cantremeberstuff

Not that it will help much, but there is more conversation now around privilege and (lack of) diversity in science than there used to be. Science requires extensive schooling, and unfortunately, the leaky pipeline (people leaving the trajectory that leads to a job in science) begins early, high school or earlier, and correlates with the predicted socioeconomic factors around education (especially university and post-graduate). Lots of people in science got their start by being able to work for little or no pay in research assistant positions, which is made possible by support from mom and dad. There has been some writing about how this reinforces the lack of diversity in science. Unfortunately, these students represent very cheap labour for professors with tight research budgets, so it is an issue with many inherent challenges.

Interestingly, there also seem to be some cultural differences that can contribute to a lack of diversity in fields like ecology. Ecology often requires working outside in rough conditions down in the 'muck' (think muddy, dirty, sweaty, and covered in animal poo). There can be some (justifiable) cultural perspectives that think this type of work is just another way to exploit a 'peasant' class, and why would you waste a university education doing this kind of work, especially when you consider that most jobs in ecology don't lead to the high high pay in other professions (lawyer, finance, medicine, etc.). You can make a damn good living as a professor in ecology, but those positions are crazy competitive, and (given the amount of schooling) don't pay that incredibly well (especially compared to something like finance).

Anyways, all that just to say the lack of diversity is a problem, and who knows when we'll fix it. But, it is a more prominent conversation now then it used to be.

Signed, another privileged PhD ecologist.

Yeah, I guess my question did come off as being quite dick-ish. I actually didn't intend it to be, and was just more curious about how the genre works as a whole. Season 1 was hilarious - can we just focus on that compliment?

Has the dogma around the evolution of anti-biotic resistance changed? What is the current thinking on completing your full course of antibiotics vs. a reduced course (i.e., 7 days vs. 3 days)?

Antibiotic resistance is something I worry about a lot - should I continue worrying about contracting a superbug?

Follow-up to your comment if I may: How do vaccines help us with bacteria?

Thanks for taking the time!

I have to admit I'm a bit confused. I don't recall implying that mucky and significant are mutually exclusive. I'm saying this as an ecologist that has spent a good chunk of my life covered in fish guts. Also, science education is so important ... thank you!