#2018 seems to really be the year of debate for most ppl

[lesbiancarat]

wasn’t pristin 4th gen tho?

nope. generation is determined by debut date. pristin debuted in 2017, and the earliest 4th gen groups started debuting in 2018 (or 2019 depending on who you ask, apparently some ppl see 2018 as a transition year which like, eh). so they were a late 3rd gen group, but a third gen group nonetheless. (other 2017 iirc debuts include weki meki, kard, the rose, wanna one, dreamcatcher, golden child for context. all considered 3rd gen groups. the only 2017 debut i can think of that's considered 4th gen is the boyz, but they debuted right at the end of the year, and i feel like they're the group I've seen the most debate about what gen they're in since they're kind of on the cusp anyway so)

[fuckblizzardbearlover]

Why are ppl acting like taylor swift is some sort of icon. Last i heard she got exposed about lying about her song dragging another artist(drake?) With a lie and now ppl are acting like shes a good person just cus she insulted the most hateable man on the planet and made a song about how all criticism of her is bullshit and gay rights i guess? Its 2019 and this is her first halfassed attempt at being an ally for liberal points. Am i missing something or do tons of ppl just have basic ass taste

And before anyone wants to call me an anti or whatever i have a vested interest in some generic blond pop singer getting in trouble and suddenly coming out 2 years later with a song briefly mentioning gay ppl as a tool to use fake progressiveness to get her on ppls good side

And no rupauls legion of drag queens to afraid to speak out against rupauls trandphobia and pro bullying mantras does NOT represent the queer community

-------------

this is how you know i’m not a hater. Surprised by the dichotomy of my anger vs the worlds ambivalence i naturally asked “whats going on? am i wrong?” so i took the time to try to remind myself of these controversies, and in doing so i’m reminded by how right i am to question her

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-blogger-sue-defamation-aclu-alt-right-denounce-white-supremacy-a8041551.html

In witch she, her lawyers or both threaten to sue a blogger for questioning her motive, fanbase and the amount in which white supremicists love her. While defimation of character IS a thing, not only would that have been the perfect time to finalize her stance AGAINST white supremecy but to denounce those fans and clear the air during the election cycle that has the worst candidate in years. But the most  powerful pop star in america is going to intimidate some blogger for suggesting things about her that she herself could easily fix with a 3 minute youtube video?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/22/nicki-minaj-debate-bigger-than-taylor-swifts-ego

her obsession with creating conflict in order to make her brand seem relevant resulting in her tripping up an important conversation about race in the music industry

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values

the fact that she’s just...unprofessional with much of her music being gossipy and attacks on critics. a woman who speaks her mind isnt a good thing if she’s using it to spew lies, hate and just be mean

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/oct/08/taylor-swift-instagram-post-endorsement-democrats-tennessee

and while one might understand her public neutrality due to her age and in the past elections like 2008, in 2016 there was a clear villain. the only fans she had to lose were those who want the rest of her fans dead or subdued.

and while i found her list of philanthropy impressive, considering the largest donation was 1 million and

“ Taylor Swift currently has an estimated net worth of $360 million, which has grown due to her music, merchandise, and endorsements “

Even if only 1/10 of that is liquid assets, thats still the bare minimum.

Look i get it, she’s never (supposedly) done anything HORRIBLE

but the fact is that all of this paints the picture of someone who is at BEST sloppy, thoughtless and gets most of her good PR from well versed lawyers and PR people

and at worst paints the picture of an extremely powerful rich women oozing with privileged who’s made a personal brand and MILLIONS of dollars off of exploiting controversy, playing the victim, and giving tokenish support to the people most hurt by her ambivalence

there are hundreds of strong outspoken women in the music industry alone that speak out more and and do better work (i.e. social work, not catchy pop tunes). If you like her music fine, whatever, but dont act like she’s some sort of savior because 8 years after drag race became popular she used a drag term and said “being mad never made anyone less gay” in the middle of a song about how ppl arent allowed to criticize her.

maybe when taylor swift grows up and realizes she’s one of the rich that needs to be eaten, and like it or not that Trumps demon’s love women like HER, then maybe she can do some REAL work but “gay rights” in 2019 is about 10 years to late. even 5 years to late. She hemmed and hawed in 2016. she only spoke in support of the tenessee candidates. google recognized the frequency of ‘who did taylor swift vote for”.

If you cant take a hard stance against “they are sending their worst , their rapists and murderers” , against “when you’re rich you can do what you want”  then you are worthless. She is no ally of mine and if she really cared she would give MORE support without the recognition. but all the liberals ate up the tokenistic support and gave her an award and now she’s probably got MORE millions because of it

fuck that

[topweeklyupdate]

TØP Weekly(/Monthly) Update #52: I’m Gonna Jumpsuit Out a Window (6/30/18)

When all the cryptic weirdness surrounding dmaorg.info sprung up nearly two months ago, everyone was extremely hyped. So much content! So many theories! It really felt like hiatus was over.

There was just one problem: there were no new songs licensed or registered under the band’s name, which meant nothing was coming out. Rabid music fans have known for years that there is truly no such thing as a “surprise” music release: for legal reasons, almost all song titles show up on online registries several days, if not weeks, before they are made available to the public. And, indeed, after the initial wave of teases wrapped up, the Clique returned to a quasi-hiatus state, punctuated only by the occasional addition to the Dema lore.

This Thursday, June 28, that all changed. Let’s talk about it. 

This Week’s TØPics:

Finally, Some Good F*cking Food: Two New Song Titles Registered

Dema Recap: Cheetahs and Trenches and Cryptic Nonsense, Oh My!

One Year Later: What Do We Really Know About This Hiatus?

Editorial: When the Discourse Gets Too Much (and When It’s Just What We Need)

Major News and Announcements:

In the biggest piece of real news that we’ve received since the hiatus, two new song titles have been registered on the PPL music licensing database: “Nico and the Niners” and “Jumpsuit”. This is a highly reputable source, and not even truly a “leak” as so many have called it. The pages are managed directly by labels’ legal teams to ensure that anyone who wishes to play music in their media, advertisements, or establishments knows what songs are licensed to which artists and what steps to take to legally license them. “Heathens” was first spotted here over two years ago, not to mention countless other songs from various other artists. The two songs were just removed from the day after they were found listing, but Reddit detectives have already discovered untitled tracks with the same registration codes listed under an unknown Warner artist (ya’ll ain’t slick).

The fact that this posting was accompanied by further activity from the band only confirms that there’s some real nonsense going on. Not only did we get new Dema content (which we’ll get to) but, perhaps even more wild, Tyler Robert Joseph liked something on Instagram. Dude’s alive.

In all seriousness, Tyler Joseph’s social media habits do little to help us understand just what the hell “Nico and the Niners” is. The bigger story (and the one I’ve been slacking on reporting the last two months, my bad) is the sporadic updates to dmaorg.info. Back in early May, we got our first bit of content after the initial reveal in the form of a new letter from Clancy. The letter itself is a pretty well-written YA protagonist internal monologue, with Clancy yearning to find a place that truly feels like home outside the walls of Dema. But, Tyler being Tyler, there’s more to it than that: the date attached to the paragraph matches that of the band’s last social media post, and missing letters from throughout the note together spell out the coded message “You are still sleeping.”

The second update, posted in late May, is this lovely gif of a cheetah running under letters moving in a quick sequence. After slowing it down, the letters spell out the message “U still don’t know his real name do u?” Again, there’s much more to the post when you take the time to dig in. The listed date matches Josh’s appearance at the APMAs, the first mention of Dema. The file name for the gif is “3lurr” meaning the “he” in the question may in fact be Blurryface. Most significantly, the spaces between this message’s words were filled with letters that, when taken out separately and placed in sequence, repeatedly spell out “Nico,” perhaps answering the gif’s own rhetorical question.

So who is Nico? Well, it matches the names of one of the nine bishops in the “Compass” picture from April, which would seem to make him one of the ‘niners” who rule Dema. It’s increasingly looking like this album is really going to double down on covering a weird and fleshed out concept rife with metaphors, and I. Am. Here for it (as long as the music’s, ya know, good).

The final (for now) Dema post was released just yesterday in the wake of all of the sudden new activity. It is the first photo that seems to be wholly original, with no one as yet having tracked down where it’s from. It’s a pretty badass image, with twenty-one (goddammit) figures standing at the edge of some cliff or pit. Some have speculated that this could be album artwork, and it would certainly make for a very good cover. But that’s just the surface.

The image’s jpg name is an assortment of letters that, when deciphered using a basic alphabet sequence code, translates into “Trench”- possibly another new song? BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! Typing that jpg number sequence or “trench” into the “violation code” section of the dmaorg.info url reveals a heavily-distorted audio clip. Sound engineers on Twitter and Reddit have tried reversing and pitch correcting the snippet, but have not truly succeeded in deriving anything from it beyond that it seems to be Tyler singing “So did they obey/bury you?” But what he’s saying honestly doesn’t matter to me half as much as this fact: after over a year, we finally got to hear Tyler Joseph’s voice. That’s got me on Cloud Nine, baby. 

Pictured: The Clique (I know I used this joke last time, sue me)

So what does all of this cryptic nonsense and Reddit deciphering ultimately tell us? Frankly, it’ll be hard to say until we actually have our hands and ears on new music. The Clique has compiled so many different theories about what these little snippets of photos and garbled words mean that there’s no way they can all be true. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that there was an actual plan for this roll-out stretching back at least a year and that Tyler is not (as some salty fans have suggested) just throwing out a bunch of “fake deep trash.” Each piece of the Dema content has matched up in some way with the lyrics from the shutting eyes last year:

“You’ll have to come and find me.” -> The original discovery of the website.

“My pretty sleeper.” -> The “You are still sleeping” hidden message.

“Wouldn’t it be great if we could just lay down...” -> “...and wake up in Slowtown” (and slow down the cheetah gif).

“I will fear the night again...” -> “[I hope I’m] not my only friend.” (the caption for the cliff picture)

Beyond all of that, the revelation of “Nico and the Niners” being part of the actual album should be taken as a real source of validation for all of those Reddit warriors out there: At least some of this stuff means something. (Now wtf is “Jumpsuit” about...)

Other Shenanigans:

Potential leaks from radio stations and some common sense theories have pegged a single release for the band as coming in the next two weeks, either July 6th or 13th. With all that in mind, I thought we’d look back on the weird conspiracy chart I’ve been keeping in my closet and recap what exactly we know about the band’s activities over the last year. 

The short answer is: not much. After Josh’s performance at the APMAs, there have been no interviews, no public appearances, no social media posts. Josh has certainly been much more active than Tyler, which just makes sense for his much-less introverted personality. He contributed drums to Lights’ last album (though those recordings were done well before the hiatus). He apparently hopped into the studio with Drake Bell, (though I have no idea if any of that music has seen the light of day). He’s been fine taking group photos with Fueled by Ramen colleagues, other friends from the music industry, and, of course, Debby, who he almost definitely is back with. As for Tyler... well, beyond a few Jenna photos from a few months back and the odd fan encounter, there’s been nothing, which is why that eight second audio clip hit me like a Mack truck. 

There are a few other things the truly obsessed have been able to find that I don’t necessarily want to reward by reposting here- I really want to try to keep it about the art. But we can pretty safely guess from Jenna and Jordan’s social media that the duo have been in Columbus, LA, and New York together a few times the last few months, likely for studio sessions and label meetings. Perhaps we’ll find out more about what transpired during the “hiatus” in the weeks and months to come, perhaps not. One thing’s for sure: it’s finally, finally (almost) over. 

Editorial:

The last note I wanted to leave everyone on is something a little different for this blog, but still something I still think is worth talking about. Anyone who has been visiting the Twenty One Pilots tags on any site over the last several months can tell that the fanbase has not been taking the band’s absence well. And I’m not just talking the usual overblown crying for new music or young kids worshiping their idols a little too much. That’s always been there. This is different.

A whole host of the old crowd- the update accounts, the podcast hosts, the quasi-groupies who got barricade every night- have turned pretty hard from the band, particularly from Tyler. Some just have no interest in the music of Twenty One Pilots in the year 2018 AD; they’ve discovered other topics, other genres, other artists that speak more personally to where they are in life, and have just moved on. Others have expressed deeply personal distaste for the band itself for a whole host of political and social reasons that I’m not going to get into here- that’s a debate for another time, and probably for another account.

The point is, digging through social media to try to find updates and memes has been difficult when the most dependable sources also pepper in jab at whether Tyler’s learned to carry burdens yet every few posts. And while those folks are certainly more than entitled to their opinions and feelings (I even agree with many of them), it’s hard to deny that there are large swathes of the Twenty One Pilots’ fandom that just aren’t much fun to be in right now, just like there’s large swathes of the world in general where it feels like we’re not permitted to assume the best in people and just be happy with the things that used to make us happy. For a few weeks, I’ve honestly been wondering if I wanted to keep running this account in the next era. I just wanted to go back to the time before I had to share Twenty One Pilots with the world, when this was just my band, the one that made me feel understood and valid and worthy at a time where nothing else really did

Sasha Geffen’s insightful and deeply personal piece on the band’s music for AV Club, which focuses on how Tyler Joseph depicts and discusses suicidal depression, helped bring me back to that time. Music journalists have frequently gotten everything wrong about Tyler Joseph’s songwriting, to the point where I have often felt like they were listening to different music than me. But Geffen gets it. She sees that Tyler does not talk down to his audience about the problems they’re dealing with; he’s always been right there with us, and always offering concrete and practical ways of getting through depression one day at a time. He’s an insightful and compassionate dude, way more than people give him credit for, and it shows in his art. I had almost forgotten that. I needed that reminder right now, before everything ramps up again. I hope that article offers some comfort for any of you who also want to remember why this band is still so special, all these years later.

See you all (hopefully) next week. Power to the local dreamer.

|-/

[makingscipub]

Epigenetics: Grappling with definitions

Definitions of epigenetics are notoriously slippery. This does not seem to hamper basic research. But it might hamper public understanding.

The words ‘epigenetics’ and ‘epigenetic’ have undergone quite substantial changes in meaning over time, leading up to a meaning which is now popular but open to misinterpretation. This history and increasing confusion has been charted, for example, by Haig, Deichmann, Greally, Henikoff and Greally, Deans and Maggert and many more.

But what do we mean by public understanding of epigenetics? We refer here not only to how people in the street might understand the word and concept  (most people have, however, never heard the word before), but also academic ‘publics’, including medical doctors, philosophers, sociologists (of science), policy analysts, advertisers etc., indeed anybody not actively carrying out research in epigenetics… How is this public understanding shaped and on what conceptions of epigenetics, or indeed misconceptions of epigenetics, is it built?

In this blog post we, that is Aleksandra Stelmach and I, will only be able to dip our toes into this topic, which will be tackled in more detail in an academic article in the future.

Epigenetics on Twitter

While we were thinking about issues around meanings and definitions of epigenetics in academia and elsewhere, we came across an exchange on Twitter which can be seen as a sort of microcosm of debates about definitions of epigenetics (mainly amongst academic twitterati) that might provide some insights into understandings, misunderstandings and attempts at understanding through the use of metaphors and analogies.

It all started with a tweet posted on 27 August 2018 by Christina Farr (Reporter at @CNBC.com with a focus on health and tech) asking: “anyone have a super simple explanation of what ‘epigenetics’ is? I’ve been paying with a few ideas, but I think you guys can do better. Shoot…” And people shot! There were around fifty replies.

Reviewing definitions

One reply/thread was by John Greally who is very active on twitter dispelling myths and misconceptions about epigenetics.

His thread recounts the history of definitions of epigenetics, from a developmental to a molecular one, leading up to the most recent but most misleading one: … “(5) Then the era of genomic biochemistry exploded, and a lot of regulators of the genome started to become discovered. Needing a name for this, the biochemists back-translated #epigenetics to epi-above/upon-genetics DNA sequence.” “(6) This definition covers every single genomic regulator, as we’ve thrown out the requirement that processes be heritable through cell division. The one regulator we don’t include, oddly, as it probably drives most #epigenetic processes, is transcription factors”.

We won’t go into the scientific intricacies of this explanation (but comments welcome, especially from biochemists), but we want to stress that this back-translation is very popular in academia, and we have employed it ourselves.

It is also used in the Wikipedia article on epigenetics, which, a few days later, provoked some debate, with John Greally remarking: “The wikipedia definition is based on the genomic biochemists’ epi+genetics travesty of a back-translation, with a tincture of heritability, a tip of the hat to cell differentiation, no wonder people are confused.” The wiki article itself would also deserve some analysis in the future! But back to Greally’s thread in answer to Christina Farr’s question.

As people had already begun to supply definitions, he warned her that “(8) The responses you’re getting to your question are focused on the epi+genetics definition. We can’t do simple let alone super-simple for you, when the term #epigenetics is ambiguous even for people working the field. To claim otherwise is misleading.” He put it more forcefully in 2016 when he said: “The shift in use of #epigenetics from developmental to molecular biology completely screwed the definition”.

Apart from the long thread supplied by Greally, what are the other answers to Christina Farr’s questions about a simple definition of epigenetics? The responses can be roughly grouped into three (as far as we can judge): those staying within mainstream of epigenetic science, those straying beyond mainstream of epigenetic science, and those providing metaphors and analogies.

Venturing beyond mainstream science

Lamarck

The first tweet we saw just said: “Lamarckian theory updated”. This view of epigenetics is widespread in some parts of academia, especially ‘bio-adjacent fields’, including the philosophy and sociology of science/biology, influenced in part by scientists like Jablonka, Laland, and Szyf, for example. Most recently, Peter Ward, a paleontologist, has written a book based on this hypothesis entitled Lamarck’s Revenge.

Genes and genomes

This nod to Lamarckism is often linked to a rejection of some central tenets of mainstream genetics and genomics, especially a view attributed to classical genomics, namely that genes/genomes are fixed and rigid entities. It is then claimed that after the advent of epigenetics, we can finally see them what they are, namely flexible, reactive and dynamic entities. As one tweeter writes: “How your so-called unchangeable genes can change? The answer is epigenetics”.

Nature and nurture

Szyf is mentioned in a response that focuses on nature and nurture, also a strong talking point in sociological research into epigenetics. “Nurture impacts nature: life events alter your DNA, and you pass these changes along from generation to generation. See TED talk by Dr. Moshe Szyf”.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is a recurrent topic in sociological writing, and also in biological writings that influence it. Here we find, for example, speculations about how social experiences can be passed down generations of humans, a hypothesis that is widely criticised by working scientists, such as Kevin Mitchell and Jerry Coyne for example.

One tweeter writes: “An organism’s environment can have an effect on what genes are expressed, and those changes can be passed down to later generations!” The next tweet goes even further! “On a slightly different direction, I think some of the deep emotions we experience are actually epigenetic memories from emotions experienced by our ancestors”…..And this one goes further still: “Epigenetics from ancient Indian spiritual tradition: Every thought, word, and action leaves an imprint on our DNA- that can be manifested in our life or future family’s life”….

But…

As PZ Myers said in a blog post from 2015, epigenetics deals with “mechanisms that modify the expression of a genetic signal”. Gaining insight into these mechanisms is essential for understanding life, development and disease, from cells upwards. This is also important in evolutionary terms, as “gene expression is constantly being tweaked and modified” prompted by environmental triggers. But this does not mean, he stresses, that “you can explain a complex, higher-level psychological phenomenon like resentment of your mother” by reducing it to “a chemical reaction”!

And so we come to more mainstream science definitions (as far as we can tell).

Staying within mainstream science

Classic definition

One tweeter rehearses one of the most wide-spread definitions: “Epigenetics describes how gene expression changes occur without changes to the DNA sequence.” Another points out: “Post-translational modifications that direct gene expression. But since the modifications aren’t inheritable, it’s not really genetics.”

Cells

Others focus, rightly, on cells: “All of our cells have the same DNA – but epigenetics provides the next level of instructions to distinguish between a beating cell in the heart and a breathing cell in the lung.” And: “Genetics maintains information across an organism’s lineage. Epigenetics maintains information across a cell’s lineage.” And: “Cells in the body come from one fertilized egg. Epigenetics refers to the changes of gene expression of each cell as it specializes to function as part of a tissue. This is a fascinating journey for each cell & terrifying when the cell stops following the rules producing cancer!”

Environment

Another tweet focuses on the influence of the environment: “How environment impacts the expression of genetics. You can be ‘genetically pre-disposed’ to something but may never actually experience it unless the triggers are there. A example of this is Celiac Disease: a number of ppl have g-intolerance but don’t express signs for years.” Another points out: “Genes that ‘switch on’ based on environmental factors. For example, average coyote litter size increases when the local coyote population is under stress.” This brings us to metaphors and analogies…

Metaphors and analogies

Some of the metaphors and analogies used to define epigenetics are well-known and rooted in older ones, familiar from genetics and genomics, some are more creative.

Computer

Two tweets use computer metaphors: “Computer analogy – genome is hardware, epigenome is software (which can be changed)” and, the other way round: “Genetics is the software. Epigenetics is the user profile.”

Switch

Many definitions of epigenetics have been linked to the on/off switch metaphor (see Stelmach and Nerlich, 2015). One tweeter just said: “Turning genes on and off.” Whereupon another replied: “Specifically, it involves the factors that manipulate DNA’s 3D conformation / accessibility so that different genes can be turned on (expressed) or off (silenced).” Another tweet links the switch metaphor to the script metaphor: “Genes alone aren’t able to explain differences in genetic scripts. Something turns them on and off—epigenetics studies the driver’s of change”.

Book

So we come to various book, script and language metaphors: “If genome is a recipe book and all cells have a copy, how does each cell know which recipes to use? Only skin cells need recipe to make pigment, for example. Epigenomics provides ‘post-it notes’ in the recipe book, so each cell only uses the right recipes”. “I always liked the idea that epigenetic marks (themselves only one aspect of epigenetics) are ‘annotations’ to the genome–they don’t change the text itself, but they affect how it’s interpreted. Maybe that’s too high-falutin’, but I find it clarifying.” “It’s like putting an accent on your words where genetics is changing the language.” “Hollywood analogy: DNA is the script (fixed) – epigenetics are the actors (variables that influence the end product)”.

Music

Some tweeters homed in the ‘music of life’ metaphor. One wrote: “The musical score vs how you play it.” Another said, on a similar note: “genetics are the keys on the piano, epigenetics are the songs that are played”, and got the reply: “So is the piano the Proteome then?! :)”, and the first one retorted: “yes haha brilliant! and the pedals microbiome?!” expanding the metaphor into a little bit of absurdity perhaps!

Creative metaphors

There were however some tweeters who were more creative in their metaphor/analogy use: One defined epigenetics as: “Levers that affect gene expression. e.g., A tortilla, meat, salsa, avocado,…thrown on a plate do not become a delicious taco. Those things that can affect how the taco tastes (how meat is cooked, temperature, order & amount of ingredients,…) is epigenetics.” Others wrote: “Regulating genes without changing them. It’s like being a parent or a pet owner.” “How we are wired is the primer, the environment pulls the trigger and fate does the rest…..or something like that” and finally: “Bowling analogy: Genome sets up the pins, epigenetics tells you what knocks them down.”

There was also a tweet that engaged in wordplay: “Or: ‘It matters not only what genes you have but also how you wear them’”. Very nice!

What is epigenetics and who can define it?

As we have seen, many people threw a definitions of epigenetics into the ring after Christina Farr asked her question, but what to make of these definitions? Can one classify them as we did? What about the metaphors and analogies? Do they illuminate or obscure? Comments welcome!

Some tweeters engaged with these questions and wrote: “These responses seriously make my head hurt. Not everything can or should be summed up by a catchy analogy. Some topics really aren’t all that simple…”. Another attached a picture of a quote by Haruki Murakami: “Some things in life are too complicated to explain in any language” – and in any metaphor?

There was also some reflection on who contributed definitions and metaphors. Somebody said in not too complimentary terms: “the chasm between what bio-adjacent people think (I am including a lot of MDs who are not doing research but ended up commenting about ‘epigenetics’ […]) and what is actually true is kind of amazing..”

The concept of ‘bio-adjacent people’ is intriguing and one should perhaps look at this more closely in the context of the emergence of bio-social research agendas based on various interpretations of epigenetics. This still leaves the question: is there a true definition of epigenetics?

The ‘truest’ one might be this one, provided in answer to Christina Farr’s question: “A very nascent (and often over-hyped) study of the ways a gene expresses an organism’s characteristics”.

It is important to monitor emerging and changing definitions, meanings and misconception of epigenetics that circulate in the public sphere, including academia, in order to see through what’s hype and what’s reality. This small analysis of a Twitter conversation provides some insights into what’s ‘out there’.

Image: Pixabay

  The post Epigenetics: Grappling with definitions appeared first on Making Science Public.

via Making Science Public https://ift.tt/2orrHEM