Wikipedia, says Thomas Goetz at Wired Science, isn’t as clear as it might be when it comes to scientific definitions. The example given, "epigenetics" is a good one — the "backgrounder" [sic] from Johns Hopkins is much clearer. Perhaps those people who write public information for sites such as the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and universities might hop on over to help Wikipedia to become more digestible. The entries are probably written by specialists, who can usually do with a bit of communication help when it comes to readers outside the discipline.
For a bit of in-person science education, there is a fascinating new exhibition at London’s Science Museum: Penicillin. Matt Brown’s post on Nature Network ably summarises the Penicillin story and the challenges of telling it in a visually attractive way. The exhibition is on until September.
Another of Matt’s excellent posts is here: "ever considered being a science journalist?" Poor pay, virtually impossible to break into, but the "satisfaction of reaching large audiences, interrogating Nobel laureates, the intellectual thrill of tackling Mars rovers one day and genetic breakthroughs the next – there’s nothing quite like the buzz of the fast-paced news world."
Female Science Professor isn’t sure how to take being called a "poster child" for women in the scientific profession. I think I’d have the same trouble if someone tried to give me this moniker. "Poster child" seems to me to be a rather patronising phrase, whatever the context.