Chris, Good point. The media is looking for a story that will sell, which in the case of science is not often the case (sorry folks, not everyone finds our research as interesting as we do). I wasn't suggesting that we talk to the media more, but perhaps communicate more directly to the general public. For example, I was able to give a talk at a Buddhist temple about invasive species. It was very interesting opportunity. I was a very interesting opportunity to learn the perspective that some well-educated individuals have on this topic. Or another example I can think of is outreach, such as scientists working with public schools teachers and AP students to collect datasets and in return educating these individuals about the basics of science and what we really do and do not know about specific topics. I think direct interactions, such as these, would benefit our society. Again, I just brought this up as a discussion topic. Thanks for the feedback.
Laurie - I completely agree that as scientists we should never overstretch the truth. I actually try not to get involved with advocacy for the very reasons you mention. It seems that when I tell people I am an ecologists, they instantly align me with the groups you speak of. Perhaps this would occur less if we were speaking instead of those with agendas to push. Thanks for the comment. On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Laura Jodice <jodi...@clemson.edu> wrote: > I think that scientists should make use of people who are well versed in > both science and communications. I also think that scientists should be > very careful about stretching the truth if they get involved in advocacy. I > think that there is a habit among some NGOs and environmental advocates to > overstate what is known as a means to enhance fundraising or because they > believe this will be the only way to get action. However, it seems to me > that stretching the truth ultimately impacts public trust in science. A > good read on the issue of communication of science is: Th Paradoxes of > Transparency by D.C. Wilson. This is specific to the case of science in > fisheries management but has several broadly applicable insights. > > Laurie Jodice > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Basil Iannone [bian...@uic.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:19 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Lovelock retracts > > This article (not Lovelock's, but the woman's) brings up an important point > about climate change, the lack of scientific understanding in our society > as a whole, and the role of scientists in educating the public. Clearly the > general public do not understand climate change or even "believe" in it. > And why should they when the media and politicians feed them inaccurate > information (be it intentionally or not). So I ask, should scientists start > communicating more to the general public; and would communicating more to > the general public be more of a benefit to our society than increasing our > publication record? > > NOTE: I am asking this question, not to be critical (I too work to publish > as we all should), but to get opinions as to the role that scientists > should be playing in communicating what we know. It seems like the > knowledge is getting lost (or altered) in between our journals and the > popular media (for whatever reasons). What are the chances that scientists > will start to be evaluated not only on their publication record, but also > on how much they try to facilitate understanding in the public? > > All thought and comments are welcomed. > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Neil Paul Cummins < > neilpaulcumm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Terrible reporting, like you say. > > > > Lovelock made predictions in 2006 (The Revenge of Gaia) concerning the > end > > of the century. > > > > There is still 88 years to ago, and yet the article claims that his > > predictions have turned out to be false. That he was wrong! > > > > Ridiculous! > > > > Also, I am sure we can think of lots of examples of people who made > > predictions, lost confidence and partially 'retracted', only for their > > initial predictions to turn out to be 'correct'. Einstein springs to > mind & > > the cosmological constant. > > > > > > Neil > > > > neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Matthew Peter Hill <hil...@unimelb.edu.au> > > wrote: > > > I don't think we need to worry too much about what Lovelock does and > does > > > not think, especially through reporting such as that.. > > > > > > For some actual climate change science, this paper went up yesterday: > > > > > > http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1 > > > > > > Showing that the the last 50 years has seen warming like no other > period > > > over the last 1000 years in Australasia, and is very likely due to > > > anthropogenic influence. > > > > > > Matt. > > > > > > On 17/05/12 7:53 AM, "Matheus Carvalho" <meumi...@yahoo.com.br> wrote: > > > > > >> Lovelock, the proposer of Gaia hypothesis, says his predictions (and > > others > > >> also) were exaggerated: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://www.examiner.com/article/gaia-author-james-lovelock-recants-on-global-w > > >> arming > > >> > > >> > > >> Matheus C. Carvalho > > >> Senior Research Associate > > >> Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry > > >> Southern Cross University > > >> Lismore - Australia > > >> http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ostro > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > Basil Iannone > University of Illinois at Chicago > Department of Biological Sciences (MC 066) > 845 W. Taylor St. > Chicago, IL 60607-7060 > Email: bian...@uic.edu > Phone: 312-355-3231 > Fax: 312-413-2435 > http://www2.uic.edu/~bianno2 > > -- Basil Iannone University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Biological Sciences (MC 066) 845 W. Taylor St. Chicago, IL 60607-7060 Email: bian...@uic.edu Phone: 312-355-3231 Fax: 312-413-2435 http://www2.uic.edu/~bianno2
