I'm a scientist, which is why I originally joined the ESA and this list
many years ago, but I'm also a journalist, and I can damn well do
without the journalist-bashing here. I know a hell of a lot of
colleagues in organizations like the National Association of Science
Writers and Society of Environmental Journalists who work very hard to
get the story RIGHT.
First, let me address some delusions among you. Publishing in a
scientific journal is not disseminating information to the PUBLIC. It
is merely sharing sermon tips among your fellow clergy. Most of the
general public will never see a scientific journal, most of those will
have trouble wading through all of paper (as most of you probably do),
and of those that do wade through all of a paper, they will have a very
hard time understanding the materials and methods (as most of you
probably do), and will have no clue about the context in the papers
referred to in literature reviews. You may have read those papers --
but they will not have, nor will they.
My comments about the general public here apply to journalists and
politicians, too.
Most of you don't understand the culture of journalism and are horrified
that journalists don't take your word for "it." Too bad -- we're not
supposed to take anyone's word for "it." There's an old joke that if a
reporter's mom tells him that she loves him, he should confirm it with
two independent sources. In some areas, such as economic policy or
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some high profile journalists
occasionally fail, but when it comes to science reporting, they are
pretty diligent.
Few journalists these days are going to accept what you say as gospel
because you're a "scientist" -- nor should they. Journalists are going
to check what they say against another source -- and usually we try to
find someone who disagrees with you or who has been a critic of the type
of research you do. For journalists, it is called "balance." For you,
it might be called lunacy or disrespect, but scientists are more often
wrong than right (otherwise scientists would have little to do). The
journalist is right to seek holes in your argument.
This effort to seek balance does create problems -- such as in coverage
of the seemingly never-ending discussion of whether humans are causing
climate change, or in stories about evolution versus creationism -- when
it creates the notion that a crackpot viewpoint is equally valid to a
well studied and reasoned scientific position. Sloppy reporters,
uneducated reporters, and time-challenged reporters may not take or have
the time to do a proper screening of sources. Good reporters might seek
out rivals that you despise (I would, and frankly, you would want us to
treat politicians the same way.) Nitwit editors may screw up otherwise
spotless copy. And some news organizations -- especially one that
claims to be "fair and balanced" -- are blatantly unfair and unbalanced.
But most of us journalists try to do the best job we can in the time we
have. (It would help if the public did a better job of recognizing
competent journalism and was willing to pay for it -- it's hard for a
good journalist to do a good job if he can't pay the bills doing that job.)
It would help if scientists, when speaking to the press, would say
things clearly and concisely. The public may need to know that cis- and
trans-fats are different, but hardly any of them need to understand in
detail the geometry of the molecule. What do YOU say? I would should
say the two versions of the molecule are mirror images (shapes) of one
another. Our body can metabolize one shape, but does a crappy job on
the other. That other shape in turn causes health problems (or more
severe health problems) when our body doesn't deal with it.
McNeely brings up the story of Carl Sagan, who was a pretty damned good
scientist. He was screwed by members of the priesthood who repudiated
his efforts to educate the public. SHAME ON THE PRIESTHOOD! The public
that ultimately funds your work has a right to understand what you do
with its money. Those of you who fail to recognize that fact, and who
stonewall efforts at learning about your work, are likely in store for a
rough time keeping your job in this political climate.
Keep in mind the chaos of Climate-gate (two of my e-mails were among the
thousands released in the hack.) The CRU folks, some of whom I know and
greatly respect, responded in an understandable but self-destructive
fashion to the abuse of FOI laws by certain critics of their research.
If only their jobs had been affected, it would have been bad, but the
effect would have been limited. As it was, Climate-gate has been used
to "prove" a lot of the science was fraudulent. Progress toward
addressing the climate (and generic fossil fuel) problem have been stalled.
We don't need more problems like that. That's why scientists, whether
in the "hard" sciences or the arts and humanities, should do a better
job of clearly and concisely communicating their work to the public.
And they need to learn how to effectively use the press to do so.
Dave
On 4/8/2011 6:53 PM, Lisa Dawn Cox wrote:
Let's face it: not everyone is going to be a scientist when s/he grows up, just
like not everyone is going to be a journalist or politician (again, thank God.)
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
