Black inks are pretty interesting and it's not 100% clear to me why they "blue." My best guess (and I emphasize this is a guess) is that because the particle sizes in black inks tend to be very small that it's easier for the pigment to diffuse out away from where the ink was embedded. Very small particles scatter blue light and take on a blue-ish tint and so I speculate that might be what's happening here as you move away from the embedded black ink and have a "dilute" concentration of black pigment.

I would definitely encourage folks to get whatever data they can about the inks in their tattoos and hang onto the info. At a minimum, allergic reactions are a known issue with tattoos and can crop up long after tattooing. One big challenge we have is figuring out what the specific allergens are since we don't know 1) what ink was used and 2) what was in the inks. We hope our work can help address #2. If people keep better records of the inks that were used that would go a long way towards addressing #1. -JRS

Short term, publish the results. Longer term, understand what the pigments fragment into and how mobile they are. Understand if heavy metal contaminants can become mobile from embedded inks. Also, trying to understand how pigments interact with skin cells in terms of toxicity and viability and how light might alter that picture. -JRS

We haven't differentiated really between EU and US inks. Most of what we've looked at are what is available in the US and the same product seems to be available overseas. In chatting with ink manufacturers, my sense is that they don't really have alternatives to many of the banned pigments (e.g., blues and greens) and will likely just pull those inks from the market.

In terms of industry, a major project we are working on right now is just understanding what's in the ink bottle versus whats on the label (if it is labeled). We are finding a pretty high number of discrepancies, some of which are probably minor (e.g., using ethyl alcohol instead of the listed isopropyl alcohol) but in other cases we are finding different pigments in the bottles or one additive swapped for another. As a starting point, a complete and accurate listing of ink ingredients seems like an important first step. -JRS

Lupos. -JRS

I don't but that has more to do with very few of my friends having tattoos when I was growing up and in my 20s. I have nothing against tattoos but they never felt like a priority for me. -JRS

We've spent some time talking to artists to identify what are considered good, major brands and what are considered poor brands. Until we publish the data, hopefully in the next couple months, we are a little reluctant to share specific brands until everyone, manufacturers included, can look at and review our data.

​

In terms of goals, our main goal is to empower artists and consumers. We aren't anti-tattoo but we want folks to understand what the potential risks are and are not and then make a personal choice. Hopefully, that leads to better labeling and manufacturing protocols, which may enhance the safety. In terms of tattoo stability over time, understanding the basic science of tattoos and how they degrade I think is necessary first step in making longer lasting tattoos. -JRS

Our work is funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. We don't receive any material or financial support from the body art industry. -JRS

Unfortunately, because we don't understand the potential carcinogenicity of the pigments it's a hard question to answer. One thing that I don't think most folks understand is that pretty much all tattoo inks use a common set of pigments. The difference between "good" and "poor" inks appears to be in the processing and additives. -JRS

We honestly don't know the definitive answer on carcinogenicity but certainly the pigments used in tattoo inks have real concerns associated with them. Definitely applying sun screen can't hurt since UV degradation is a real and not understood pathway. For someone who is very concerned, keeping tattoos covered in general is probably the safest bet since we also don't understand how visible light can impact degradation. -JRS

Thank you! Occasionally, I cover the darker side of science, like the impact of the atomic bombs, the invention of materials that end up being polluting the environment, the medical experiments that backfire, etc. But I think it's important to discuss these with caution because some people might take them out of context, and they may blame every mistake on science itself rather than the way some people use it. The core of science communication is not to teach people facts, but rather to help them understand and use the process itself. By process, I mean formulating questions and seeking answers to said questions while maintaining a critical mind.

We're a team of 3 people. We make around 3 videos per day, which we publish on several social media platforms (literally all of them, depending on the type of content we make). Sometimes we work on more original content that takes several weeks to finish. The content is published on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok.

Choosing a topic can be a bit of a challenge sometimes, but for the most part, I try to choose a topic that directly connects to people or will change their lives in one way or another. For example, a new potential cancer treatment, or a new way to generate energy, or a new breakthrough in quantum computing. These breakthroughs could change our lives in the future. Sometimes the topic is knowledge-based and has no direct or indirect application, like discovering an exoplanet or discovering a new subatomic particle. There are always people who are interested in learning about those as well. Thousands of discoveries are published every day, it's difficult to cover everything, that's why we need to be selective with the topics. The most important aspect with choosing a topic is that it should be interesting to me as well. If the topic is interesting to me, I'll put more effort in presenting it in the most engaging way possible.

I get the news from several sources. Sometime from press releases published by research insinuations, which are always accompanied by the original paper. Other times I get contacted by scientists before their paper is published. We work together on making a video so that the paper and the video are published at the same time. They're generous enough to provide me early access to their publication. Other sources of information include primary sources such as journals like Nature, Science, The Lancent, etc. We quickly souct through their new publications to see if there is something interesting. And secondary sources like ScienceDaily and EurekAlert.

These are big issues that aren't often addressed. As science communicators, we want to make sure that the target audience receives information from authentic sources where reproducibility is achievable, and citation farms are avoided. There are three main ways to deal with this:

​

1. We ensure the paper is coming from a journal with a high impact factor. Such journals have a rigorous peer review process, which include repeating some experiments and double-checking the results. Sometimes it takes years for a publication to be online in these journals because the researchers are asked to repeat certain experiments.
2. We look into the people involved in the research. Their affiliation, region, research topic, previous work, etc. A simple background check can reveal if this person is involved in self-citation or citation farm practices. I knew a researcher who used to put his wife's name in every paper he published, and she was doing the same for him. Both of them were research group leaders of different groups at different institutions. They were citing each other and their friends, and getting cited by their peers as well. Their publications were in the thousands! It's perfectly legal, but it's a terrible practice that compromises the scientific method.
3. A quick check in the conflict of interest. Who is funding the research? Why are they funding the research? Why did they choose these people? Are they only citing their own previous research? These series of questions can help us make the distinction between what's reliable and what's not.

There will always be those who will undermine scientific discovery. Unless there is an application behind the discovery or breakthrough, they feel there was no point doing it. When I see such comments or questions, I highlight the importance of the research and list some of the applications that come with it. In many cases it works, but sometimes you’re talking about knowledge that doesn’t have a direct tangible application. For example, scientists discovered organic matter in a space cloud in another galaxy. What can we do with that? The answer is, it will help us learn about how life originated on our planet and whether carbon-based life form is abundant in the universe. As you can see, not everything needs to have an application to be exciting or interesting. Sometimes these discoveries help us fill gaps in our knowledge, which alone is a convincing reason to do it.

Great question! The most common mistake is not relying on visual storytelling. Visuals are key to conveying complex information. Whether it’s part of a video, a book or a PowerPoint slide, without proper visuals, ideas can be lost. Readers and viewers will have a difficult time processing information. You always need compelling visuals to support what you’re talking about. It’s also important to remember that visuals shouldn’t be randomly placed in the material. They should be custom-made because different ideas can be represented in different visual format. Infographics, motion graphics, graphs, etc. They all help in delivering the idea straight to the target audience.