OK, OK...I know it's really dorky, but I thought I should let you know that you can now watch podcasts made available from Science/AAAS.
I really wish that they would find people who don't sound like NPR broadcasters, though. I found the lack of prosody to be more boring than a medical school lecture--I would rather listen to the "door closing" subway message over and over again. Morgan Freeman must be a little out of their price range--or maybe he only does penguin-related work.
On a different note--I discovered today that I am in a bit of a pickle. I love that saying--the pickel one.
One of the top scientists in my field retracted several papers recently. This individual did not retract all of the papers related to my area of interest, but quite a few of the key articles are now taboo to use. This is, of course, after I've written a large section of my thesis discussing the findings in these now retracted papers, and how their data may relate to mine.
So, like a good little scientist, I've taken out those references. I'm a bit puzzled, however, over what to do next. Do I take out the findings from papers that haven't been retracted, even though the authors of the non-retracted papers--and, thus, the potential "data manipulators"--are on the retracted papers? There are very few people doing research in this area, so I don't have many other sources to turn to.
Why do people have to lie? They did it on purpose to make my life harder. It's all about me.