Blogs / The Intersection

As part of a course I’m auditing at the Harvard Kennedy School, I have been reading the teacher’s book: veteran newsman Alex Jones’ Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy. It is quite an amazing, saddening read. The problems with the news industry are not new to me–in fact, they comprise a central component of Unscientific America–but the ways in which they are documented here, in unforgettable narrative (the stories of the decline of papers like the L.A. Times) and ironclad analysis (of the economics of why newspapers are suffering so badly), are superb.

Jones’ central motif is that there is an “iron core” of real news, reported news, produced by expert journalists each day. It is expensive to produce, it requires long-trained journalists, travel and research budgets, libel insurance, and much else. It has strong standards: objectivity, balance, and so on. It has never been more than, say, 15 percent of the total content of a newspaper, and always surrounded and adorned by softer stuff: opinion, commentary, film reviews, sports, horoscopes, crosswords, etc. But when newspapers were highly profitable, the revenue they generated effectively subsidized this public service aspect of the newspaper business, and the “iron core” was strong.

Now, though, the “iron core” is no longer so protected, or assured of being subsidized as it once was. Its total size is shrinking, and it is not being replaced, for the most part, on the web–where the content generated is largely commentary and opinion, rather than real news itself, and indeed, feeds off of what’s left of the “iron core.”

Such is Jones’ thesis, and I found myself wondering exactly where science journalism fits into the “core” argument. I would guess that part of science journalism fits, or would have fit, into the iron core; indeed, it is probably among the parts of the core that is vanishing fastest. But at the same time, science journalism is perhaps a different form of highly subsidized coverage, one that fares even worse than hard news. Call it the “science core.” It is even less protected, I would argue, in the new media context; and it is certainly being no better replaced by the science blogosphere or science on the web.

What do we do about this situation, either to save the “iron core” or the “science core”? Maybe that’s a topic for another post…or something Jones will get to later in the book. Certainly, the situation does not look good out there, and solutions are few, or maybe nonexistent, for restoring these forms of journalism as they once existed.

With one week until the premiere of the final season of LOST, let’s consider the possibilities for what might happen next…

At this point in the story, the island has stopped jumping through time, but some survivors stuck in the past have just detonated–or attempted to detonate–a conveniently placed nuclear bomb. If successful, they could change everything.

Their plan was first concocted by the island’s resident physicist, Daniel Faraday, who figured out that variables (i.e., time travelers) may be able to alter the future, but unfortunately, he was shot by his own mother–who was pregnant with him at the time. So the other survivors took up Faraday’s mission to change what’s to come, reasoning that if the island and its mysterious energy no longer existed, their plane would not have crashed, they would not meet each other, and the entire first five seasons would never take place!

Where are we now? (more…)

Corporations can now spend freely in federal elections. Given the US government is supposed to represent its constituents, I fear we’ve just taken an disastrous great leap in the other direction.

My latest blog post over at Science Progress is a reaction to the NSF’s new Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report, and in particular, to its famous Chapter 7, which deals with science and the public.

In essence, the new Chapter 7 gives you the choice of whether to view the glass as half full, or half empty, when it comes to the U.S. public and its relationship to the world of science. I personally lean toward “half empty,” but here’s the pro/con breakdown:

On the positive side…the report consistently shows that Americans are not so scientifically benighted as one might think, at least in comparison with the rest of the world. We go to science museums more frequently. We claim a higher level of interest in “new scientific discoveries” than citizens in South Korea, China, and many parts of Europe. And in terms of sheer factual knowledge, we perform pretty much on par with Europe, and ahead of other countries like Japan, China, and Russia.

Through such international comparisons, the latest NSF report suggests that if your preferred standard for judging a nation’s engagement with science is to see how it stacks up next to other comparable (e.g., developed) countries, then the United States really doesn’t fare so poorly. Furthermore, NSF emphasizes that Americans profess to have very positive views about science. They overwhelmingly think science makes our lives better and that it deserves federal funding. And they have an apparently abiding trust in the leaders of the scientific community.

That’s the good side. But here’s the reason I still feel pretty negative in outlook:

As Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 itself admits, seeing how the country fares on science in comparison with other nations isn’t the only possible means of judgment. If one’s standard is more ambitious—emphasizing, in the latest report’s words, “what a technologically advanced society requires (either today or in the future) to compete in the world economy and enable its citizens to better take advantage of science progress in their own lives”—then it is very hard to feel good about the current state of affairs in the United States.

For instance, just 13 percent of the public now claims to follow science and technology news “very closely,” and this number has been on a downward trend for the past decade, ending with the current low. So while Americans may profess great admiration for science in the abstract, they hardly feel compelled to pay it much attention.

Similarly, there has been little apparent improvement over time in Americans’ basic ability to answer factual questions about science correctly. Moreover, the vast majority of our citizens have scant familiarity with key emerging scientific fields that will dramatically shape the future, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology—and it is important to note that these are the only such fields that the NSF report focuses in on. Ask Americans about other coming scientific technologies or quandaries—say, geoengineering, or synthetic biology—and I imagine the responses would be even more dismal.

Anyway, there’s much more to the column, so check it out here–and decide for yourself whether, when it comes to science and the American public, you’re an optimist or pessimist.

After being on the road for over two weeks, it’s good to be home. I met so many passionate scientists, students, and science advocates along the way that it brought me a sense of great hope for what’s to come. A highlight was the past weekend stopover in North Carolina for ScienceOnline2010 where I was delighted to meet dozens of interesting science writers and new media folks in person while getting the opportunity to spend time with my favorite science bloggers from around the world. It was a lot of fun to share a panel on fact-checking with Rebecca Skloot and David Dobbs–and if you haven’t already picked up the most recent issue of O Magazine, make sure you do! Rebecca has a fascinating excerpt from her upcoming book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks inside! I also had the pleasure of participating in a second session with Isis and Janet; two women who constantly amaze me both in and out of the blogosphere. Our session on civility got a bit too uncivil at times, but it also brought up very important discussion points that I’d like to see explored more online.

I had my two favorite allies by my side most of the meeting–CM and Vanessa Woods. I am also pleased to report back that Ed Yong is just as awesome in person as at Not Exactly Rocket Science. Bora, Anton, and David did a terrific job pulling the conference together and it was fantastic to see so many friends who inhabit the blogosphere from Sci to Brian, Greg to Carl, Darlene to Dave, Miriam to Kevin, Arikia to Nate, Eric and Eric and on and on… I could not begin to list everyone, so instead, I will just say this: Everyday it is a delight, privilege, and honor to share the science blogosphere with the incredible, inspiring, and wonderful individuals that participate here. I am already looking forward to next year’s event!

Last week, I wrote at Science Progress about how a group of scientists had dealt a devastating blow to the practice of MTR (mountaintop removal mining) with a good paper, some luck, and a good communications plan.

Now, the point is driven home further, as the chief scientist involved, Dr. Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland, was actually invited on The Colbert Report to discuss her work. Of course, the blowing up of mountains is a perfect Colbert topic, but I felt that Dr. Palmer did a good job, er, sticking to the science. Watch the whole thing:

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Coal Comfort – Margaret Palmer
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

I was thrilled to attend this fast-growing conference and get to see great peeps like Sheril K, Darlene Cavalier, Carl Zimmer, Tom Levenson, Isis, SciCurious, Jennifer Ouellette, and many, many more.

I didn’t always attend the panels (and only spoke on one, last minute) but I did have some reflections:

1. Science and Entertainment: Beyond Blogging – Tamara Krinsky and Jennifer Ouellette: Hollywood getting into science = definitely cool. But will Hollywood’s ace marketers ever see a real need to court science bloggers to get the word out about films, given the relatively small size of our audiences and the vastness of their ad budgets? Not clear to me how much *we* matter, at least so far.

2. Trust and Critical Thinking – Stephanie Zvan, PZ Myers, Desiree Schell, Greg Laden, Kirsten Sanford. Yes, science on the web is a total mess. But trying to “certify” good/accurate science bloggers, vs. bad/biased ones, is an idea that poses more problems than solutions. And anyway, bloggers aren’t the gold standard of scientific accuracy–scientific societies, the NAS, the IPCC, etc, are. Science bloggers should raise the profile of these organizations, and prop up the sense of their credibility, rather than slapping quality labels on various science blogs.

3. Broader Impact Done Right – Karen James, Kevin Zelnio, Miriam Goldstein, Jeff Ives and Beth Beck. It is exciting to learn how some recipients of federal research grants have built websites that have been effective at public outreach and thus at fulfilling the “broader impacts” stipulation of the grant. However, I seriously doubt that most grant recipients are innovating in these ways. Throwing up a website is not, generally, a good way of publicizing research, unless you really know what you’re doing, and plan to carefully measure your traffic and influence. More generally, why on earth do we have vast scores of different grant recipients all called upon to publicize their individual research projects separately? Why isn’t there some joining of forces, and some decisionmaking about what science really needs highlighting before the public, and which scientific teams are best equipped to do so?

Those are my semi-random opinions from ScienceOnline 2010. I’m so glad that I attended, and hope to do so again next year!

In the science world, if there is an overwhelming complaint about the media, it is that journalists tend to be too “balanced”–in other words, they give roughly 50-50 time to opposing viewpoints even when one side lacks credibility, as in the creationism-evolution battle.

In 2004 in Columbia Journalism Review, I did a major article critiquing this problem in science coverage–an article that I guess a lot of people read and liked, since it is still mentioned to me regularly. Recently, in fact, John Fleck emailed to ask why it wasn’t available online–and I decided to do something about that.

So here it is, “Blinded by Science,” a kind of classic critique of “phony balance” in science coverage:

BLINDED BY SCIENCE: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality

Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec2004, Vol. 43, Issue 4

On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”

Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what antiabortionists say.

But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. (more…)

My latest Science Progress blog post looks at the case of a recent Science paper that has had a dramatic impact on the debate over so-called “MTR”–an extremely destructive and invasive form of mining that literally takes the caps off of mountain peaks to access the coal inside them. In essence, it’s the story of scientists being willing to stand up and say what they think about policy, and having a real influence as a result–a case study in how to make scientific information have its maximal impact. An excerpt:

To me, the most intriguing question is this: How did the 12 environmental scientists on the Science paper managed to achieve such an impact? Did they plan for it, or was it just fortuitous?

So I called up Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the article’s lead author. I was something like her 30^th media interview on the topic, but unlike other journalists, I didn’t want to ask about either the policy or the science of MTR. Rather, I inquired about the communication strategy that had been employed to disseminate news about her paper. And thus unfolded a striking story of a group of scientists, with extremely important research on their hands, doing everything pretty much right to ensure its maximal impact.

As Palmer explained, the project out started as pure science. Her team of researchers began by synthesizing a wide array of data from different scientific fields on the consequences of MTR, in a more thorough way than had ever been done before—a process that consumed many months in the peer review process. But as the truly alarming results started to manifest, members of the scientists’ group soon coalesced around a strong, unanimous position about what they were finding. “Rather than just reporting the science,” says Palmer, “we all agreed that the consequences were so huge, we were very comfortable saying, ‘This just has to stop.’”

Resolved upon its message, the team then sought to disseminate it….

To hear more of the story, you can read the full post here.