On the cusp of National Months on Black and Women's History, I posted on PLOS Blogs:
It was mostly about the Wikipedia this month though for me, as a group of us at the NIH organized a Wikipedia edit-a-thon with Wikimedia DC. Dozens of pages (new and improved) and photos added to the Wikipedia (including two women featured on the Wikipedia home page). Check out the full list. And there's a story in NIH Record, featuring us organizers.
The main new Wikipedia page I developed was on the utterly extraordinary Margaret Morgan Lawrence.
At PLOS Blogs, I wrote about the gap between the reality of studies and study reports. Posted on Tumblr: When drugs go head-to-head, asked can n-of-1 trials have recruitment problems?, and showed why promising treatments are the larval stage of disappointing ones.
Most read and discussed about this month, though, were my posts on the number needed to treat:
My new blog at MedPage Today started: Third Opinion! Here's my first post:
At PLOS Blogs, I hunted out websites that can reduce anxiety and depression.
Meanwhile, over at Statistically Funny, they were playing outcome mash-up: all about composite endpoints in clinical trials.
Why don't we hear more women's voices in scientific discourse? It's not only because men tend to have the numbers: they tend to take up more space, too. Girls keep more diaries. As teenagers, they blog more. But women scientists seem to publish less, to blog less - even to peer review less. What does that mean for them, for the quality of scientific discourse - and what can we do about it? My latest at PLOS Blogs:
Andrew Maynard from the University of Michigan's Risk Science Center, wrote a post called, Social media and science communication: What are your benchmarks of success? If you're a blogger (or thinking about blogging), he's tackling the important issue of "why?" And I responded to his questions, here: For what it's worth...science communication that matters.