Science books vs science papers
We’re almost at the end of the SciBookChat videos! This is episode 5 of 6. After that it’s over. I filmed a very silly bonus video that’s related to today’s video (but I won’t say how!) which will go up in the new year. Otherwise, it’s just this one and episode 6 in two weeks.
In this episode I compare a passage from Carl Zimmer’s book Microcosm with the scientific article that contains the source material. Then I talk a bit about why scientific papers are written in such an uninteresting style. I mentioned the need to get all details across, but I’m not sure I quite explained why that means the papers end up with such long and dull sentences. Basically, there can be no confusion about what the authors meant, so no creative sentence structures or jokes, and they do need to include all the tiny details, which often leads to very long sentences. You’ll notice that I have a much easier time reading the passage from Zimmer’s book out loud than the section from the article. I have to pronounce complicated numbers and twice say “(Figure 2)”. I have to take breaths in the middle of ongoing sentences. It’s just not meant for reading out loud, it’s purely for conveying information!
Eeyore, Candide and Biochemistry
We’re already on episode 4 of SciBookChat Season 2! You have time to catch up, though. They’re all very short.
In most of the videos I have talked about how science and scientists are represented in books, but this episode is a little bit different. I remember, from way too long ago, one very specific question in a university textbook because it referenced Eeyore – my favourite character from Winnie-the-Pooh.
The question was about bacterial chemotaxis (how bacteria move around in response to their environment) but to make it interesting, the author had given certain bacterial mutants the characteristics of famous literary characters. He expects you to be familiar with some classics of literary fiction to solve a biochemistry question!
This time, the outtakes at the end are mostly “directors cut” extra footage, because FOR ONCE I didn’t mess up while filming. Maybe I’m learning. Or maybe Eeyore helped.
Scientists in Fiction
In today’s SciBookChat video I pick up Frankenstein again (first featured in this video) and compare him to a more modern scientist in a more recent book. What has changed?
The saddest cake story
Remember when I made a DNA cake that spelled “CAKE”? Shortly after that did the rounds on the internet, people spotted mistakes. The helix was turned in the wrong direction, and I had failed to stay on the same strand in the twist so the colours were wrong in every other segment.
Did it make the cake less fun or delicious? Not really, but I still felt dumb for introducing those errors. I really should know better. I have a PhD in baking — I mean, biochemistry.
So, when I recently had an opportunity to bake a cake for scientists again, I thought this would be a good moment to redo it, and fix the errors.
At work we drew names of the contestants of Great British Bake Off, and the week after “your” contestant left, you’d bring in something you baked. The name I had drawn was Rav, who was known for liking vegan baking, so I thought that’d be a great excuse to also use my favourite vegan cake recipe.
When Rav left the show a few weeks ago, it was my turn to bake, so I set aside several hours of my weekend to prepare everything. I finished the final icing details on Sunday morning, and, as planned, made a correct DNA helix this time. The twelve base pairs encode the four amino acids with the one letter codes “C-A-K-E”, the helix turns the correct way, and I followed the strands in the twists. Everything was perfect!
Except, a few hours after I finished, I wasn’t feeling very well. I started getting a stomach ache that only got worse and worse. At midnight I ended up going to the hospital to find out what was wrong, and around 2AM I was told I had gastroenteritis. I had to stay home from work until I was all better, and, worst of all, I was not allowed to prepare food for other people!
My beautiful cake! Not only could I not go to work myself, but I wouldn’t be allowed to serve the cake to ANYONE! I had to throw it out.
I actually left it in the fridge for a full week until I could bear to part with it (and until I could deal with the concept of “food” and “cake” in general.)
Goodbye, beautiful DNA cake.
Science books about people
For the second episode of this season of SciBookChat I mused a bit on a particular type of science books. I showed three books that in my opinion are more about people than they are about science – Geek Nation, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and How the Hippies Saved Physics.
I like all of these books, but, as I mention in the video, I haven’t really learned any science from them. And that’s okay, because the main story in all of these books is a more personal story. Geek Nation is about scientists in India, and the role that science plays in the country. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is about the Lacks family, outdated medical practices, race relations, and the surprising presence of Henrietta Lacks in many modern cell biology labs. How the Hippies Saved Physics is about the influence of 1970s counterculture on the field of (quantum) physics. In all three books, the main subject is people. That they happen to have something to do with science is what makes the books science books, but the science is only secondary.
Watch the video for the full discussion – and to find out what I think about physicists!
What kind of book is a science book? – SciBookChat
What is a science book? Is it a textbook? A popular science book? Are kids books about science more kids books or science books? What do you expect to find in the science section of a bookstore?
The first episode of the second season of SciBookChat went online this morning, and it’s about exactly these questions. In the video, we go on a little tour of Foyles bookstore in London, to compare the arts, travel, music, food and science sections of the store. Of course, nothing can quite compare with the music section, but you have to watch the video to find out why THAT is so special.
As this video shows, there are lots of different types of science books. But perhaps not all of them are what you picture when you think of “science books”. Because SciBookChat is a series about all the ways that science occurs in books, I interpret “science books” in a very, very broad sense.
The next episode of SciBookChat goes up on October 20, and will be about books about scientists (rather than books about science). You can subscribe directly on YouTube if you want to make sure you catch that.
Busy, but organised
I haven’t done a general update in forever! I’ve been busy (but organised) lately, so this is as good a time as ever for a catch-up blog post. Here’s what I’ve been up to.
One of the main things I’ve been busy with at work is the Transforming Genetic Medicine Initiative (TGMI). This is a Wellcome Trust-funded project involving a group of clinicians and scientists who want to make sure that genetics becomes a streamlined part of medicine. We launched a website earlier this year, and since June we’ve been posting weekly blog posts about topics related to genetic medicine. We also have a mailing list and a Twitter account, so if you’re at all interested in genetic medicine, and want to help us think about it, you now know where to go.
My YouTube channel can be a bit chaotic, with random vaguely science-themed videos mixed with travel videos, but I’m doing something structured with it now. I’ll post a new video every two weeks from next week until the end of the year, in which I discuss science in books. I did a few of these videos last year, and the style is pretty much the same, but this year I have a title screen and a jingle made just for me (by Sam) and a regular schedule, so it’s all a lot more organised. Subscribe, as they say on YouTube.
The latest Doctor Who Fan Orchestra video dropped a few weeks ago. This time, we tackled the theme music from the episodes with Donna Noble as companion, so it goes from upbeat jazzy to emotional “saving the world” pieces. As with all DWFO videos, everyone recorded their own parts at home but the final compilation is a proper symphony.
My regular orchestras, where people rehearse all in the same moment in time and space (how quaint), start again next month, so violin-playing will move in high gear, with concerts in November and December. If you’re in London, make sure to follow me on Twitter to find out when they are, because I’ll likely not mention them on the blog again.
There should also be a new issue of the MusiSci newsletter out in November. Some of the archives are now online, so you can have a look at old issues. If you like getting quarterly updates about the overlapping worlds of scientists and musicians, you can sign up now and get the November one when it comes out.
Lou moved to the USA, but we managed to arrange a virtual MySciCareer meeting. In the past few weeks, we posted two new career stories on the site every week. Follow us on Twitter or check out the site to explore careers for people with science degrees.
In between all these other things I’ve also been writing. I’m working on a few projects I don’t want to talk about yet because they might not all materialise, but I had an article about Pokemon Go and wildlife education on BOLD Blog recently, and I have a different science/pop culture piece coming out elsewhere before the end of the year.
It might not sound like it, because I don’t talk about it much, but writing has actually been taking up most of my spare time. A bit more than music and much more than my online side projects. It just isn’t as visible.
Despite all these things, I’m managing to keep on top of everything and not go crazy – yet. I would love to be able to tell you that I have all these apps and tools that keep me on top of everything, but to be honest those things just add to the stress for me.
I’ve always functioned best with physical to do lists on paper. Crossing off what I’ve done makes me feel much more accomplished than tapping a screen. I usually try apps for a bit and then lose interest and motivation. They don’t capture my attention in the way I need a to-do list to connect with me.
The thing that has stuck with me is bullet journal, which is basically a structured way of keeping to-do lists on paper. I’ve been using this method since July, and it’s perfect for me. My time management and activities are unstructured by nature, and don’t fit nicely into boxes, so a method where I can just make lists as long or short as I need them to be (and can doodle and take random notes and make spreads for all my side projects) is ideal.
I’m also trying to be super effective with my time, because my schedule is so full. I wrote this post on the train to and from work yesterday, and edited/uploaded it in a pub while waiting for other people. When it was done, I could tick off a few items in my bullet journal and feel good about myself.
So I’m busy, but organised. The busy-ness will last until the end of the year at least. I can only hope my newly found organisation skills keep up.
Photo: One of my favourite photos I took this summer.
SciBookChat season 2: science in books
Let’s chat about books and science again!
Last year I made a few videos about science in books. They weren’t book reviews, but they were just me chatting about things that were vaguely related to both science and books. I did one about fake and parody science books (like Giraffes? Giraffes!), one about science in zines, and one about the role that some books have played in our perception of science and scientists.
There were only those three videos to start with, but I now filmed a whole second season, of six more videos (seven, including the intro video).
In the video above I talk about what SciBookChat is, and what kind of other stuff is on my YouTube channel. If you can stand the gesturing and eye-rolling and the sound of my voice, you can subscribe to the YouTube channel directly by clicking this link.
What is it about?
Topics in Season 2 of SciBookChat will include:
- What exactly is a “science book”? Are they all books that explain science, or is the category broader than that?
- Using literature references to explain scientific concepts
- Books about scientists, rather than about science itself
- …and more!
When? Where? How?
Season 2 will be a lot like season 1, but I’m going to put some more effort into making sure people know what the videos are, and how to find them.
For you, the readers, I’ll write a blog post to go with each video. They will have the video embedded, and written summary of what’s discussed in there. If it sounds interesting, you can then decide to watch the video. The videos are all short, and can mostly be consumed with audio only if that’s what you prefer. So all of you podcast fans who don’t like looking at things can just have the video open in another tab and listen. They’re each only a few minutes long.
For the YouTube audience, I’m using the #booktube tag on social media, and encouraging people to subscribe to the channel. I’ll be using a regular upload schedule, with a new video going up every other Thursday starting on October 6.
I’ll also have my own theme music, composed by Sam Jenkins just for SciBookChat, so the videos will be worth watching just for the tunes!
How to find images for your science blog – Part 2
As I mentioned last week, there are four ways to get images for your science blog.
- Look for public domain images or creative commons-licensed images
- Make your own
- Ask for permission
- Buy images
1. Look for public domain or creative commons images
In part 1, I showed how and where to look for public domain images or creative commons-licensed images. This post will go into the other three methods.
2. Make your own images
If you can’t easily find an image you have permission to use, you can always make one yourself. You can take a photo, draw a picture, or use software to design something simple. The possibilities are endless, but I narrowed it down to a few:
Use a photo you took yourself
This is probably the simplest of these suggestions, because you don’t need anything besides a phone with a camera. Still, there are a few things you’ll need to look out for:
- Permission of human subjects – Do the people in the photo know that their image is being used to illustrate a blog post? You could get in trouble if you don’t let people know what the photo is for, so consider the possibility of someone asking you to take down the image. If it’s a picture of people taken at a conference and your blog post is about that conference, you’re probably okay, as long as the conference itself didn’t have any restrictions in place. Oh, about that…
- Permission of location/event – Sometimes pictures taken at specific events or locations are for “personal use only”. This will be made clear in the media policy of the event (think: conference, festival) or location (think: museum, zoo). Often that means you can take pictures, and even share them in a photo album, but you’re not always allowed to use those pictures on your blog. It depends on the kind of blog. Sometimes the restrictions will only apply to commercial sites, which is again one of those fuzzy areas I mentioned in the context of creative commons. What exactly is commercial? Sometime there’s an exception for educational outlets, which is equally fuzzy. (Is an educational blog that receives ad income a commercial or an educational outlet?)
Draw something yourself
Okay, maybe taking a photo is not the easiest after all. Maybe drawing something yourself is even easier. Can’t draw? Stick figures are illustrative, too!
Draw on paper and scan it in
Draw with a mouse in the free program that comes with your computer
Hyperbole and a Half got popular with trackpad drawings and Paintbrush (a simple program), so you don’t need fancy graphics programs.
Draw on an iPad
Draw on a tablet
If you don’t have an iPad, a Wacom tablet is actually easier to use, and the cheapest ones are much, much, much cheaper than an iPad. I drew the animals in the “beach bodies” post on a simple Wacom with free graphics software.
Get some graphics software (or even just powerpoint)
For any/all of the above suggestions I recommend having some sort of graphics software to edit images or to draw in directly. Gimp is open source and free and can do everything that photoshop can, but it has a high learning curve. For really basic editing (resizing, cropping, adding basic shapes or combining two images into one) you can even use Powerpoint/Keynote or any other slide presentation program. All the MySciCareer quotes images are done in Keynote, so we just rotate the five colours and quotes and it’s super fast and easy to make an image for each entry.
Online tools to make pretty pictures
This is the section that reveals many bloggers’ secret weapons. There are online tools that you can use to drag and drop images and backgrounds to create some fancy looking things. (Or less fancy things, like the image at the top of this post…). The two I use most are Canva and Piktochart, but there are others like it.
Canva is free to use, but a lot of their preset images cost $1 to use. With a bit of searching you can easily avoid those, though, and just use free elements. More on the paid option below.
Canva has a lot of default sizes and designs for different media platforms, so you can get the right size for a Twitter header image (and it will show you where your profile picture sits) or for an instagram post, but it also has templates for CVs, postcards, and other useful things. I used Canva to make gift cards for friends, menus for Christmas, the header of my quarterly mailing list, and images on some of my posts.
Piktochart specializes in infographics, so it includes a lot of little illustrations (including very diverse ones for people) and nice-looking text banners. There are some free templates for infographic charts. A paid account gets you more templates, and the option to remove the Piktochart logo from your final infographic. I used Piktochart to make the image for this post about genetic testing on the TGMI site.
3. Ask for permission to use images
If you can’t be bothered to create your own image, and you can’t find a suitable image in the public domain or with a creative commons license, you have two options left. One is to ask the creator of an image for permission to use that image.
If you offer to link back to them and to use the image under the terms they provide, this is a very reasonable request for blog posts. People know that you probably don’t have a budget for images. Keep in mind that artist might still say no, or that it can be difficult to track down the right person to ask for permissions.
I have used this route for a few work blog posts in the past. Recently I asked Baylor College of Medicine for permission to use an image. I found out that they were the ones to ask because I’d seen the image I wanted used on a few other sites that mentioned that it came from BCM and was used with permission.
I’ve also asked PhD comics for permission to use images in a post about the film.
“But everyone always uses science comics/illustrations online”, I hear you say.
That’s right, and they either asked the artist for explicit permission, or they’re following their guidelines (which could ask for a link back, or a limit on the size, or a watermark), OR they’re stealing.
Yes, it’s stealing to take someone else’s creation and put it on your own site without any form of permission. If an illustrator’s work is getting you extra traffic and shares, and that doesn’t trickle through to them in anyway, you’re getting your site clicks on the back of their talent. That’s why at the very minimum an artist will ask for a link back or an image tag on Twitter.
To make it easy, some artists have put explicit statements on their site that tell you how you can use their images. You might have to search for it. The aforementioned PHD comics has an email address in their FAQ section. Hyperbole and a Half has information about re-posting images in the FAQ as well. Photographer Alex Wild has an elaborate section on his website about image use.
If you can’t find info on their site, just contact them to ask them whether you can use the image.
Glendon Mellow, one of the bloggers at Symbiartic, uses some standard text to approach people whose artwork he wants to feature on the blog. The text includes information about how the image will be displayed, and how the artist will be credited. Here’s part of that text:
“I typically make a thumbnail image that appears on our site’s main page, and sometimes follows the work when people share on Facebook and Twitter etc. We’re pretty careful about attribution on Symbiartic: what links would you like me to add to the post? Twitter, blog, Instagram, Snapchat, portfolio, online shop,…I’ll put links to any and all that you like.“
4. Buy images
Your final option is to purchase an image. I left this for the end because it’s BY FAR the most annoying. You thought you could just hand over money and use the image? Oh, no, it can be way more complicated than that. I’ll show a few different examples just to give an idea.
This is the most user friendly. I mentioned Canva above, as a way to create your own designs. Some image elements (photos or illustrations) cost money, and Canva gives you two options to pay: Either get a subscription, or pay $1 for the right to use that image for the next 24 hours. Within 24 hours you can use that image in as many designs as you want, and once you’ve downloaded the design you’re all set. So for something simple that you can finalise in 24 hours, this is easy and only costs $1. I paid for the image of the book in this design (which doubles as a sneak preview for a thing I’m launching soon. Subscribe on YouTube!)
Stock image sites
iStockphoto prices their images using “credits”. You can prepay for a number of credits, or pay per image. Once paid, you can use the image for whatever you want, for as long as you want. It can’t get any easier. It can get more difficult, though…
Shutterstock offers two kinds of licenses: Standard and Enhanced. For a blog post, the standard license is enough, so don’t worry about the other one. To use the standard license, you can prepay for a few images, or get a subscription, or a subscription for a whole team. You have to estimate in advance how many images you’re going to need to decide what would be best, but again, for a blog the most basic plan is probably best.
You can purchase stock images through a few other sites as well, but these are the best-known ones.
I’ve left this until the very last because this is the most difficult. The two stock image sites above sell you unlimited access to “royalty-free” images. They’re royalty-free because the owner of the image gets a one-time payment from you, and doesn’t get royalties based on how often the image was used. You can also pay to use a “rights-managed” image. Here, the owner of the image is paid proportional to the use of the image: If the image is used in high resolution and get lots of views, they get more than if a tiny image is only seen by a few people.
That means that if you want to pay to use one of those images, you need to consider the size of your audience, and how long you’re using the image for. If you’re including the image in a print magazine, the questions are easy to answer: you know how many copies of that issue are printed, and each issue is printed only once. If you’re putting the image on a blog, this becomes more complicated. How many visitors do you think that post will get? How long is the image staying online?
I looked up the price for a science-themed image in Getty Images, and the cheapest option was £39 for a three-month digital license, or £150 for full editorial use of a small image (for fifteen years). Custom options required filling in a complex form, and the costs get even higher.
And remember, rights-managed images are often images that appeared in the news, or on company websites. You can’t afford those on your blog, so just don’t even think about it and search for a different (free) image first.
That concludes my two-part crazy long guide to using images on your blog. I know I didn’t mention everything (like more examples of embeddable images from third party sites, or image libraries available to bloggers on larger networks) but those all fall under “permissions” somehow.
Another thing that I didn’t touch on is the concept of “fair use”. It’s a sort of loophole in the (American) legal system that seems to say that you can use an image as long as you talk about that image, but it’s not meant to be used to justify image use, only to use in defence against a copyright claim. It’s super complicated, only really defensible when you explicitly talk about the work (definitely not when you just use an image to illustrate a vaguely related blog post), and you’re best off just not using images that you don’t have rights or permissions for.
How to find images for your science blog – Part 1
This is the first part of a two-part blog post on where and how to find images for (science) blogs. A lot of these tips are easily adaptable for other types of blog posts, or for other purposes (like YouTube videos), but some are a bit science-specific.
There are four ways to get images for your science blog.
Four legal ways, anyway.
- Look for public domain images or creative commons-licensed images
- Make your own
- Ask for permission
- Buy images
I’ll go into a bit more detail on each of them, but I’ll have to split it over more than one post. This post covers only the first method. Part 2 will include method 2, 3 and 4.
Method 1 – Look for public domain images or creative commons-licensed images
If you go to Google and do an image search, or if you come across an image somewhere else online, you cannot simply take that image and repost it on your own site. You have to first make sure that the image has the right permissions.
Check the permissions
For an image to be fair game for reposting on your blog, one of the following needs to be the case:
1. The image is in the public domain.
Being in the public domain either means it is so old that any copyright has expired, or that someone has deliberately made the image available to the public domain. Sometimes public domain images have a “CC0” (CC zero) Creative commons license, but other times it will just say “this image is in the public domain” or “no known restrictions” or something along those lines.
2. The image is licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons license.
Which license you are allowed to use depends on your blog and how you use the image:
- CC-BY – You can use this image as long as you credit the original creator
- CC-BY-NA – You can use this image as long as you credit the original creator AND you do not alter the image in any way.
- CC-BY-NC – You can use this image as long as you credit the original creator AND your site is not a commercial site. What “non-commercial” means exactly is not entirely clear, because the person who licensed the image may have meant various things. Basically, if you make money from your blog with ads, or if the blog is a company blog, or if you got paid to write the blog post – proceed with a LOT of caution, even if you believe you’re not directly making money from the image itself. (I personally try to avoid this license because it’s so unclear.)
- CC-BY-SA – You can use this image as long as you credit the original creator AND you share any adaptations of the image under the same CC-BY-SA license. (Again, I try to avoid this license because it makes things extra complicated: is a blog post with an image an adaptation of that image?)
Combinations of these licenses are also possible.
All right, now you know which images you can freely use without asking for additional permission, but where do you find images with the proper license?
There are a number of places you could start looking – it depends a bit on what you’re after. I have a few favourite sources of images. I’m going to do the same search (“raccoon”) in all four so that you can see the differences and similarities in the types of results and enjoy a plethora of raccoon pictures at the same time.
When you do a Google image search, you can restrict your search results to only show you pictures that you are allowed to use without permission.
Click “search tools” and then the drop-down menu “usage rights”. I selected “labeled for reuse” here, and found this raccoon. The big downside of Google’s image search is that it doesn’t always explain why the image is “labeled for resuse”. Is it in the public domain? Is it on a blog that someone put a CC-BY license on? I try to find out from the source, and often stick to search results that are very clear about permissions, like Flickr, Pixabay, or Wikimedia Commons (all discussed below). Most of the raccoon images in my search result came from those sites, but this one is from another page, a free stock photo site which also lists the origin. It’s an image from a US government agency, which had made it available in the public domain, so no credit needed here.
Like on Google, you can search Flickr images for specific licenses. I’m searching for “all creative commons” here
Flickr shows me my own photos first, but that’s a topic for a future post, so I’m not looking at those. Here’s someone else’s cute raccoon. I can embed images directly from Flickr, but I don’t want to rely on Flickr to show my pictures, so I reuploaded it. I usually credit Flickr photos by name of the author, and a link to the photo on their Flickr page (linked both in text and through the image itself).
Credit: Andy Langager on Flickr.
Wikimedia Commons images are uploaded by volunteers, and they should include information about how to cite the source of each image. Here’s what it looks like for the raccoon below:
It’s public domain, so no credit needed.
There were a LOT of other great raccoon images on Wikimedia Commons, but many had an SA license, and as I described above, I try to avoid those because my blog itself doesn’t have an SA license.
In general,Wikimedia Commons is the best source for animal pictures, because they tend to bring up the correct animal, link to more information, and sort the images by habitat.
Pixabay has images from various other sources, both images that are free, as well as images you can buy from sponsor sites. This raccoon was a CC0 image so doesn’t need any credit:
Wellcome is a great source of images related to the biomedical sciences. Not all of their images are free to use. You can use all of the historic ones and the ones that are labeled a CC-BY. For their collection of rights-managed images, you have to pay a license fee on hi-res images (more on that in part 2 of this series of posts) or you can use the low-resolution version under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. Since I have ads on this blog, I’m not sure if I qualify for the CC-BY-NC-ND images, so I’ll look through the search results for the public domain or CC-BY images only. There were only three “raccoon” images, all for “raccoon dogs” and only one that was CC-BY. It’s a weird little netsuke figurine from Japan. Because it was CC-BY, I used the credit as described on their page.
Credit: Science Museum, London, Wellcome Images
When I saved this image, a lot of meta information was carried along with it, and (free) Wellcome Images always come with that little bar at the bottom.
Wellcome Images is not very user friendly compared to the other sites, and a very specialised source. It’s not great for raccoon images, obviously, but it has lots of medical and biomedical images, including many historical ones.
Figshare has two sources of images: those uploaded directly by researchers, or those that appeared in journals that are affiliated with Flickr. Despite their name, there are lots of different file types here, not just “figures”, so you have to restrict your search result to “images”, like this:
Most of the image results will be graphs, because they’re figures from papers, but here’s an interesting raccoon picture. The image information suggests that it’s associated with an article in PLOS Biology, and that it’s CC-BY, so I’m going to need to credit the source (in this case, the article.) I can click “cite” on the Figshare page to get a citation, but because I couldn’t figure out who the authors were, I clicked through to the article. The whole article appears to be an editorial or a highlight, without any author names, so I just took the credit they provided. It looks like the image was perhaps made in-house by PLOS, so there are no authors to cite. (This shows how confusing it can get when you need to credit an image!)
NASA images should also pop up in Google image searches or Flickr searches, but I wanted to highlight them separately because they’re a huge source of space images that are mostly free to use on science blogs. The full multimedia guidelines for NASA are on their website, with links to their various galleries. Not a great place for raccoon images, but such a vast source of information that I still found one!
A search for “raccoon” in the NASA media galleries turned up an image of Amelia Earhart wearing a raccoon fur coat. It’s also in their Flickr albums, and there it’s easy to find the restrictions: “no known restrictions” means you can use it anywhere with no explicit credit (because it’s a historic image).
That’s it for part 1! Part 2 will include a few ways to make your own images, and some tips on asking for permission or buying images.