Great post by Julianne over at Cosmic Variance today. In the comments, Mighty Biff asks somewhat drolly if the brains behind the carbon-56 moniker were aware of the latest rare isotope research from our facility. I just checked the Chart of Isotopes down the hall from my office and it looks like carbon-22, existing for all of 9 milliseconds, might be the last stop before the oblivion of the dripline. (But the chart is a few years old, so someone oughta fact-check me.) Presumably most of those hawking several-hundred-dollar-per-square-foot condos aren't up on their protons and neutrons, so maybe it's not such a severe gaffe.

Of course, it's something of a cottage industry among the science intelligentsia to spoof examples of misunderstanding or outright ignorance. Julianne says she cringes at the sign, presumably because it reflects such an obvious physical impossibility. What I always find more galling is when folks are ostensibly interested and take the time to ask questions about isotope science and then still fumble the basics.

Last year, MSU's student newspaper The State News covered the story of new magnet technology being developed at our laboratory. I recognize that for the uninitiated, experimental nuclear science is heavy lifting. I certainly feel every ounce of the practical limitations of my lowly B.A. in economics every time I sit down to interview one of our faculty members. Still, the nuts and bolts of what the facility is all about -- using coupled cyclotrons to accelerate nuclei, smash them into a target and filter, measure and otherwise study the resulting reaction products -- are straightforward enough. At least I thought they were until I read this zinger in The State News story:

"A cyclotron is a device that spins around faster than half the speed of light."

This caused no end of laughter and groans for those here. However, having done time briefly under the tyranny of a daily deadline, I have some real sympathy for the reporter. And the fact that her primary source of information was yours truly makes me cringe -- and much more about my performance as lab PIO than her accuracy as a reporter.

The upshot is that the mistake caused some extended dialogue about the lab and science coverage generally, including from one State News reader who weighed in urging the newspaper to hire some sort of scientific advisor. Maybe the job of a science writer is to use mistakes like this as both a source of some mirth and, if you'll forgive one of the most overused cliches in higher-ed, a teachable moment?

When facts get in the way there always is fiction. Sci-fi buffs should certainly check out my colleague Zach's description of his experience as a guest speaker the ConFusion event recently in Ann Arbor. If anyone wants to see if slides, let us know and we'll be happy to post them here.