem (the second best rapper of all time) 3. Dr. Seuss  (the first best rapper of all time).

While I believe Eminem is an excellent lyricist, I disagree about his lyrical flow, sound, and hip-hop beats. Thus I’d put him a lot lower on the all-time rapper list. But anyone who would give up their ankles to have lunch with Dr. Seuss is ok with me!

Thanks Alex for sharing your science! And to save you time from scrolling up, you can read about her project and contribute here.