An excellent resource for journalists is:

FacsNet at http://www.facsnet.org/

Under its “News and Numbers” section http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/newsandnumbers/index.php3

is The Certainty of Uncertainty
http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/newsandnumbers/lessthree.php3

The “Epidemiology for Journalists” section also addresses some of these conceptual terminology issues:
http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/epidem/index.php3

A prime example of this is the term “uncertainty” which scientists equate with the error of a measurement — which may actually be very small. NO matter how small the error, scientists nonetheless speak about the uncertainty, because it is an inherent part of the measurement process itself.

On the other hand, the general public hears the word “uncertainty” and thinks “not enough information to make a judgement about what should be done” (ie, “More research is required”), quite irrespective of the magnitude of the uncertainty.

The public knows (and cares) little about “probabilities”, “confidence levels”, “significant digits” and the other scientific means for quantifying uncertainty, so they focus on the word “uncertainty” in isolation from those qunatifiers.

I couldn’t agree more. All too often emic and etic language are interchanged by journalists, which might be further widening the chasm that some are convinced already exists between the science community and the general public.

Audience matters.

Thanks for this reminder, Chris.

-

The fact is, we need to respect the religious and ethical sensibilities of sincere people who understand the science and represent the research and reproductive technologies fairly, but have objections to them on moral grounds. For them, IVF is unacceptable because it inevitably leads to destroying viable embryos. That’s a respectable moral position, even if you disagree with it. McGee’s tone inappropriately insults people who hold that stance.

Their position is very different from those who cynically misrepresent the science to gain political advantage, as Chris describes in The Republican War on Science.

In one published version of my review of After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning by Ian Wilmut and Roger Highfield, I describe ‘an ethical tin ear in his advocacy of “Designer Babies”.’

The long version of my review doesn’t use those words but says instead: Wilmut has “serious distortions in his crystal ball” as far as ethical considerations are concerned.

Chris, do you see Wilmut as a foot-shooter here?

See http://www.scienceshelf.com/AfterDolly.htm for the long version of my review.

My take-home lesson here would be: don’t bother to buy into the right-wing characterization that claims that IVF embryos are human beings. Make a decsion and stick to it. What ACT is doing is trying to pander to the “embryos=babies” crowd, but they are themselves not believers in this credo, as is witnessed by the fact that they were quite happy to destroy the nascent embryos to test the procedure as thoroughly as possible.

Boo-hoo, ACT “played into right-wing tropes”. I dispute the notion that this should be a primary focus of biological research. The right wing is not pursuing ethics, they are pursuing power. If you accede to their demands, they will just move the line again. They are not really interested in exactly where researchers stand, they just want to feel empowered by the act of getting scientists to adjust their research according to their (the right-to-lifers) demands.

It’s just a game.

I agree with Glen – pandering to neocons is a pointless exercise.

A prime example of this is the term “uncertainty” which scientists equate with the error of a measurement — which may actually be very small. NO matter how small the error, scientists nonetheless speak about the uncertainty, because it is an inherent part of the measurement process itself.

On the other hand, the general public hears the word “uncertainty” and thinks “not enough information to make a judgement about what should be done” (ie, “More research is required”), quite irrespective of the magnitude of the uncertainty.

The public knows (and cares) little about “probabilities”, “confidence levels”, “significant digits” and the other scientific means for quantifying uncertainty, so they focus on the word “uncertainty” in isolation from those qunatifiers.

The oil industry and Bush administration have been particularly adept at exploiting the “uncertainties associated with climate science” to create uncertainty in the mind of the pubblic about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

This is true to a point, Chris, but what about results that are now neutral but become contentious in the future? How do scientists convey their results in this case?

You see what I’m getting at here: one standard, contentious or no.

Best,

D