推特上的科学家们正在用标签“BillMeetScienceTwitter”向著名的电视主持人比尔•奈（Bill Nye）做自我介绍。他们的目标是在拥有大量Twitter追随者的科学界名人（如Nye或Neil deGrasse Tyson）和尽最大努力向公众宣传他们的研究成果的科学家之间激发更多的合作。而这一努力可能已经奏效：周五晚上，比尔·奈（Bill Nye）又回敬了一句“问候”。

Twitter运动是在沮丧中诞生的。它始于海洋生物学家梅丽莎·马奎兹（Melissa Marquez）每周从一个名为@biotweeps的新科学家主持的Twitter集体账户发推特。

这个问题引发了一场对话，讨论这些科学界名人是否可以做更多的工作来承认他们专业知识的局限性，或者利用他们令人羡慕的平台来吸收该领域专家的各种声音。抱怨早在二月份就开始了类似的推特活动。“实际科学家”这个标签的灵感来源于一项调查，调查显示，大多数受访者无法说出一位真正在世的科学家的名字。那些有能力的人，绝大多数都叫男人——NDT和Nye(NDT拥有天体物理学博士学位，Nye拥有机械工程本科学位。）

研究非洲野狗的研究生丹尼·拉拜奥蒂（Dani Rabaiotti）在Twitter上的一条直接消息中对《边缘报》说：“仅仅因为你是科学家，并不意味着你就成为了所有科学领域的专家。”。创造了BillMeetScienceTwitter标签的昆虫学博士生道尔顿•路德维克（Dalton Ludwick）在给《边缘》的一封电子邮件中指出，当天体物理学家对生物学发表意见时，将“科学家”作为一个广义的头衔可能会引发问题。

正如雷切尔·费尔特曼（Rachel Feltman）为《*****》（Washington Post）撰文所说，NDT去年发出的这条痛苦的性推文忽视了广阔的生物世界，它们以一种无法感觉良好的方式交配——至少，正如我们人类所理解的那样。鸭子有可怕的九英寸螺旋形**。雄性巨型鱿鱼交配时会刺伤伴侣。”如果他在Twitter上咨询了一位科学家同事，那么他可能就避免了这样的错误，”Ludwick在谈到Twitter时说(Ludwick说他没有很好的理由将标签指向Nye，而不是deGrasse Tyson。）

但是，也许问题是这些著名的科学界人士并不了解活跃的科学推特社区。这就是为什么科学推特觉得是时候自我介绍了，以及它非常具体的专业领域。

“这是一种‘嘿，我们在这里，我们都是不同的性别和种族，做各种各样的科学，’”拉拜奥蒂说[如果你需要我们的专业知识，尽管问。”

爬虫学家大卫·斯泰恩也同意这种说法他们创造了这样一种想法，那就是只有他们。如果他们把科学家的声音和Twitter账号放大到他们数百万的追随者中，“这将彻底改变科学传播的格局，”Steen说推特上的许多科学家都在那里进行科学交流，你可以成为世界上最好的科学交流者，[但是]如果没有人听，那就没关系了。”

奈似乎一直在听。星期五晚上，在竞选活动开始不到24小时后，他向这个标签点头致意。然后他开始转发那些打过招呼的科学家。

Steen说NDT和Nye做得很好，他并不吝惜他们的成功。”我承认我很想有这样的平台我不一定觉得我嫉妒，但我肯定很感激他们所做的一切。”

Ludwick承认，有这么多的追随者伴随着自身的压力。”他说：“就个人而言，我并不羡慕比尔和尼尔拥有的庞大平台。”有这么多人时刻盯着你，任何错误都会放大。”

他补充说，这个标签并不是针对Nye或NDT的攻击。相反，关键是要让他们知道同行的科学家存在，他们有很多话要说，他们是一个伟大的来源，准确的科学信息。奈好像听说了。所以，即使你的名字不是比尔或尼尔，也要见见一些推特科学家：

更新5月19日，美国东部时间晚上9:15：这篇报道已经更新，包括比尔·奈对“BillMeetScienceTwitter”活动的回应。

美国东部时间5月22日上午9:35更新：5月21日，Neil deGrasse Tyson在我们的报道中添加了以下评论：

If it matters to anyone, approximately half of the media requests I receive are to comment on science news that falls outside of my professional expertise — and I decline 100% of them. Most recently with CBS News about emergent gene editing CRISPR tools.

And even when the request falls within my expertise, I require network news (and other outlets with resources) to find the people whose research they are reporting on, and then, if still interested, return to me, where I am happy to tie a bow on the significance of the research to us all.

What happens occasionally is, after the interview covers the intended subject, I get asked about other subjects, where I am happy to comment to the extent of my knowledge. I have a stable of scientists who feed me some of the latest developments in their fields, knowing that I will occasionally find myself in situati*** where I’ll be asked to comment.

Further, my StarTalk Radio Show just spun off a branch of itself called StarTalk Allstars, which showcases science as brought to you by scientists who have boundless enthusia** for bringing their field to the public, but most of whom did not have a platform to do so. Now in its second season, we are enthusiastic about this.

Additionally, I did not participate in the Science March because it was a ready-made platform for people you may not have heard of yet who have deeply important messages to convey. I will also be unfindable by the press during the Great American Solar Eclipse of August 21, 2017 because, once again, it’s a ready made platform for others to shine — forcing the media to find the thousands of people they might not otherwise reach for, but who have the needed expertise to comment on the event. This includes ******* astronomy groups, local planetarium directors, community college science professors, etc.

Lastly, however delusional this may be to me, or may sound to you, I actually look forward to the day when there are so many science popularizers out there that I can just back away unnoticed, permanently leaving this space that I occupy.

I am, and have always been, a servant of the public’s interest in science.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil deGrasse Tyson, New York City

p.s. As for the sex tweet, it should have said, "where both partners are in pain at the same time while having sex". That was my intended meaning. But the urge to criticize the post was so strong that this intent was never c***idered. Meanwhile, I have yet to learn of an example in the sexually reproducing world of animals for which this is true. I didn’t purse this in social media. Instead I used the critical commentary as a lesson for myself that for many people the urge to declare something is false exceeds the urge to explore how something can be true. I now word my Tweets in ways that leave no room for more than one interpretation. FYI: Same thing happened with my Helicopter Tweet, in which I declared that a plane with failed engines is a glider, while a helicopter with failed engines is a brick. Helicopter people were quick to criticize that if you shut off your engines, and the propellers are free to spin, you can execute a controlled descent, with the spinning blades providing some needed buoyancy. None of the critics c***idered the intended case where the blades stopped rotating altogether. -NDT