Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Puhleeze -- do your homework, student. Listen to the interview again. Solotaroff does NOT link Evert's death to whitebark pine and climate change. He describes it as an accident involving improper marking of a site after another team had released a drugged bear. With respect to trout, introduced trout are a problem, but that does not negate any relationship between rising water temperatures, diminution of streamflow, and trout population declines. In the interview, Solotaroff seems to adequately appreciate the complexity of the ecosystem, that several factors affect bear food supply. He does not make the propellerhead mistake of assuming that if X influences Z, then Y cannot. If Y influences Z, Y influences Z. It doesn't matter what X does, except in the case of interactive effects. Here is what the Greater Yellowstone Coalition says about climate change and trout populations: On top of the existing suite of threats, the climate is changing in Greater Yellowstone and aquatic systems are already showing a response. As temperatures have warmed, snowpack is on a downward trend and peak spring runoff in the Intermountain West is occurring on average 10 to 20 days earlier than the historical average. This translates to lower and warmer summer flows, which is bad news for cold-water fisheries. When water temperatures warm, thermal thresholds for native cutthroat trout are exceeded and warm-water fish species such as small mouth bass readily move in to occupy new habitat. It is highly likely that over the next 50 years, the world-renowned cold-water fishery of the Yellowstone River below Livingston, Mont. will shrink considerably as the small mouth [sic] population of the lower river moves upstream. A predator such as a grizzly bear may have difficulty switching to another prey species, such as smallmouth bass, that exhibits different behavior. Solotaroff seems to be spot on by noting that the bear in the other fatal attack in Yellowstone was severely underweight. There seems to be some significant food supply issues affecting their behavior, and I am inclined to agree with him that climate change plays A role. Dave On 4/17/2011 11:15 PM, Lynn M. Moore wrote: Thank you for the sources Dave, for the most part they support my assertion that Mr Solotaroff exaggerated his conclusions that the recent bear attacks in the greater yellowstone area are a direct result of climate change. Dr. Everts death, was not caused by an attack from a hungry bear, but was an unfortunate accident caused by a bear recovering from sedation. It is likely that bear-human encounters will increase as the pine bark nuts decrease (as your google sources suggest), but this particular death, which Mr. Solotaroff mentioned specifically in his interview, was not a result of the pine beetle epidemic. Mr. Solotaroff claimed that all the trout species (cutthroat, brook, and rainbow) in Yellowstone were diminished, because the streams were warming due to climate change, the google sources you provided mention no evidence of warming waters. The cutthroat numbers have decreased, but as a result of the invasive species lake trout, not because the waters are warming as Mr Solotaroff claimed in the interview on NPR. Climate change is a real problem for our western ecosystems, for all ecosystems. But putting forth a scare tactic, that climate change is causing grizzly bears to attack humans does not win over the climate deniers. The climate deniers solution would be to shoot more grizzly bears, not trade in their SUV for a Prius. Grizzly bears are always dangerous. Non-fatal bear attacks (and occasionally fatal ones) happen every year. Anyone going into bear country, whether it is in the park or not does so with the knowledge of risk. The tone of the interview was wrong. I still hold that Solotaroff made too many linkages that are not supported, and they appear as smoke. Journalists, especially those who are not scientists (such as Solotaroff) should learn from journalists who are scientists (such as you Dave, i recall your posts from last week). My problem with journalism is not influenced by any bias I have against journalists, I am biased against exaggerated statements. NPR generally consults scientists when presenting pieces such as this. i am disappointed that NPR did not follow up with scientists who are actually doing the work. LM On Apr 17, 2011, at 3:27 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Before attacking journalists, Lynn, maybe you should do some fact-checking on your own. It seems Solotaroff is not too far off base -- there certainly seems to be enough proverbial smoke to make the claims you attack him for: From Scientific American: Lack of food drives human-grizzly conflicts—and human-grizzly fatalities (http://bit.ly/gEteZB) From Billings Gazette: Scarce pine nuts leaves Yellowstone grizzlies hungry, more dangerous (http://bit.ly/eql2yl) From the U.S. Fish
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I heard the NPR interview yesterday and was left angered. I have been a public radio supporter for many years. NPR has been under attack for presenting unbalanced coverage. For the first time, I have to agree. The only part of the interview with Paul Solotaroff that may represent current scientific hypotheses is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Ten years of drought in Wyoming is linked to the pine beetle epidemic, and is a significant departure from the historical range of variability in this system. The loss of the pine nuts represents a significant loss of food source to the grizzly. But the accuracy of the interview stops there. Paul Solotaroff is speculating about the loss of trout (brook, cutthroat, and rainbow) numbers. While there may be an effect upon these populations from climate change, I do not think that scientists have enough data as yet to make that statement. Most fish research concerning climate change is focused upon downstream areas where the warming trend is more pronounced. Anyone who has ever hunted outside of Yellowstone Park knows that for decades, for as long as managed hunting has occurred, the grizzly bears of Yellowstone Park have learned the gun shot dinner bell. The bears have not suddenly learned this behavior over the last ten years. Finally, if you read the original Ghost Park article by Solotaroff in Men's Journal, two paragraphs are devoted to the gory details concerning the bear fatalities last year. Not even the right wing conservative newspapers in Wyoming detailed how Dr. Evert was killed. He does not seem to mention the fact that bear attacks occur every year in the Rocky Mountain Region and are largely a result of the bear-human interface. This interview is a blatant example of why the public questions our science. If a journalist's job is to fact check using multiple sources, then what Solotaroff does is not journalism, it is sensationalism. Soltaroff does not communicate important information to the public and policymakers; what he communicates is an opinion not fact. Lynn Moore Graduate Student Program in Ecology University of Wyoming On Apr 16, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDUmailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Before attacking journalists, Lynn, maybe you should do some fact-checking on your own. It seems Solotaroff is not too far off base -- there certainly seems to be enough proverbial smoke to make the claims you attack him for: From Scientific American: Lack of food drives human-grizzly conflicts—and human-grizzly fatalities (http://bit.ly/gEteZB) From Billings Gazette: Scarce pine nuts leaves Yellowstone grizzlies hungry, more dangerous (http://bit.ly/eql2yl) From the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service -- in 2003!: How will the supply of Whitebark Pine Nuts affect Grizzlies in Yellowstone? (http://1.usa.gov/gRPLBf) From National Parks Traveller: Bison, Pine Nuts, Trout and Grizzlies: Perfect Storm For Yellowstone National Park's Wildlife Managers? (http://bit.ly/hvimcP) From Deseret News -- in 2003: Bumper crop of pine nuts for grizzlies (http://bit.ly/id9v0v) From Environment360 -- in 2009: Yellowstone’s Grizzly Bears Face Threats on Two Fronts (http://bit.ly/eeavZx) From Yellowstone Science -- in 2006: Grizzly Bear Nutrition and Ecology Studies in Yellowstone National Park (http://bit.ly/dOLbYV) All this is from the first 10 hits of a Google search on the subject -- all of it supports the notion that loss of important forage may drive bears into regions where they are more likely to come into contact and confrontation with humans. If you know of contrary evidence, we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your attack on journalism seems driven more by your own bias than on any actual fault with the work journalists do. Journalists do NOT have to wait until the scientific community makes up its mind -- which it almost never does on anything -- before drawing their own conclusions about an issue. Journalists are supposed to be independent, too, and sometimes they might (heaven forbid!) come to different conclusions that scientists will. Nevertheless, what they say and write should should be based on evidence, or at least on reasonable inference drawn from available evidence. It appears Solotaroff's statements are journalistically -- even scientifically -- valid at this point. Dave On 4/17/2011 12:17 PM, Lynn M. Moore wrote: I heard the NPR interview yesterday and was left angered. I have been a public radio supporter for many years. NPR has been under attack for presenting unbalanced coverage. For the first time, I have to agree. The only part of the interview with Paul Solotaroff that may represent current scientific hypotheses is the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Ten years of drought in Wyoming is linked to the pine beetle epidemic, and is a significant departure from the historical range of variability in this system. The loss of the pine nuts represents a significant loss of food source to the grizzly. But the accuracy of the interview stops there. Paul Solotaroff is speculating about the loss of trout (brook, cutthroat, and rainbow) numbers. While there may be an effect upon these populations from climate change, I do not think that scientists have enough data as yet to make that statement. Most fish research concerning climate change is focused upon downstream areas where the warming trend is more pronounced. Anyone who has ever hunted outside of Yellowstone Park knows that for decades, for as long as managed hunting has occurred, the grizzly bears of Yellowstone Park have learned the gun shot dinner bell. The bears have not suddenly learned this behavior over the last ten years. Finally, if you read the original Ghost Park article by Solotaroff in Men's Journal, two paragraphs are devoted to the gory details concerning the bear fatalities last year. Not even the right wing conservative newspapers in Wyoming detailed how Dr. Evert was killed. He does not seem to mention the fact that bear attacks occur every year in the Rocky Mountain Region and are largely a result of the bear-human interface. This interview is a blatant example of why the public questions our science. If a journalist's job is to fact check using multiple sources, then what Solotaroff does is not journalism, it is sensationalism. Soltaroff does not communicate important information to the public and policymakers; what he communicates is an opinion not fact. Lynn Moore Graduate Student Program in Ecology University of Wyoming -- -- 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
[ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Ecolog While the Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being informed by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-bears-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT - Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
[ECOLOG-L] more ideas, list and new threads Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear all:
Please feel free to provide more ideas about effectively communicating
science to the public.
I will not be able to do this for at least several weeks, but someone
requested a list of the suggestions from the original thread: Disseminating
scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science
readily accessible?. I can compile the book references, the notion of an
online data base, etc. I you would like this list, please let me know.
Please note I will only be compiling the public posts. If the private
posters (to me, or side discussions to others) would like to have their
ideas incorporated in the list, but their identifying information removed,
then I am more than willing to include your ideas in the master list.
I am pleased to notice the original thread is being spread into new threads,
such as a science and media thread, and a popular science writing thread.
Cheers,
Laura
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Laura S lesla...@gmail.com wrote:
**My apologies if this appears twice. I sent this yesterday, but I still
have not seen it today. Thus, I have sent it once more:**
Dear all:
Here, I provide some more questions for discussion. In my humble opinion, I
think it is essential to communicate important scientific findings in a way
that sticks(Question 1)and clearly lays out the implications of the
research(Question 2).
Question 1: What can scientists do to make sure the ideas they communicate
are not forgotten?
When I asked a student about what might make ideas stick with the public,
the answer was make it popular, meaning get a non-scientist, popular
celebrity on board. What do you think about this idea? I am personally NOT
a
big fan of popular media, BUT non-scientist, popular people and things they
say seem to stick in the public's mind. Attaching scientific messages with
celebrities would not mean the science had to be changed, but it would be
another way to make key ideas stick.
Question # 2: How might scientists effectively communicate the implications
of their research to the public to unsure proper funding?
If the general public realizes the implications of science, it has an
important role to play in influencing government funding of science through
lobbying, etc.
Also, with Question # 2, I provide a quote from Hubbell's book (see below).
- Hide quoted text -
In recent years, international attention to biodiversity issues has
been growing. In my experience, however, too few people, including many
of my distinguished academic colleagues and policymaker friends and
acquaintances, fully grasp the enormity and urgency of this scientific
and socioeconomic problem. In part because of this ignorance, investment
in science of biodiversity lags far behind investment in biomedical
research.
-Stephen P. Hubbell ('The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and
Biogeography')
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Laura S lesla...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all:
I think it is important to have ALL ideas on the table for discussion.
Thank you Stephen, and everyone else for posting (publicly and privately).
Why did I ask these questions? I wanted to see what others think about
these questions, and to have a discussion. I also asked them to connect with
others. I am interested in collaborating with others to promote the
communication of scientific ideas to the public; I have volunteered my time
in various public outreach activities that promote science understanding,
but I would like to do more. I would like to do more because I think science
has an essential role to play in many areas, e.g., education, environmental
concerns, conservation, and policy making.
**In my humble opinion:
I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care
about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about
science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the
school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and
nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists
conduct science.
***Here are two questions for further discussion - all ideas are
encouraged:
Do you think post-secondary institutions properly support (financially,
with job-security, etc.) scientists who choose to promote science to the
general public?
Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making
science more accessible to the general public?
Thank you,
Laura
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Caird stephen.ca...@gmail.comwrote:
I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't
so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most
scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the
innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the
role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with
the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
If anyone is interested in recent developments on the frog-atrazine story/controversy, I encourage you to examine the following two papers, both published in 2010 (links are below): A qualitative meta-analysis reveals consistent effects of atrazine on freshwater fish and amphibians (in Environmental Health Perspectives) and Preserving environmental health and scientific credibility: a practical guide to reducing conflicts of interest (in Conservation Letters). The former paper considers the quality of atrazine papers included in the meta-analysis, but conducts the analyses both including all papers and excluding papers that did not meet the quality criteria. The latter paper documents considerable errors and bias in an industry-funded review on atrazine effects. I hope you find them enlightening. EHP Paper: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/rohrlab/data/2010%20Rohr%20and%20McCoy% 20EHP.pdf EHP Supplmentary Materials: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/rohrlab/data/2010% 20Rohr%20and%20McCoy%20EHP%20Supp%20Mat.pdf Conservation Letters Paper: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/rohrlab/data/2010% 20Rohr%20and%20McCoy%20Cons.%20Lett.pdf Conservation Letters Supplementary Materials: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/rohrlab/data/2010%20Rohr%20and%20McCoy%20Cons.% 20Lett.%20Supp.%20Mat.pdf Cheers, Jason Rohr
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
?The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.? George Bernard Shaw --- Mark E. Kubiske Physiology Group Leader Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies US Forest Service, Northern Research Station 5985 Hwy K Rhinelander, WI 54501 Phone: 715-362-1108 Fax: 715-362-1166 email: mkubi...@fs.fed.us --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I'm posting this for Judith, whose having trouble posting: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! I suppose you believed the tobacco companies also? This is the SAME THING. Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant lots, crop margin, railway lines, etc. http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herba.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herbd.jpg in combination with urban sprawl: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawla.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawlb.jpg Since Cal Poly does not know how this ongoing intensive weed control or sprawl can be stopped, there's no conceivable way Cal Poly could: generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence [in milkweed, hence monarch] abundance. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Honorable Forum: The original questions were: 1) Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? 2) What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? 3) Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? The corollary questions (with respect to SCIENCE journalism--not quite the same as news reporting) might be: 1a) Should scientists write all their papers obfuscatorily or take the leap into popularization and damn the howling peers? 2a) As soon as they come up with something sensational, sensationalize it--or find a journalist who will?* 3a) Should scientists should learn how to rite rite? Or should they depend on journalists to interpret their work and get it right? If the latter, should the journalist have any responsibility for quoting accurately and properly, in context--or not? If the journalist writes misleadingly about the work, either intentionally or because of ignorance or incompetence, what recourse do scientists have beyond making a federal case out of it, perhaps at great pain and expense? *The Fourth Estate should, however, have the final say on the content of their pieces, but should not depend upon a pack of interns to vet the accuracy of quotes and interpretations that they could, more easily and cheaply get from the horse's mouth. INVESTIGATIVE journalists, should get their information in any clandestine way they can, and report their findings accordingly. There are plenty of big kings-of-the-mountain out their that don't want their questionable work or remarks exposed that journalists don't seem to want to touch. Go get THEM if you want a trophy. The mystery Laura has asked rhetorical questions, of course. But they were good ones. Most importantly, she gets at the big, big elephant in the room: If scientists are going to bemoan the general ignorance of the rest of us, it is incumbent upon them to do something about it, not merely shower us with petals of condescension from their Ivory Towers. Noblesse oblige! WT - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this by numbers. 1) The original suggestion was to allow experts to review ENTIRE stories. 2) Most journalists -- not just me -- find that suggestion anathema, unethical, and legally unwise. 3) Most reputable journalists -- including myself -- have no problem with fact-checking quotes or potentially difficult passages. 4) Item (3) is not the same as allowing the source to read the whole story. Point of fact: magazines have fact-checking departments. They will contact the source and ask if that is what the source said. (They won't share the entire story with the source, however.) Newspapers generally don't have the time, nor the support staff, to do the same. As for me, I usually have what a scientist says in an e-mail or a recording -- so there's no problem knowing what the source said. Sometimes I've even suggested to sources edited versions of quotes so that they can be on record as saying what the actually meant, not what they originally said. The problem for journalists isn't in checking facts, it is in giving a source access to the full story prior to publication. Journalism is far different from science, where peer review is routine. If we allow source review in journalism, we give up an essential independence that taints the quality of the work we do as journalists. Our job is to report matters as we see them, not as you see them. Dave On 4/11/2011 3:20 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a source can work effectively together to make sure that a story is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the source's greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The source does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your ownersip of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the truth. But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Many scientists do have agendas. I have seen it many times in the field of herpetology. This is not only evident in gray literature but in peer-reviewed literature as well. And of course books. Many academics throw out statements in the discussion sections of papers or preview sections of books making claims such as, commercial collection is decimating populations or you should never catch a herp as a pet just take a picture. They don't offer any data or proof for these statements. Many academic researchers are really animal rights folks with degrees and they are pushing a banning agenda. There are many instances of this as of late. The whole turtle banning agenda originated from concerns over turtles exported to China for food. That should be a concern but bag limits or limits on export of adults solve that problem. Instead turtle keeping (captive propagation = conservation), harvest and commercialization has been banned in many states. The Burmese Python in south Florida is part of the new invasive species banning agenda. This was originally publicized by scientists to acquire grant funding to eliminate pythons and protect endangered species in south Florida and has morphed into the Lacey Act listing of widely held species of boas and pythons nationwide crushing thousands of small businesses and making private keepers criminals. Grants keep academics working after all. The chytrid fungus in amphibians has been documented to be spread by academic field researchers and its origins in native populations are not known yet, once again, scientists along with NGOs have pushed a banning agenda (expensive prohibitive screenings) on the import of amphibians. I know this is a side topic of the one being discussed but I had to agree with Mr. Lawrence that scientists have agendas, too. Mike Welker El Paso, TX - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Malcolm, I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary principle is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A group of scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial collection (for instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the expression of like minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature. Further, many scientists make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme end of the spectrum because it fits this agenda. They can also heavily influence regulators because regulators usually come from the same vine and usually are of like mind. As both a scientist and a private business owner it is really plain to see. In one way I don't blame scientists in that you have to present a worse picture then actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get some of what you want. The could occur part is the part where abuse of the pre-cautionary principle comes into play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside many scientists are animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to far. And it shows in their literature, statements and activism. This causes them to lose some credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise. Especially since there are scientifically sound management approaches to many of the problems that create a win win. If a scientist is against hunting, collecting, commercializing or captive propagation of flora and fauna you don't think that influences them or their work? Is he or she of such great mind because they have letters after their name that their opinion is the only course of action? Or that they are the only ones who have the right to work with these animals? In the name of science? If supporting the conservation at all costs agenda earns them accolades from like minded colleagues you don't think they will perpetuate the agenda? Is the pushing of this agenda at the expense of the rights, loves, hobbies and businesses of the private citizen okay? I know some academics have the banning agenda. Why? Because wildlife management techniques can be used to conserve species and they are rarely used for anything other then game animals. Many don't stand up and say let's manage. Let's regulate. Why? Because of the mis-use of the pre-cautionary principle and the mind set of no hunting, no collecting, no commercialization - the banning agenda. Mike Welker El Paso, TX PS: Scientists are bottom line thinkers too. They have to pay bills just like everyone else. I understand your point I am just saying. - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to work for the greater good. Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good. However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for the greater good of society and the planet, but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you certainly can have confidence that there is some truth to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs, although sometimes you must read between the lines with the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive, whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the bottom line motive. Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco. Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so motivated. On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Wayne, As a current student at a university, I find that many of the professors here who have their own research appear to be very much focused on teaching the students the best they can. But there are also many faculty at the university that do not want to teach and focus only on their own research. It was pointed out in an earlier email that not all scientists are teachers, which I think is a very good point. Perhaps there needs to be more go-between people that know science very well and can adequately communicate it to the public. With these arguments about journalism and publicity in general, it is apparent that scientists need another way that is better. I believe someone sent an email about having a website on ocean issues. Perhaps the Internet is a better way to go than tv and newspapers. I was daydreaming yesterday and I was thinking what I would want as a student and as a citizen and as an environmentalist. It would be cool and interesting if we had some sort of database set up, free to the public (much like Cornell's bird database) that collected most/all of the research that has been done and grouped it according to localities and issues within those localities. If I was interested in the research that has been going on near Detroit, Michigan, I would be able to go to this imaginary database and look up Michigan and find which topic or issue I would like to know more about. It wouldn't just have the actual research papers, either, but would probably have facts/suggestions that scientists have found (much like the sections on each species on the Cornell bird database). Even better would be to include things that YOU could do to help this issue. Granted, this would be VERY time consuming and probably costly, but just THINK of the possibilities! I know so many non-scientists that RAVE about current issues and others that are curious about one thing or another. What if we could simply click into the research database and find out what's going on in our own local area? Do you think the public would be more interested then? Thanks, Lizzy Burnett - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:22:41 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Honorable Forum: The original questions were: 1) Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? 2) What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? 3) Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? The corollary questions (with respect to SCIENCE journalism--not quite the same as news reporting) might be: 1a) Should scientists write all their papers obfuscatorily or take the leap into popularization and damn the howling peers? 2a) As soon as they come up with something sensational, sensationalize it--or find a journalist who will?* 3a) Should scientists should learn how to rite rite? Or should they depend on journalists to interpret their work and get it right? If the latter, should the journalist have any responsibility for quoting accurately and properly, in context--or not? If the journalist writes misleadingly about the work, either intentionally or because of ignorance or incompetence, what recourse do scientists have beyond making a federal case out of it, perhaps at great pain and expense? *The Fourth Estate should, however, have the final say on the content of their pieces, but should not depend upon a pack of interns to vet the accuracy of quotes and interpretations that they could, more easily and cheaply get from the horse's mouth. INVESTIGATIVE journalists, should get their information in any clandestine way they can, and report their findings accordingly. There are plenty of big kings-of-the-mountain out their that don't want their questionable work or remarks exposed that journalists don't seem to want to touch. Go get THEM if you want a trophy. The mystery Laura has asked rhetorical questions, of course. But they were good ones. Most importantly, she gets at the big, big elephant in the room: If scientists are going to bemoan the general ignorance of the rest of us, it is incumbent upon them to do something about it, not merely shower us with petals of condescension from their Ivory Towers. Noblesse oblige! WT - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this by numbers. 1) The original suggestion was to allow experts to review ENTIRE stories. 2) Most journalists
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
These questions have certainly sparked an interesting debate. However, I think the focus on the, apparently somewhat strained, relationship between scientists and journalists may be limiting the discussion. For one thing, science journalism at many media outlets is dwindling. As newspapers struggle, science journalism is often one of the first things to be cut. This means that science news items often come almost verbatim from press releases put out by universities or other research organizations. While I think we should all bemoan the decline of science journalism, for scientists who have had bad experiences with journalists, this trend does have a silver lining. Press releases are written by press officers and communications directors whose job it is to publicize the work of scientists at their institution. This means that they have a vested interest in getting the science right, and presenting it in a way that the scientist is happy with. Developing a close working relationship with the communications office at your institution will be one of the most effective and easiest ways to make sure your research is widely and accurately disseminated. Another approach is to do your own popular writing. While academic training rarely prepares a scientist to do this and the reward structures in academia don't necessarily encourage popular writing, some scientists can pull this off. One good example of this in ecology is Bernd Heinrich. While some on this list-serve may be familiar with his hundreds of academic papers, I suspect more are familiar with his many popular books on natural history and field ecology. While telling fascinating stories about the natural world, Bernd also describes his process of learning about nature, and that process is science, close observation and experimentation. I find this kind of writing one of the most effective ways of teaching the public about the scientific method. Jan Cannon, a documentary film maker, has recently produced a film on Bernd's life and approach to science and writing that I think many on this list would enjoy. A trailer can be seen and DVDs ordered from the film maker's website: http://www.jancannonfilms.com/berndheinrichfilm.htm All the best, Josh Rapp On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Hello David, I have an AS degree in Zoo Animal Technology from Santa Fe Community College and am the former head of the Reptile Department at the Central Florida Zoo. I have a BS in Wildlife Science from North Carolina State University and have worked on field research projects for the University of Florida, The Florida Museum of Natural History, The USDA Forest Service, the University of Central Florida and the University of Alabama. I have authored around a dozen small communications in Herp Review and co-authored the article: Gizzard Shad Thiamaninase Activity and Its Effect on the Thiamine Status of Captive American Alligators in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. I have a GIS Graduate Certificate in Environmental Information Systems. And just completed my Masters in Environmental Policy and Management from the University of Denver to which a manuscript is in prep for the Journal of Wildlife Management from my Masters Capstone titled: Regulation of the Amphibian and Reptile trade in Texas: A review of the White and Black Lists with recommendations for improvement. I have kept, worked with and tried to conserve herps all of my life. So, yes, I have a very educated and experienced agenda. I am quite qualified to make the comments I do. I also need to earn a living just like you, however, I am very poor (so I am not in it for the money) and just love what I do. Further, I had the conservation at all costs mentality during the 90's before my wildlife science degree and personally know many academics that feel the same way. Yes I do acquire live specimens for researchers, hobbyists and myself, and breed herps and rodents through my business Ocotillo Herpetofauna Invertebrates. So I know how and why this agenda negatively affects the reptile industry, small businesses and hobbyists while not conserving herps and basically protecting them into extinction. We won't get into Constitutional rights and the many other issues associated with this subject topic. And since I am educated in wildlife management and conservation biology I am quite familiar with the scientifically backed methods that could be used to correctly, and fairly regulate the reptile industry to conserve herps creating a win/win situation with the private sector and small businesses rather then the current banning agenda which alienates the private sector. As you can probably guess I have to get back to my animals. I take excellent care of them. But I could go on and on about the facts I have thrown out on this forum. I just don't have the time. Maybe we can start to explore some of the statements I have made. However, many of you would have to do some soul searching to admit the agendas within you and how these agendas affect others, your research, your teaching and what you advocate for? I apologize for being so harsh. I am very passionate about this topic. Mike Welker El Paso, TX - Original Message - From: mcnee...@cox.net To: Michael E. Welker ; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Michael, do you operate an animal collection and sales business, this one: Michael E. Welker, dba Ocotillo Herpetofauna Invertebrates, 3697 Yanagisako, 79938 ? If so, is it possible that your pecuniary interests give you an agenda which you are pushing in these comments? Sincerely, David McNeely Michael E. Welker sustainableharve...@gmail.com wrote: Malcolm, I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary principle is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A group of scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial collection (for instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the expression of like minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature. Further, many scientists make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme end of the spectrum because it fits this agenda. They can also heavily influence regulators because regulators usually come from the same vine and usually are of like mind. As both a scientist and a private business owner it is really plain to see. In one way I don't blame scientists in that you have to present a worse picture then actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get some of what you want. The could occur part is the part where abuse of the pre-cautionary principle comes into play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside many scientists are animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to far. And it shows in their literature, statements and activism. This causes them to lose some credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise. Especially since there are scientifically sound management approaches
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
have made. However, many of you would have to do some soul
searching to admit the agendas within you and how these agendas affect
others, your research, your teaching and what you advocate for?
I apologize for being so harsh. I am very passionate about this topic.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
- Original Message -
From: mcnee...@cox.net
To: Michael E. Welker ; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Michael, do you operate an animal collection and sales business, this one:
Michael E. Welker, dba Ocotillo Herpetofauna Invertebrates, 3697
Yanagisako, 79938 ?
If so, is it possible that your pecuniary interests give you an agenda
which you are pushing in these comments?
Sincerely, David McNeely
Michael E. Welker sustainableharve...@gmail.com wrote:
Malcolm,
I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly
or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary
principle is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A
group of scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial
collection (for instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the
expression of like minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature.
Further, many scientists make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme
end of the spectrum because it fits this agenda. They can also heavily
influence regulators because regulators usually come from the same vine and
usually are of like mind. As both a scientist and a private business owner it
is really plain to see. In one way I don't blame scientists in that you have
to present a worse picture then actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get
some of what you want. The could occur part is the part where abuse of the
pre-cautionary prin!
ciple comes into play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside
many scientists are animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to
far. And it shows in their literature, statements and activism. This causes
them to lose some credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise.
Especially since there are scientifically sound management approaches to many
of the problems that create a win win.
If a scientist is against hunting, collecting, commercializing or captive
propagation of flora and fauna you don't think that influences them or their
work? Is he or she of such great mind because they have letters after their
name that their opinion is the only course of action? Or that they are the
only ones who have the right to work with these animals? In the name of
science? If supporting the conservation at all costs agenda earns them
accolades from like minded colleagues you don't think they will perpetuate
the agenda? Is the pushing of this agenda at the expense of the rights,
loves, hobbies and businesses of the private citizen okay?
I know some academics have the banning agenda. Why? Because wildlife
management techniques can be used to conserve species and they are rarely
used for anything other then game animals. Many don't stand up and say let's
manage. Let's regulate. Why? Because of the mis-use of the pre-cautionary
principle and the mind set of no hunting, no collecting, no commercialization
- the banning agenda.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
PS: Scientists are bottom line thinkers too. They have to pay bills just
like everyone else. I understand your point I am just saying.
- Original Message -
From: malcolm McCallum
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to
work for the greater good.
Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good.
However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for
the greater good of society and the planet,
but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an
individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as
an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you
certainly can have confidence that there is some truth
to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs,
although sometimes you must read between the lines with
the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive,
whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the
bottom line motive.
Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts
backed up with data can affect profits, see
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
No, it's a real issue, not an assumed one. On 4/12/2011 11:40 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: So far as I have been able to conclude from the 15-20 emails in this thread, there was no qualification that the ENTIRE story be read. However, considering that I've had seven newspapers allow me to see it, I find it hard to believe that this is a real issue and more of an assumed one The post that got me started on this thread is: On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ... When someone says clear the piece, they usually mean they are seeking to review and approve the entire piece. That is not fact-checking. Dave -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Something weird is happening on this thread. The original post related to how scientists should communicate their research results to the general public. The implicit assumption behind this question is that communication with the public is *not the same as* communication among scientist themselves. About twenty posts ago I made statements that embrace this assumption but that assault our cherished ideals that people should be persuaded by logic and evidence. I made reasoned arguments based on the history of Nazi Germany, experience from our own neighborhoods, and studies on the higiene behavior of health-care workers. I suggest that VOLUME and REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason. My post was completely ignored by everyone except Wayne T., who hoped I wasn't serious. This could mean that list-followers thought my observations were so obviously correct that they didn't require comment, or were so ridiculous that they didn't merit comment, or that people just didn't know what to say. In a way, it proves the point I was advancing: I was logical and presented evidence (albeit anecdotal) and was ignored. Meanwhile, an emotional discussion of journalistic practice, through REPETITION, diverted the thread. So I'll throw it out there again: the truth content of your message doesn't relate to whether it is accepted by the public or not. It how often they hear it that matters. That doesn't mean you have to lie. Tell the truth as your research reveals it, and tell it over and over and over. The fact that liars will be using the same tactic means that you have to increase the din even more. Advertisers know this. Why can't scientists figure it out? Martin M. Meiss 2011/4/11 Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
No come on applies here, Malcolm. I have studied media law -- it's kind of an important aspect of my staying employed. When you show someone an advance copy of a story, and they protest but you run the story anyway, you make yourself a lot more vulnerable to losing any legal proceeding that may result. Dave On 4/12/2011 11:33 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: Oh, come on. The minute you write anything down whether anyone has read it or not you open yourself and your newspaper up to a lawsuit. This protectionist philosophy does not protect you from suit it places you in a more susceptible position to a lawsuit. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:29 PM, David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com wrote: Malcolm, there is a big difference between checking quotes and allowing a source to see the full story beforehand. What has been proposed is allowing scientists to see the WHOLE story, not just the QUOTES from that source. None of my journalistic colleagues have a problem with running a QUOTE past a source for accuracy. Sending the full story is often taken as an opportunity to rewrite the story, and -- as Wendee has said -- can open the journalist up to a lawsuit if the source doesn't like what he reads. Dave -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Paul, You do realize that Syngenta spends a large amount of money on websites and other media asserting that atrazine is safe and has no affect on wildlife or humans at ppb levels. There have also been law suits by 16 midwestern cities in six states suing Syngenta for water treatment costs to remove atrazine from drinking water. Lastly, Syngenta cannot sell atrazine in the home of its corporate headquarters, Switzerland, as the EU has banned the use of atrazine as a herbicide. Obviously, there are quite a few people on the other side of this issue also. Jim Novak On Apr 11, 2011, at 10:11 PM, Paul Cherubini wrote: Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Well, maybe. Repetition certainly seems to work for some political messages. I suggest that the MESSENGER also matters. People are much more receptive to information of any kind if it comes from someone they identify with. This is why it is problematic to have a political figure, such as Al Gore, delivering a scientific message about climate change. Some people respond to him, rather than to the message. Some reject the message out of hand, because their cultural affiliations lie elsewhere. Are you the best messenger for your own science? Do you have a cultural affiliation with the audience you are trying to reach? I think these are important questions to ask. Dawn Stover On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Martin Meiss wrote: I suggest that VOLUME and REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Martin has a point. Ever seen television ads for a political campaign? They are simple and repeated over and over and over and over again. All this angst from scientists about communicating reminds me of a Tom Lehrer quote: If a person feels he can't communicate, the least he can do is shut up about it. Cheers, David Duffy At 12:07 PM 4/12/2011, Martin Meiss wrote: Something weird is happening on this thread. The original post related to how scientists should communicate their research results to the general public. The implicit assumption behind this question is that communication with the public is *not the same as* communication among scientist themselves. About twenty posts ago I made statements that embrace this assumption but that assault our cherished ideals that people should be persuaded by logic and evidence. I made reasoned arguments based on the history of Nazi Germany, experience from our own neighborhoods, and studies on the higiene behavior of health-care workers. I suggest that VOLUME and REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason. My post was completely ignored by everyone except Wayne T., who hoped I wasn't serious. This could mean that list-followers thought my observations were so obviously correct that they didn't require comment, or were so ridiculous that they didn't merit comment, or that people just didn't know what to say. In a way, it proves the point I was advancing: I was logical and presented evidence (albeit anecdotal) and was ignored. Meanwhile, an emotional discussion of journalistic practice, through REPETITION, diverted the thread. So I'll throw it out there again: the truth content of your message doesn't relate to whether it is accepted by the public or not. It how often they hear it that matters. That doesn't mean you have to lie. Tell the truth as your research reveals it, and tell it over and over and over. The fact that liars will be using the same tactic means that you have to increase the din even more. Advertisers know this. Why can't scientists figure it out? Martin M. Meiss 2011/4/11 Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini David Cameron Duffy Professor of Botany and Unit Leader Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) University of Hawai`i 3190 Maile Way St. John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822-2279 (808) 956-8218 phone (808) 956-4710 fax / (808) 956-3923 (backup fax) email address: ddu...@hawaii.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
In an ideal world, that is the way the law works -- but in the real world someone with a bad case and lots of money can destroy someone with an ironclad case, but few resources with which to defend himself or herself. Right or wrong has little to do with it, unfortunately. Dave On 4/12/2011 6:28 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote: Of course, if your article is correct, backed up by facts, and legit, you have nothing to really worry about. They can protest all they want, file law suits, they will be tossed out as frivolous. If it does have questionable stuff in it, then its probably not ready to release. Malcolm On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM, David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com wrote: No come on applies here, Malcolm. I have studied media law -- it's kind of an important aspect of my staying employed. When you show someone an advance copy of a story, and they protest but you run the story anyway, you make yourself a lot more vulnerable to losing any legal proceeding that may result. Dave On 4/12/2011 11:33 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: Oh, come on. The minute you write anything down whether anyone has read it or not you open yourself and your newspaper up to a lawsuit. This protectionist philosophy does not protect you from suit it places you in a more susceptible position to a lawsuit. Malcolm -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Lizzy and Forum: Lizzy has an excellent idea. It is thinking like hers that will help the Internet grow up into a more mature medium, or at least help part of it realize unrealized potential. Ideally, every web entry would be linked to all relevant links, ad infinitum, such that any reader could start at any point and follow a chain of evidence as far as desired. Universities will have to change too; if they and their professors and scientists want a more informed public, they will have to transform themselves into an increasingly integrated part of a human-wide intellectual endeavor. To do that, they will have to examine their own paradigms, presumptions, and biases, not to mention their practices and security blankets. Your more up-to-date information about higher learning comports with my quite outdated experience; unfortunately this synonymy does not bode well for the future and does not speak well for the status quo. YOU make the most of your advanced thinking, and ask me for help when and if you think you need it. Your generation is the future (not to get into corny commencement platitudes), and I, for one, think it is in pretty good hands. Take the ball and run with it and we, the elders will be cheering you on--even coming down out of the stands, but only when you need us and want us. I, at least, will not deign to dictate what you do or how you go about it, but will join in when something important grabs me. WT - Original Message - From: Elizabeth Burnett eabur...@mtu.edu To: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net Cc: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Wayne, As a current student at a university, I find that many of the professors here who have their own research appear to be very much focused on teaching the students the best they can. But there are also many faculty at the university that do not want to teach and focus only on their own research. It was pointed out in an earlier email that not all scientists are teachers, which I think is a very good point. Perhaps there needs to be more go-between people that know science very well and can adequately communicate it to the public. With these arguments about journalism and publicity in general, it is apparent that scientists need another way that is better. I believe someone sent an email about having a website on ocean issues. Perhaps the Internet is a better way to go than tv and newspapers. I was daydreaming yesterday and I was thinking what I would want as a student and as a citizen and as an environmentalist. It would be cool and interesting if we had some sort of database set up, free to the public (much like Cornell's bird database) that collected most/all of the research that has been done and grouped it according to localities and issues within those localities. If I was interested in the research that has been going on near Detroit, Michigan, I would be able to go to this imaginary database and look up Michigan and find which topic or issue I would like to know more about. It wouldn't just have the actual research papers, either, but would probably have facts/suggestions that scientists have found (much like the sections on each species on the Cornell bird database). Even better would be to include things that YOU could do to help this issue. Granted, this would be VERY time consuming and probably costly, but just THINK of the possibilities! I know so many non-scientists that RAVE about current issues and others that are curious about one thing or another. What if we could simply click into the research database and find out what's going on in our own local area? Do you think the public would be more interested then? Thanks, Lizzy Burnett - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:22:41 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Honorable Forum: The original questions were: 1) Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? 2) What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? 3) Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? The corollary questions (with respect to SCIENCE journalism--not quite the same as news reporting) might be: 1a) Should scientists write all their papers obfuscatorily or take the leap into popularization and damn the howling peers? 2a) As soon as they come up with something sensational, sensationalize it--or find a journalist who will?* 3a) Should scientists should learn how to rite rite
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Ecolog: For the record, I agree with Meiss. Apparently I misunderstood him; if I misinterpreted him, I regret the error. Meiss also observes correctly that the thread wandered off the subject. Perhaps the journalism issue should be split from the original thread (whilst preserving the relationship), perhaps by re-labeling it Communication Scientific Public Informed Journalism or some such logical subject-line that will best serve those searching the archive at some future date? But whatever the discussion, I do hope that the dissemination of information, scientific and otherwise, becomes more than propaganda; if the public is going to better informed, it will have to catch onto the concept, central to intellectual (and scientific) integrity, that the quest is the thing, not the answer, not even the fact. Scientists, like the discussants on this thread, do have a responsibility, as Meiss suggests, to be fully responsive to the points raised in the communication upon which the response is based, and not to digress and divert attention from it. At one time, especially in scholarly discourse, this custom was scrupulously observed. Scientists, and even science writers and other journalists, if they are not mere demagogues, would be well-advised to restore this discipline to their discourse. That may be the first prerequisite for communicating scientific thought to the general public; if so, it would seem that discourse among scientists and scholars deserves no less. And scientists, above all, should welcome public criticism--and respond to it on point, as just outlined. WT - Original Message - From: Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Something weird is happening on this thread. The original post related to how scientists should communicate their research results to the general public. The implicit assumption behind this question is that communication with the public is *not the same as* communication among scientist themselves. About twenty posts ago I made statements that embrace this assumption but that assault our cherished ideals that people should be persuaded by logic and evidence. I made reasoned arguments based on the history of Nazi Germany, experience from our own neighborhoods, and studies on the higiene behavior of health-care workers. I suggest that VOLUME and REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason. My post was completely ignored by everyone except Wayne T., who hoped I wasn't serious. This could mean that list-followers thought my observations were so obviously correct that they didn't require comment, or were so ridiculous that they didn't merit comment, or that people just didn't know what to say. In a way, it proves the point I was advancing: I was logical and presented evidence (albeit anecdotal) and was ignored. Meanwhile, an emotional discussion of journalistic practice, through REPETITION, diverted the thread. So I'll throw it out there again: the truth content of your message doesn't relate to whether it is accepted by the public or not. It how often they hear it that matters. That doesn't mean you have to lie. Tell the truth as your research reveals it, and tell it over and over and over. The fact that liars will be using the same tactic means that you have to increase the din even more. Advertisers know this. Why can't scientists figure it out? Martin M. Meiss 2011/4/11 Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I have had enough dealings with the media (plus an undergraduate class in journalism) to know that it is inappropriate for an interviewee to review and approve a story before it is published or aired and to make this a condition of the interview. That's interfering with journalistic freedom. However, that does not mean you cannot offer to review for accuracy the quotes or information the interviewer prepares, as long as you don't intend to approve or change the interviewer's conclusions or interpretations. And don't be surprised if the interviewer turns down this offer (and don't be upset or refuse to be interviewed). It's your duty to provide an expert's information to the public, and it's the interviewer's duty to do this objectively and accurately. Most of the time this works. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov Sent: Sunday, 10 April, 2011 19:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not journalism. They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to work for the greater good. Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good. However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for the greater good of society and the planet, but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you certainly can have confidence that there is some truth to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs, although sometimes you must read between the lines with the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive, whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the bottom line motive. Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco. Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so motivated. On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not journalism. They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know what to say. Dave On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ... -- -- 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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I picked up on this in my passive following of this thread, so please excuse me if I'm restating something that someone else has said. *Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. * ** I think we can safely assume that an overwhelming majority of politicians and businessmen will spin any story to suit their needs. I agree that a dishonest agenda potentially exists for every individual when they state anything, but as the statement points out neither scientists or journalist are above this - does the cheerleader not also, wittingly or otherwise, have an agenda?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
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.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Honorable Forum: 'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark. --Alexander Reid Martin But what we have here is a failure to communicate. --Strother Martin's character in the movie, Cool Hand Luke. Failure to communicate about communicating? Pretty embarrassing. And let me make clear what I said at the end of my last post by correcting it thus: Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a whole (straw-)man. This practice is widespread, and thought by its practitioners to display how clever they are in debate, it is a hollow, phony fallacy. Some debaters use it as a diversionary tactic to shift attention away from the real issue, and too frequently this takes the form of ad hominem attacks. While I agree that the real world strongly resembles Meiss' view of the facts, I stop short of actually endorsing what I hope he is joking about--hammering a point until it is accepted as the fact that it is (or is not); it is precisely the root of what we want to prevent--distortion, unintended or intentional. While framing may be an effective expedient, manipulation is no substitute for a continuing pursuit of the truth, no matter how inconvenient--or apparently effective. This is not to say that one should not insist on sticking with the truth and repeating it often, only that if it is used as a device it reduces credibility--and often a whole group suffers for the sins of a few. Manipulation is the refuge of coward and scoundrels, but don't worry overmuch, it eventually backfires when the deception is seen for what it is. Sunshine is a powerful disinfectant. This discussion is an extremely important one; it could have implications far beyond this place in the vast and expanding cyberspace, and ultimately the future. Obviously, it is not easy. But hang in there everyone--let's not drop the challenge to clear up the issue of clearing up issues. With any luck, our discussion might help create a kind of breakthrough, so don't drop out when the going gets tough or the repetition boring; it's the necessary process of turning castings into spring steel--flexible, resilient, strong. Keep up the good work. And thanks to Laura for sparking the discussion. It's an honest question deserving of as straight an answer as we are capable of giving. WT A teacher once offered an A in the course for any student who asked an intelligent question. - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dr. Lawrence, I have to agree with Hal Caswell comments -- obviously this is a hot button issue for you and your interpretation of many of the posts, as quoted below is quite different from my own. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. I don't want to get into the issue of who has agendas etc. and it is naive to think that in this day of Murdoch dominated media that journalists are the independent and factually accurate minds that you seem to make them out to be. Personally, I have come to distrust much of the press because after being interviewed or quoted ~10-15 times I have yet rarely found a reporter who accurately reported what I actually said. In addition, in every case I asked to be able to verify my quotes and made it clear that this was just fact checking and in *every* case I was assured that I would get the article for fact checking and guess how many times it has happend - 0, Whether this is journalistic practice or not, it is untruthful. In the most egregious case I ended up writing a rebuttal to the article that was published in the Miami Herald. Now I don't think that I've ever been interviewed by a science reporter and the inaccuracies in the stories weren't exactly going to change science policy of the US or even Macon GA, but the point is that as a source you should be able to ensure that you are quoted correctly. I really don't see how you can take issue with this and the requirement that sources should be quoted accurately should be consonant with journalistic ethics not a violation of them. I still talk to the media because I believe that scientists have an obligation to do that. I just am much more careful with what I say and I have expect that there will be inaccuracies, especially regarding complex subjects. I also write a bimonthly column for a national fishing magazine so I have some experience with the other side of the coin. Please let's dial the tone back a bit and stick to the issues of whether scientists should be able to fact check articles prior to publication. There are two other interesting aspects of this general question: 1 how can you communicate in a clearer manner when dealing with the press to reduce the probability of misquotes (reporters generally don't understand p values, alpha and beta errors, or AIC or Bayesian estimators) (I know that ESA has had workshops on this.), and 2) what should one do after they've been misquoted or the information given misrepresented. cheers, G2 -- Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 Research teaching web site - http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#%21/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658 Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html Atelier 24 Lexington, Asheville NC - www.atelier24lexington.comhttp://www.atelier24lexington.com/default.html Lyndon House Art Center, Athens, GA - www.accleisureservices.com/lyndon.shtml
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I heard recently that there may be some legal precedent that by showing sources a story you can open yourself up to lawsuits. I don't recall the details but it was, I believe, based on an actual case. Do any of the other journalists here know what that is? Regardless, there are other ways to make sure a writer gets the facts straight. They can read back the quotes to the scientist, or call them back to double check facts, etc. And yes, too often stupid mistakes get through in the media BUT there are a heck of a lot of conscientious journalists and science writers out there too. As Dawn suggested, check out the background of the person doing the reporting and see what they've done, if you have any concern. Also I've had bad experience with editors making changes and introducing errors. Editors do NOT always show their edits to the story to the writer after making them, though more and more I request to see the story post-edit, pre-pub. Not all will do it. And my name is on it, so... yea you can bet it's frustrating every but as much as having a mis-quote out there. I am a stickler for making sure the science is absolutely dead on accurate, and not every writer is (or sometimes understands the science) but like I said, I'll say again - there are many outstanding science writers out there too who are every bit as conscientious about making sure the facts and quotes are accurate. Wendee Wendee Holtcamp ~ Writer * Photographer * Bohemian * Scientist Web: [www.wendeeholtcamp.com] Blog: [bohemianadventures.blogspot.com] Twitter: @bohemianone Next Online Magazine Writing Classes start April 23 Jun 4, 2011 - Ask me! -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:14 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified. In fact, about 10 years ago I was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I was quoted as saying a frog could grow an extra leg later in life instead of during metamorphosis. This was a very minor error based on a misunderstanding. Had I seen it before hand I could have indicated the error apriori. Isn't being proactive better than cleaning up a mess later. Of course, none of the fallout from this statement fell on the well-minded journalist, I had to repeatedly explain that it was a misquote! On the other hand, I was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and was not offered the opportunity to read the article or review quotes, but the end product was good and I don't recall any inaccuracies in that article. However, I have been quoted in the Jonesboro Sun, Belleville News Democrat, Arkansas Gazette, Texarkana Gazette, Collinsville Journal, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and Chicago Tribune. In every case they asked me to double check their quotes to make sure they were accurate! I never asked! The explanation in each case from the newspapers that offered this opportunity was to ensure accuracy. The funny thing is that none of those offering had any substantial errors! Why any journalist would not want to do this is beyond me. I appreciate that DW Lawrence has education and experience in this field, as did the one journalist who concurred with your approach. However, the seven other journalists and editors who requested my double-check of their quotes. By no means am I suggesting this is a 7-2 vote either, these are just the total of my experiences. I don't think this has anything to do with trust and has everything to do with reality. We are all human. A journalist is certainly able to misinterpret what a scientist says, and a scientist is certainly able to miscommunicate what one means. If one or the other happens, critical misreporting can happen. If both errors occur, the entire report can be turned upside down. This approach is just as beneficial for the reporter as the interviewee. Having said that, I do not recall requesting this privilege from any of the reporters. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just relating my experience. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not journalism. They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know what to say. Dave On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ... -- -- 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 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- -- 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 - Hal Caswell Senior Scientist Biology Department
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Hi Malcolm, there are a number of reasons why many publications do not allow writers to share articles with sources before they are published. This is not a comprehensive list but here are some of the considerations: 1) There might not be time to review the article with a source, particularly in a breaking-news environment. 2) The source might forward the story before it is published, and it could fall into the wrong hands (a competitor, for example). 3) Some sources take this as an opportunity to edit the text, rather than simply vetting it for accuracy. For example, some scientists want to clutter the article with credits for everyone involved in their research. I've even had a scientist ask me to change his quote so that his boss could get credit for what he said. 4) If the article quotes someone who is critical of the scientist's work, the scientist might take offense at that—and perhaps even try to prevent publication of the article. 5) There is a legitimate concern about making scientists collaborators rather than sources. The role of journalists is to explain and interpret, not to transcribe. Good journalists do their best to fact-check articles, and some of us occasionally read back portions of articles to sources to make sure we're understanding things correctly (when we are not forbidden by our employers from doing so). I personally think that can be a valuable thing to do, although I don't make a routine practice of it. If I made an error, I would certainly prefer to learn of that while there was still time to correct it. But in the end, journalists can't cede control over articles to our sources. I am very sympathetic toward scientists who have been mistreated by journalists, and I'm afraid that is all too common. There is no system of credentialing in journalism, and even our ethical standards are only customs, not rules. However, we do have some checks and balances in our world. Perhaps the strongest of those is our own version of peer review: If we get something wrong, our competitors are happy to point that out! And our editors are not happy when we make mistakes, whether it's spelling someone's name wrong or misunderstanding a basic ecological concept. Of course, editors can be even more harried and science-illiterate than reporters, but that's another story... Rather than avoiding all journalists (which defeats your purpose of educating the public about science), I suggest that you invest a little time in learning more about why journalists behave the way we do, and figuring out who's who. You can work with your university's public information officers to identify journalists who will get the science right. You can become a trusted source to those journalists, even for stories that don't involve your own work. I realize that universities do not always reward scientists for investing time in outreach, so I appreciate it very much when scientists make time for this. Dawn Stover (freelance science writer and editor, currently working at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) On Apr 11, 2011, at 12:13 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Gary, I agree that there is no excuse for not delivering on promises. Whenever I promise to verify quotes, I always do so, even though this can be tricky if there is a time lapse between the interview and the final edit. I don't know of any media organizations that prohibit, or even discourage, this practice. But if all of my sources demanded to check final quotes, it would be quite an inconvenience. Most scientists trust me to get their quotes right, perhaps because I record many of my interviews (with permission, of course). I also agree that the media are by no means uniformly trustworthy, independent, accurate and fair. That's why I think it makes sense to form your own judgments about which journalists can be trusted (based on their track record as well as your own personal experiences with them), and to be proactive about seeking out relationships with those people. We need to distinguish here between verifying quotes and sending a copy of an entire article, which you have lumped together as fact checking. Many publications make a practice of reading back quotes to sources, and that is something that sources can request or demand if it is not offered. Sending the draft of an entire article, however, is another matter. Most publications do not make a habit of it, and many forbid it. Some sections of the article may be about another scientist's work, perhaps even someone who disagrees with you; should you have the right to check those portions of the article too? I think you can see why this could be problematic. As I said earlier, there is no hard-and-fast rule about sharing stories. Some of us are willing to read back portions of an article— either for our own fact-checking, or to reassure you that we got it right. But that is not always practical or necessary, and at many publications it is just not allowed. Best, Dawn Stover On Apr 11, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Gary Grossman wrote: In addition, in every case I asked to be able to verify my quotes and made it clear that this was just fact checking and in *every* case I was assured that I would get the article for fact checking and guess how many times it has happend - 0, Whether this is journalistic practice or not, it is untruthful.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Yes, just look at the sensationalized stories the universities themselves put out. Three real life examples: 1) Popular weed killer demasculinizes frogs, disrupts their sexual development, UC Berkeley study shows http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frogs.html Because the herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries, its effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians 2) Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, 3) Butterflies on the Brink http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-11/Butterflies.html Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction. Launched in 2001 and now under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. The ultimate goal of the program is to help shape conservation management techniques that will stem the population decline or even boost the number of monarchs. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this by numbers. 1) The original suggestion was to allow experts to review ENTIRE stories. 2) Most journalists -- not just me -- find that suggestion anathema, unethical, and legally unwise. 3) Most reputable journalists -- including myself -- have no problem with fact-checking quotes or potentially difficult passages. 4) Item (3) is not the same as allowing the source to read the whole story. Point of fact: magazines have fact-checking departments. They will contact the source and ask if that is what the source said. (They won't share the entire story with the source, however.) Newspapers generally don't have the time, nor the support staff, to do the same. As for me, I usually have what a scientist says in an e-mail or a recording -- so there's no problem knowing what the source said. Sometimes I've even suggested to sources edited versions of quotes so that they can be on record as saying what the actually meant, not what they originally said. The problem for journalists isn't in checking facts, it is in giving a source access to the full story prior to publication. Journalism is far different from science, where peer review is routine. If we allow source review in journalism, we give up an essential independence that taints the quality of the work we do as journalists. Our job is to report matters as we see them, not as you see them. Dave On 4/11/2011 3:20 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a source can work effectively together to make sure that a story is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the source's greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The source does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your ownersip of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the truth. But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, specifically stating that they were preliminary and on! ly! of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of a person obsessed with selling a potion, stating that he claimed to have proven something he had labeled as an odd finding, in need of additional scrutiny. Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many interviews he has given since. Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the source is able to say, That is not what I said, and my published reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it. mcneely -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant lots, crop margin, railway lines, etc. http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herba.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herbd.jpg in combination with urban sprawl: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawla.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawlb.jpg Since Cal Poly does not know how this ongoing intensive weed control or sprawl can be stopped, there's no conceivable way Cal Poly could: generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence [in milkweed, hence monarch] abundance. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? I realize that more recent work on corn pollen and monarchs has led to different understandings. However, how is the report here sensationalized? I am particularly puzzled by your giving the Cal Poly work on monarchs as an example of a sensationalized report. Goodness, a scientist works with a group of undergraduate students, following up on work done by a now retired professor, to learn more about monarch populations. I suppose that is the sensational aspect, that undergraduates are working on something they find interesting, that is worth investigating, and that may lead to better conservation of western monarch populations. Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. It seems reasonable for his university to put out a story about it, highlighting some of the findings. mcneely Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Yes, just look at the sensationalized stories the universities themselves put out. Three real life examples: 1) Popular weed killer demasculinizes frogs, disrupts their sexual development, UC Berkeley study shows http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frogs.html Because the herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries, its effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians 2) Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, 3) Butterflies on the Brink http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-11/Butterflies.html Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction. Launched in 2001 and now under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. The ultimate goal of the program is to help shape conservation management techniques that will stem the population decline or even boost the number of monarchs. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I can't speak for the other studies, but I can speak on the Atrazine issue. Atrazine is an estrogen mimic. It imitates estrogen when it enters organisms. Numerous studies were published, not just by Hayes, but also others. I don't see anything sensational about his claims. In fact, you might want to read the long string of papers on the subject by multiple independent investigators who have come up with essentially similar results and published their findings in the leading journals in science, environmental toxicology, and environmental health. See below. Hayes et al. 2002. Proceedings of the Natl Acad of Sci. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476.short Allran Kasalrov 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620200411/full Tavera-Mendoza et al. 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620210621/full Howe et al. 1998. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620170324/full Diana et al. 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620191217/full Storrs et al. 2004. Env. Health perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247376/ Hayes et al. 2002. Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/abs/419895a.html Rohr et al. 2006. Env. health perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332655/ Reeder et al. 1998. Env. Health Perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533093/ Hayes et al. 2003. Env. Health Perspectives. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241446/ Carr et al. 2003. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620220222/full Beasley et al. ???. Book. http://courses.nres.uiuc.edu/nres456/BeasleyEtAlRiskFactorsLannoo-5April05-GK046-1460G-C13%5B075-086%5D1.pdf The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not journalism. They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know what to say. Dave On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ... -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? No. If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? for accuracy. the scientist is not trying to control what you say, but to help you to be accurate. If the source says, My data suggest that if X is done, Y will happen, but G has found differently, and the reporter writes, If X is done, Y will happen, that is not what the source said. You must have misunderstood, and therefore you wrote an inaccurate story. I would think a clear agreement before would prevent misunderstandings as to what the source is responsible for or not. If you don't want your facts checked, you should not be writing science journalism. If you are willing to let your sources dictate your story, you should not be in journalism. But fact checking and dictating the story are different things. I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Trust works both ways. It takes trustworthiness on both sides for two individuals to work together. mcneely
[ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Warming Communicating science Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear All: I believe that the public would have more confidence in global warming claims if they were given more, not less information about the subject, with links to the supporting data, including chapter and verse. While we, the masses of unwashed ignoramuses, are awash in sound bytes equivalent in volume to the Holy Bible and the Koran (it seems) every day, we are capable of, and even desirous of, more information, evidence, and proof of claims, regardless of the source. Continuing to patronize us does little to shore up our confidence in the scientific authorities. Calling us denyers, deniers, and unbelievers (heretics, heathen, etc.) dredges up bad memories (memes, karma, or whatever) for us. For example, if a really sharp science writer would include a brief, but adequately detailed interpretation of just how the present hockey stick fits into a longer diagram of climate history, we would be more easily convinced that it is not a blip like other blips in the history of global climate change. We would also be interested in predictions of the probable consequences of doing nothing and those of doing something--say, a range of alternatives from the feasible to the fantastic, from the economical to the end of civilization as we know it. We would like to know (the evidence of) just how much of the hockey stick is due to anthropogenic (shall we say human-caused) causes and how much is due to natural causes? We would like to know which periods in the earth's climate history correspond to the hell that is coming if we don't mend our ways and endorse carbon credits, etc. Please don't send us to textbooks and other authorities--help us by interpreting all that complicated stuff for us. By the way, please stop lumping anyone and everyone who has questions in with the deniers--we get enough of straw-man fallacies from advertisers and politicians. We really do have sense enough to understand that global temperatures are going up, and we don't doubt that human activities contribute to the rise--we just don't know how much is directly and indirectly attributable to anthropogenic causes. We also are convinced that too much energy is being consumed and that too much CO2 is being released. And, yes, please convince the really nutty skeptics among us that this is not a plot by the nuclear power industry. Some of us are even conspiracy theorists or adherents to them. WT (one certified heathen brethren) If you can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't know enough about it. --Author forgotten - Original Message - From: Shermin ds shermi...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear Dawn and colleagues, I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this issue of the seeming decline in belief about climate change (talk abstract and other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully worded poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past decade or more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies the discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters. Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and carefully conducted research, see below. -Shermin -- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva *The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America presents Green Conversations with:* *Jon A. Krosnick** *Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford University “What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change: Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific Controversy” *Discussants:* *Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government *Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan *Moderated by* *Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment *Wednesday, April 6* *5:00 pm* * * ***New
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
David is focussing on those journalists who are responsible, check sources, etc. I was referring toa substantial number of journalists and politicians who like to bash scientists, not because the science is bad, but because it is vulnerable. Some research projects sound funny so it is easy to jump on them, regardless of their merit. As I pointed out in a previous post, anything with sex in the title is risky. One reporter attacked a project to grow Jerusalem Artichokes for biofuel simply because it is a funny sounding plant. Of course there are good responsible science journalists out there. Politicians too. I only tried to point out that we have to be careful to protect ourselves from the bad guys. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: domingo, 10 de Abril de 2011 12:22 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Warming Communicating science Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
climate history correspond to the hell that is coming if we don't mend our ways and endorse carbon credits, etc. Please don't send us to textbooks and other authorities--help us by interpreting all that complicated stuff for us. By the way, please stop lumping anyone and everyone who has questions in with the deniers--we get enough of straw-man fallacies from advertisers and politicians. We really do have sense enough to understand that global temperatures are going up, and we don't doubt that human activities contribute to the rise--we just don't know how much is directly and indirectly attributable to anthropogenic causes. We also are convinced that too much energy is being consumed and that too much CO2 is being released. And, yes, please convince the really nutty skeptics among us that this is not a plot by the nuclear power industry. Some of us are even conspiracy theorists or adherents to them. WT (one certified heathen brethren) If you can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't know enough about it. --Author forgotten - Original Message - From: Shermin ds shermi...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear Dawn and colleagues, I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this issue of the seeming decline in belief about climate change (talk abstract and other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully worded poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past decade or more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies the discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters. Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and carefully conducted research, see below. -Shermin -- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva *The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America presents Green Conversations with:* *Jon A. Krosnick** *Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford University “What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change: Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific Controversy” *Discussants:* *Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government *Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan *Moderated by* *Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment *Wednesday, April 6* *5:00 pm* * * ***New Location*** *Science Center A* *One Oxford St.* *Cambridge, MA* During the past decade, many climate scientists have been frustrated by the American public's apparent indifference to climate change and the threats it may pose. And in recent years, headlines on newspapers across the country have proclaimed: Scientists and the American Public Disagree Sharply Over Global Warming and Public Concern About Climate Change Wanes. Is it really true? Do Americans really not accept the opinions of scientific experts on climate change? In this presentation, Professor Jon Krosnick will describe findings from a series of national surveys that he has designed and conducted since 1996, trackingwhat Americans do and do not believe on this issue and what they do and do not want to have done about it. And one of his newest surveys focused exclusively on residents of Massachusetts, illuminating what they want government to do and how they want their Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote. Surprising results challenge many widely-held presumptions about public opinion in the nation and in Massachusetts, illuminate the increasing politicization of the issue, and set the stage for future discussion of climate change in Washington and in Boston. A leading international authority on questionnaire design and survey research methods, Professor Krosnick has taught courses for professionals on survey methods for 25 years around the world and has served
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Excellent point, Bill. Before I call a scientist to request an interview, I do some research on that person and his or her work. It's a good idea for scientists to do the same: Before you agree to be interviewed by a journalist, check out his or her work. And if the media outlet is not familiar to you, check that out too. Ask the reporter about the focus of his or her story. You may also want to ask some questions during the interview, to make sure the reporter understands what you are saying. Be prepared to make your most important points quickly and clearly. If the reporter gets the story wrong anyway, don't suffer in silence. Follow up with a call or email to explain the error, and offer to help the reporter get it right the next time around. Consider it a teachable moment. And please don't hold a bad experience against the rest of us who are doing our best to report science accurately, often under very tight deadlines. Dawn Stover On Apr 10, 2011, at 8:54 AM, William Silvert wrote: Of course there are good responsible science journalists out there. Politicians too. I only tried to point out that we have to be careful to protect ourselves from the bad guys.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
All: It's unfortunate that generic remarks about a sub-category are sometimes interpreted as applying to the entire category. Science writers and other reporters sometimes get it right most of the time, some rarely do, and there is a whole sliding scale in between. No generalization is ever true about an entire category (yes, there are exceptions to this--ironically), but there is at least a grain of truth behind most generalizations. I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Editors (newspapers, anyway) will simply chop off the end of a piece, so reporters used to put the conclusions in the first paragraph. That's just good writing anyway, and fairly easy once one gets used to it. Then the last paragraph has pretty much the same content as the first. That helps to cement the point in the reader's mind. Finally, we may have to riot in the streets just to get the attention of the infotainment clucks, or just drum them out of business by showing them up. But most people, especially scientists, are just too busy writing grant proposals to do science, much less #*!k with reporters. If they write the stuff themselves it looks bad on their CV, and the academic bureaucrats will block their grants and tenure, reviewers will trash them, and the survivorship curve will cull them out. It's unnatural selection, man! And oh, yes; the public really believes the stuff the clucks put out. My unscientific straw poll indicated more and more believers in space aliens, bigfoots, and Martian earth sculptors than there ever were in the benighted past--even, I suspect (but cannot prove) in the Dark Ages. Enlightenment, anyone? Well, CLARITY at least . . . WT Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a whole man. - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
**My apologies if this appears twice. I sent this yesterday, but I still
have not seen it today. Thus, I have sent it once more:**
Dear all:
Here, I provide some more questions for discussion. In my humble opinion, I
think it is essential to communicate important scientific findings in a way
that sticks(Question 1)and clearly lays out the implications of the
research(Question 2).
Question 1: What can scientists do to make sure the ideas they communicate
are not forgotten?
When I asked a student about what might make ideas stick with the public,
the answer was make it popular, meaning get a non-scientist, popular
celebrity on board. What do you think about this idea? I am personally NOT a
big fan of popular media, BUT non-scientist, popular people and things they
say seem to stick in the public's mind. Attaching scientific messages with
celebrities would not mean the science had to be changed, but it would be
another way to make key ideas stick.
Question # 2: How might scientists effectively communicate the implications
of their research to the public to unsure proper funding?
If the general public realizes the implications of science, it has an
important role to play in influencing government funding of science through
lobbying, etc.
Also, with Question # 2, I provide a quote from Hubbell's book (see below).
- Hide quoted text -
In recent years, international attention to biodiversity issues has
been growing. In my experience, however, too few people, including many
of my distinguished academic colleagues and policymaker friends and
acquaintances, fully grasp the enormity and urgency of this scientific
and socioeconomic problem. In part because of this ignorance, investment
in science of biodiversity lags far behind investment in biomedical
research.
-Stephen P. Hubbell ('The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and
Biogeography')
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Laura S lesla...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all:
I think it is important to have ALL ideas on the table for discussion.
Thank you Stephen, and everyone else for posting (publicly and privately).
Why did I ask these questions? I wanted to see what others think about
these questions, and to have a discussion. I also asked them to connect with
others. I am interested in collaborating with others to promote the
communication of scientific ideas to the public; I have volunteered my time
in various public outreach activities that promote science understanding,
but I would like to do more. I would like to do more because I think science
has an essential role to play in many areas, e.g., education, environmental
concerns, conservation, and policy making.
**In my humble opinion:
I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care
about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about
science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the
school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and
nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists
conduct science.
***Here are two questions for further discussion - all ideas are
encouraged:
Do you think post-secondary institutions properly support (financially,
with job-security, etc.) scientists who choose to promote science to the
general public?
Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making
science more accessible to the general public?
Thank you,
Laura
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Caird stephen.ca...@gmail.comwrote:
I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't
so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most
scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the
innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the
role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with
the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given
for natural phenomena.
Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and
what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to
know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme
specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my
experience, many people are already placated with the understanding
they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth.
I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to
degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating
margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more
than butter, so what?
Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that
'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common
goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to
consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species
have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Tell stories. People remember them. Don't be afraid to make yourself (or other human beings) part of your story. Humans relate to other humans. Show, don't tell. Dawn Stover On Apr 10, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Laura S wrote: Question 1: What can scientists do to make sure the ideas they communicate are not forgotten?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Actually, Bill Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell -- Carl Sagan was one of his professors. Before his Science Guy career, he worked at Boeing and as an aerospace consultant. He holds several patents, and he's currently president of The Planetary Society. I think it's safe to say he is a scientist and an expert -- especially at communicating science to the public. I haven't seen him say anything I'd take issue with recently in his commentary on Fukushima Daiichi. Dave On 4/9/2011 12:43 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: Watching cable news, the closest thing to a scientist you often see is Bill Nye. Nothing against Bill Nye, but he is not a scientist and frankly is not an expertalthough he frequently plays one on TV! Malcolm -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
David, I agree that the reportage can often give the illusion of a false balance, but journalists are not usually the ones qualified to assess the reliability of one side versus another. Sometimes the minority view turns out to be correct. Dave On 4/9/2011 11:09 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding. So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
We have ways of fact-checking without giving you access to the story. I have occasionally given others access to my copy -- in the name of accuracy -- and some sources are OK, others use it as an opportunity to rewrite my story for me. Their suggestions do not improve the accuracy, but they do kill any semblance of readability. Many of my colleagues will NOT risk the hassle, and I don't blame them. In your if X is done example, find a way to drop the caveat. Caveats are OK in scientific literature, but they do not make good or effective news copy. Journalists have been telling scientists that for years, but you seem to have not gotten the message. Besides, if you were doing such a good job of communicating science, you would best say G finds that Y does not happen when X is done. There's no caveat and no room for misunderstanding. Don't bash reporters for saying what you said. Dave On 4/10/2011 9:42 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com wrote: Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? No. If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? for accuracy. the scientist is not trying to control what you say, but to help you to be accurate. If the source says, My data suggest that if X is done, Y will happen, but G has found differently, and the reporter writes, If X is done, Y will happen, that is not what the source said. You must have misunderstood, and therefore you wrote an inaccurate story. I would think a clear agreement before would prevent misunderstandings as to what the source is responsible for or not. If you don't want your facts checked, you should not be writing science journalism. If you are willing to let your sources dictate your story, you should not be in journalism. But fact checking and dictating the story are different things. I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Trust works both ways. It takes trustworthiness on both sides for two individuals to work together. mcneely -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not journalism. They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know what to say. Dave On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. ... -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S. Sent: Thursday, 07 April, 2011 01:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: Watching cable news, the closest thing to a scientist you often see is Bill Nye. Nothing against Bill Nye, but he is not a scientist and frankly is not an expertalthough he frequently plays one on TV! Well, I don't watch cable news, for whatever that is worth. Of course, I had reference to Carl Sagan, who did do science, though he did a lot more outreach to the public through his PBS series, writings, and interviews. From what cable news I have watched, I have judged it to be a way to be misinformed, whether in science or otherwise. Unfortunately, it seems to be very popular. mcneely On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: I approve of reaching out, but you make an important point. And remember that the best known scientist of the late twentieth century so far as the American public is concerned was denied tenure at Harvard, though his billions and billions of stars became known to everyone. mcneely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. -- David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Watching cable news, the closest thing to a scientist you often see is Bill Nye. Nothing against Bill Nye, but he is not a scientist and frankly is not an expertalthough he frequently plays one on TV! Malcolm On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: I approve of reaching out, but you make an important point. And remember that the best known scientist of the late twentieth century so far as the American public is concerned was denied tenure at Harvard, though his billions and billions of stars became known to everyone. mcneely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. -- David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
As a former small-town journalist who is now on track to go on for graduate studies in ecology (Got funding?), I'd like to throw out a suggestion on this topic, with some notes on execution: Find your local weekly newspaper and contact them to do a long-term story, or a series of stories, on you doing your research. The large dailies are less likely to take on a project like this given the news cycle and styles there, I think. The reporters at the small papers are likely there either because they are young, ambitious journalists looking for a great story to launch their careers from, or they are slightly older folks who just love writing stories or love the particular community they are in. Readership for these papers is typically a little older, so you're really getting at the long-time community members who care a little bit about everything, but their only expertise is in their particular line of work (and town gossip). I'm sure you can imagine how reaching this crowd would be beneficial... Small-town papers are always looking for stories, as opposed to articles. A story has a trajectory and it has characters, as opposed to an article that is a simple report on an issue. If you're going to try to get a story going, be prepared to be involved in it. It can't be just about the research, but about why you are doing the research, and the humanistic problems you encounter. Also remember that you are only providing the material; you are not driving what gets written. Take a deep breath, and accept that. Do NOT ask to see the story prior to publication. Would you let a journalist peer-review your work? No, so be respectful and don't expect them to let you review theirs. If you've been clear, patient, and forthcoming, the journalist will get the story right. That's their job. The best way you can help here is to come up with some really good and simple analogies that explain a concept. Concerned about the public not understanding uncertainty? Make a simple analogy, like having 90% confidence a bald tire will cause an accident, and that 10% chance of that being untrue is not a reason to fail to act. (But obviously do a better job than that...). Q: So, what do you mean when you're talking about ecosystem functions? A: Well, think about a car engine... Or baking, or whatever you think works. I can't remember where I heard this line, but it's perfect: Keep in mind that you've been working on your research your entire life -- the journalist has been working on it since lunch. And I'd add that the reader has been working on it for about 30 seconds. I think one of the most important things to remember, especially as outreach increasingly gets written into academic job descriptions, is that the journalist acts as an intermediary between you and the public because you didn't go to school for communications! Use the professions that exist to complete your mission. Don't do all the chemical analysis if you're a statistician. I know you all think you are great writers and communicators, but I've thrown many peer-reviewed articles across the room because they are so poorly written. Lastly, there is a lot of talk about hostile media as if this is a terribly new thing. The concept of objectivity in journalism is a relatively recent invention. Journalism is better than it ever has been. And there are two types of journalism out there that are required in order for the business model to work: the actual news, and the entertainment. Don't get your knickers twisted around because a scientist goes on Fox News expecting to have a serious discussion. Instead the scientist should be chastised for thinking that because it is a news organization it has a moral obligation to perform an *ideal* act of news. There are venues for *ideal* news. Fox is not it, but small-town community journalism can be. Cheers, Gordon Lane Undergraduate Student Department of Environmental Science University of Southern Maine Gorham, Maine 04038 gordon.l...@maine.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
...@silvert.org] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding. So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Having done a little unpublished research on this, people are increasingly getting their news from the internet. Albeit some of those sources may be the primary news channels and news programs, but they are not reading the newspaper or watching news programs as much. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Esat Atikkan atik...@yahoo.com wrote: This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes. Are there learning opportunities on TV? – My response is a resounding Yes! Each item that is presented as ‘scientific fact’, ‘scientific discovery’, ‘technological breakthrough’ and the like, that is of interest to me (or potentially to my students) opens up research to chase down the facts. Not sure if it truly applies to material that we acquire via the media, but caveat emptor does come to mind. Esat Atikkan -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Another excellent book on this topic is: Olson, Randy. 2009. Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Island Press, ISBN-13 978-1-59726-563-8 (paperback). Randy suggests that the UCS guide might be a good place to start, but argues that its approach is not necessarily the most effective. happy trails bill a Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:06:56 -0700 From: a...@coho.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S. Sent: Thursday, 07 April, 2011 01:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Another excellent book on science communication, published by Island Press: Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter, by Nancy Baron It's more of a hands-on guide than most other books on science communication. (And I must claim bias because I'm one of the science journalists who contributed a sidebar to the book.) Other recent books that may be of interest to people on this list: Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist's Guide to Making Your Science Matter, by Cornelia Dean Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, by Randy Olson Dawn Stover Editor Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists T. 509.493.3652 E. dsto...@hughes.net On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:06 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
In the mainstream media, I see very little he-said-she-said reporting on climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now believe in climate change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do with the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything science journalists are writing. When people have a certain cultural mindset, they are very resistant to any facts that do not fit that mindset. In fact, information that conflicts with their viewpoint often tends to REINFORCE that viewpoint instead of undermining it. Dawn Stover On Apr 9, 2011, at 8:09 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding. So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
All: Just try to challenge the Dr's and Prof's who narrate TV shows, no matter how politely, and you will be shunned and ignored. This is true of any priesthood. Does this advance science? We are not supposed to use our critical faculties--especially if the narrator is famous. This is most often the case even if one bends over backward to be properly respectful and does it in a way that helps the person save face--unfortunately, so many use witch-hunt tactics, perversely thinking they will be elevated if they put someone else down, so people are naturally quite gun-shy of people who shoot from the hip, and every critic looks like a gunslinger at a distance. My wife (a professor and museum curator) once welcomed a documentary crew to film some exhibit material and her speaking on-camera. To her chagrin she ended up in a sensational TV show where her remarks were placed out of context, leaving a questionable (to put it politely) impression with respect to her knowledge and conveying information in the guise of science. She regrets being so cooperative. She is embarrassed all over again every time the show is repeated. Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. But the news cycle is so short that this is not done. But the damage also is done--and whom does it come back to haunt? Yes, yes, YES! If only all students and citizens were actually taught skepticism in the schools. If skeptics were only the only part of the problem, there would be no/a lesser problem . . . If the Internet would grow up and achieve its potential, if all claims as to fact were linked to the chain of evidence, then ordinary folk would at least have the ability to check the facts. These folk (or anyone else) should not have to check the evidence if the scientific reporting has been done with adequate journalistic skill. Of course, if the attribution is correct, the responsibility falls upon the source; still, the reporter should not twist the source's testimony out of context--KISS! Caveat emptor is, it seems to me, the point of this discussion. It exists. It shouldn't. But since it does, pressure for better reporting will help change direction for the better. Sure, there are cherries in the tree, but those which look so good from below have sometimes been pecked by crows. A good reporter, like a good scientist, will be delighted to discover error and correct it--hopefully before the piece hits the streets. WT - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Having done a little unpublished research on this, people are increasingly getting their news from the internet. Albeit some of those sources may be the primary news channels and news programs, but they are not reading the newspaper or watching news programs as much. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Esat Atikkan atik...@yahoo.com wrote: This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dawn and colleagues, I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this issue of the seeming decline in belief about climate change (talk abstract and other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully worded poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past decade or more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies the discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters. Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and carefully conducted research, see below. -Shermin -- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva *The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America presents Green Conversations with:* *Jon A. Krosnick** *Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford University “What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change: Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific Controversy” *Discussants:* *Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government *Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan *Moderated by* *Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment *Wednesday, April 6* *5:00 pm* * * ***New Location*** *Science Center A* *One Oxford St.* *Cambridge, MA* During the past decade, many climate scientists have been frustrated by the American public's apparent indifference to climate change and the threats it may pose. And in recent years, headlines on newspapers across the country have proclaimed: Scientists and the American Public Disagree Sharply Over Global Warming and Public Concern About Climate Change Wanes. Is it really true? Do Americans really not accept the opinions of scientific experts on climate change? In this presentation, Professor Jon Krosnick will describe findings from a series of national surveys that he has designed and conducted since 1996, trackingwhat Americans do and do not believe on this issue and what they do and do not want to have done about it. And one of his newest surveys focused exclusively on residents of Massachusetts, illuminating what they want government to do and how they want their Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote. Surprising results challenge many widely-held presumptions about public opinion in the nation and in Massachusetts, illuminate the increasing politicization of the issue, and set the stage for future discussion of climate change in Washington and in Boston. A leading international authority on questionnaire design and survey research methods, Professor Krosnick has taught courses for professionals on survey methods for 25 years around the world and has served as a methodology consultant to government agencies, commercial firms, and academic scholars. His books include “Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis” and The Handbook of Questionnaire Design (forthcoming, Oxford University Press), which reviews 100 years of research on how different ways of asking questions can yield different answers from survey respondents and on how to design questions to measure most accurately. His recent research has focused on how other aspects of survey methodology (e.g., collecting data by interviewing face-to-face vs. by telephone or on paper questionnaires) can be optimized to maximize accuracy. For more about Professor Krosnick: http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/ Green Conversations are sponsored by the Harvard University Center for the Environment with generous support from Bank of America. This lecture was originally scheduled for February 2. Reception to follow. Free and open to the public. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dawn Stover dsto...@hughes.net wrote: In the mainstream media, I see very little he-said-she-said reporting on climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now believe in climate change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do with the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything science journalists
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear all: I think it is important to have ALL ideas on the table for discussion. Thank you Stephen, and everyone else for posting (publicly and privately). Why did I ask these questions? I wanted to see what others think about these questions, and to have a discussion. I also asked them to connect with others. I am interested in collaborating with others to promote the communication of scientific ideas to the public; I have volunteered my time in various public outreach activities that promote science understanding, but I would like to do more. I would like to do more because I think science has an essential role to play in many areas, e.g., education, environmental concerns, conservation, and policy making. **In my humble opinion: I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists conduct science. ***Here are two questions for further discussion - all ideas are encouraged: Do you think post-secondary institutions properly support (financially, with job-security, etc.) scientists who choose to promote science to the general public? Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making science more accessible to the general public? Thank you, Laura On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Caird stephen.ca...@gmail.comwrote: I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given for natural phenomena. Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my experience, many people are already placated with the understanding they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth. I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more than butter, so what? Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that 'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the planet. What a rant--I half-apologize for that...hardly--perhaps not one bit--constructive, but that's my two cents for now. Steve On 4/7/11, Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura -- Genius is the summed production of the many with the names of the few attached for easy recall, unfairly so to other scientists - E. O. Wilson (The Diversity of Life)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Laura, regarding your second question Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making science more accessible to the general public?, I would say yes and no. Even as a scientist, I don't have the time or patience to sort through the thousands (perhaps millions?) of new journal articles outside of my field to find studies that are interesting, and I don't think the general public does either. That is why I find blogs or newsletters (such as futurity.org) that summarize the findings of scientific articles quite useful. If something looks interesting, I will go ahead and read the actual paper the summary is referring to. This is where open access may be important, so that everyone can access these articles if they are interested in finding out more. But people are highly unlikely search for and read through full journal articles to see if there is something relevant in it to their interests. So I would advocate first the publication of high quality blogs/newsletters that summarize individual as well as several studies on a range of scientific topics, and second, the promotion of these blogs/newsletters to more of the general public. -Burak -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:48 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I think it is important to have ALL ideas on the table for discussion. Thank you Stephen, and everyone else for posting (publicly and privately). Why did I ask these questions? I wanted to see what others think about these questions, and to have a discussion. I also asked them to connect with others. I am interested in collaborating with others to promote the communication of scientific ideas to the public; I have volunteered my time in various public outreach activities that promote science understanding, but I would like to do more. I would like to do more because I think science has an essential role to play in many areas, e.g., education, environmental concerns, conservation, and policy making. **In my humble opinion: I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists conduct science. ***Here are two questions for further discussion - all ideas are encouraged: Do you think post-secondary institutions properly support (financially, with job-security, etc.) scientists who choose to promote science to the general public? Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making science more accessible to the general public? Thank you, Laura On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Caird stephen.ca...@gmail.comwrote: I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given for natural phenomena. Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my experience, many people are already placated with the understanding they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth. I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more than butter, so what? Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that 'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the planet. What a rant--I half-apologize for that...hardly--perhaps not one bit--constructive, but that's my two cents for now. Steve On 4/7/11, Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I approve of reaching out, but you make an important point. And remember that the best known scientist of the late twentieth century so far as the American public is concerned was denied tenure at Harvard, though his billions and billions of stars became known to everyone. mcneely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Whoa! Not every member of the public who isn't a scientist is a journalist or politician. (Thank God!) I have been watching this thread with a great deal of interest. In February I had the honor of attending the ConFor West grad student meeting in Jasper, Alberta, and there just over a hundred grad students from all over the NW US and Canada had many interesting discussions that developed from questions asked after sessions in which we made brief presentations of our research. it was stimulating to see conversation diverge from the specifics of particular studies and into deeper and broader questions like, How can scientists better communicate with the public? As some have noted here, scientists do indeed put their research results out there, but often this is either in 1) scientific journals which are very specific to a particular science audience or not readily available to the public even if people had time to wade through them to get to the stuff of interest to them or 2) language that is difficult for those not schooled in scientific thought to decipher. 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.) I've picked up frustration from some here that the public isn't interested in science, or is openly hostile, even. Does this have to be the case? What can scientists do to make scientific thought and material more accessible and interesting to the public? (And less threatening?) Some ideas we came up with in the group discussion in Jasper that I recall are: publish in popular science and trade publications; get involved with extension, local and county agency and college and school outlets; maybe offer a class that introduces scientific method to those who are dumbfounded by or scared of science. Talk to people on their level. I think someone said earlier that trans- and cis- fats structures and so on above the heads of some people and suggested dumbing down, or simplifying, the language. I balk at the term dumb down because I think it assumes the person to whom we are speaking cannot rise to certain expectations, but again, not everyone is going to be a scientist. People also have mentioned blogs and other more generally available media. Does that mean those people don't care about their health? Their gardens? The weather and climate? Hardly. So, then, does it behoove the scientist to make his or her findings understandable to those who don't have the same educational background and experiences? Well, I would argue that not only does not everyone grow up to be a journalist, politician or scientist; not everyone grows up to be a teacher. Laura, as a long time teacher, I agree with you 100% on your comment: I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists conduct science. And yes, post-secondary institutions should be supportive of public outreach efforts. It's far too easy for research institutions to focus on research and not the dissemination of results. I knock my head against a wall at my own university constantly to see study after study conducted... to what practical end? Maybe that's why I am seeing double right now. Perhaps, as it's Friday late afternoon, it's time for a beverage. Have a good weekend. Lisa Lisa Cox, Graduate Research Assistant Soil Science and Reclamation Restoration Ecology University of Wyoming Department of Renewable Resources, 3354 1000 E. University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071 leesc...@uwyo.edu 307/760-0438 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of William Silvert [cien...@silvert.org] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:51 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given for natural phenomena. Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my experience, many people are already placated with the understanding they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth. I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more than butter, so what? Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that 'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the planet. What a rant--I half-apologize for that...hardly--perhaps not one bit--constructive, but that's my two cents for now. Steve On 4/7/11, Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear all, These questions are ones I'm most interested in, and I am currently working on an online environmental education forum that addresses these very questions (specifically, how to get regular people to care about environmental issues). I would be happy to explain more to anyone interested. My quick feelings on the general subject: Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. For example, the public is most likely interested in hearing about what type of fats are unhealthy for them to eat, but the terms trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme specificity, is way over their heads. And, most people are mainly interested in things that affect them personally (which is understandable). As scientists, I think it is our job to learn how to translate (i.e., dumb down, filter, and make interesting) the most relevant scientific information to the public, especially if it information that would help improve peoples' lives, the environment, etc. Regarding the scientific method, I think it's important for people to understand the basics, because then they will understand how scientists reach the conclusions we reach. But, does the average person need to know what a null hypothesis is? Probably not. That's my two cents anyways, Thanks for the discussion! Alison On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura __ Alison J. Lipman, Ph.D. Ecology Founder / President SELVA International http://selvainternational.org/ Conservation done right. *SELVA is offering an exclusive travel package to the Amazon that supports endangered species conservation. Join us in September 2011! Learn more here http://selvainternational.org/.* Follow SELVA on http://www.facebook.com/pages/Los-Angeles-CA/Selva-International/23652767907?ref=sgm Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Los-Angeles-CA/Selva-International/23652767907?ref=sgm http://twitter.com/SELVAnews?utm_source=fbutm_medium=fbutm_campaign=SELVAnewsutm_content=26315651356ref=nf Twitterhttp://twitter.com/SELVAnews?utm_source=fbutm_medium=fbutm_campaign=SELVAnewsutm_content=26315651356ref=nf
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Lara and Ecolog: Good questions. No. Yes. Yes, but they need to learn it themselves first. And the students need to learn what thinking is; for starters, they could try distinguishing thinking from believing--as could a lot of scientists who profess to know. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. WT - Original Message - From: Laura S. lesla...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 1:17 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
