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, intro
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
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
confl
20:13
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto: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
2011 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
> Martin Meiss wrote:
>> A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to
make to the public, they should find a way to
ose 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"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific t
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
"?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: 715-362-1
earch, 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@LISTSE
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 Environm
Martin Meiss 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 m
: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
WT
- Original Message -
From: "Elizabeth Burnett"
To: "Wayne Tyson"
Cc:
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,
>
>
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
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
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
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 r
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
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
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,
ic.
>
> 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
- 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
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:
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
em 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"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the g
tand 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?
Tec
g
> 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"
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
>>
rely shower us
with petals of condescension from their Ivory Towers. Noblesse oblige!
WT
- Original Message -
From: "David M. Lawrence"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists m
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 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
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
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 [atr
fere 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 Shev
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 --
> 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 t
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 discour
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,
particul
e 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--g
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 you
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 pr
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"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [EC
ubject: 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.
s 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 no
gt;>> 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
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,
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"
To:
Sent: Sunday, April
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
&
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
>>
>>
>>> - Origi
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 differen
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
h 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"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
> Subj
ublic. The same goal may be served by different
actions in different circumstances.
Jane Shevtsov
> - Original Message - From: "David M. Lawrence"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
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
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:
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
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
commu
**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
LARITY at least . . .
WT
Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a whole man.
- Original Message -
From: "David M. Lawrence"
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public
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 fami
his 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 ----- Fro
eminating 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
gotten
----- Original Message -
From: "Shermin ds"
To:
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-open
"David M. Lawrence" 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 acc
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 wo
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 demon
-----
From: "malcolm McCallum"
To:
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 get
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 anyth
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
s 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
>
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
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 b
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
, 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
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 d
lison Lipman"
>> To:
>> 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 thei
t; Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but
> >> sex
> >> lives of wasps? No way!
> >>
> >> Bill Silvert
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Alison Lipman"
> >> To:
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 E
[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?
From: "Alison Lipman"
To:
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
>
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
.
Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex
lives of wasps? No way!
Bill Silvert
- Original Message -
From: "Alison Lipman"
To:
Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
p
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
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 connec
ded, I can elaborate more on these questions.
WT
- Original Message -
From: "Laura S."
To:
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
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.
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 for
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 ne
87 matches
Mail list logo
