I admittedly hadn't realized it could get to quite this high in costs. Thinking to some of our most prolific researchers in my department, I realize now that there could easily be a bit of a self perpetuating cycle: the labs/researchers who have the largest grants, then have the greatest flexibility to pay publication fees, which then, of course, helps drive their momentum for more grants.

This is so simply but powerfully put. Money doesn't equate to innovative thinking and moonshot solutions to health, climate, etc. challenges. But, by keeping cutting-edge research under lock and key, there's no real opportunity to level the playing field or forge collaborations with, say, early-career scientists and researchers who might be particularly positioned to think outside the box.

It's funny, I actually never once thought of it this way – that so much (I would assume, the majority, but I don't know for sure) of published work is backed by taxpayer dollars in the form of federally administered grants, so to keep it behind a paywall does seem like a form of denying taxpayers access to the research they helped fund.

This is actually really helpful to flag in this because I had never thought of sending slides in advances as an accessibility need, per se. I honestly viewed it more as a convenience or perk for guests, which reflects the fact that I never actually stopped to think how big a difference this must make to anyone who has any accessibility request whatsoever – not just from a audiovisual accessibility standpoint or an IT standpoint, but also, for those who might face language barriers (which is ESPECIALLY significant in the sciences because I've spoken to many researchers who grew up with a non-English language as their primary language, who then went on to study in an English speaking country, and were later invited back to present in a country that speaks their primary language and they realized they had to basically learn all the terminology in what is otherwise their primary language. In other words, it's not even just a help to those whose primary language may not be English, rather, anyone who is multilingual (or, of course, anyone who is less familiar with science terminology) may not necessarily follow any science terms, etc. referenced as easily, so having slides in advance could help bridge this communication gap.

A thousand times yes to this point. I can't even count how many times I've told my colleagues at work that we need to implement ADA-compliant practices from the get-go because a.) we simply can't view omitting portions of the population as an option, and b.) however much "time" we may feel it takes to add alt text and incorporate other practices is still significantly less time than it would require us to go back and add in those elements after the fact. If we build the habits right off the bat, it will become second nature.

Wow, I'm both embarrassed and so appreciative that they pointed this out because I manage social media as part of my role at work (and I've been in at least half a dozen social media trainings that touched on ADA topics) and no one has actually ever pointed out to me that, in hashtags, capitalization matters for readers. I actually was kind of led to believe that hashtags are more or less bad all around for ADA – and my understanding is they are when they're overused in the body of the actual tweet – but this little fact is helpful both for ADA compliance and for realizing I don't actually need to nix them altogether, either.

I love this note about emphasizing the difference between "wheelchair bound" and what wheelchairs really represent – which is the means by which someone with a particularly disability that limits their mobility uses to increase their access. A lot of this language (and the Language, Please discussion) really seems to highlight how semantics – even just a single word or the order in which a word is used – could completely change the tone from negative to positive or vice versa. In addition to how this either perpetuates or combats stigma, it also reframes a reader's/viewer's/listener's mindset away from viewing something as "bad" or "good."

– Alyssa Tomlinson

This is so interesting to me because (as I mentioned in my discussion post) I only just found out about a "Person-First Language" resource by way of someone who offered feedback about a workshop title (addressing obesity) organized by an external partner organization. The person who reached out to me was very insightful and cordial in her interaction, and she also explained her background knowledge and education in "Person First Language," and yet it hadn't even dawned on me in my interaction with her that there might also be opposing views by others who identify as part of the group for whom she was speaking. It really drives home the importance of remembering that there are different perspectives and no one perspective is the "right" or "wrong" perspective.

– Alyssa Tomlinson

I had never thought of this analogy but this is so effective – almost laughably so. This makes so much sense and is almost quite sad to think about how this could be the experience for those whose lives are impacted by other medical conditions, it's just a matter of how they are taken into consideration (or, not) by society.

– Alyssa Tomlinson

I also think that by simplifying this this way – by describing it as "you take a little bit of the bad guy" and put it into your body, it might actually have the reverse effect of what this video is trying to achieve. In the case of mRNA vaccines, it isn't live virus that's being injected into a person, but to me, this summary makes it sound as though it is.

– Alyssa Tomlinson

I almost feel like – unless this video were made specifically for children – this is almost too simplified. For example, I once listened to an episode of the Dope Labs podcast in which they explained how vaccines work in the context of the coronavirus. One thing I found most effective about the podcast was they flat-out acknowledged how/why vaccines are still considered effective even when there are numerous "breakthrough" cases. (In summary, they talked about how vaccines create a protective "cocoon" in communities and that as more and more people are vaccinated, the virus struggles to break through and mutate at a fast rate, which thus allows scientists to keep ahead of the virus with new iterations of vaccines.) To me, this video would be more effective if it flat-out acknowledged that, yes, some people who are vaccinated still get the virus, but here's why it's still worth it to get the vaccine.

– Alyssa Tomlinson

I actually wish she had explained this somewhat differently, because to me, it sounded as though mRNA vaccines are essentially the same thing as traditional vaccines where it's essentially a tiny portion of live virus. I feel like this might have been a missed opportunity to explain what makes mRNA vaccines truly unique – and the fact that mRNA technology has been in development for years, which is what made it possible for this vaccine to be turned around so quickly. It's almost as if there's potentially damage done if you oversimplify the science. In my opinion, if you strike the right balance between simplifying or "translating" the science and speaking only in technical jargon, you have the ability to leave someone feeling empowered that they have new, scientific knowledge about a certain innovation/medicine/invention/etc.

– Alyssa Tomlinson

I appreciate that Dr. Tolson acknowledges that the contributor's question isn't silly, and that, instead, she appreciates the contributor's trust in asking her the question. I think this is especially important given that it can be intimidating to ask an expert – particularly, a medical expert – a question concerning a medical issue that might unfortunately carry stigma/misperceptions. This introduction, off the bat, establishes that everyone should feel comfortable asking questions when it comes to issues of health. So much misinformation/misconceptions about medical sciences likely prevail solely because those with questions feel embarrassed because there is a perceived large knowledge gap between themselves and the "experts."

– Alyssa Tomlinson (my apologies, I realize my display name has my maiden name because of the email address to which it's tied!)