SCQ The Science Creative Quarterly 2020-10-30T22:27:53Z https://www.scq.ubc.ca/feed/atom/ https://www.scq.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/cropped-scqlogo.001-32x32.jpeg Benjamin Cohen and David Ng <![CDATA[The Definitive Halloween Candy Hierarchy]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4599 2020-10-30T22:27:53Z 2020-10-30T15:48:43Z A HISTORY It began, as all things do, with a geology joke. We ranked candy based on their ability to elicit “joy” or “despair” and then worked in that ranking in various geological strata, both real and imagined. The strata, not the ranking. This started in 2006, and grew from there. At the beginning, we…

The post The Definitive Halloween Candy Hierarchy first appeared on SCQ.]]>
A HISTORY

It began, as all things do, with a geology joke. We ranked candy based on their ability to elicit “joy” or “despair” and then worked in that ranking in various geological strata, both real and imagined. The strata, not the ranking. This started in 2006, and grew from there. At the beginning, we compiled years of lived experience into a hierarchy of candy preference for Halloween. Not all candy. Not all times. But for trick or treating purposes.

Let’s talk candy rankings, seriously, which have become a kind of cottage industry in the last decade’s social-media age of the internet. In fact, candy rankings and arguments over their perceived accuracy might be the perfect distillation of what a certain kind of internet is good for. It lets people argue over opinion; its conclusions thus have to be constantly modified and adjusted; also there are no conclusions, of course, because it is a fickle game of idle speculation; it’s low stakes fun; and reasonable people can disagree with unreasonable arguments. These are great things for hashing out the enjoyment of various shapes of sugar. Good on you, social media. They are not necessarily great things that go beyond idle speculation, for actual democratic society, for governance or policy or the protection of human dignity. Oh and by the way, always make sure you vote.

Candy, though. And Halloween. There will be rankings (immediately below), then deliberations on history (further below) and a beautiful chart (at the top and below). There is a hierarchy. We are making our priority claim. Why does this sound like an academic abstract?

(Click on thumbnail image for full page pdf poster)

DISCUSSION

We revised the original hierarchy each year between 2006 and 2009 to include feedback from readers and onlookers back at our now gone blog The World’s Fair. (Younger readers can google “blog.”) We then moved here to BoingBoing to find an audience eager to debate the proper order of candy enjoyment. The 2010-2013 versions were fine, they were fine. Then in 2014 we added legitimate reader contributions in the form of a not-quite-social-science-legit survey. But legit enough for talking candy. On a website. For idle speculation. That we could then make a big deal of off-line. With disproportionate certainty.

The 2006 original had a distinct top stratum, four of which were Snickers, Milky Way, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and Twix. The 2014 data—the first of many sets actually defined by survey results—showed pretty much the same thing in the top tier, give or take. The four revisions between 2014 and 2017 likewise didn’t much change. Data coalesced. That’s our big conclusion. Admitting the very Western bias of the survey, you find a notably stable Top 10 and a Very Stable Top 5. Obviously “any full-sized candy bar” will always rank at the top. “Cash or other legal tender” remains popular.

So it’s true that for specific candies (not counting cash and the full-sizers you get from the house with the Beamer in the drive) we discovered what scholars call The Classic Quartet: Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Snickers, Twix, and Kit Kat. Toblerone keeps edging into a top 5 and you get those Lindt Truffles that nobody actually buys but still somehow sit high up the hierarchy. You’re gonna get your Milky Ways (the allergic kid’s Snickers), your Butterfingers, your Peanut M&Ms (always outranking plain). Since Rolo’s can be rolled to a friend, they too hang in the upper strata. And, surprisingly to many aficionados, a Nestle Crunch always finds its way hanging in top strata too.* (On the bottom deep earth side, white bread, gum from baseball cards, broken glow sticks, and dental paraphernalia are perennial un-satisfieds, so much so that after many years not a single person has cared to point out we consistently misspelled paraphernalia.)

These are the facts. So factual that we contrived a mathy-sounding thing, Joy Induction and Despair, the difference of which is Net Feelies. Nf = |Jc – Dc|. Data sets abounded. In 2017, cognitive scientist and data analyst Shannon Ellis ran the numbers from our longitudinal study. The results confirm the coalescence to show only slight movement in the upper tier.

Maybe more important was the addition of non-candy data that gave greater context to our candy eating lives.** Specifically, obviously, we mean the Friday-Sunday question run by @somelaterdate’s Various Breads and Butters (the only undefeated podcast about small college life, now retired in triumph). Do you, as a person, as a human, prefer the day Friday or Sunday? Those are the only two choices. Pick one. A lot of people. Like, ~10,000 people. In what we now understand is The Platinum Ratio, respondents prefer Friday to Sunday at a strikingly consistent 2-to-1 ratio. More to the point, Friday people dislike black licorice while sad-sack Sunday people favor it. Go ask someone. Ask that dude reading over your shoulder on the subway right now. See?

But back to the good candy, know this: When CNN reports on a new Monmouth survey showing Reese’s, Snickers, and M&Ms at the top, your answer is “no shit, people.”

When FiveThirtyEight shows a power ranking with a top four including Reese’s, Twix, Kit Kat, Snickers, your answer is “no shit, people.”

When The Cut does a slow reveal to say that the top ranked candy is…wait for it…a little longer, keep waiting…Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, pack it up, shut it down, walk away, we know.

And, and, when the La Times doesn’t even have Peanut Butter Cups in their top 20?? What the what?, then you know they are officially the Rasmussen Survey of Candies, pointless, erroneous, literally unbelievable.

To bind this all up, we encourage readers to download and carry with them this Official Candy Hierarchy for 2019 [PDF]. It collects, confirms, codifies, and captures the essence of candy priority. It is, at last, the answer we’ve been looking for all these years.

(Originally published at Boingboing.net – https://boingboing.net/2019/10/30/the-official-2019-candy-hierar.htmlhttps://boingboing.net/2019/10/30/the-official-2019-candy-hierar.html)

ARCHIVE OF PAST HIERARCHIES

For the sake of historical significance, here are links to previous Candy Hierarchies (at least the ones we could find), grouped by aesthetic criteria:

Mostly Ben ruminations, no graphics yet phase:
2006 post
2007 post
2008 post

Dave collaborates, has too much time to procrastinate and makes a graphic:
2010* post, graphic
2011 post, graphic
2012 post, graphic

*technically an appendum to 2008, with new graphic.

Ben and Dave up their game: graphic is probably overly complicated but whatever:
2013 post, graphic

Real data enters the fold: The era of proper Halloween candy science, and we think, a big deal:
2014 post, graphic
2015 post, graphic
2016 post, graphic
2017 post, graphic

The post The Definitive Halloween Candy Hierarchy first appeared on SCQ.]]>
David Ng <![CDATA[So Much Candy Data, Seriously]]> http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4471 2020-10-30T15:47:01Z 2020-10-30T15:42:19Z As promised, here is the candy hierarchy data for 2017. (Released Oct 25th @1:45pm PST. Will provide updated xlsx file on Oct 31st as well) . xlsx | csv | txt (d&t) | surveyQ pdf | n=2460 If you tag your work with #candyhierarchy2017 or #statscandy, I’ll do my best to aggregate efforts here (and also possibly at BoingBoing for a round up piece). Note that traditionally, we’ve plotted a figure based on a “Net Feelies” metric (=#JOY-#DESPAIR). We also have additional meta data affiliated with demographics, and some questions that link to other potential datasets (see actual survey for…

The post So Much Candy Data, Seriously first appeared on SCQ.]]>

As promised, here is the candy hierarchy data for 2017. (Released Oct 25th @1:45pm PST. Will provide updated xlsx file on Oct 31st as well)

.
xlsx | csv | txt (d&t) | surveyQ pdf | n=2460

If you tag your work with #candyhierarchy2017 or #statscandy, I’ll do my best to aggregate efforts here (and also possibly at BoingBoing for a round up piece).
Note that traditionally, we’ve plotted a figure based on a “Net Feelies” metric (=#JOY-#DESPAIR). We also have additional meta data affiliated with demographics, and some questions that link to other potential datasets (see actual survey for context – pdf). This includes a hidden proxy question designed to pick out political affiliation – red vs blue vs green vs independent M&Ms (except that it clearly doesn’t work).

– – –

Note that this year’s #candyhierarchy was published on October 30th at Boing Boing. You can read the full report at https://boingboing.net/2017/10/30/the-2017-halloween-candy-hiera.html

(here’s the main figure below – click to enlarge. Full resolution pdf available here)

– – –

Also, if you want to look for longitudinal effects, you also have access to previous datasets. Unfortunate quirks in the data include the fact that the 2014 data is not the raw set (can’t seem to find it), and in 2015, the candy preference was queried without the MEH option. Apologies for that – it will make the data wrangling much more messy if you plan on looking at longitudinal effects.

2016 xlsx (notes | publication | n=1232)

2015 xlsx, googlesheet (notes | publication | n=5459)

2014 xlxs (notes | publication | n=1286)

– – –

Examples of data wrangling:
If you’re posting on social media, please tag with #candyhierarchy or #statscandy.
1. (general top and bottom ranked candies according to log ratio joy/despair) https://twitter.com/ttrodrigz/status/923582440937021440

2. (heat map of news media clicking): https://github.com/riinuots/candihierarchy

3. (similarly rated candies in the candy hierarchy data for 2017) https://gist.github.com/EmilHvitfeldt/6d936c8af4d2dd1556669d367f0a6056

4. (Candy Corn analysis: pushback to Vogue analysis) https://github.com/phoebewong/candy-hierarchy-2017

The post So Much Candy Data, Seriously first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Sönke Johnsen http:// <![CDATA[Advice for Potential Graduate Students – A Science Creative Quarterly Pin Up (No. 5)]]> http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=1581 2020-10-26T17:10:35Z 2020-10-26T17:00:03Z – FROM THE ARCHIVES – (CLICK HERE FOR PIN-UP POSTER – pdf file ~85k – We suggest photocopying at 129% – LTR to 11×17) – – – We currently have room in the lab for more graduate students. But before you apply to this lab or any other, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, be realistic about graduate school. Graduate school in biology is not a sure path to success. Many students assume that they will eventually get a job just like their advisor’s. However, the average professor at a research university has three students at…

The post Advice for Potential Graduate Students – A Science Creative Quarterly Pin Up (No. 5) first appeared on SCQ.]]>
– FROM THE ARCHIVES –


(CLICK HERE FOR PIN-UP POSTER – pdf file ~85kWe suggest photocopying at 129% – LTR to 11×17)

– – –

We currently have room in the lab for more graduate students.

But before you apply to this lab or any other, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, be realistic about graduate school. Graduate school in biology is not a sure path to success. Many students assume that they will eventually get a job just like their advisor’s. However, the average professor at a research university has three students at a time for about 5 years each. So, over a career of 30 years, this professor has about 18 students. Since the total number of positions has been pretty constant, these 18 people are competing for one spot. So go to grad school assuming that you might not end up at a research university, but instead a teaching college, or a government or industry job. All of these are great jobs, but it’s important to think of all this before you go to school.

Second, choose your advisor wisely. Not only does this person potentially have total control over your graduate career for five or more years, but he/she will also be writing recommendation letters for you for another 5-10 years after that. Also, your advisor will shadow you for the rest of your life. People will always think of you as so-and-so’s student and assume that you two are somewhat alike. Finally, in many ways you will turn into your advisor. Advisors teach very little, but instead provide a role model. Consciously and unconsciously, you will imitate your advisor. You may find this hard to believe now, but fifteen years from now, when you find yourself lining up the tools in your lab cabinets just like your advisor did, you’ll see. My student Alison once said that choosing an advisor is like choosing a spouse after one date. Find out all you can on this date.

Finally, have your fun now. Five years is a long time when you are 23 years old. By the end of graduate school, you will be older, slower, and possibly married and/or a parent. So if you always wanted to walk across Nepal, do it now. Also, do not go to a high-powered lab that you hate assuming that this will promise you long-term happiness. Deferred gratification has its limits. Do something that you have passion for, work in a lab you like, in a place you like, before life starts throwing its many curve balls. Your career will mostly take care of itself, but you can’t get your youth back.

If, after reading this, you want to apply to this lab, we would love to hear from you.

The post Advice for Potential Graduate Students – A Science Creative Quarterly Pin Up (No. 5) first appeared on SCQ.]]>
the Gairdner Foundation <![CDATA[The 2020 Gairdner Award Winners: Picturing Science in the Classroom]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4964 2020-10-19T20:29:46Z 2020-10-19T20:26:45Z Every year, the Gairdner Awards celebrate science and research excellence in the medical health areas. Since 1957, they have given out 395 awards – 95 of these recipients would go on to also win a Nobel Prize! In collaboration with the Canadian Society of Molecular Biosciences and the Michael Smith Laboratories at UBC, these materials were produced to provide a series of articles, comics, videos and accompanying lesson ideas to celebrate the science of a selection of the 2020 Canada Gairdner Awardees. This builds on the Gairdner Foundation’s partnership with CSMB and Michael Smith Laboratories at UBC, which began last…

The post The 2020 Gairdner Award Winners: Picturing Science in the Classroom first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Every year, the Gairdner Awards celebrate science and research excellence in the medical health areas. Since 1957, they have given out 395 awards – 95 of these recipients would go on to also win a Nobel Prize!

In collaboration with the Canadian Society of Molecular Biosciences and the Michael Smith Laboratories at UBC, these materials were produced to provide a series of articles, comics, videos and accompanying lesson ideas to celebrate the science of a selection of the 2020 Canada Gairdner Awardees. This builds on the Gairdner Foundation’s partnership with CSMB and Michael Smith Laboratories at UBC, which began last year.

Comics and videos are generally good for middle school ages (Grade 7 to 9), whereas the articles are written mostly for Grade 10 to 12 readers. Classroom activities are generally designed for Grade 10 to 12, although some are adaptable for use with younger students. Note that not all activities are in line with COVID related measures.

 

 

The full package, which includes articles, comics and classroom activities can be downloaded as a free 42 page pdf here.

We invite you to view and share these documents widely, as they highlight the impact science has in our lives and our understanding of the world.

And many thanks to the students, grad students and post-docs who wrote for this project: Daniela Salas Acosta, Shawn Shortill, Krysta Coyle, Heather Gerrie, Farah Qaiser, Alison McAfee, and Teri Wang. And big kudos for the great illustrations by Armin Mortazavi.

Individual pieces and videos for each of the awards can be found below:

 

Mina J. Bissell, “Mammary Gland Mysteries, Solved.” The way cells behave depends on more than just their genes, it also depends on what else they can sense around them. Written by Alison McAfee. Art by Armin Mortazavi (article | comic | video)

Elaine Fuchs, “The Elixir of Life and Our Skin.” Studying the cells of our skin paved the way for science that explores the possibility of regeneration in medicine. Written by Daniela Salas Acosta. Art by Armin Mortazavi. (article | comic | video)

 

Rolf Kemler and Masatoshi Takeichi, “Cadherin and Catenins: A Sticky Situation.” Our cells are able to come together and form tissues and organs by way of specialized proteins that act as a kind of cellular glue. Written by Shawn Shortill. Art by Armin Mortazavi (article | comic | video)

 

Roel Nusse, “Of Patterns and Cancer in Mice and Flies.” The connections between embryonic development and cancer – Dr. Roel Nusse’s career in science. Written by Krysta Coyle. Art by Armin Mortazavi (article | comic | video)

 

Guy Rouleau, “From Genes to Medicine.” Using the building blocks of biology to study and solve complex brain diseases. Written by Heather Gerrie. Art by Armin Mortazavi (article | comic | video)

 

Quarraisha & Salim Abdool Karim, “Beyond the ABCs: How to Prevent HIV.” Developing a gel to prevent sexually acquired HIV infections in women, and empowering women to protect themselves. Written by Farah Qaiser. Art by Armin Mortazavi (article | comic | video)

 

For more information about the Gairdner Foundation, please visit https://gairdner.org/
For more information about the Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences, please visit https://csmb-scbm.ca/
For more information about the UBC Michael Smith Laboratories, please visit https://www.msl.ubc.ca

The post The 2020 Gairdner Award Winners: Picturing Science in the Classroom first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Ryan Somma http:// <![CDATA[How To Fly]]> http://www.scq.ubc.ca/how-to-fly/ 2020-10-14T16:25:55Z 2020-10-14T16:00:18Z “The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss” With these words, Douglas Adams helpfully explained concept of flying in his Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. But the ground is really big, and, as the Tick so sagely noted, “Gravity is a harsh mistress.” So herein contained is my handy-dandy explanation of how you can impress your friends and family by throwing yourself at the ground and missing: Step one, throw yourself at the ground. Luckily, this is really easy thanks to gravity, which will pull you down to the ground at an acceleration…

The post How To Fly first appeared on SCQ.]]>
“The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss”

With these words, Douglas Adams helpfully explained concept of flying in his Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. But the ground is really big, and, as the Tick so sagely noted, “Gravity is a harsh mistress.” So herein contained is my handy-dandy explanation of how you can impress your friends and family by throwing yourself at the ground and missing:

Step one, throw yourself at the ground. Luckily, this is really easy thanks to gravity, which will pull you down to the ground at an acceleration rate of 32.174 feet per second per second, meaning every second you are falling to the ground, you fall 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second faster. If you want to fall for one second, just spend enough energy to climb 16 feet (4.9 meters) above ground and drop. Voila!

ahhh.jpg

Step two, miss. This is the not so easy part. If you’re reading this, then I assume you are a nerd (like me) and probably still wake up some nights in a cold sweat with nightmares about dehumanizing games such as “Dodge Ball” and possibly even it’s more sadistic cousin “Smear the Queer” from your youth. Now we’re trying to dodge a planet 7926.28 miles (12756.1 kilometers) across at the Equator. Might as well just throw in the towel and brace ourselves for the wedgies, noogies, and nipple cripples. Right?

WRONG!

We don’t have to miss the whole Earth at once, just enough to keep from hitting it each moment. The Moon does this all the time, dodging the Earth faster than it falls toward it – and it’s just a big dumb rock. We don’t want to be dumber than a rock, do we?

Okay then. All we have to do is dodge faster than we fall.

If we fall 16 feet (4.9 meters) in the first second, then we simply have to dodge far enough for the Earth to curve away 16.087 feet below us in one second. Knowing how far to dodge is, as G.I. Joe so wisely said, “half the battle.”

fallingtoearth.jpg

Which brings me to step three, find someone who knows math. In my case, I contacted my brother, Para, who teaches Multivariable Calculus at Georgetown Day School in Washington DC.

Para drew an angle on my circle representing the Earth, “It’s real simple,” he said. “See, sine is the opposite divided by the hypotenuse, cosine is the adjacent divided by the hypotenuse, and tangent is opposite divided by the adjacent. SOHCAHTOA, or Some Old Horse Caught Another Horse Taking Oats Away.” He drew a bunch of equations out for me. “See?”

“Huh,” I muttered.

“I’ve lost you, haven’t I?”

“Um,” I thought about lying, but he’s my brother, he can tell, “yeah.”

“Didn’t you take Trigonometry in high school?”

“Triggawhatromee?”

“Okay,” Para put the pen to his mouth thoughtfully. “I think I see a way to do this with just algebra.”

“Algebra… That sounds familiar. That’s math, right?”

“Hush,” Para drew the following diagram:

pythagorasearth.jpg

Where x is the distance we have to travel for the Earth to curve 16 feet away from under our feet and r is the radius of the Earth. Because we have right triangle and know the radius of the Earth is 20,925,379.2 feet (6.378,055.6 meters), we can use the Pythagorean theorem to find x, like so:

r2 = x2 + (r – 16)2

Which, Para showed me, can be converted to:

x2 = r2 – (r2 – 32r + 256)

And then, according to Para, the r’s cancel out, leaving us with:

x2 = 32r + 256

Which means x equals the square root of 32r + 256! (Once again, according to Para, so if this is wrong, blame him.)

xequalssquare.jpg

Plug 20,925,379.2 feet (6.378,055.6 meters) into r and we find that we have to travel 25,876.9 feet (7,887.2 meters) or 4.9 miles (7.0 kilometers) in one second to successfully keep from hitting the Earth. Case closed right?

WRONG! SIT BACK DOWN!

weeesplat.jpg

We’re still accelerating towards the Earth. So we’re traveling at 32 feet per second after one second, 64 ft/s after two seconds, 96 ft/s after three, meaning we have to travel far enough for the Earth to curve away from under us by 80 feet in three seconds! And we’re only going to fall even faster after that.

Luckily, the Earth’s atmosphere produces a drag on us as we fly. So we can only fall so fast toward the Earth. The speed at which we can’t fall any faster because the air is slowing us down is called Terminal Velocity, and it means that the fastest a person can fall to Earth is 120 MPH (193.1 km), or 176 feet (53.6 meters) per second–if we keep our arms spread out to increase drag.

terminalvelocity.jpg

So that translates to us having to dodge the Earth at 85,823.7 feet per second to achieve orbital velocity. That’s 16.2 miles (26.1 kilometers) per second in order to fly. So let’s all go fling ourselves off the Earth right away! Right?

WRONG!

If everybody else jumped off a bridge would you? Shame on you! There’s still a few safety considerations we need to factor in to this.

For instance, meteors burn up in the atmosphere because they are traveling 26 miles (41.8 kilometers) per second. We’ll be traveling about 62.3 percent of that velocity. Not enough to FOOM! burn up in the atmosphere, but we should probably pack some SPF one-bazillion sun tan lotion for the trip just in case.

There’s also the speed of sound, which is 761.2 mph (1,225 kph) at sea level. So we’ll be traveling 76.6 times faster than the speed of sound, so we should probably pack earplugs and leave the ipod at home.

The speed of light is 186,282.4 miles (299,792.5 kilometers) per second, and we’ll be traveling at 0.0009 percent of this speed. So we don’t need to be worried about hurting the feelings of all the physicists in the world by breaking the laws of their discipline.

The last thing we need to consider is that it’s going to take at least 25 minutes and 36 seconds to fly all the way around the Earth and back to where we started. So we better make sure to let our moms know when we’ll be getting back so they don’t worry. Okay?

Now can we fly now? Huh? Can we? Can we? Can we?

YES!!!

weee.jpg

Congratulations! You now know how to throw yourself at the ground and miss, effectively flying!

Since I can’t copyright this knowledge, please remember, when you accept your X-Prize one day, be sure to mention me in your acceptance speech.

The post How To Fly first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Shannon Percival-Smith <![CDATA[A Serious Game on Gender Inequity and the Health Arena]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4925 2020-10-08T17:46:29Z 2020-10-06T14:56:25Z It doesn’t take long to scan today’s headlines, and note the troubling incidents of #metoo, or hear word of research disparities that could potentially lead to life threatening outcomes for women. The reality is that even with the slow march of progress, there is still significant inequities in how the genders are treated in the health arena, if not society in general. This applies to both the medical research specifically (do treatments work better for men generally?), as well as the challenges that many women face in their career trajectories (how does gender affect careers?). Patriarchy, in a word, is…

The post A Serious Game on Gender Inequity and the Health Arena first appeared on SCQ.]]>

It doesn’t take long to scan today’s headlines, and note the troubling incidents of #metoo, or hear word of research disparities that could potentially lead to life threatening outcomes for women. The reality is that even with the slow march of progress, there is still significant inequities in how the genders are treated in the health arena, if not society in general.

This applies to both the medical research specifically (do treatments work better for men generally?), as well as the challenges that many women face in their career trajectories (how does gender affect careers?). Patriarchy, in a word, is very real.

Here, the “Women in Health Research (WiHR) Phylo game” provides an opportunity for players to examine these notions, as well as explore the nuances behind them. It includes cards, supported by peer reviewed literature, that look at a wide range of topics including gender differences in drug testing, assault and harassment in STEM fields, maternity biases, and many many more.

It’s been designed with pedagogy in mind, but also in a way where the game itself is entertaining to play. Basically, the game teaches and engages, but mostly where its commitment to evidence based research is occasionally eye opening, shocking even. In truth, a player often comes away thinking, “I didn’t realize it was so bad” and also with a sense of puzzlement at the irrational nature of such damaging biases.

In fact, because of this authenticity, to the often harsh and disturbing reality of sexism, the game is best suited for a more sophisticated audience (think Grade 10 and above, but especially useful for future doctors and biologists). It can be eye opening, depressing, but because it also has a strong emphasis on highlighting solutions, it hopefully provides some needed inspiration to make us all work a little harder in this social justice space.

Game Details:

Deck Homepage: link
This link takes you to the deck’s homepage. Note that links to downloadable cards, instructions, and a place for revenue neutral purchase can all be found here. This homepage is also within the main Phylo Trading Card website, where you can find other decks as well. I also recommend the Women in Science and Engineering Deck (link) which was designed with younger audiences in mind.

Free Version pdf: pdf link
This is a direct link to a downloadable (print your own) version of the game. It also includes instructions to play, and is composed of 13 pages, each with 9 or so cards. Note that a few of the cards require two 10 sided dice (which you can get at any game shop). Barring that, you can easily google a random number generator site for cards that need this percentile roll. A page from the pdf looks a little like the below:

Purchasable HQ Game: link
If you’re interested in purchasing a high quality printed version of the game (with box and 10 sided die), then click on the above link. This is a revenue neutral purchase. all funds go directly towards printing and shipping only. Currently priced at US$19.19 (not including shipping which will vary depending on your locale).

How to Play Video: link
Click above to check out a “how to play” video. Note that this video is for the Women in Science and Engineering deck, but the two games are practically the same. The main difference is that the WiHR deck is played with “project” cards, instead of “scientist” cards, but the general rules of collecting cards you need is identical. Note that the one significant change relates to the modifier cards having POSITIVE and NEGATIVE designations, where POSITIVE cards are actually handed out to the players at the start of the game, for later strategic use. Please see the detailed instructions in the pdf above, or in the game box.

Supplementary Material: pdf link
This is a booklet of essays (written by Shannon Percival-Smith, David Ng, and Garance Thery) that expands on most of the cards in the deck. Helpful if you would like to dig a little further.

Lesson Plan/Activity:
Most lessons that teachers have developed around this and other similar Phylo games largely involve two steps within a one hour timeframe. The first being an opportunity to play the game for 20 to 25 minutes. From there, the lesson asks students to begin creating their own card(s) that could be incorporated into the game (like a classroom expansion deck). These new cards could be: (1) other “project” cards, highlighting peer reviewed literature on an inequitable situation; or (2) modifier cards, both NEGATIVE and POSITIVE, that again focus on a peer reviewed assessment of an inequitable scenario. Modifier cards tend to be particularly impactful, which is why it’s suggested for the student to also look at possible solutions to these discretions (i.e. a POSITIVE card). Note that making timely cards is also a great way to focus on current events and/or recent incidents in the new that relate to gender inequity.

Credits:
Lead Designer: Shannon Percival-Smith
Artists: Chelsea O’Byrne, Fotini Tikkou, Dick Vincent, and Lan Yan
Game Mechanic Lineage: (via WWEST deck) Kathryn Turner, Kashifa Hafeez, Maemi Ishida, and Lisa Ying > (via GSA deck) Sidney Ang, Genevieve Leduc-Robert, Lu Li, David Ng, and Sam McKinnon
Positive Modifier Mechanic: Shannon Percival-Smith, Katie Taher, Garance Thery, and Jeannette Whitton
Special Thanks: Katherine Lee, Jeannette Whitton (and her all female professorial book group)

The post A Serious Game on Gender Inequity and the Health Arena first appeared on SCQ.]]>
David Ng <![CDATA[Some COVID-19 Questions From a Curious and Concerned Seven Year Old]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4893 2020-06-14T06:21:18Z 2020-06-12T19:36:03Z I got this letter the other day and it’s awesome! I thought I would try my best to answer these great COVID-19 questions. Thanks Alaina! 1. Where does the virus actually come from? Right now, the best answer is likely from one of these: Yup, a bat. But how it changed from a virus that infects bats to one that infects humans is still not really known. However, this sort of thing has happened before and the science word for it is zoonosis. This is where a disease which would normally only infect an animal (in this case a bat),…

The post Some COVID-19 Questions From a Curious and Concerned Seven Year Old first appeared on SCQ.]]>

I got this letter the other day and it’s awesome! I thought I would try my best to answer these great COVID-19 questions. Thanks Alaina!

1. Where does the virus actually come from?

Right now, the best answer is likely from one of these:

Yup, a bat.

But how it changed from a virus that infects bats to one that infects humans is still not really known. However, this sort of thing has happened before and the science word for it is zoonosis.

This is where a disease which would normally only infect an animal (in this case a bat), somehow changes so that it can also make humans sick.

Still, many scientists feel that how humans behave is partly responsible for why zoonosis happens more often than it needs to. Basically, how humans get their food and make all the things that they like to own, can lead to situations where more and more animals are forced to get “closer” to people.

For instance, getting the energy to make things usually requires cutting down trees, or digging for coal and oil, and this means that a lot of habitat is destroyed. With their homes destroyed, many animals end up in places where humans live.

And anytime you have lots of animals living with humans, you increase the chances of zoonosis. It is still a very rare thing, but hopefully it makes sense that destroying habitat is still a way to increase the chance of a disease jumping from that wild animal to humans.

Zoonosis is also a problem in how we usually get our meat (like the chicken, pork, or beef we eat). These farms or fields tend to have SO many animals in one place hanging out with people, and there have been cases where scientist have seen zoonosis happened in these situations.

2. How can the virus travel when people are less than two metres apart?

So, the virus is very very small. Like really small. Teeny tiny even.

This means that the virus can travel in your spit. When it comes to travelling, science actually thinks of spit in two ways: one is called a droplet, and the other is known as an aerosol, which is a special kind of droplet.

Droplets are usually big enough that they will fall to the ground, but they are still small enough that they travel a little bit with the wind or when pushed (like breathing or a sneeze). Think of a spray bottle of water – you can see the mist, but it does fall down. So most droplets do eventually fall, and usually fall quite quickly.

Aerosols are where the droplets are very very very small. Here, some of the spit that comes out of your mouth and nose is just so tiny that it just kind of floats. This means that it can stay in the air longer and also maybe travel much further.

The 2 metres or 6 foot social distancing thing is actually from a much older science experiment done with noticing how people got sick on airplanes. Here, they noticed how people sitting close to each other were more likely to get infections. This seemed to be mostly because of droplets. In other words, the droplets would be able to spread out about 2 metres or so. It was also here they noticed that if a person was sitting more than 2 metres away from someone sick, they generally didn’t catch the disease.

For COVID-19, it’s still not exactly clear how infectious droplets and aerosols are, or even what the safe distance apart is exactly (the airplane studies were not looking at COVID-19). Yes, aerosols can travel further, but since they are smaller, they also carry less virus.

If you have less virus, then there might not be enough for the infection to start. The 2 metres and 6 foot rule is just a rough idea to make people remember that any kind of social distancing is an important thing to do.

It’s really hard to know what the exact distance should be, because it depends on so many different things. Like whether you are inside or outside; how the air around you is moving; how much virus is in the droplets (in other words, how sick is the person); what is the temperature; is the person breathing hard, and so on.

There are so many things that can affect how far the virus can transfer, but probably, you’re less likely to get an infection if you are:

(1) further apart,
(2) you are outside,
(3) you are wearing a mask, and
(4) you stay with your small group

All of these things probably make it less likely for the virus to travel from one person to another.

3. How long will the pandemic last?
4. When will the vaccine be ready?

EVERYBODY wants to know the answers to these two questions! (Note that you can read a bit more about vaccines here). Funnily enough, the answer to the first question is more or less the answer to the second question. In other words, the pandemic will end when there is a vaccine.

Because of this I’ll focus on the second question. So when will the vaccine be ready?

The answer to this is:

Or, a big fat “we don’t really know.”

Now, there are a LOT of scientists working on this now, so there is reason to be hopeful. But the reality is that making a vaccine is hard and it takes time.

Most of this time is because you always have to test whether your vaccine idea WORKS or not, and this is actually pretty complicated.

For instance, knowing whether a vaccine is able to protect someone from COVID-19 takes at least a couple months to know. It’s like you’re cooking and you’re trying some different ingredients, but you don’t get to taste it until 3 months or more later. After 3 months, you might find out that it tastes terrible or even that eating it makes you get sick! If that happens, you have to start all over again with different ingredients.

Also, you want to test it on different types of people. Young people (like you), people like your parents (moms and dads), and probably most importantly, the elderly. A vaccine may work well to protect one group but not another. A vaccine may work fine for one group but is actually dangerous for another. It takes time to figure this out, and more so because you can’t tell how things are going until many months later.

Because there are so many unknowns in how a vaccine might work, testing usually starts out with just a few people. If after a couple months, things look promising, you then do the test on more people, and so on and so on, until you get a clearer view that it is hopefully working, but that it is also safe. Again, all of these steps take time.

And this is only if the vaccine idea you’re trying works in the first place!

All scientists will tell you that science experiments are hard – it takes a lot of effort to get them to work, and usually you have quite a few failures before something starts to work. Furthermore, if you do eventually have a vaccine that works (yay!), you also have to figure out how to make enough of it to use on all the people that want and need it.

Currently, most scientists think that having a vaccine within 12 months is very very optimistic, since they usually take years to figure out. The main difference this time, however, is that there really are a lot of scientists (like a LOT) working on this, so you never know. We will just have to wait, cross our fingers, and see.

5.When will it be safe to go to school?

To answer this question, I want to talk about something called risk. This is basically thinking about the chances of something bad happening. And since we’re talking about chances, it’s actually a kind of math.

For instance, if I flip a coin, and say that a “heads” means that you have to pay me $5, but a “tails” means that I have to pay you $5, you say that there is an equal chance of it being good or bad for you. If we’re talking math and you’ve learnt about percentages, you would say that there is a 50% chance that you will have to pay me!

So basically, the decision to open schools should be based on the math done to calculate the risk. In other words, what are the chances of this being a bad decision.

I live in British Columbia, Canada, and we’ve been lucky because the decision to go back to school is based on a lot of science and a lot of math.

Scientists have basically done math that take a number of things into consideration.

First, British Columbia has a low level of infection right now. This means the chance of meeting someone who has COVID-19 is really small. They can calculate this risk because they have been collecting a lot of data on who is sick and how they got sick for the last couple of months. Note that if you live somewhere else, this might not be the case.

Second, kids like you don’t seem to get sick that easily. In other words, there is less risk for children to get COVID-19 generally. The details for this are being figured out, but it does seem clear that being young, and especially being very young, is a good thing.

Third, it seems that if you have COVID-19, but don’t have symptoms (in other words, you have it but you’re not coughing and sneezing and feeling yukky – or in science words, you say you are asymptomatic), then you might be less likely to make others sick.

And fourth (and this is an important one), you make sure you do the right thing when you are feeling sick. You tell your parents and you make sure you STAY HOME and don’t come to school. You do this, even though the reason you feel yukky may have nothing to do with COVID-19 – maybe it’s just a normal cold. By staying home, you lower the risk of infecting others.

Now for those of you who love math, you may notice that for items 2, 3 and 4, we don’t actually have the exact chances figured out.

We don’t know, for instance, how less likely do kids get sick from COVID-19? Is it half as likely, more, less?

We don’t know for instance, how less likely an asymptomatic COVID-19 person will infect someone else. Is it half as likely as someone who is sneezing and feeling yukky? Is it more or less? Or is it actually pretty much the same?

We also don’t really know how many people will do the right thing and stay home, if they do indeed get sick. Maybe most of them, maybe some of them, maybe only a few?

So, calculating the risk can be tricky.

However, the awesomeness of math, is that you can do ALL the different calculations for ALL the different possibilities, and this is what the scientists in British Columbia have done. Doing these risk calculations for all the different situations, still lead to a risk level that is very low for children in British Columbia.

Now note that this doesn’t mean there is no risk at all. This isn’t actually possible, as there is always a chance that something might happen (think of just walking – the risk is low, but there’s always a small chance you might fall and scrape your knee).

Anyway, even in the worst possible cases, the chances of something bad happening was calculated to be very low, and this is why they felt that it was safe to open schools. Still, this opening is being done with social distancing and all sorts of planning to lower the risk even more. And even with all of this, your parents still get to make the final decision on whether they think it’s ok for you to go back.

But, of course, everyone is watching this very closely.

In the end, this is why you should always listen to scientists (and the mathematicians helping them out). They are really trying their best to give you the latest information and the latest facts that you need to make good decisions.

So don’t forget…

The post Some COVID-19 Questions From a Curious and Concerned Seven Year Old first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Ingenium - Canada's Museums of Science and Innovation <![CDATA[Charity Wanjiku: Empowering with Power]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4888 2020-06-12T16:38:26Z 2020-06-12T16:38:26Z Kenyan native Charity Wanjiku was first inspired to study architecture at the age of 10 when she saw a TV commercial for an insurance company where a businesswoman was presenting a model house to a boardroom of applauding men. Determined to pursue her passion — despite the fact that very few women enrolled in architecture courses — Wanjiku eventually graduated from the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology with a Bachelor of Architecture degree. Later, she earned her Master’s degree in Project Management in Construction. It was at her first job where she discovered her interest in project management.…

The post Charity Wanjiku: Empowering with Power first appeared on SCQ.]]>

Kenyan native Charity Wanjiku was first inspired to study architecture at the age of 10 when she saw a TV commercial for an insurance company where a businesswoman was presenting a model house to a boardroom of applauding men.

Determined to pursue her passion — despite the fact that very few women enrolled in architecture courses — Wanjiku eventually graduated from the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology with a Bachelor of Architecture degree. Later, she earned her Master’s degree in Project Management in Construction.

It was at her first job where she discovered her interest in project management. This, coupled with her architectural expertise, made her the perfect partner for her brother, Tony Nyagah, who held a Master’s degree in Energy Management. Together, they sought a solution to the energy deficit experienced by businesses and households in Kenya.

Based in a country with up to 10 months of sunshine per year, their company, Strauss Energy, uses Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV), which are functional building materials with built-in solar panels that convert sunlight into energy. With these innovative designs, the very walls, windows, and roofs of new homes have the ability to generate electricity. Compared to traditional solar panels, BIPV technology is more durable and cost efficient.

As the chief operations officer, Wanjiku’s day-to-day activities include writing proposals, seeking strategic partners, meeting with investors, and visiting sites. When she’s not working, she can be found outdoors running, hiking, or mountain climbing.

Wanjiku actively encourages girls to pursue their passions and challenge stereotypes. A role model herself, she recalls when a group of girls in Muranga, Kenya, saw her in safety gear up on the roof of their school, doing so-called men’s work. She believes that it is important for women to be visible and vocal so that people know barriers can be broken.

In 2018, Wanjiku landed on the Forbes list of the World’s Top 50 Women in Tech. In 2018, Wanjiku was listed in Forbes Top 50 Women in Tech in the World and awarded African female tech entrepreneur by the World Economic Forum in 2017. She was also nominated as Business Woman of the Year by the All Africa Business Leaders Awards (AABLA) in the same year. Wanjiku was also named as one of the 40 most influential women in Kenya under the 2016 Business Daily Top 40 Under 40. In the same year, Strauss Energy won in the People’s Choice category of the Global Innovation Through Science and Technology competition.

* * *

This is part of Ingenium Canada’s Women in STEM initiative. For more information and links to other great profiles, click here.

Card art by nineSixteen Creative Inc. You can see more of their work here.

This Charity Wanjiku card is part of the Ingenium Women in Science and Engineering trading card game. You can download the game for free in both English and French. You can watch the “how to play” video here. You can also purchase a professionally printed deck (at revenue neutral prices) at the following link – English/French. Full details about this STEM game and others, can be found here.

Download a high-resolution poster PDF. Recommended print size is 11X17 inches.
Poster Charity Wanjiku

Want to learn about challenges faced by developing regions, STEM and the gender gap? Use Charity Wanjiku’s poster and this resource guide to explore further.
Unit 5 WiS Wanjiku EN

The post Charity Wanjiku: Empowering with Power first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Ingenium - Canada's Museums of Science and Innovation <![CDATA[Eugenia Duodu: Inspired, Elevated and Empowered]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4884 2020-06-11T16:39:55Z 2020-06-11T16:39:55Z Dr. Eugenia Duodu earned an honours Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and Biology from the University of Toronto in 2010, and proceeded to study medicinal chemistry as a PhD student. Fueled by her passion to improve life for others, her research focused on providing effective treatments for human diseases such as cancer. Having grown up in a low-income community and experiencing numerous disparities to enriched science-based opportunities, Dr. Duodu sought out ways to share STEM with her community. It was at this time that she signed up as a part-time volunteer with Visions of Science Network for Learning Inc.…

The post Eugenia Duodu: Inspired, Elevated and Empowered first appeared on SCQ.]]>

Dr. Eugenia Duodu earned an honours Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and Biology from the University of Toronto in 2010, and proceeded to study medicinal chemistry as a PhD student. Fueled by her passion to improve life for others, her research focused on providing effective treatments for human diseases such as cancer.

Having grown up in a low-income community and experiencing numerous disparities to enriched science-based opportunities, Dr. Duodu sought out ways to share STEM with her community. It was at this time that she signed up as a part-time volunteer with Visions of Science Network for Learning Inc. (VoSNL). After earning her PhD in 2015, she became the full-time CEO of the organization. As CEO, she strives to maintain strong ties with the community and unlock the potential of participating youth.

A charitable organization, VoSNL aims to increase the equity of access to STEM. Through various clubs and programs, it provides learning opportunities to low-income and marginalized youth interested in STEM, while simultaneously offering them positive support and mentorship. Since 2004, VoSNL has engaged over 11,500 participants and currently reaches 750 youth from 24 communities located in the Greater Toronto Area on an annual basis.

* * *

This is part of Ingenium Canada’s Women in STEM initiative. For more information and links to other great profiles, click here.

Card art by nineSixteen Creative Inc. You can see more of their work here.

This Eugenia Duodu card is part of the Ingenium Women in Science and Engineering trading card game. You can download the game for free in both English and French. You can watch the “how to play” video here. You can also purchase a professionally printed deck (at revenue neutral prices) at the following link – English/French. Full details about this STEM game and others, can be found here.

Download a high-resolution poster PDF. Recommended print size is 11X17 inches.
Poster Eugenia Duodu

Want to learn how poverty can impact those in STEM, particularly women? Use Eugenia Duodu’s poster and this resource guide to explore further.
Unit 5 WiS Duodu EN

The post Eugenia Duodu: Inspired, Elevated and Empowered first appeared on SCQ.]]>
Ingenium - Canada's Museums of Science and Innovation <![CDATA[Nadine Caron: Barrier Breaking Surgeon]]> https://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=4878 2020-06-10T16:48:03Z 2020-06-10T16:48:03Z Dr. Nadine Caron was born in Kamloops, British Columbia. In 1993, she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University, where she was also a star basketball player. From there, she entered medical school at the University of British Columbia, eventually graduating at the top of her class and becoming the first First Nations woman to graduate from the program. Dr. Caron proceeded to Harvard University, where she earned a Master’s degree in Public Health. She went on to the University of California, San Francisco to complete her postgraduate fellowship training in Endocrine Surgical Oncology. In…

The post Nadine Caron: Barrier Breaking Surgeon first appeared on SCQ.]]>

Dr. Nadine Caron was born in Kamloops, British Columbia.

In 1993, she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University, where she was also a star basketball player. From there, she entered medical school at the University of British Columbia, eventually graduating at the top of her class and becoming the first First Nations woman to graduate from the program.

Dr. Caron proceeded to Harvard University, where she earned a Master’s degree in Public Health. She went on to the University of California, San Francisco to complete her postgraduate fellowship training in Endocrine Surgical Oncology.

In 2005, she moved back to BC to work as a General and Endocrine Surgeon at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia, becoming the first Canadian female general surgeon of First Nations descent.

In 2014, Dr. Caron was appointed founding co-director of the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Excellence in Indigenous Health (CEIH), which aims to promote Indigenous leadership in healthcare and to improve the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples through education, research, and support for Indigenous students and communities in these arenas. Traveling to various communities to talk about the importance of staying in school, she considers mentoring students a top priority.

In addition to serving on numerous committees, Dr. Caron is an associate professor at UBC in the Northern Medical Program. As an influential faculty member, she champions for UBC to be a safe space where Indigenous heritage and history is respected and celebrated.

Understanding the impact post-secondary institutions can have in addressing racism and shaping responsible professionals, Dr. Caron and her team at the CEIH have worked to create mandatory training in cultural competency and cultural safety for UBC’s health sciences students. While she acknowledges that there’s still work to be done, she is optimistic about the future.

In 2017, Dr. Caron received an honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of the Fraser Valley. She was also named one of Maclean’s 100 Canadians to Watch.

* * *

This is part of Ingenium Canada’s Women in STEM initiative. For more information and links to other great profiles, click here.

Card art by nineSixteen Creative Inc. You can see more of their work here.

This Nadine Caron card is part of the Ingenium Women in Science and Engineering trading card game. You can download the game for free in both English and French. You can watch the “how to play” video here. You can also purchase a professionally printed deck (at revenue neutral prices) at the following link – English/French. Full details about this STEM game and others, can be found here.

Download a high-resolution poster PDF. Recommended print size is 11X17 inches.
Poster Nadine Caron

Want to learn about the challenges faced by Indigenous, remote and northern communities in STEM? Use Nadine Caron’s poster and this resource guide to explore further.
Unit 5 WiS Caron EN

The post Nadine Caron: Barrier Breaking Surgeon first appeared on SCQ.]]>