I think that is pretty far from the idea under discussion. The issue, and
certainly the one that motivated my original posting, is that much of the
obfuscation carried out by scientists is a defense against exploitation by
journalists, politicians and others (including often NGOs) who are looking
for fuel for their own agendas. Journalists who are even willing to consider
checking their stories are not the problem. The problem arises when a nifty
quote can be taken out of context, either to make the scientist look foolish
or to send a false message. That happens much too much.
We are not talking about the cream of the profession, which presumably
includes David Lawrence. We are talking about the sediment at the bottom of
the bottle.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <d...@fuzzo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: segunda-feira, 11 de Abril de 2011 18:23
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories
with scientists prior to publication.
