推特上的科學家們正在用標簽“BillMeetScienceTwitter”向著名的電視主持人比爾•奈（Bill Nye）做自我介紹。他們的目標是在擁有大量Twitter追隨者的科學界名人（如Nye或Neil deGrasse Tyson）和盡最大努力向公眾宣傳他們的研究成果的科學家之間激發更多的合作。而這一努力可能已經奏效：週五晚上，比爾·奈（Bill Nye）又回敬了一句“問候”。

Twitter運動是在沮喪中誕生的。它始於海洋生物學家梅麗莎·馬奎茲（Melissa Marquez）每週從一個名為@biotweeps的新科學家主持的Twitter集體賬戶發推特。

這個問題引發了一場對話，討論這些科學界名人是否可以做更多的工作來承認他們專業知識的侷限性，或者利用他們令人羨慕的平臺來吸收該領域專家的各種聲音。抱怨早在二月份就開始了類似的推特活動。“實際科學家”這個標簽的靈感來源於一項調查，調查顯示，大多數受訪者無法說出一位真正在世的科學家的名字。那些有能力的人，絕大多數都叫男人——NDT和Nye(NDT擁有天體物理學博士學位，Nye擁有機械工程本科學位。）

研究非洲野狗的研究生丹尼·拉拜奧蒂（Dani Rabaiotti）在Twitter上的一條直接訊息中對《邊緣報》說：“僅僅因為你是科學家，並不意味著你就成為了所有科學領域的專家。”。創造了BillMeetScienceTwitter標簽的昆蟲學博士生道爾頓•路德維克（Dalton Ludwick）在給《邊緣》的一封電子郵件中指出，當天體物理學家對生物學發表意見時，將“科學家”作為一個廣義的頭銜可能會引發問題。

正如雷切爾·費爾特曼（Rachel Feltman）為《*****》（Washington Post）撰文所說，NDT去年發出的這條痛苦的性推文忽視了廣闊的生物世界，它們以一種無法感覺良好的方式交配——至少，正如我們人類所理解的那樣。鴨子有可怕的九英寸螺旋形**。雄性巨型魷魚交配時會刺傷伴侶。”如果他在Twitter上諮詢了一位科學家同事，那麼他可能就避免了這樣的錯誤，”Ludwick在談到Twitter時說(Ludwick說他沒有很好的理由將標簽指向Nye，而不是deGrasse Tyson。）

但是，也許問題是這些著名的科學界人士並不瞭解活躍的科學推特社群。這就是為什麼科學推特覺得是時候自我介紹了，以及它非常具體的專業領域。

“這是一種‘嘿，我們在這裡，我們都是不同的性別和種族，做各種各樣的科學，’”拉拜奧蒂說[如果你需要我們的專業知識，儘管問。”

爬蟲學家大衛·斯泰恩也同意這種說法他們創造了這樣一種想法，那就是隻有他們。如果他們把科學家的聲音和Twitter賬號放大到他們數百萬的追隨者中，“這將徹底改變科學傳播的格局，”Steen說推特上的許多科學家都在那裡進行科學交流，你可以成為世界上最好的科學交流者，[但是]如果沒有人聽，那就沒關係了。”

奈似乎一直在聽。星期五晚上，在競選活動開始不到24小時後，他向這個標簽點頭致意。然後他開始轉發那些打過招呼的科學家。

Steen說NDT和Nye做得很好，他並不吝惜他們的成功。”我承認我很想有這樣的平臺我不一定覺得我嫉妒，但我肯定很感激他們所做的一切。”

Ludwick承認，有這麼多的追隨者伴隨著自身的壓力。”他說：“就個人而言，我並不羨慕比爾和尼爾擁有的龐大平臺。”有這麼多人時刻盯著你，任何錯誤都會放大。”

他補充說，這個標簽並不是針對Nye或NDT的攻擊。相反，關鍵是要讓他們知道同行的科學家存在，他們有很多話要說，他們是一個偉大的來源，準確的科學資訊。奈好像聽說了。所以，即使你的名字不是比爾或尼爾，也要見見一些推特科學家：

更新5月19日，美國東部時間晚上9:15：這篇報道已經更新，包括比爾·奈對“BillMeetScienceTwitter”活動的回應。

美國東部時間5月22日上午9:35更新：5月21日，Neil deGrasse Tyson在我們的報道中添加了以下評論：

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