Alan Rickman and Me

This past weekend I travelled to New York City to celebrate my birthday with some old friends. I was incredibly excited about this trip for many reasons. First, I had not been back to America in almost a year, and was actually starting to feel homesick for some unknown reason. Second, in the last year or so, most of my closest friends from high school and college all moved to the city so it was a great opportunity to see them. Finally, after (and I must emphasise this) my ticket was bought, I found out that Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw and Lindsay Duncan were performing John Gabriel Borkman by Henrik Ibsen at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.


If you only met me at college or in Scotland (or from this website!), you may not understand the significance of this, other than the occasional off-hand (and usually off-colour) statement. As a teenager, I loved Alan Rickman. I loved him so much it hurt. There was no one else; there was never going to be anyone else. You could not see me without seeing him. I had pictures in my car, in my books, on my walls, in my locker. I just wanted to have him around me at all times.

I'm pretty sure I had this one in my car

Honestly, I could not tell you why he meant so much to me. I have always been an obsessive person. I do not just like something, I love things. It has been commented by friends (and relative strangers) that if you could bottle my emotions, they would make a very powerful and very, very illegal drug. As a kid, I would always turn to books, music and films to escape the world. I still can't tell you why I feel as strong emotions as I do, but it has just been something I've had to accept.


So where did it all start? I remember going to see Galaxy Quest when I was younger and loving the Spock-like character with his snotty attitude and bad-ass-ery, so he always stuck in my mind as an awesome actor. Of course, there was also Die Hard and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves which, combined with my love for bad boys, cemented my adoration of him.

I will cut your heart out, with a spoon!

Then, there was Severus Snape. Oh, Severus. My connection to this character from Harry Potter runs too deeply and emotionally for me to even feel comfortable talking about it here. I have such a personal attachment, though he may be fictional, to him and all the hard times he got me through. Again, I can't (and if I could, won't) explain it, but Snape was my rock. No one will understand. I don't expect anyone to. The only outlet I have for such things is my tattoos. I have reached a point where if someone says "I saw a picture of your Snape tattoo", I respond "Which one?".


Alan Rickman and Severus Snape were always two disparate people in my mind. I have never pictured Alan Rickman when I read the books, but he captured him. Completely. That is where the obsession started. He understood Snape as much as I did. He conveyed every emotion and attitude exactly the same way I saw it. For once, I felt that someone understood me and it must have been powerful, to come through a cinema screen.

***Harry Potter Spoilers!***


So that, truly, is as close as I can come to even trying to explain the depths of my adoration. It was the way he hid pain behind his anger and snarkiness; the way he walked with a grace, but a grace that was hiding years of abuse and loss. I spent the majority of my teenage years wrapped in the world of Severus Snape, trying to understand who he was. There was a connection, and I wanted it to fulfil what I had always felt. I knew him and I knew his motivations, though the rest of the world did not just yet.


After the sixth book came out, and the world (well, the Harry Potter world) turned against him, my heart broke. I knew. I knew he was good. He would not betray me like that. There was not even a doubt in my mind, at least for the character I had grown to love, that he was truly evil. So what did I do? I got his name tattooed on my back. Think about that. The risk, significance and loyalty that required. I was not being hormonal and stupid, I was standing by a symbol of my life.

When the final book came out, I had a massively cathartic release. I was right. I had been right about everything (okay, there was one minor detail I got wrong, but the rest was spot on) and my life was validated. That may seem like a hyperbole, but you have to understand that this character had metaphorically held my hand through highs and lows, telling me that it was okay, that he understood me. I don't know; if you have never experienced that connection to a book, film or song, you may not understand, but it is powerful. It honestly does feel like someone is holding your hand. In fact, there was an exact quote about that from History Boys:

"The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out, and taken yours."

It is indeed a powerful thing, and that's what Severus Snape was to me. By the seventh book, I had mostly matured out of these, but it still validated my childhood which was something I was always looking for.

***end of (pretty tame) spoilers -- do people still get angry about these?***

So here I was, in New York as an adult, having made my own way in world, having fallen in love with "real" men by this point and been subsequently rejected; I had experienced real life and I was five feet away from the man himself. 

The man who had made me feel loved and understood. The man who conveyed masked heartbreak better than I ever could explain. The man who taught me that it was okay to feel the way I did and who did not make me feel lonely any more. I had never met him, and there he was. 

Alan Rickman as John Gabriel Borkman

When I was 14, I was out at lunch with classmates and asked if anyone would go see the Harry Potter film with me (I was, for the first time, starting to make real friends). One girl, who I barely knew, spoke up and said she would go, because she loved Alan Rickman. That was it. Best friends forever. It was next to this girl I sat to watch the play. She turned to me (as we realised we were only going to be five feet away from the action and two of the only six people the actors could see clearly, thanks to the stage lights) and said "Erin, our fourteen-year-old selves are giving each other MAJOR high-fives right now" and it was so true. 

The play commenced, along with two of my favourite actresses in the whole world, and I was there. When Lindsay Duncan confronted Alan Rickman about her heartbreak and what he had done to her, I was right with her, and it was a powerful experience, as going to the theatre should be. In truth, that is what it comes down to, right? Actors want to take you to a new world, to take you on an emotional ride, and that is always what he has done for me.

At the climax of the play, Alan Rickman stood on some "snow" mounds on my side of the stage and leaned against the wall, gazing out into the distance and it hit me. I did not want to jump his bones (as many people suspected I would actually do) but I felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude. Gratitude for everything he had done for my life; that he had been with me through the ups and downs. I wish I could thank him, I really do, but he is a symbol and no amount of storytelling could convey how much he did for my life. I did not need to meet him, as it would have detracted from the experience.

I walked away with a sense of completion. I had been near him, watched him perform with the utmost grace and sensitivity I always appreciated. The man has made me laugh, made me cry and made me love, and there will always be a special place in my heart for that.

Fiona Shaw, Alan Rickman and Lindsay Duncan

Also, he was fucking amazing and hot as ever. I would also still totally jump Fiona Shaw's bones and I basically want to be Lindsay Duncan. What a presence, man! Just had to throw that out there... hey-oh!

When Alan Rickman was named People's "Surprisingly Sexy" Man of the Year

"Women Science Bloggers": Divide and conquer is not the answer

Let me make this clear. I am a woman. I am a scientist. I have a blog. I would not call myself a "blogger", given the more-than-sad state of this thing. I wish I had the time to blog about science, I really do. However, my job is not a "blogger"; I am a PhD student with a lot of things on my plate. I read my usual blogs in the morning, comment when I deem it necessary (read: rarely) and get on with my own work.

Some of my usual blogs include Bora Z's A Blog Around the Clock and Ed Yong's Not Exactly Rocket Science as well as following them (and many others) on twitter. There was the recent Science Online 2011 event as well as some articles concerning "Women Science Bloggers" and the various people and issues surrounding that concept. I have read what I can, and given some thought to the issue, but I have found myself getting slightly irate the more I see the term "Women Science Bloggers" pop up (also as #wsb on Twitter).

Why? I guess I should not be surprised at my reaction. I have the same impulses every time I get invited to a "woman's lunch" at scientific conferences. Though I realise women face different difficulties, particularly in science, which has not been traditionally a female pursuit, I am incredibly put off by attending these events. What if a conference held a "men's lunch"? (I know that's a pretty cliché response to a much more complex issue, but stick with me) Well, I can tell you I'd probably be the first in there, waving my burning bra in their faces. I simply do not think that to answer these issues, we should be actively separating genders for the purpose of discussion.

This is a tricky topic. I want to address issues that women face, especially in science. I have experienced it myself, but think that the "divide and conquer" approach is counter-productive. It sets women aside as "others" and do not allow for productive discussion.

I believe that I have come this far in astrophysics by my own right. I do not want my success negated by affirmative action. When I was in my last year of undergraduate, I was the first to get accepted into a PhD program due to the fact that I wanted to move overseas and needed to apply earlier (and I wasn't a bad student). However, my happiness was brought down by my male friends who figured I had "just got in because I was a woman". Now, this may or may not have been said seriously, but it was said by a group of men who were incredibly stressed out about their future careers. Seeing phrases like "we encourage women and other minority groups to apply" on their applications were throwing my white, male friends off their game.

I am the postgraduate representative for my university's Project Juno Committee, which was started by the Institute of Physics in order to address the issues of women in physics departments. I was more-than-hesitant to join this group because I have seen many get-women-into-physics schemes turn into positive discrimination. However, I thought I would go along and see what it was (I am willing to give anything a chance, and yes, I have gone to a few "women's lunches" as well) and was pleasantly surprised.

I approached this committee not to "address the issues of women in science" but more to create a happier, healthier environment for everyone in the physics and astronomy department. I held a seminar for the other PhD students in our department to discuss our futures and why we wanted to stay or leave academia. It was a hard sell, initially, but we had a good showing of 50% men and women who were there to talk about the stress of moving, having a family and advancing careers. These topics were on the mind of both the men and the women of the group.

Family matters are no longer as women-oriented as they once were, so how come the scientific (my experience is in physics) community continues to isolate women for these discussions?

I feel that the "Science Community" and the "Science Blogger Community" is pretty similar. It has a wide range of interests, backgrounds and personalities. Like I said at the beginning, it is hard for me to comment on the struggles of being a "woman science blogger" but I do know what it is like to be a "woman scientist" and frankly, I would rather be addressed as a "scientist".

Yes, I am proud of being a woman. I do not hide behind my sex and sexuality, but that is one aspect to who I am. It should not put me into an "other" category when it comes to my career.

Demographics are, indeed, an issue. In astrophysics (combining the astronomy and physics and astrophysics community in my mind... as I dabble in all of them) I would say that you can pretty much estimate 15-20% female in collaborations, meetings and conferences (and yes, I do count... some talks can be quite dull). This obviously changes the game.

Here is what we do. We stop referring to "women science bloggers" or, ridiculously "men science bloggers" and instead we blog, we keep a presence. People will get used to seeing women around the blogosphere. The same holds for science (and is starting to take effect); instead of me getting up to give a talk and being introduced as a woman scientist to a bunch of kids excited about science, they simply see that I am a woman and therefore simply become used to the idea.

Blogs let you hide behind a persona, male or female, but that is not terribly different from science. We just need representatives. The more people standing up, saying who they are and speaking with the public will start to shift public opinion.

The process is slow. There are not that many female physicists, but the more that I take it upon myself to go to schools, go to planetariums and talk to the public, without making my gender an issue, people will just see that I exist. It is a matter of greying the issue, not making it more black-and-white.

___________________________________
This is why I refer to myself as a "Woman of Science" and not a "Woman Scientist"... the difference is subtle, yet elegant.

This is your life

Hello everyone. Lots has been going on, and will do a proper update soon, but here's some fun things going on!

First, there was a great paper published linking partition function to fractal behaviour. I would highly recommend reading (or glancing at) the paper(s) here at the American Institute for Math website. Even if you're not a math-geek like me, there is some interesting information. It is quite a big discovery. Fractals are sexy, and so is number theory if you manage to push through to that point!

Also, if you are following my Faces of Science project, never fear! It certainly has not gone away. However, profiles are dribbling in few and far between, so I am trying to stagger them as much as possible so I do not run out. I plan on posting a new profile this week, so keep an eye out!

I am heading off to New York this weekend to celebrate my ++age with some old friends. I have a few days off (while people are, you know, working) so if any science/tattooed geeks are around for a drink/coffee, let me know and we can talk nerd-ink-speak for a bit.

Speaking of tattoos, I found a great photographer, thanks to Matt Lodder, called Al Overdrive. I highly recommend going over to have a look at his work, particularly his portfolios. I think I may get some photos commissioned by him. He seems like he might be capable of capturing the Weird and Wacky World of Me.

2011 is now falling into a swing, so I will be posting more soon!

Science blogging as a discussion board for new ideas

Today, blogger Ed Yong posed the question, "Are science blogs stuck in an echo chamber?" It's an interesting article, and I will let you read it for yourself (to fend off the "chamber? chamber? chamber?" bit) but I wanted to add my own thoughts.

Personally, I believe that science (and the world) is heading in a new direction. I am not saying anything new. The internet has clearly broken down many barriers and has opened new doors and venues for discussion. The problem though is that the world is still stuck in a somewhat "corporate" atmosphere, where people in the back of their minds want to be famous and make money. The best scientist with a fantastic blog can have the greatest idea and there will be a little voice in the back of his or her mind that says "Don't you dare! Patents! Glory! Who knows who will steal your idea?!"

We are scientists; we make careers out of thinking and innovating. There is a lot of great stuff out there, but  I find that most science blogs are, quite rightly, discussing and presenting published and relatively concluded research. Do not get me wrong; this is a fantastic development (ArsenicGate anyone? As tired as we all got of it, it surely was fun!), but we need to start taking it to the next level.

Most scientists these days will probably agree that they are a bit disappointed with the so-called "future" of the 21st century. Where is the alternative energy? Where are the flying cars? Okay, flying cars may be pushing it, but I think we are stuck in a need for smaller, faster, me, me, me motivated by corporations, politicians and anyone else you want to blame.

Have you been lying in bed, about to fall asleep, thinking about life, the universe and everything when suddenly you think you have solved the energy crisis? That you have developed bionic technology? That you have a way to get us to Mars?

Science blogs seem to have strayed from true discussion and innovation to journal reviews, rants and observations of society (online or in person) when really, we should be exploiting the fact that there are some very intelligent people out there. I know, there are a lot of whack-a-doodles to filter out, but why is that stopping us?

Online forums. Telephone conferences. These conjure up horrors of trolls and poorly wired microphones. At scientific public talks and conferences, the existence of "trolls" is much less (though occasional, but those lead to good stories) and I believe that is due to the level of discourse taking place from the questions, the speaker and the attendees at the pre- or post-discussion food tables. Why can't we bring that level here? We can read each others ideas, spread them around to people in that field and encourage intelligent, thoughtful discussion? True, the best discussion may happen over email and not on comment boards, but at least it is happening and there is a chance it will happen on the people who can do something about it. 

This is also an exercise in humility. One has to be prepared to throw a wild idea out there and get a response of "This was done three years ago. The inventor lives in a castle and everyone, including my grandparents know about this, how can you be so foolish?" At least it is out there though, right? You never know what line you drew that has never been drawn before. Worth the risk for some innovative scientific advancement, right?

Massive innovation has (in my opinion) fallen by the wayside. The money is in improving what we have already got, not coming up with something new, crazy and risky. So why should we risk our jobs pursuing something like that? Well, this is what the internet is for, right? In this economy, you cannot expect the government to give you a job to simply think of the next great plan (though they have tried), but if we work together here on this wild and wacky world of the internet, you never know what can be accomplished!

So, who wants to go to Mars? Who wants a C3P0? Who wants an available, affordable zero-emission car? Who thinks they have an idea?

Look into the mirror, shed a tear and resolve to change.

I would like to take some time out of your busy day to sit down and have a little chat. There is something terribly wrong with this country. Less than 24 hours after the brutal shooting of a congresswoman and the horrific fatalities of a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl (among 6 killed), my social media reflects more opinions of the Seahawks game than of how we allow ourselves to live in this society.

Maybe people are so horrified by the events that they cannot face the brutality, so their focus turns to a sport event. Or, and is sadly more likely, we are not surprised that this happened.

Our we really so numb to the thought of violent shootings, that our focus quickly turns away with a shrug? Or have we seen so much violent rhetoric coming from the media and from politicians, that our focus turns away with a "it was bound to happen" nod? Is any of this really acceptable?

The truth is, if you want to understand what happened, you need only look into a mirror. There are some more guilty than others, but an overall acceptance of what happened lies in how our society has evolved. It has evolved into a cruel, violent beast. I am seeing an outcry from the media and prominent representatives, but almost none from my everyday peers and colleagues. Why is this? Why are we not incensed and horrified and instead of wishing condolences on the families of those lost, we feel the need to comment on how awesome the Seahawks are?

This is not a society to be proud of. It is not one to hold on a pedestal for the rest of the world. It is one that should hang its head and be ashamed that things such as this:

can have such direct and horrific consequences.

There was a brilliant analogy on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night likening this situation to an epidemic. It takes off the weak and the vulnerable first, slowly spreading through society and infecting all it touches. I cannot think of a more apt and chilling metaphor. It is those who are mentally vulnerable who fall first and this is not acceptable.

Some may turn around and say (with heated language) "Who are you to talk? You left this country, proudly and gleefully!" That is true, however, if there is one thing I have learned, I am the one you should be worried about pleasing. I am the one that has to explain every horrific occurrence in America to my friends, colleagues and strangers at the pub who hear my accent.

When you meet a stranger, I can probably bet that you are not being asked within 5 minutes about health care, or gun control, or voter reform, or immigration. Because of my accent, I stand out immediately as someone who represents the state of affairs and questions are immediately posed to me. For all that I am asked about American politics, it is necessary for me to be more informed on every topic. I am the one representing you to the everyman here in Scotland. I want to stand proudly, but instead I roll my eyes, shrug and say "Well, there's a reason I left." This is never more true today.

This is a time where Americans should take a few minutes and reflect on how much they accept current gun policies, or how much they agree with the rhetoric spit out by the types of Glenn Beck and the other swine on Fox News, and if there was anything they could do to prevent our society to turning into what it is now.

We are at a crossroads of sorts. This can be either the end or the beginning of a horrible chapter in American history. I want to be proud of my past, and today I am not. I am not proud of my fellow Americans for their passiveness regarding this horrific act. Look into the mirror, shed a tear and resolve to change.

"Public" Reviews of Science: Arsenic and Old Congressmen

Are there enough jokes that can be made with arsenic? No.
Two topics in the news recently have really caught my attention. The first being the "discovery" of the microbe that utilises arsenic in it's development instead of phosphorous. The second being a project called "YouCut" being run by Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor which is currently soliciting a public review of NSF grants. When is it appropriate for the public to comment on scientific findings? Obvious answer: if you are a scientist. That's the summary... discussion below.

Unless you happen to be a bacteria living in an arsenic-riddled lake in California, it is unlikely that you missed this. There are fantastic responses and discussions going on that have certainly stolen my attention span over the last few days.

The first being the eloquent and professional (as professional as a blog can get) rebuttal by Rosie Redfield at her blog RRResearch. Though my knowledge of micro-biology stops at the freshmen university level, anyone with an understanding of the scientific method and research practises will find her comments interesting and insightful.

Alex Bradley added an interesting scientific contribution about arsenic compounds' propensity to fall apart when immersed in water. He guest-posted on the Science Blog "We, Beasties" with an interesting, well-presented argument.

I read Carl Zimmer's rebuttal posted on Slate and also found it to be well-written, insightful and worth reading.

There is discussion and speculation about the hype that NASA concocted in the lead-up to the publication. I, personally, felt mislead by the lauding as an astrobiological find. Frankly, this has nothing to do with astrobiology, but instead has implications on the field. This is all very interesting and I really cannot add anything any more eloquent than what has already been stated.

NASA refuses to comment on the web-based criticisms and says that this sort of critique should be conducted in professional publications. No one is arguing with that, and Dr Redfield is forming her blog post into a formal letter for Science.

This arsenic debacle has showed that opening up research to the "public" can lead to thoughtful criticisms and critiques of scientific practices. However, the "public" who are insightfully leading the charge against the "finding" of microbes hopped up on arsenic happen to be well-educated scientists. These people may not be an expert in this particular field, but they understand the basics as well as the importance of good research practices. Through their experiences in laboratories, they are able to spot flawed findings and isolate issues.

This, however, ties to the new project in the US Congress where Eric Cantor (R) is launching his new "YouCut" Campaign. The first objective of this project is to review National Science Foundation grants and isolate projects deemed to be "wasteful". Oh, wait, here's the catch, anyone can take part in this project. Anyone. Go there yourself; you can submit the grant numbers of projects you think are a waste of time.

There is a gigantic smear campaign against science in America. Scientists are lauded as the "bad guys" because we give evidence for scary things, like climate change, solar flares, asteroids, diseases. There is also a (unsurprising) correlation between atheists and scientists due to our need for evidence and rational thought. The conservatives christians do not like that. No sir.

This just opens the floodgates for the conservative anti-scientists to have a voice in a field where they do not belong. They do not conduct scientific research and are unlikely to see the broader impact that projects may have.

There is no form for people like me to go and say which projects should get more money. Probably right, too, as that would turn into an all out war between research groups, PhD students, post-docs and departments trying to flood the interwebs to get more money. Projects like this are a waste of internet space (if such a thing is possible) and definitely a waste of congress.

Leave science to the scientists.

Sex and math: You can integrate my curves any day

I just read an article on the Guardian CiF titled "Sexing up mathematics does not compute" and it made me irrationally angry. Okay, now maybe I should not take stuff like this so seriously, and one man's opinion is fair enough, but I am tired of generalisations made about an entire field of study. I'm going to pick apart some specifics then get to my general response. Let's start with this paragraph:

In truth, graduate students in mathematics are more concerned with prime numbers than they are with primal instincts. I did not even kiss a girl until a full two years after I got my doctorate... Mathematics, though a predominantly male endeavour for whatever reason – is definitely not testosterone-fuelled.

Let's break this apart, bottom to top. Can't the last sentence read "is definitely not hormone-fuelled" or something of the like? True, it is predominately male, but that's not to say that the sex drive of mathematicians has to be driven by testosterone. Women have just as much of a right to be crazy sex-monkeys as men and initiate whatever the hell they want. 


I am sorry, but "did not kiss a girl until a full two years after I got my doctorate"?! Please do not associate the fact that you are a mathematician with that. You just possibly destroyed a whole future generation of potentially brilliant mathematicians who now think that if they study mathematics, they will not kiss a girl until their late-20s. Not really selling the whole "Math is cool" concept, now are we? We want to encourage young, hormonal teenagers into studying mathematics, not scaring the hell out of them.


The line "...graduate students in mathematics are more concerned with prime numbers than they are with primal instincts" really drives me nuts. Okay, now I am not a graduate student in mathematics (astrophysics is my master!); my degree in mathematics may only be at a Bachelor's level, but man, did I live up the title of "Bachelor degree". My primal instincts ruled most of my decisions during those years and yes, I found complex analysis and the male persuasion equally sexy (though that would fluctuate depending on the time of day). Let me tell you, the day I learned about Cauchy's Integral Theorem, I went straight home and showed my boyfriend exactly how to integrate my curves! 


Right, let us discuss this bit:

There is a noble lineage of brilliant mathematicians who probably never dated and who never married... 

Fair enough, but here is a logical statement: Some brilliant mathematicians hated sex and never married. This does not imply that all mathematicians hate sex, nor that if you hate sex you will be a brilliant mathematician. Imagine some young, impressionable, intelligent boy or girl read this and think to themselves, "Oh no! I am attracted to that hot, young thing in my English class, that must mean that I will never be a brilliant mathematician." That is not the impression we want to be giving. 


True, mathematical brilliance may not necessitate an understanding of passion or love, in the same way lyrical brilliance might, but that does not mean it is mutually exclusive. I would argue that to see the beauty in mathematical proofs and concepts, it helps to see the beauty in the world around us. I remember first learning about Green's Theorem and suddenly realising that math was indeed beautiful. In fact, that was the same day I decided to pursue mathematics as a separate degree; I wanted to learn as much as I could about how mathematics describes the world. 


I am not an expert on sex drive, nor by any means am I a mathematical genius, but one should never exclude the other. I never dated until I was out of high school, but I do not think that had anything to do with my skills in mathematics, that was just because I did not feel a desire to. I certainly had a sex drive, but just was not ready to pursue it. It came in time, and never once along the way did anyone tell me that my skills in math came in exchange for a sex drive, like this article is implying. 


Sex is distracting, no one can argue that. When you are in the middle of writing a thesis or doing top research, sex is a bit of a deterrent, one need only use my last 6 months of my undergraduate degree as an example. So, okay, maybe when you are working on the next Maxwell's Equations, or simply trying to finish a proof for your linear algebra class, it may not necessarily be the best idea to have a naked person in the room with you. I don't know about you, but for me I found it easier to walk away from my Abstract Algebra assignments for said naked person, then say, my Complex Analysis, therefore clarifying in my mind where my priorities lay that's what she said. 


No one should ever imply that mathematicians are not and can never be sexy. Mathematicians may be the only people in the world who find math itself sexy, but believe me, we are capable of also finding people sexy and frankly, I think it makes us much more fun.