But I think I know what Genie would say if she heard me say that. The NCSE will be fine without her, Ann Reid is going to do great, etc. etc. And, I’m sure that is all true, owing both to Ann Reid being an excellent choice of Executive Director, and because Genie and the other staff at NCSE have done an excellent job.

Here’s part of the announcement of the change in leadership, which happened yesterday:

Ann Reid is joining NCSE as Executive Director, starting January 2, 2014. She will replace Eugenie C. Scott, who has led NCSE in fighting the good fight for science education for 27 years.

As a molecular biologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, she co-led the team that sequenced the 1918 flu virus—an effort that was hailed as “a watershed event for influenza researchers worldwide.” She then served as a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences for five years and then, most recently, as director of the American Academy of Microbiology. In both roles she oversaw major efforts aimed at communicating science to the public. And as its director, Reid oversaw all of the operations of the American Academy of Microbiology, from coordinating scientific research and publishing technical reports to communicating with the public and organizing dozens of scientific meetings.

“Ann is the consummate cat herder,” says Margaret McFall-Ngai, Professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology at University of Wisconsin. “She’s thoughtful, creative, and handles people with respect and finesse. But she’s no pushover. She knows how to take charge, aided by her broad historic understanding of the issues and the science.”

As a researcher and communicator, Reid has authored scores of peer-reviewed research papers, National Research Council reports, and FAQ documents, ranging from “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene” to the popular brochure If the Yeast Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody Happy: The Microbiology of Beer.

“Ann is a spectacular biologist,” says Indy Burke, Director of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming. “She’s been at the forefront of scientific synthesis and communication about the most important issues facing the life sciences today—especially life sciences education and the ecological impacts of climate change.”

Reid came to microbiology via a circuitous route, first earning degrees in environmental science and advanced international studies. After several years as a policy analyst, she took a research technician job at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “That’s when I fell in love with science,” says Reid. “Working there, I finally came to appreciate the power, the beauty, and the joy of science. That’s a big reason why I think that science education is so important—so students can share that experience while they’re learning.”

Reid joins NCSE at a time when the integrity of science education is constantly under attack. In 2013 alone, legislation was introduced in seven states that would allow teachers to misrepresent “controversial” topics, including evolution and/or climate change. “It is crucial, now more than ever, for students to understand evolution and climate science,” Reid commented. “I am excited at the prospect of helping NCSE to continue its important work in ensuring that these topics are taught properly—accurately, thoroughly, and without ideological interference.”

And Genie Scott expressed her confidence in Reid’s ability to do so. “Her stint as a research scientist grounds her in what science is and what scientists do. Her work at the National Research Council connected her with the top scientists in the country. And her experience as the director of a non-profit organization provides her with invaluable knowhow,” she said, adding, “I have no doubt that attacks on science education will continue. But with Reid at the helm, I have no doubt that NCSE will continue to be at the forefront of the defense.”

blood is red as soon as it is oxygenated. Blue blood flows through veins back to the heart and lungs…..[source: Some Guy on Yahoo Answers]

My friend was disturbed by this, as s/he had been teaching high school students for years that blood is not blue. Her understanding of the situation was that people thought blood was blue because standard anatomical drawings and models depict arteries as red and veins as blue, and because if you look at your veins they are blue. Obviously veins are not clear, but if you don’t think that out you might assume that you were seeing blue blood.So another year goes by and the same thing happens again. Another visit to the operating theatre, another person asks about blue blood, another confirmation that blood is blue.Now, I’ve seen both veins and arterial blood either seeping or gushing (respectively) out of various organisms, including humans and various other mammals, on a number of occasions. My grandmother used to spurt out blood now and then because of a condition she had. As I study hunting, I’ve observed lots of thrashing around blood spurting and seeping mammals. I’ve cut myself and I’ve donated blood. And so on.I’ve never seen blue blood. I’ve seen darker red and lighter red blood. But never blue.Now, going back to Yahoo Answers, which I am NOT recommending as a source for actual information, but which is a good source for what regular people sometimes think, we have the following three quotes:Melissa says: When blood gets oxygen it turns red but in your veins it is blue just look at them.Avondro says: Myth, it’s always red. It goes a darker red, purple-like (Some call it blue) when starved of Oxygen.SS Agent Dick Wakka says: Somewhat true. Blood is very bright red when it is in the pulmonary vein in the lungs, when it is highly oxygenated. During it’s journey back to the heart after circulating through the body, it is a little blue when it is deoxygenated, but more of a maroon-blue mix. … This is the truth.Agent Dick gives as a citation a “medical student.” Well, I’ve got a citation of a leading blood researcher at a major research institution that says blood is blue.I think there are two things going on here, one having to do with physics and the other with culture.The physical issue is about color. Is “purple” a kind of red, or is it a kind of blue? Beyond that, is blood that is “dark red” or “purple” really purple? Or is it dark red. See my point?The cultural issue is that more surgeons and folks like that, for much of recent history, are males, and males are bad at color, on average. I’m not taking about color blindness, but rather, color indifference. See my point?So here is what I think: If a person who says to themselves “Blood is blue in our veins” thinks either of the following:… That blood is blue, like this:… Or, that blood is “blue” in that you look at your veins and see blue, thus you are seeing your blue blood……. Or, that you look at an anatomical chart and see the veins drawn in as blue, therefore the blood inside them is blue…… then that person is laboring under a misconception.If a person thinks that this “blue blood” is purple, then they may also be laboring under a misconception. The HTML Internet Purple looks like this:(I know, it looks dark blue to me as well.)And the Pantone purple looks like this:(I’ve never seen blood that looks like this)Pantone Dark Red looks like this:… very close to my blog’s colors, but not very much like the darker shades of blood that I’ve seen.I think dark blood looks a little like this:This color is 24% red, 2% green, 2% blue, but at a saturation of 92 with a color value of 24 and a hue of 0 degrees. Whatever that means.(By the way if your computer’s video display is not set to a high value for number of colors shown, all of the above may look like only one or two colors. And, since all video screens are different, I might be seeing something different than you are…)Anyway, the color that I personally think resembles blood in its darker state is not purple. It is red with a lot of darkness added to it. Or a lack of lightness, or whatever. But it is red.Blood is red. But finding out if this is “true” is like squeezing blood from a stone.