👩🏻‍🔬#SciComm improves science. neuronline.sfn.org/outreach/… @FancyComma has FREE resources on #SciComm, #SciPol, #ScienceMarketing, & #ScienceJournalism: fancycomma.com/resources ✍️Blog: fancycomma.com/blog 📰Newsletter: fancycomma.substack.com 📽️YouTube: youtube.com/@fancycomma

I didn't realize we could live-tweet our phonebanking. I miss phonebanking in AZ in 2024 when some Spanish-speaking man picked up the phone, listened to my Spanish, and then just said, "gringaaa" holding out the aaaa

First-time voters this November were 8-years-old when Trump won in 2016.

1500 dollar bills after the hottest summers on record and life or death. This Is What America’s Utility Bill Crisis Looks Like nytimes.com/2026/10/18/us/ok… via @NYTimes

It's happening! It's happening! A coalition of STEM-minded investigative journalists have joined forces to report on science and tech in the Epstein files. Check meowt here: humanrights.info 😼

Every girl and every woman has the right to be safe. We cannot accept a world where violence is a risk they are expected to navigate. It's time to prevent violence, hold perpetrators accountable and put an end to violence against women and girls. — via @UNICEF

Women with high cognitive ability face "detrimental interpersonal ramifications" at work Men do not. The theory is that smarter women violate perceived social role expectations leading them to face backlash that men do not receive psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?d…

Exclusive: “The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race.” So wrote James Watson in The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, his controversial account of how he and Francis Crick deciphered the structure of DNA in 1953. The image, now known as photograph 51, showed an elegant, symmetrical pattern of spots formed by x-rays diffracted from strands of DNA—the fingerprint of the molecule's helical structure. Rosalind Franklin, an x-ray crystallographer, had produced the image in the spring of 1952. But Watson's 1968 book, amid other slights and sexist language directed at Franklin, implied the flash of insight was his alone. Popular accounts still routinely suggest Franklin missed the significance of the photo. She never had a chance to challenge Watson's dismissive narrative; she died of cancer in 1958, a decade before his memoir was released and became a bestseller. But a new analysis of her notes on another x-ray image, which she made just days earlier using the same DNA sample, offers a firm rebuttal. Learn more: scim.ag/4hNj7KB @NewsfromScience

I feel insane thinking about politics

Man, people in physics do not like hearing that the 2026 physics Nobelist has Epstein files mentions. New journalist achievement unlocked: physics students calling me "lazy" and "dishonest" for pointing out actual, real, true facts.

I just realized I never posted about the Nobel Prize in physics last week. Francis Halzen has 3 Epstein files mentions. When I posted about it, people lost their minds. Many asserted that a(nother) physics Nobelist being in the Epstein files means nothing. Except...it means a lot

I wonder how many of those asking “Where is Ed Boyden?” in the Nobel discussion knew his name appears in roughly 969–1,249 documents in the Epstein files, with multiple documented meetings after Epstein’s conviction. Scientific brilliance shouldn't exempt anyone from scrutiny.

I am done tweeting about scientists in the Epstein files not winning Nobel Prizes today. See y'all tomorrow for physics!