I don’t know if this is the worst or the best thing ever (vote in the comments?) but the lyrics are catchy enough (not the chorus — oh god not the chorus) that I kind of hope a more-skilled producer will take this on. In its current incarnation, it’s, I gather, intended to be a viral video promoting Polar Palooza – a “multimedia initiative – supported by both NSF and NASA – involving researchers, Alaskan natives, in-person presentations at science centers and natural history museums, video and audio podcasts, and more.”

Take AIM at Climate Change

And anyone who doesn’t recognize the power of video / YouTube to disseminate scientific information needs to check themselves before they wreck themselves: The LHC Rap video has 4.3 million views to date on YouTube:

When I haven’t been helping filmmaker John Pavlus make videos for Nature, I’ve been collaborating with him on a fun, accessible, but thoroughly researched weekly science show called Grand Unified Weekly. (It’s an outgrowth of a series he used to do for Scientific American, called The Monitor.)

As 2008 wound wound down, we started cranking out episodes of the show, one a week, all of which you can watch on the homepage of Grand Unified Weekly. Somewhere in the middle of that, the global economy collapses.

Also, surprise surprise, science, no matter how much you sex it up, remains a niche interest. So a week ago the really lovely people at SlateV, as politely as possible, let us know that the budget for the show just can’t be justified in this climate, at this level of viewership. Totally understandable. Here’s the summary, courtesy of the Columbia Journalism Review:

Slate V Puts Weekly Science Roundup On Hold
“Grand Unified Weekly” shelved despite positive response from audiences

But here’s the thing: The show is only three months old. We’re on episode 11 (and it’s weekly).

That’s the half-life of a product on the web. It’s hit-driven, expectations run high, and budgets are tight. Everything has to start justifying its existence sooner rather than later because, frankly, unless you’re charging people for content (like Nature) no one really knows how anything other than, say, blogging and aggregation, is ever going to be self-sustaining on the web. It’s a temporary situation, I’m sure, but I can’t help but wonder if the future of science media isn’t almost entirely composed of either journals like Nature, whose primary interest is not, after all news; blogs; and the barely re-written press releases that comprise most science journalism these days.

If anyone knows a science or tech company that has the courage to sponsor a critically-acclaimed show, drop me a line. Seriously.

(Directed / produced by John Pavlus, co-produced by Christopher Mims, with lots of help from nearly a dozen scientists spread across three labs, as well as Adam Rutherford, Charlotte Stoddart and Veronique Kiermer at Nature. Editing by Andrew Cahill, camera by Steve Andrada.)

Hi everyone, my name’s Christopher, and I’m the co-founder of the production company that created, in collaboration with Nature Methods, a short film on Nature’s Method of the Year, which is Super-Resolution Microscopy.

Before your eyes glaze over, just watch the video — hopefully it speaks for itself.

If it leaves you wanting more, I thought I’d provide a few notes on the film, and also welcome all of you to give John Pavlus (who, as the only actual filmmaker at Small Mammal, is solely responsible for any watchability a film on a subject this dense possesses) and myself your feedback — good and bad — in the comments of this post.