For some time, I've been meaning to do an organizational post about where this blog is headed now that it is back to being a one person blog, as it has not been since 2007. The first thing is that it is going to remain a one person blog--but with more contributors. Let me explain. While I plan to remain the central emcee here, you probably have noticed that Jamie Vernon has been blogging a lot, and that will continue as he sees fit. Jon Winsor, a frequent commenter here for many years, will also be doing some posts soon. And there may soon be others. Currently I am experimenting: If it works, I hope to go towards a model a bit like Joe Romm's--where there is both one central blogger and also additional voices, so we will have a steadier stream of content, especially for times when I am traveling. Needless to say, the other contributors will share the broad interests and perspective that the blog has always had. And what are those? Well, "the Intersection" started out as a blog about the intersection between science and politics, and the launching pad for my first book, The Republican War on Science. That interest has never really faded--if anything, it is stronger than ever. But of course, along the way the blog has also covered hurricanes and weather, focused heavily on climate change, and in the broadest sense of "intersection," it has at served as a blog about science as it relates to all aspects of culture. Recently, though, you have probably also identified a new focus--I am writing more about the psychology and the neuroscience of science denial, as with my Mother Jones piece, "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science." Get ready for much more along these lines as well. Finally, I may as well reiterate that we have a comments policy here, and are pretty strict in enforcing it, up to and including permanent commenting bans. Here's the policy:
While we encourage and appreciate commentary from readers, we cannot allow the tenor of dialogue to be lowered or debased, or for one individual to ruin an otherwise constructive dialogue. Our general rule is that comments must be substantive and on topic, and must avoid profanity, personal attacks, and hectoring. It is for us to judge who has violated these principles; and if, after a warning, behavior doesn’t change, we reserve the right to moderate comments at our discretion. Our policy is, in general, much the same as that of Carl Zimmer–”light but firm”–though he’s more eloquent. But the same basic principles apply. We are not responsible for any comments other than our own.
Thank you for reading and participating here at The Intersection, and I hope you like what you find.
