Should scientists censure what they say if they think it may cause some panic? Or does the responsibility lie with the media not to immediately report on a scientific article if it may be controversial?
I disagree with the Royal Society on this one. Scientists should publish any finding. However, I think the peer review process should be extended where an article is deemed to be controversial and more time given to referees to properly analyse the findings presented in a paper. The media is never going to turn down a good story, so I don't think they can be trusted to hold off until any controversial findings are properly looked at.
Essentially though scientists need to become better communicators with the public.
I agree Jon. I believe that results should be published, even at the risk of causing consternation. As long as the results are as accurate as possible. Otherwise it's likely that some hack will fish out a story, do a bit of creative editing, and create a real panic because the information wasn't released to the public in the first place. The problem with the media is that panic equals sales - look at the recent misinformation about bird flu.
We're all doomed. But not according to the Sunday Sport; whilst the rest of the front pages tell us about the horrendous fate of civilisation as we know it, the Sport will have a picture of Britney's bum cleavage as she gots out of a car. Now that's what I call journalism.
Nope, I'm in agreement with you guys. Scientists should never have to think twice about publishing (legitimate) results, but on the whole we're not too great at communicating our science to the public. I think this could be where the problem lies. (Although of course the media will always try to make a scandal or an epidemic out of it).
----------------
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" - T. Dobzhansky
I also believe that results should be published. A poor analyzation of the findings by an uneducated person isn't the scientist's fault. When it comes down to it I believe it is the individual's responsibility to weed out bad or slanted information from the media.
I think the only problem with posting findings is if a prediction comes along with it that is based more on the author's subjectiveness than objectiveness from the results. Most people will believe an "expert" in the field because they believe the expert should know more about it than they do, but only for so long. If the first few predictions don't come true they will get the boy who cried wolf syndrome and all of a sudden not believe a word they say, so great care must be taken to ensure the findings and any subsequant predictions are very likely to occur and count on mother nature very little because of her great unpredictability.
Most people will believe an "expert" in the field because they believe the expert should know more about it than they do, but only for so long. If the first few predictions don't come true they will get the boy who cried wolf syndrome and all of a sudden not believe a word they say, so great care must be taken to ensure the findings and any subsequant predictions are very likely to occur and count on mother nature very little because of her great unpredictability.
I completely agree with this. If you "listen" to the chatter on the 'net, a lot of people now have the "let's not appeal to authority" syndrome, where they discount what an expert says because they are an expert...I'm sure there is logic somewhere in their arguement, but I've yet to find it.
I still think the media plays a crucial role in this. Unfortunately, the writers are picked (neither rightly or wrongly) for their writing skills, not their scientific background. Let's take an example: http://www.itv.com/news/reporters_1149344.html
Sue Saville is ITV's medical correspondant. She has the job of reporting things like the MMR jab story:
"Sue has an MA (Hons) degree in History from Oxford, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism studies from Cardiff University."
I'm not wanting to put down her acheivements or work in any way (I don't even remember her on the TV), but is she really qualified to report on stories where the science is the story? Does she get a choice on how to present the story? How much control is the editor's? Ultimately, who' decision is it to present a story in a particular way? I know they are supposed to present an impartial view, but that is very nearly impossible.
I did try and find out some information on BBC reporters too, but found nothing.
I don't agree 100% with what the Royal Society are saying, however I do think they have a very good point. What scientists should do is not publish any finding until they are 100% sure of what the data shows - it is far better to hold off publishing any findings until the picture is more clear than to publish incomplete and often misleading data that may well suggest something far from the truth. One of the more interesting pieces of news about the bird flu scares that have been going round for a year or so was the frank admission by a vaccine scientist ( a professor from Imperial I think - can't remember his name though) that a lot of this csare mongering was to generate interest and funding for people in the vaccine/imunology sector - exploting public fears to their own ends, something that happens in science all too often. I think this is what the Royal Society has been arguing against, rather than people holding off from publishing data that doesn't agree with their own previous findings.
Scientific findings are one thing, but the way the media report them is quite another.
They always 'sensationalise' reports - because thats what sells newspapers (And Britanys bum cleavage of course Gus) or increases viewing figures.
The media report very little geologically unless there have been hundreds killed or £millions in damage. Remember the volcano that erupted under the ice in Iceland about 10 years ago. There were a few pictures in the paper of the ice field with cracks and collapsing, but that was it. I saw a video taken by the Earth Science Dept of Rykavic Uni. The lake formed actually lifted the edge of the ice cap and an absolute deluge came out. Terrific depth of water and lumps of ice as big as 4 bed houses. Really impressive and quite frightening. But it flowed down a flood plain, washed away a bridge (which had been expected when it was built - and was rebuilt in under 2 weeks) and no one was hurt. Nothing of that was in the media.
----------------
John
Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
Will Durant
Hey John,
i heard of it from our glacial geomorphology module at Keele... some geography bods were doing thier Phds on it... jökulhlaup's i think the "flood things" are called .. it was amazingly impressive seeing the video clips of it!!
----------------
What if the hokey cokey really is what it is all about?
Rank: Apatite
Joined: 02/08/2005
Points: 906
I agree Jon. I believe that results should be published, even at the risk of causing consternation. As long as the results are as accurate as possible. Otherwise it's likely that some hack will fish out a story, do a bit of creative editing, and create a real panic because the information wasn't released to the public in the first place. The problem with the media is that panic equals sales - look at the recent misinformation about bird flu.
We're all doomed. But not according to the Sunday Sport; whilst the rest of the front pages tell us about the horrendous fate of civilisation as we know it, the Sport will have a picture of Britney's bum cleavage as she gots out of a car. Now that's what I call journalism.
Gus
Rank: Feldspar
Joined: 01/06/2004
Points: 1090
Nope, I'm in agreement with you guys. Scientists should never have to think twice about publishing (legitimate) results, but on the whole we're not too great at communicating our science to the public. I think this could be where the problem lies. (Although of course the media will always try to make a scandal or an epidemic out of it).
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" - T. Dobzhansky
Rank: Calcite
Joined: 26/09/2005
Points: 138
I also believe that results should be published. A poor analyzation of the findings by an uneducated person isn't the scientist's fault. When it comes down to it I believe it is the individual's responsibility to weed out bad or slanted information from the media.
I think the only problem with posting findings is if a prediction comes along with it that is based more on the author's subjectiveness than objectiveness from the results. Most people will believe an "expert" in the field because they believe the expert should know more about it than they do, but only for so long. If the first few predictions don't come true they will get the boy who cried wolf syndrome and all of a sudden not believe a word they say, so great care must be taken to ensure the findings and any subsequant predictions are very likely to occur and count on mother nature very little because of her great unpredictability.
Rank: Topaz
Joined: 18/12/2006
Points: 2986
Most people will believe an "expert" in the field because they believe the expert should know more about it than they do, but only for so long. If the first few predictions don't come true they will get the boy who cried wolf syndrome and all of a sudden not believe a word they say, so great care must be taken to ensure the findings and any subsequant predictions are very likely to occur and count on mother nature very little because of her great unpredictability.
I completely agree with this. If you "listen" to the chatter on the 'net, a lot of people now have the "let's not appeal to authority" syndrome, where they discount what an expert says because they are an expert...I'm sure there is logic somewhere in their arguement, but I've yet to find it.
I still think the media plays a crucial role in this. Unfortunately, the writers are picked (neither rightly or wrongly) for their writing skills, not their scientific background. Let's take an example:
http://www.itv.com/news/reporters_1149344.html
Sue Saville is ITV's medical correspondant. She has the job of reporting things like the MMR jab story:
"Sue has an MA (Hons) degree in History from Oxford, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism studies from Cardiff University."
I'm not wanting to put down her acheivements or work in any way (I don't even remember her on the TV), but is she really qualified to report on stories where the science is the story? Does she get a choice on how to present the story? How much control is the editor's? Ultimately, who' decision is it to present a story in a particular way? I know they are supposed to present an impartial view, but that is very nearly impossible.
I did try and find out some information on BBC reporters too, but found nothing.
I'll stop rambling now and get back to work...
Jon
Geologists are gneiss!!
Rank: Fluorite
Joined: 25/06/2004
Points: 448
I don't agree 100% with what the Royal Society are saying, however I do think they have a very good point. What scientists should do is not publish any finding until they are 100% sure of what the data shows - it is far better to hold off publishing any findings until the picture is more clear than to publish incomplete and often misleading data that may well suggest something far from the truth. One of the more interesting pieces of news about the bird flu scares that have been going round for a year or so was the frank admission by a vaccine scientist ( a professor from Imperial I think - can't remember his name though) that a lot of this csare mongering was to generate interest and funding for people in the vaccine/imunology sector - exploting public fears to their own ends, something that happens in science all too often. I think this is what the Royal Society has been arguing against, rather than people holding off from publishing data that doesn't agree with their own previous findings.
www.bgs.ac.uk
www.mdsg.org.uk
www.le.ac.uk/geology
www.geolsoc.org.uk
www.ex.ac.uk/csm
Did you know that the name Cyprus is derived from the greek/latin for copper? or vice versa.....
Rank: Apatite
Joined: 20/11/2004
Points: 688
Scientific findings are one thing, but the way the media report them is quite another.
They always 'sensationalise' reports - because thats what sells newspapers (And Britanys bum cleavage of course Gus) or increases viewing figures.
The media report very little geologically unless there have been hundreds killed or £millions in damage. Remember the volcano that erupted under the ice in Iceland about 10 years ago. There were a few pictures in the paper of the ice field with cracks and collapsing, but that was it. I saw a video taken by the Earth Science Dept of Rykavic Uni. The lake formed actually lifted the edge of the ice cap and an absolute deluge came out. Terrific depth of water and lumps of ice as big as 4 bed houses. Really impressive and quite frightening. But it flowed down a flood plain, washed away a bridge (which had been expected when it was built - and was rebuilt in under 2 weeks) and no one was hurt. Nothing of that was in the media.
John
Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
Will Durant
Rank: Talc
Joined: 28/03/2006
Points: 36
Hey John,
i heard of it from our glacial geomorphology module at Keele... some geography bods were doing thier Phds on it... jökulhlaup's i think the "flood things" are called .. it was amazingly impressive seeing the video clips of it!!
What if the hokey cokey really is what it is all about?
Rank: Talc
Joined: 28/03/2006
Points: 36
ahhh knew there was a more scientific name for "flood things" it is glacier outburst floods .....woop woop
What if the hokey cokey really is what it is all about?
Rank: Apatite
Joined: 20/11/2004
Points: 688
So did I but I couldn't spell it!!!!
John
Civilisation exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
Will Durant