http://www.davidbrin.com/blackmail.html

The current kerfluffle over DDT — coincidental? Note what’s happening in the EU. Google News finds it but not in the USA; we get stuff like John Tierney in the NYT.

… regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), …

International Herald Tribune, France – Jun 1, 2007
The law bans the use of some of the most dangerous chemicals in the 27-nation European Union. …

ABC Online, Australia – Jun 1, 2007
Legislation has come into force throughout the European Union (EU) requiring tens of thousands of chemicals to be tested for safety. For the first time, …

Bloggers who are trying to educate readers about the DDT story get attacked for it. Fifty years of such attacks since Rachel Carson. It’s an industry.

—————–
I’d like to see Web2.0 include a certainty that the ‘new’ web will detect censorship and route around it.

“I note (with dismay) many parallels between this debate and the creationism debate. The anti-science side spews out whole bunches of, at best, loosely related bad arguments. People like yourself can and do take the time to make the detailed, point by point case for why they are wrong. It�s really easy to be wrong in quick sound bites, and very difficult to be correct and accurate in the same format.”

(original context: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk-science-malaria-and-the-attack-on-rachel-carson/
)

“As the media evolve into a strange new beast, what’s the best way to ensure that people get an accurate picture of science, and that they don’t get fed hogwash?”

There are multiple ways of doing this, some easier, some not so much. In my shiny little ideal world I view there being an accreditation for wouldbe authors from some trusted source (similar to the Trustee privacy data certifications that used to be popular). Wouldbe authors could submit a couple sample articles to an accrediting website, where previously accepted members do a bit of a peer review and give a yea or nay and when enough affirmatives arrive (with every nay being subtracted from the affirmative total) the author qualifies and gets to put a nifty little logo on their site (and gets the ability to read other people’s submissions and act in the accrediting process), thus establishing some level of trust. The challenge here is promoting the idea, and properly educating the populace about the accreditation.

This grants a level of trust to the source. There are technological solutions that can be used to prevent misuse of the logo (various web crawlers that can search based on keywords and then do image matching against the images on any websites turned up in the search).

I will echo sentiments that blog discussions and such should have a level of moderation about them, and should also require logons to post. Logons would allow for slashdot style user based moderation, where posts could have a numeric rank established, establishing what posts can’t be trusted (additionally, criticism of abusers could be attached to their user name, much the same way that ebay handles user feedback).

Mildly related, but what I would love to see is a website of videos and animations demonstrating some of the principle concepts that are the base of a lot of the scientific ideas. The reason that ID has caught on at all is because way too many people think that evolution = “the theory that man came from monkeys” which is misleading at best. We can’t have proper discussions on science until those participating are educated in the base concepts, and I think the best way to do that is an officially sanctioned, well designed site that explains the information to laymen in an easy to approach manner.

A great/horrible example of such a video that could be on the website is the double slit electron experiment from “What the Bleep”. It is great in that it has a very approachable feel to it despite it being a complex subject. It is not so good in that it leaves out some key details and was designed entirely to support a propoganda movie by a nutjob who believes she channels a 30,000 year old warrior. However, if approachable movies like that were made by the science community at large, and seeded to youtube, or msn soapbox, or whatever, I think it would have huge benifit, all the moreso if there was an official website that could aggrigate those movies (and articles).

You could give one for worst reporting of a sound scientific study. And you could give another for the most credulous reporting of a faux-scientific news item.

And maybe a special “Williams Jenning Bryant” award annually for lifetime achievement in poking your nose into fake science, and tub-thumping it to personal glory…. I nominate Michael Crichton for the innaugural recipient… but maybe Lou Dobbs could be a runner up.

You’d need rules. I submit that only traditional media stories need apply, print and broadcast. The periodical in question must have a circulation in the hundreds of thousands at least… no homespun newsletters or souvenier small town papers.

And extra points for the circulation size. I think points should be multiplied by the circulation numbers.

And the award should name the JOURNALISTS and the PERIODICAL that committed the blunder. For perpetuity they should be called a Golden Stinker Winner for Worst Science Reporting 2007.

The users of Web 2.0 get to collect the articles and bring them to the attention of the community, a science panel gets to pick the candidates for worst offenders and write up companion critiques of why each one is so awful… complete with cites. Then of the worst offenders… the nominees are voted on by the Web2.0 community members.

Come on, Carl, this would be FUN! I promise you’ll never win one.

The idea is that writers would be paired up with one another and before anything goes live on either of their sites, the other would be asked to review the article and all the original sources it’s based on before they give it a stamp of approval, to cut down on fudging and misinterpretation.

It also might make sense to try something similar in any publication that prints science stories. Rather than have an overloaded editor in charge of reading everyone’s primary source material, assign both writing and fact-checking to a pair of science writers who swap duties every other story.

Certainly, it’s still open to abuse, but it might help.

This may not sound like science, and it isn’t… but that’s where Web2.0 comes in. If the game is half-way as successful as the hype surrounding its anticipation, there will be masses of curious searching for primordial worm names, models of symbiotic relationships and evolutionary role-models. A perfect chance for the scientific community to play host to a playful curiosity.

1. Poor scientists will try to publicize their work by press conference rather than by peer-reviewed publication. Journalists shouldn’t facilitate this. Insist on quality peer-reviewed work. If someone holds a press conference to announce data that hasn’t been published: don’t go.

2. Balance. Balancing someone who is right with someone who is wrong isn’t helpful.

3. I can’t count the number of times I’ve finished an article and said, “I don’t think the author actually understood his subject.” Having scientists read an article and comment on it isn’t a bad thing. It’s rather a little different than letting a politician have his say about the accuracy of an article.

4. Re: Web2.0 Link to the relevant peer-reviewed literature. Link to the relevant scientific editorials.

5. Re: Web2.0 Provide space for scientists who are involved in that article to discuss the issue. Instead of having a blog-like response section that is filled with informed discussion mixed in with yahoos, actually moderate the discussion. Give logins to the relevant scientists, and allow them to post further comments and critiques of the article.

6. Remove declarative statements unless they have data. For example: “Scientists think that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, while creationists think it is 6000 years old”. Replace this with “Scientists think that the earth is 4.5 billion years old due to radiological (expand), cosmological(expand), geological(expand) and biological(expand) data. Creationists think it is 6000 years old because their book tells them it is.” Granted, it turns a short sentence into a much larger paragraph, but it makes it clear this isn’t a debate. It provides a lesson in how science is done, rather than merely comparing declarative statements by two groups.

I’m not sure that Web2.0 is going to be terribly useful until we solve the 30 year old problems that largely still exist.

I’ll end my rant here, I hope it’s helpful.

The whole trackback system is totally screwed up. I actually think there should be a mechanism by which one can choose to convert a post on a block into more than just a trackback link. One should be able to follow the conversation. Either that or a good general scientific memetracker (megite just doesn’t cut it, postgenomic is the best bet)

As I see the things, the challenge of science writing in the age of Web 2.0 is to master and not to be mastered by the “faster, looser and cheaper” model which this fantastic vehicle of publication allows.

Frequently, as a blogger, I found myself caught in a publishing fever. I feel like to publish just to publish. After all it seems so easy; when I see, for example, an interesting press release with nice pictures and explanations, I feel an urge to show it immediately in my blog, as saying, “look everybody what a cool thing I found!” Then, I add a few comments, supported by my background in sciences and ta-r�! Here comes one more post!

Is this “science journalism”? Absolutely no. Now, I’m trying to push the reins, think and try to ask properly who, what, where, when, why, who gave the wherewithal, why the reader should care about it.

I fear that more and more people have blurred in their minds the distinction between production and reproduction, communication and information.

I read somewhere that “journalism is the discipline of verification”. I like this definition. We need more fact-checking, more criticism, more writers going deep to understand all aspects.

There are no biologists.

If they had wanted a serious discussion about science education there are several people who could have been invited. Some of them are on record as being critical of the science media.

PZ Myers of Pharyngula would be an obvious choice and so would Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy. Eugenie Scott from NCSE might have been able to contribute. How about Bruce Alberts, the former President of the National Academy of Sciences? Niles Eldredge is so interested in science education that he has founded a new journal on the subject.

I’m really looking forward to hearing about this meeting. Meanwhile, I’m trying to start a debate about it on my own blog. I’ll link to here.

Have there been studies on effective ways to use the plecebo effect? How about without actually telling the patient lies? All i’ve heard is that blue pills work better than other colors…

As an American, more is better. I pray to God for a double strength plecebo.

It’s possible that with more direct and immediate interchange between researchers and the public (fostered by online science media), researchers may gain practice at explaining their research and what’s exciting about it. It may also help to weed out poor science reporting if a researcher can post a comment on a blog saying “No, that’s not what I meant at all.”

I think one of the major hurdles is that most people do not have access to the primary literature. A strong push to get open access across the board would be a great step in the right direction. One problem with open access is that it is not always immediate. Take the NIH policy (6 months to a year after publication). Most media reporting will be immediate and most people will not be able to go look for themselves at the original paper (even with the NIH model) unless they are able to keep the idea of the media report in their mind for 6 months and then go look. If we can move toward open access then media reports could contain links to the original article and the interested reader could go right to the primary source and see for themselves.

Some may say that this will still not do the trick because most readers will not be able to comprehend the original work published in an academic journal. This may be true… to combat this problem I would suggest that journals make room for a lay summary in their journals to at least give the general public an entry point to getting into the details of the manuscript. On the other hand, I think that if the general public had access to the primary literature on a daily basis that more and more people would eventually become acquainted with perusing it and would eventually become knowledgeable critics. I’m sure many will not agree with this sentiment, but, I’m a neuroscientist — the brain has a remarkable ability to learn and I refuse to part with that optimistic viewpoint.

First, I’d like to recommend the linguistics blog Language Log as a standout example of scientists intelligently critiquing media coverage of science. Their focus, naturally enough, tends to be on linguistics, but this includes aspects of psychology, neurology, and cognitive science, so it’s a wider net than one might think. They’ve done an excellent job not only of picking apart bad news stories (particularly from the BBC), but following how bad science or bad science stories spread in the media. (I’d also recommend Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column/blog, but I suspect you already know about that.)

Second, a minor suggestion for improving “old media” news stories on the web (in addition to the obvious one of providing links to the actual scientific article, or at least the abstract): allow for updated links to relevant commentaries (e.g., blog entries) elsewhere. Part of the problem is that news stories tend to be treated like copies of print stories: fixed and unalterable, and to be discarded the day after they’re written. The reality is that people will read news stories days and sometimes weeks after they’re posted (if they’re still available), and science news keeps somewhat better than other news.

So a provision to add links to relevant commentaries/corrections which appear after the news article goes online seems like a good idea. (Part of the solution may be getting past the traditional news-media mindset that they are the source of all knowledge, and that their readers want or need no other sources of information.)

Unfortunately, making this work properly would at this point require human attention, since the potential for trackback and other sorts of spam is rather high (especially for, e.g., for stories about medicine). It also means resisting the temptation to turn this into another opportunity to sell ads; Google’s approach (keep the ads separate) is a good model.

For example, we don’t really have mechanisms for bringing bloggers together in debate and deliberation. (Blog carnivals are retrospective affairs; the people who put them together are effectively secretaries, not committee chairs, jurists or presidents.) What if magazines organized regular “round table” discussions with prominent scientist-bloggers?

I second SG’s request for a “blog aggregator” (blaggregator in xkcd-lingo) which can follow the replies, replies-to-replies and so forth to news articles.

As the media evolve into a strange new beast, what’s the best way to ensure that people get an accurate picture of science, and that they don’t get fed hogwash? How can people be sure they’re getting information based on real authority, rather than something hatched in a PR office?

How about encouraging people to actually think for themselves, rather than relying on being fed information by competing interested parties and then deciding what to believe based on whatever is most compatible with their personal ideology?

An absence of critical thinking skills as well general ignorance of science and the ‘scientific method’ are surely the most pressing issues right now.

E.g. I should be able to search for “global warming” and get links to NAS, IPPC, RealClimate, but not ExxonMobil propaganda.

I know this idea seems stifling, but it’s not like we’re getting rid of Google, so alternative information is always out there.

If people aren’t scientifically literate, then it is the fault of scientists for failing to make science literacy attractive. Hiding behind “accuracy” as a reason for an unappealing message is just laziness or worse, not really being interested in the people we’re trying to attract.

As media fragment and people choose what they want to see, the problem will only get worse if reading science is like wearing a hair shirt.

Tools like Google earth can be used to engage people and the science message can follow. Science communication can be like fishing. First attract the reader, then set the hook, then work them in closer until they’re in the boat.

I know it’s not perfect and there are all sorts of issues about ownership and effort to resolve, but several blogs have started to build libraries of basic evolutionary/genetic science articles which could be shifted over very easily.

If we can also persuade dead tree media to add to Wikipedia too this will encourage good, well researched, articles as the writer’s efforts will be visible for a long time (not just until the next issue) and open for edit/debate to improve them.

The web also allows for faster interaction with respect to Q_and_A.

I think Wikipedia could become the new “for Dummies”. Wikipedia has a combination of older static pages that provide mini-tutorials on any topic, combined with newer dynamic pages that treat current newsworthy topics, sometimes with up-to-the-minute updates.

I can’t imagine how old-line print media can possibly adapt and the television media is hopeless. Bloggers might adapt, but they need to focus more energy on the “web site” aspect of their blogs and less attention on the “stream of unconsciouness” time-serialized blob^Hgs.

I guess what I am saying is that to understand any technical topic, you need to read Carl Sagan and Carl Zimmer. You can’t do one without the other. You might argue that Carl Zimmer can do both, but you can’t do both without both books and magazines. How do you combine books with magazines on the web? It’s a wiki, perhaps with a little more editorial control than Jimmy Wales tends to exert. Maybe it’s a wikiblog?

I said in a note a couple of weeks or so ago that when I heard a story on NPR on my drive to work about possum evolution, I felt sure that “The Loom” would have more information on that story, and sure enough, you did. If I had not been able to run with that thread of curiosity more or less immediately, I probably would not have followed up on it at all.

Also, blogs like this one enable me and others to clarify information and challenge misinformation in something approaching real time. I can–as I did last week–venture a response to something like one poster’s front-loaded ID argument, knowing that my response is “peer reviewed” and “refereed” on the spot.

Science media is more two-way than ever, and I have felt very privileged that as a result of the Internet, I have been able to interact with several top scientists.

Obviously researchers, authors, and teachers don’t have time to respond personally to every half-baked email that clutters their in-boxes, but when it’s possible for working scientists and science writers to, selectively, invite us non-scientists into the conversation, the informational value is enormous. Blogs serve an obviously analogous function.