In which it is noted that Scienceblogs.com has partnered with National Geographic

All joking aside, the mothership is proudly announcing a new partnership with that giant of science communication, National Geographic. You can read about it here, here, here.
Sample coverage notes:

ScienceBlogs, the science-related blogging platform owned in part by NYC-based Seed Media Group and German publisher Hubert Burda, has cut a strategic deal with National Geographic Digital Media, the digital arm of NatGeo. Under the deal, NatGeo will take a minority stake in the platform, and will also take over the ad sales for the network of specialized blogs, headed by Jim Hoos, VP of Digital Media Sales for NGDM. The two companies will create and exchange content, including video content.

To be honest DearReader, I don’t know anything more than this. Unknown how this new arrangement will affect your enjoyment of the Scienceblogs in general or this blog in particular. I do have this memory of a certain picture published a long time ago in National Geographic which I’d love to use to illustrate how much it sucks to be the grad student, though… hmm.

OSU President Responds to Critics, Fails to Explain Anything

Embattled president of Oklahoma State University, Burns Hargis, has responded to his critics in an OpEd piece found here in the online version of The Oklahoman and in the OSU college paper. It seemingly explains very little beyond the original press office quotations. Something to the effect that he had personally decided that supposedly controversial research (meaning that involving the eventual euthanasia of nonhuman primates) was not in the best interest of OSU. A couple of points relevant to my charges on this issue emerge. First, he states that his decision was not influenced by any wealthy AR activist donors:

It has been suggested that this decision was reached arbitrarily and it was influenced by animal rights activists as well as a donor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wait….which part is so distant from the truth? Just the “arbitrarily” part? Or is each individual criticism (arbitrary, ARA, rich donor) being denied?