tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30917340157009820942024-03-05T10:07:54.972-08:00OPEN MINDS AND PARACHUTESA blog by Christine OtteryAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-6328609842273899972011-07-05T08:47:00.000-07:002011-07-05T08:47:16.832-07:00New blogging homeHi lovelies, <br />
<br />
I'm going to be pretty much leaving this blog right now. <br />
<br />
It's been an exciting couple of years since I started blogging. It has catapulted me to do many great and fantastic things, such as give a talk at Science Online 2010. <br />
<br />
Since I started this blog I have also been blogging at other sites, a bit like the neighbourhood cat that gets fed by everyone. You can read my various blog posts on the Guardian's Comment is Free, the Guardian's Environment site blog, Wired UK, The Frontline Club, New Scientist's Culturelab, and Scientific American's guest blog. Phew!<br />
<br />
The big announcement is that: I'm engaged. No, not that one. It really is: I'm now blogging as part of the brand-spanking new <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/network-central/2011/07/05/welcome-the-scientific-american-blog-network/">Scientific American Blog Network</a>.<br />
<br />
I'll be writing regular posts (it's in my contract!) for the <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/creatology/2011/07/05/welcome-to-creatology/">Creatology</a> blog. It is "an experimental blog coupling science and creativity" and also a sandbox to try out different media. It's a group blog and my co-writers are <a href="http://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/GozdeZorlu">Gozde Zorlu</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/jjmilton">Joseph Milton</a>. You can also follow <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Creatology/199004880150493">Creatology on Facebook</a> and Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/creatologyblog">@creatologyblog</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-60834912150267487692011-06-17T07:11:00.000-07:002011-06-17T07:11:08.058-07:00Reflections on Slutwalk London<script src="http://storify.com/christineottery/slutwalk-london2.js"></script><noscript>[<a href="http://storify.com/christineottery/slutwalk-london2" target="blank">View the story "Slutwalk London" on Storify]</a></noscript>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-32155490422357256702011-01-09T07:56:00.000-08:002011-01-09T07:56:38.026-08:00Rant about activism, the 'greenest government ever' and some possible solutionsI have been reading a book called <i>Do it Anyway</i>, by the talented <a href="http://www.courtneyemartin.com/">Courtney Martin</a>, the founder of the world's most popular feminist site <a href="http://www.feministing.com/">Feministing.com</a>. The book is a portrait of eight community activists in the US, and the project was started to answer the question of how super-sensitive young things could face the overwhelming responsibilities they face to "save the world"; "We know that soup ladling isn't enough", she comments. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJtqBLrk4Stj3Fv2gg5NGmFCrpRbMPsyLcTOzqXiPnW6-UtKswY9Df15IOWlXXdMeYuoyjkkD79jfPuTvXLuLFD3NGiws-38ZblLqaH969_H2lpPiQ6fJWrxjgVWYbFMpjyobh6-cJ1rs/s1600/JuliaButterflyInLuna.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJtqBLrk4Stj3Fv2gg5NGmFCrpRbMPsyLcTOzqXiPnW6-UtKswY9Df15IOWlXXdMeYuoyjkkD79jfPuTvXLuLFD3NGiws-38ZblLqaH969_H2lpPiQ6fJWrxjgVWYbFMpjyobh6-cJ1rs/s320/JuliaButterflyInLuna.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Julia Butterfly Hill spent 728 days in this 1,500 year-old redwood tree in California. Will we see see scenes like this in the UK if our forests are under threat from unsustainable logging?</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Martin thinks that our generation is commonly mislabeled apathetic, when in fact we suffer from a paralysis in the face of the quantity and urgency of issues. How on earth do you chose what to focus on? I totally feel the pain of this dilemma. I've often chewed off my boyfriend's ear down the phone, lamenting the financial crisis, homelessness, human trafficking, the need for political reform in this country, unjust wars, environmental destruction, climate change and development, gender inequality in the UK, and FGM, mass rape and the lack of human rights elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, the narratives in Martin's book reveal that a narrow focus is vitally important to achieving even the smallest things, and a devotion to your goal over time can yield real (although probably never perfect) results.<br />
<br />
In her book, Martin tackles our moral imperative to deal with the issues and injustices on our doorsteps. And she also observes that from her journey to write the profiles for the book, it is the personal and deeply-rooted in the community that are a driver for actually doing the activism rather than just moping. She writes:<br />
<blockquote>"It's time that our generation embraced our respective limitations, not as a sign of weakness but as valuable information as we pursue lives of meaning. We must resist exoticizing the suffering outside of our own circles." </blockquote><br />
I am far from an expert myself, but I am not sure if this zoom on the local is the key as I am grappling with where to focus my own energies. It seems unfortunate that of the activists sketched in the book, the only one working on international issues is Rachel Corrie, who died in the attempt to prevent a Palestinian home from being bulldozed (Although Martin emphasises that the book is not meant to be comprehensive, just a collection of inspirational stories). <br />
<br />
There are surely other examples of people from the West who have done real, measurable good in addressing the issues of people living in dire need elsewhere in the world. One example is Harper McConnell, who has worked in the HEAL Africa hospital in the Congo, and created two programs - one teaching children waiting to be treated, and one to skill-up women waiting for operations. McConnell is described in <i><a href="http://www.halftheskymovement.org/">Half the Sky</a></i> by Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn. In their book, they encourage readers to take up the gauntlet to help people in developing countries "who desperately need the assistance". (Sorry for using the term 'developing', Hans Rosling - it is one world but this is shorthand for now.)<br />
<br />
Another slight quibble with Martin's book is that perhaps it does not follow that people should necessarily work on issues in their own communities as a way to finding their true path. It is clearly important to be passionate about your work as activism is challenging, and this is more likely if you are directly affected or involved with the issues. But I feel that we live in a global society now, more than ever before. Specifically, the actions of industrialised countries are setting up the whole world, but particularly poorer countries, to suffer from climate change on a catastrophic level. I would argue there is too much blindness of the historic harm we have done to other nations. <br />
<br />
Also, this kind of argument that actions should be local above all disenfranchises the privileged middle classes to some extent. If we have been blessed and don't feel we have been affected by injustice ourselves, does this mean we have nothing to contribute? Should I be a feminist activist because I was called a slut in secondary school? Although I would definitely describe myself as a feminist and I think feminism is important, I struggle to see that feminism as the only area I could make a difference in my life.<br />
<br />
If the root of activism is suffering or empathy, perhaps empathy directs us to places of pain - regardless of their location. It seems definitely worth thinking about acting locally, or volunteering, but I wonder if it would be worth thinking strategically about where we can make the most impact. Is it making a difference in our own, fairly well-off communities that we socialise with, or to communities that are scarcely subsisting, or that are that are under attack?<br />
<br />
In other words, the personal is the political, but does the political have to be rooted in the personal? Or should we just direct our compassion and empathy and resources where we know they are most needed? <br />
<br />
It seems there has never been a period of time where politics have been so at odds with <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml">the data </a>, and on a global scale. As physicist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)">Brian Cox </a> said in a recent <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/30/10-big-questions-science-must-answer">G2 article</a>:<br />
<blockquote>“I do not believe that we currently run our world according to evidence-based principles. If we did, we would be investing in an energy Manhattan project to quickly develop and deploy clean energy technologies.” </blockquote><br />
It's an age-old utilitarian moral philosophy dilemma that we discussed in my university classrooms: if children out there are starving, or lacking an education, how could we justify our flashy watches or sneakers? How much should we give? How much should we expect others to give? What are our priorities? But funnily enough, asceticism is one thing that has not really caught on. I was recently shocked by <a href="http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/pages/">William Dalrymple's</a> description of a Jain nun plucking out her own hair in his most recent book <i>Nine Lives</i>. And in a similar way, pure environmentalism is has become almost unthinkable and shocking - most campaigns tend to focus on keeping creature comforts such as flying and driving but also 'doing your bit' for mitigation. How many of us are willing to follow the example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Butterfly_Hill">Julia Hill</a>, for example, who spent two years up a tree to get protected status of an ancient redwood forest?<br />
<br />
I don't have the answers yet about how far we should go or have my personal priorities in immaculate order. But I am inspired by role models such as Harvey Milk and movements such as the gay civil rights movement of the 1970s America, captured in the wonderful eponymous film <i>Milk</i>.<br />
<br />
Even though the coalition government is so far not succeeding to live up to their touchstone pledge of being the 'greenest government ever' <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-for-sale--camerons-green-credentials-2177929.html">according to the excellent Johann Hari</a>, I hope that this might galvanise activists and breathe some much needed life into the green movement in this country. Will people come out onto the streets to start protesting the wholesale offloading of their forests? Or the new offshore oil drilling operation near Shetland? (Or will they be so confused and overwhelmed by the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/20/spending-review-green-checklist">complexity</a> of the climate change and ecological issues that they do nothing?)<br />
<br />
Hari writes:<br />
<blockquote>"The Prime Minister has said the forest sell-off "empowers local communities" to take over the forests for themselves as part of a "Big Society". Yet sources within the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that, unsurprisingly, only about 1 per cent of the sales are anticipated to go to local co-operatives or green groups. The "Big Society" is a fluffy fig leaf for dismantling and demolition."</blockquote><br />
Perhaps it is time to re-cast the Big Society as a force for political activism and representation to fight the co-alition's broken promises? Or even take the name to fight back against the government on the political platform?<br />
<br />
One way to fight the government's cuts right now is to join the <a href="http://falseeconomy.org.uk/">False Economy</a> campaign. They’ve got a clever video that makes the point rather well, see below. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/17201782?portrait=0&color=7cb7cf" width="400"></iframe><br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/17201782">Why cuts are the wrong cure</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user5292758">False Economy</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
<br />
What has this got to do with climate change? At the end of the video, the actor Sam West describes a vision of sustainable economic growth: “...putting the emphasis on green growth and investment. This not only deals with the deficit, but the unemployment and the poverty, and it also deals with the many environmental challenges that the cuts will make worse.”<br />
<br />
A spokesperson for False Econony tells me that they are crowdsourcing the consequences of the cuts and they want environmentalist to get stuck in:<br />
<blockquote>“The coalition government has adopted a very deliberate strategy of 'devolving' its cuts down to local government - passing them down for councils to implement, away from the glare of the national media. It's only by collating information on what is being cut, locality by locality, that all of us can see the true impact of the cuts agenda.”</blockquote><br />
With more data on the site, environmentalists can consider whether the government has chosen the environment as the target of an ‘easy cut’ - without a significant media or public backlash. False Economy say: “Trying to grab a slice of an ever-shrinking pie is not a road the environmental movement should go down; instead, we need to ask why it is shrinking and whether it needs to shrink. These are the questions the government doesn't want people to ask.”Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-30208970906651118242010-11-21T06:44:00.000-08:002010-11-21T11:13:27.733-08:00Can women (and men and intersex peeps) save the world?Caroline Lucas told me recently that she thought it was a "very important" thing to write about environmental feminism when I said I wanted to write a feature about it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF1-K7ONln5J5oBMi78nD8EDqQ35AcKWhdQhTY_qzmou8JhaaCV5q1Ga9dJJjLGqKYUpf3GfEk9Eax3CjzA8PdhSDO4CNRndt9hf2nbPlgPjtf-vvjtc3VWjIaEf9ugdH6RGiVZZk9wXU/s1600/suffr-549x366.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF1-K7ONln5J5oBMi78nD8EDqQ35AcKWhdQhTY_qzmou8JhaaCV5q1Ga9dJJjLGqKYUpf3GfEk9Eax3CjzA8PdhSDO4CNRndt9hf2nbPlgPjtf-vvjtc3VWjIaEf9ugdH6RGiVZZk9wXU/s320/suffr-549x366.jpg" width="320" /></span></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Climate Rush calls for "deeds not words" on climate change</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
However, getting published on the trend of female-led environmental campaigning is not as easy as I thought. Too niche, perhaps. Or maybe those two words 'environmentalism' and 'feminism' congeal to form an unattractive patina of earnest do-gooders' intentions. Ism-anathema to editors. The public at large is not deeply interested in either, either.<br />
<br />
Hopefully, if you are still reading, you are keen on one or both of gender equality and preventing the worst of climate change. Excellent. Let's begin.<br />
<br />
I met Lucas at a suffragette-inspired eco-activist <a href="http://www.climaterush.co.uk/">Climate Rush</a> vigil commemorating the centenary of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1910)">Black Friday</a>, a riot involving suffragettes and the police. Guess who came off worse a hundred years ago? The unarmed suffragettes were assaulted, abused and two even died.<br />
<br />
Lucas appears constant in her support of Climate Rush; she joined the 'On the Run' road-show last year, and speaks regularly at Climate Rush events. On her own website, a <a href="http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/2009/09/08/green-euro-mp-to-join-%E2%80%98climate-rush%E2%80%99-at-bucks-eco-school">blog post</a> states that:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dr Lucas is a keen supporter of Climate Rush, a campaign which uses creative direct action to protest against the government’s commitment to environmentally destructive projects such as airport expansion and new coal fired power stations. Together with Climate Rush, she is calling for a revolution in renewable energy and a transition to a fair and sustainable green economy.</blockquote><br />
At the vigil for Black Friday, Lucas spoke of her own personal inspiration drawn from the suffragettes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The suffragettes showed their real commitment, year after year, and there is much we can learn from that. One of the most inspiring bits of that building [Parliament] for me, it's not the wonderful members lobby, or the wonderful public lobby, or the wonderful chamber, it's actually a little broom cupboard. It's a broom cupboard in the basement, about 3ft squared - the most important place to me in the House of Commons because it is where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison">Emily Davison</a>, the suffragette, locked herself in overnight so that when she was found on the day of the census, she could say that her address was the House of Commons."</blockquote><br />
Climate Rush is calling for the government to fulfil its promise in May to be <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-wants-greenest-government-ever">the greenest government ever</a>. The picture so far is looking patchy: for instance, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/20/spending-review-cuts-environment">DEFRA fared badly in the cuts</a>, but the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/18/david-cameron-green-matters">Green Bank will be a 'proper bank'</a> that is needed to stimulate the green economy. Lucas is far from convinced, however, saying:<br />
<blockquote>We had a <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20101117/westminsterhalldebates/part004.html">debate</a> in the House of Commons today [17 Nov] [on environment] and I can report that all of 12 MPs were present. That is shameful. This is why the Climate Rush movement is so important. We can never let is happen again that only 12 MPs think climate change is a sufficient priority to get themselves along to a meeting to discuss it.</blockquote><br />
There were about 200 climate "rushettes", as Climate Rush call their followers who took part in the vigil. There were women, children, teens, and men - some decked out in Edwardian dress and veils and "<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/200504040026">Deeds not words</a> sashes. I met a 15-year-old girl on the protest with her mother. She said that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamsin_Omond">Tamsin Omond</a>, one of the founders of Climate Rush, is her hero, and she's starting a school newspaper that will feature the vigil in the first issue.<br />
<br />
At a time in our cultural story where <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/31/role-models-for-young-women">the lack of decent female rolemodels is bemoaned</a>, I happen to think that it's a very great thing to have inspirational leaders such as Omond who take action on <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-the-worlds-greatest-challenge-says-brown-1834252.html">the world's biggest challenge</a><br />
<br />
This has been a good year for female environmentalists. In one of the happiest moments of the year for anyone who cares about the environment, Lucas became <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/may/07/caroline-lucas-uk-first-green-mp">the first green MP</a>. Bryony Worthington, climate change policy expert and campaigner and one of the founders of <a href="http://sandbag.org.uk/">Sandbag.org.uk</a>, was recently <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/19/labour-peer-bryony-worthington">made a Labour peer</a>.<br />
<br />
And it's not just in the sphere of politics that powerful women are campaigning on climate change. Ellen MacArthur recently launched a <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/blog/welcome-to-my-latest-journey">sustainability foundation</a>, and declared that this would be her occupation from now on. Lawyer and author Polly Higgins is campaigning to make <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage">Ecocide an international law</a>. At the book launch of Higgins' <a href="http://www.thisisecocide.com/general/eradicating-ecocide-the-book/">Eradicating Ecocide</a>, she called for people to "be unreasonable" [watch below] and kick up a storming fuss for the greater good. This resonates with the Climate Rush tagline: 'Well behaved women rarely make history.'.<br />
<br />
<object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VWmAgEe-vuM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VWmAgEe-vuM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Higgins wants people to become activists, because political pressure is needed to make a difference on environment issues, as well as behaviour change. And there is also a grassroots movement for women to act on the environment.<br />
<br />
It is well-publicised that the Women's Institute is enjoying a trendy <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/06/womens-institute-university-students">resurgence</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/mar/10/womens-institute-campaigns-prisons">becoming increasingly influential</a>. But perhaps it is little known that this year they have published an <a href="http://www.thewi.org.uk/standard.aspx?id=10951">action pack on climate change campaigning</a> encouraging their members to become guerilla gardeners and activists. In it, they state:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"In the UK, women remain influential consumers of domestic products and utilities, providing them with the opportunity to choose greener and less polluting energy suppliers and appliances, or consider the impacts of their food choices, for example. Women are also still the primary educators of the next generation and therefore have huge power to change the way in which today's children think about their coexistence with the planet."</blockquote><br />
According to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1">a study</a>* published earlier this year in the journal <i>Population and Environment</i>, American women care more about the environment than American men (!). The study was based on a gender analysis of eight years' of Gallup poll data. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/leohickman">Leo Hickman</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/15/climate-change-gender-divide-belief">blogged</a> this in more detail, and pointed out a the suggestion that feminism rather than gender is linked to concern for the environment (women are more likely to be feminists, one presumes):<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299705000108">Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart (1997)</a>** find that individuals – both women and men – who support feminist goals express greater environmental concern.</blockquote><br />
The correlation is there, but how it comes about is not clear. Perhaps people who are concerned about social issues and inequalities are just people who are concerned about social issues and inequalities - whether it is gender inequality in this country or ecological inequality between the world's North and South.<br />
<br />
However important feminism turns out to be in explaining the gender differential in the developed world, it is certain that <a href="http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/downloads/Women_and_Climate_Change_Factsheet.pdf">women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, according the UN</a>. The <a href="http://www.wen.org.uk/">Women's Environmental Network</a> (WEN) have also produced <a href="http://www.wen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Gender-and-the-climate-change-agenda-21.pdf">a report on gender and climate change</a> describing that women are more likely to live in poverty, globally, so are more likely to bear the brunt of environmental destruction. The report finds:<br />
<blockquote>"[W]omen are more likely than men to<br />
<ul><li>die in climate change-related disasters, and suffer from increased workload, loss of income, health problems, and violence and harassment in the aftermath of such events;</li>
<li>be displaced, or encounter problems when other (usually male) family members migrate for economic reasons;</li>
<li>experience increased burden of water and fuel collection, and resulting health problems, due to increased incidence of drought or other changes in climate;</li>
<li>feel the effects of rising food prices most acutely, and be the first to suffer during food shortages;</li>
<li>suffer exacerbated health inequalities;</li>
<li>suffer from violence, including sexual violence, in resource conflicts;</li>
<li>be expected to, and need to, adapt to the effects of climate change, increasing their workload;</li>
<li>suffer as a result of intended solutions to the problem of climate change, such as forestry projects and biofuel production."</li>
</ul><br />
The WEN report also highlights research that women are more focused on behavioural rather than technological solutions compared to men. I wonder if this is because of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/women-men-differences-science-stereotypes">social constructs around gender</a>, such as that women are no good at engineering or that men are less empathetic? The <a href="http://www.wes.org.uk/">Women's Engineering Society</a>, and I'm sure plenty of men, would have something to say about that.<br />
<br />
Workshops on gender and climate change run jointly by WEN with UK Feminista are "oversubscribed", the WEN comms officer tells me - another indicator that feminists are heavily into the environment.<br />
<br />
Whether you are a woman, man or an intersex or transgender person, anyone can be a feminist, and anyone can follow join the very lively women-led movement to act on the environment - whether it is joining protests, getting informed or lobbying your MP. Go forth and be unreasonable!<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><u>Refs:</u></span><br />
<div class="title" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">*The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Aaron M. McCright, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px; text-transform: uppercase;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT, </span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/0199-0039/32/1/" lang="en" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Link to the Issue of this Article"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Volume 32, Number 1</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, </span></span></span><span class="pagination" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">66-87</span></span></span></span><span class="doi" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, </span></span></span><span class="label" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">DOI:</span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></span></span><span class="value" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1</span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><span class="doi" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="value" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333300; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">**Tracking the Elusive Green Women: Sex, Environmentalism, and Feminism in the United States and Europ, </span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 9px; line-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Mark Somm, </span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 9px; line-height: 15px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, </span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 9px; line-height: 12px;"><abbr class="slug-jnl-abbrev" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Political Research Quarterly"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Political Research Quarterly</span></span></span></span></abbr><span class="slug-pub-date" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> March 1997 </span></span></span></span></span><span class="slug-vol" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">vol. 50 </span></span></span></span></span><span class="slug-issue" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">no. 1 </span></span></span></span></span><span class="slug-pages" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">153-169, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 9px; line-height: 12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">doi: </span></span></span></span><span class="slug-doi" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">10.1177/106591299705000108</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"></span><br />
<div class="secondary" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: Myriad, 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><span class="doi" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="value" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333300; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 9px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 12px;"><cite style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; display: block; font-style: normal; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 3px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 3px; outline-style: none; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small; font-weight: normal;"><br />
</span></span></cite></span></span></span></span></div></blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-89573297256279729132010-11-09T16:24:00.000-08:002010-11-10T02:48:40.153-08:00Long-awaited blog on climate skepticism<em>Part 3 in a series on climate change journalism</em><br />
<br />
Sometimes you wait a long time for something and then it just lands in your lap when you're not looking. Or maybe it is under an embargo you can't break.<br />
<br />
Either way this is a ripe time to write about climate skepticism in the media. First of all, Bob Ward, climate change communication guru at the <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham">Grantham Research Institute</a> at LSE wrote a '<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wea.683">Viewpoint</a>' in <em>Weather</em> at the tail end of last month in which he advocated climate researchers taking more responsibility for countering the claims of climate skeptics in the aftermath of Climategate and the IPCC errors. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhThaGg3JbmkLxXTRiTeBmDWcy6Wvcl7cQKYNN4jpcTGVO-J5TXe6h5n5lUpmzSb_0uYE4dFAlLPiOTT37_hXDuQKuVLVTaceEUf8qEWtGlfdMuIZkRcOoH5_p5SYQ4wYki2wnS4Q16Aj4/s1600/Monkey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="249" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhThaGg3JbmkLxXTRiTeBmDWcy6Wvcl7cQKYNN4jpcTGVO-J5TXe6h5n5lUpmzSb_0uYE4dFAlLPiOTT37_hXDuQKuVLVTaceEUf8qEWtGlfdMuIZkRcOoH5_p5SYQ4wYki2wnS4Q16Aj4/s320/Monkey.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The nasty shock of the 'recoil effect'</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <br />
The increased prominence of skeptical views in the media the past year is described by <a href="http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/psych/contactsandpeople/researchstaff/corner-adam-dr-overview_new.html">Adam Corner</a>, a researcher into understanding risk at Cardiff Universtiy, as a 'recoil effect' - occuring despite the fact that climate science has since been <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science">cleared</a>. Big fat caveat: climate researchers may have a role to play in this but ultimately the buck of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/article.php?p=365&t=2&b=1">misleading climate change coverage</a> stops with journalists and editors. Margot O'Neill described the challenges facing the media in a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm">blogpost for ABC</a>, chiefly the aftershock of Climategate and the ensuing "public confusion about whether there is a reliable scientific consensus".<br />
<br />
Ward suggests scientists need to communicate more effectively with the public and the media; on the subject of personal integrity as well as scientific results. He also adds that: "More leaders will be needed who can skillfully take on confrontational media interviews and go head-to-head with slippery opponents." <br />
<br />
He explains this is because climate skeptics often: "take advantage of scientists' sensitivity to allegations of bias or subjectivity and take advantage of this by accusing researchers of being advocates if they suggest that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. Researchers need to be smarter when dealing with such tactics and the rhetorical tricks that their opponents use in public debate."<br />
<br />
And hey presto! In a probably completely unrelated event, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story">LA Times</a> and <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-08-climate-scientists-say-enough-and-enough-mobilize-an-army">Grist published a truly remarkable piece about climate scientist in the US mobilising</a> to counter-act the pervasiveness of skeptics in climate change journalism. According the the LA Times this week: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows."</blockquote><br />
John Abraham is a proactive kind of scientist. Earlier this year he <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/05/john-abraham-of-st-thomas-univ-minn.html">'eviscerated' Lord Monckton's climate skeptic arguments</a> in a painstaking <a href="http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/">point-by-point presentation</a>, and further <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html">responded to the litigious peer's criticisms on the Skeptical Science site</a>. Hopefully Abraham and others like him will be as skillful at manipulating the media as the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/28/ipcc-climate-science-attacks-tobacco">climate change skeptic lobbies</a>. But will they be skillful enough to drown out the minority of highly vocal dissenters from the scientific consensus?<br />
<br />
The fight begins.<br />
<br />
<strong>Ref:</strong><br />
Communicating Climate Change, Robert Edward Thomas Ward, <em>Weather</em>, DOI: <a href="http://10.0.3.234/wea.683">10.1002/wea.683</a> [sadly no free version for me to link to]Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-9536317222552182332010-08-16T10:02:00.000-07:002010-08-16T11:32:56.067-07:00How to be less maladaptive<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Or, what are the messages we should be sending out about climate change?</i></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Most of us are somewhere on the ‘maladaptive’ scale according to professor of public ethics and author of <i>Requiem for a Species</i>, <a href="http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/requiem-for-a-species">Clive Hamilton</a>, meaning that our actions don’t correspond to what we know about climate change. This is a form of denial. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So how do we get our “actions and principles to dance together”, paraphrasing climate change communications expert <a href="http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/requiem-for-a-species">George Marshall</a>, author of <i>Carbon Detox</i>. Apparently it’s a psychological <a href="http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0010311.html">precept</a> that we humans seek a close balance between our beliefs and behaviour.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlqmwTSrgr5bek47_20Un8-r6kH6Qm08wzMsgkbPZ3SllHs-nM1ylf9-sRvB42IhRFObMQjHTDngYXQ0qNYMCDpLLNpstWPinq4eFqO7iLEkY6ZbJ74OyLuRxBJswmzg4DpQbY0zUtfWg/s1600/Tango-Show-Buenos-Aires-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlqmwTSrgr5bek47_20Un8-r6kH6Qm08wzMsgkbPZ3SllHs-nM1ylf9-sRvB42IhRFObMQjHTDngYXQ0qNYMCDpLLNpstWPinq4eFqO7iLEkY6ZbJ74OyLuRxBJswmzg4DpQbY0zUtfWg/s320/Tango-Show-Buenos-Aires-01.jpg" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's dance. <br />
Pic: Wikimedia/ http://www.flickr.com/people/jennifrog/</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We’ve got far to go. While a recent YouGov survey showed <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916510.ece">Brit’s interest in climate change has significantly decreased</a> from 80 per cent in 2006 to 62 per cent in 2010, the evidence for <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/ipcc-rising-temperature-targets-greenland-ice-sheet">an average temperature rise of 4 degrees Celcius</a> mounts. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A poll last year showed that <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916510.ece">only 41 per cent of Brits believe that climate change is manmade</a>. Compare this to the fact that the UN’s IPPC have called the evidence for manmade climate change <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr1=change&Cr=climate&NewsID=21429">“unequivocal”</a>. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Apathy. Denial. It’s clear that the attitudes of people need to be shifted. And possibly, they could be influenced on the basis of what is known about the psychology of getting people to act on climate change. An argument for this is that the media has been part of the reason most people are still not acting in a significant way on climate change, so it must consciously be part of the solution. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It’s a big challenge because there are many barriers to acting on climate change – so says my mate <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35845094/PHD-M-Phillips">Morgan Phillip’s PhD thesis</a>. There are many things in our lives competing with it for our headspace, our consideration and our aspirations as well as our time. Things such as: celebrity culture, consumerism, sports, our televisions (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/04/thinkbox-television-viewing">four hours a day</a>!) – not to mention our jobs, home lives and our families and social life. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another big issue is the distance factor. Yes, it might be a crime if there are already<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/06/zambia-flood-climate-change"> climate refugees</a> and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/17/climatechange.food1">conflicts are already fuelled by lack of resources</a>. But, writes George Marshall in <a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/climate-action/why-we-find-it-so-hard-to-act-against-climate-change">Yes Magazin</a>e:</span> </div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">“… [P]eople have decided that they can keep climate change outside their “norms of attention” through a selective framing that creates the maximum distance. In opinion poll research the majority of people will define it as far away (“it’s a global problem, not a local problem”) or far in the future (“it’s a huge problem for future generations”),” </span></blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another issue is that predicting climate change is done via the seemingly abstract science of <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/">climate modelling</a>, and also the numbers themselves are hard to wrap our heads around. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Act now or forever hold your peace</b></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, all in all, it doesn’t seem like something we need to act on now. But it is. Luckily, there are some psychologists that have been looking at how to remedy this. I wonder what <a href="http://christineottery.blogspot.com/2010/07/climate-kryptonite.html">campaigning but upfront and objective journalists </a>can learn from them. What kinds of messages should we be putting out if we care about informing and truth-telling but also the consequences of what we write?</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The take-home message of the big <a href="http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx">American Psychological Association report </a>on climate change psychology that was published last year was: climate change doom creates inaction. This makes sense: tell people enough bad stuff regularly enough and it’s all too tempting to put fingers in ears. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This could be a reason, taken in its purest form, not to write (or listen to) sensationalist stories that warn of an environmental apocalypse. But the truth can be pretty grim itself. So how can you write about it an not leave people feeling disempowered?</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A solution could be balance out news pieces – and let’s be honest, most news tends to be about bad things that happen – with some positive news. This could be about inspiring stuff that people are already doing to take the reins on climate change and might get people energised to do something or solutions-based or adaptation stories. It sounds pretty bland in black and white, but it is uplifting to read about people who are innovating, campaigning and are leading the way. I recommend <i><a href="http://www.positivenews.org.uk/">Positive News</a></i>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/lucysiegle">Lucy Siegle’s</a> Innovators column – and I will be writing something on grassroots green heroes shortly.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Sell it or shake it</b></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Sustainability consultancy Futerra argue for communicating climate change in a way that works. They write in their report <a href="http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking"><i>Sell the Sizzle</i></a> that “We wish that understanding climate change would automatically lead to lifestyles [sic] changes. But it doesn’t.”</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Instead, they propose selling a vision of a sustainable future. The sizzle of a sausage sells. Heaven sells. Hell does not. In <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/553532/do_environmentalists_and_governments_hold_back_sustainable_lifestyles.html">an article</a> on TheEcologist.co.uk <a href="http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors">Solitaire Townsend</a> says:</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">'For years we've tried to 'sell' climate change, but a lot of people aren't buying… Threats of climate hell haven't seemed to hold us back from running headlong towards it. We must build a visual and compelling vision of low carbon heaven. And this vision must be desirable. If [it] isn't more desirable than what we've got now then why bother reaching for it?'</span></blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This line of thinking seems to be a logical conclusion to the APA’s findings (although the APA were more focused on identifying issues to overcome rather than solutions – so far). </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">However, Hamilton disagrees. <a href="http://www.elements-science.co.uk/2010/05/20/clive-hamilton-interview/">He tells me </a>“We need to belt people over the head with the facts at this point in the debate.” He thinks that if the public goes through the process of feeling anxious, afraid or sad about the extent of climate change, they will go through transformation – that elusive bridge between values and actions that Futerra dismisses in their report <a href="http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking"><i>New Rules New Game</i></a>. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJpFU-_5Q4F6-i_RL1-fUsw5WI6l3_K6i1wEKTFY2W02qqukIBVY7Ftal-sIT_g_-6RDW24GeLXfWkhNV_UipDcIm4ZnZrUdQIMSpjS8ZjMcvuAh3zklV5mtl779wXqek6VBFnkVk_m1s/s1600/thinker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJpFU-_5Q4F6-i_RL1-fUsw5WI6l3_K6i1wEKTFY2W02qqukIBVY7Ftal-sIT_g_-6RDW24GeLXfWkhNV_UipDcIm4ZnZrUdQIMSpjS8ZjMcvuAh3zklV5mtl779wXqek6VBFnkVk_m1s/s320/thinker.jpg" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Is deep reflection the bridge between our values and action?</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What is needed for this, Hamilton argues, is deep reflection on the truth of climate change – it’s only when people touch upon it superficially that they fail to be affected. And once you’ve been shaken to the core – the ‘<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133/F1.expansion.html">burning embers’</a> diagram does a pretty good job – there is no way you can fail to act. Even the licensing ‘<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/16/green-consumers-lie-more-ethics">green halo</a>’ effect can be reduced “if people see those activities as necessary,” says Toronto University researcher <a href="http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/viewFac.asp?facultyid=chenbo.zhong">Chen-Bo Zong</a>.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But I wonder about whether this approach is *too* terrifying. Where does emotional support for this process come from? “People heal and make change when they feel supported, understood and challenged.” <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/269433/the_myth_of_apathy.html">Writes Renée Lertzman</a> in <a href="http://theecologist.co.uk/">TheEcologist.co.uk</a></span><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So I ask Hamilton whether positive communications had a role to play in lifting deep-thinking people out of their climate depression and into action. He responded that positive stories are okay in the context of the reality of how bad it is.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I don't know if I agree - that still sounds a bit depressing. Surely we must get the balance right between informing and offering hope? A dash of requiem and a dollop of sizzle, if you like. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Except possibly neither of these approaches is right. In a Twitter natter on the topic with 10:10-er <a href="http://www.twitter.com/cian">@Cian</a> he said:</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">“Maybe one of the issues of the past 20 years is that we've tried various forms of 1 message”.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Sauce not sizzle?</b></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Malcolm Gladwell’s talk on spaghetti sauce (see below) gets at the point that you can reach many more people if you offer them options – chunky, Italian style and so on rather than just one generic sauce.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><object height="326" width="446"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param><param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/MalcolmGladwell_2004-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MalcolmGladwell-2004.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=20&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce;year=2004;theme=not_business_as_usual;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=what_makes_us_happy;event=TED2004;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/MalcolmGladwell_2004-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/MalcolmGladwell-2004.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=20&introDuration=15330&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=830&adKeys=talk=malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce;year=2004;theme=not_business_as_usual;theme=tales_of_invention;theme=unconventional_explanations;theme=what_makes_us_happy;event=TED2004;"></embed></object></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">George Marshall recognises we are not all just one generic public and so he organises his book <i>Carbon Detox</i> around a handful of marketing types. One set of instructions for the goal-orientated ‘Winner’ and one for the make-a-difference ‘Striver.’ I’m pretty sure this kind of approach has a sound basis in a <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a794791685">meta-analysis of behaviour change literature</a> (paywall. Or check out p222-223 on constellations of behaviours if you can).</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">On the surface, this looks good. People can chose what action to take based on their personality and preferences. But even when you add nuance, not all of the problems are resolved. We’re still in a sauce. For instance, if you go about telling winners that it’s okay to have the occasional high-carbon treat (in lieu of a habitually high-carbon lifestyle) and strivers that they have to lead the way forwards for the environmental movement by being activists – isn’t the disparity kind of unfair? </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I don’t know what the solutions to this are. Maybe we just have to accept people have to do what works for them – as long as they are engaging in significant behaviour change. Some people might be more ahead of the curve than others, and maybe they won’t resent the winners all their materialistic desires. Humphf. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Back to the journalism</b></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I think I’ve shown that there is some contention over the best ways to communicate climate change to get people be interested again and act. And I’m not sure this really helps us as campaigning journalists apart from that we should keep all bases covered: belt people with the truth; sell them an alternative, utopian vision by writing about solutions; and give lots of variety in green lifestyle stories. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It seems an uncomfortable that this approach is full of contradictions and we don’t yet know the right formula to give people the ‘right’ amount of information about the science and despair, and the ‘right’ amount of inspiration and multi-faceted practical advice to pull them out of it to get them off their bums to do something about their behaviour. There is a lot at stake. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps what’s needed is a more individually-tailored news and features site that plugs in to where you are on your psychological process of dealing with climate change. Will there be a point in the future where the internet will interact with our belief systems? Discuss.</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Refs:</b></span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”PNAS March 17, 2009 vol. 106 no. 11 4133-4137, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812355106</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Heimlich, J. & Ardoin, N.M. (2008) Understanding Behaviour to understand behaviour change: a literature review, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 215-237, DOI: 10.1080/13504620802148881</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-85708637954723469292010-07-08T12:19:00.000-07:002010-07-09T00:24:18.896-07:00Campaigning climate journalism<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size:medium;"><div><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">As a nascent environment journalist, I’ve had a furrowed brow more then once over the past few months thinking about the responsibilities of the job at hand.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The main questions that preoccupy me are:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">1. To what extent should climate change* journalism aim to motivate people to act on climate change? (*Where I write climate change you could sometimes easily substitute conservation, which might be an even </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">more important than climate change</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">2. If you were to consider campaigning as essential to climate change journalism, what are the messages we should be sending out, anyway? And to whom?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">3. How do we deal with sceptics?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">4. What’s the future of climate change journalism? What are the possible solutions to the flaws in some of the dodgier climate change coverage, or just climate change coverage in general?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I’m going to be tackling these in a series of blogposts starting now.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Campaigning climate change</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">To lay all my cards on the table from the beginning, I think climate change journalists have a moral responsibility to get people to act to mitigate the shitstorm that’s on its way. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This is because journalists have a privileged position in society. Although the so-called ‘fourth pillar’ is among the </span><a href="http://career.jobboom.com/workplace/challenges/2007/12/19/4732266-ca.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">least trusted profession</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, they have an unusual power to exert influence.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It is difficult to quantify the causal relationship between the quality and quantity of climate change coverage in the UK’s media and its effect on public opinion because of a lack of research, according to </span><a href="http://www2.lse.ac.uk/granthamInstitute/WhosWho/whoswho.aspx"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Bob Ward</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> (a climate change policy and communications director at the </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px; color: rgb(0, 0, 255); "><a href="http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Home.aspx">Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment</a></span>) in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Climate Change and the Media</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. But a study done by </span><a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/26/262008"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Butler and Pidgeon in 2007</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> showed that the type of media consumed made a difference to the readers’ perspectives on climate change.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It’s this power to affect attitudes that gives journalists a unique position to act on what the UN Secretary General, </span><a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22836&Cr=climate&Cr1=change"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Ban-Ki Moon, has called climate change the “defining issue of our era</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">”. If the media can wield its influence to campaign for both stronger mitigation policy and personal and community sustainability, then it is increasingly possible people will rise to the challenge of ameliorating climate change.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hold your horses<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">But wait a minute, what about traditional journalistic values? Aren’t journalists meant to be mediators sifting the facts through a sieve of balance, impartiality and other journalistic values?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I quite like environment journalist and author </span><a href="http://www.ericroston.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Eric Roston’s</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> definition of journalism, which he pinged to me over email:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Journalism is the word we use to describe how researchers who are financially independent from their subjects scrutinize people in power and contextualize these findings for a general audience. It's composed of two things, investigation and storytelling--and the possibilities for both are changing more rapidly than any single person can understand.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So if journalism is in flux, perhaps it should be admissible for journalists to wield their influence to get people to act on climate change? – After all, it’s in their own </span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">best interests</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Roston thinks no – although he says there is a continuum of what constitutes journalism – he tells me:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I would disagree that climate journalists should campaign for anything other than tools that help them conduct their work -- open data, "sunlight" policies that require certain disclosures from government, declassification of relevant materials, and maybe the most important, "shield" protection that prevents journalists from being legally compelled to reveal confidential sources. Our society is quite litigious, and a big concern I have about new journalism models is how journalists will be protected from investigation subjects protected by high-powered lawyers.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Powers of persuasion</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I agree that these are very important freedoms and rights to maintain, but I also think that you must consider the impact you have on people when you write on the uniquely challenging problem of climate change. But acknowledging this responsibility also makes me feel uneasy. If climate change is so immense a problem that needs a complete culture change, like the austerity measures of the world wars, then doesn’t campaigning journalism, taken to the extreme, smack of a kind of brainwashing propaganda?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This quandary is well articulated by Bob Ward. He writes to me:</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“The danger with campaigning is that it distorts reporting of an issue, so audiences do not receive a neutral, objective account of the news - basically it crosses the line from providing information into the realm of motivating action. In this case, audiences may lose trust in the source of information. Then again, the scientific evidence on climate change indicates that it could result in the future in profound and fundamental risks to billions of people across the world, so would it be desirable for the media to report on the risk of climate change as if it journalists have no interest in whether the Earth suffers the worst impacts?”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Signposting</span></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One answer is: it depends on how clearly different types of climate change stories are signposted. </span><a href="http://daviddobbs.net/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">David Dobbs</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, a science journalist who writes for the New York Times and previously wrote about the environment says: <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“There's reporting and there's persuading. I think you need to be clear to yourself and to the reader which you're up to. In the job's tightest definition — straight reporting — the responsibility is to inform, honestly and accurately. Yet as we all know, just reporting accurately will often influence readers, whether you set out to or not. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">"If you're setting out to persuade, however, you should make that clear, even if not explicitly. Your facts should be just as solid as ever. But it should be clear to both you and the reader that you're marshalling those facts in service of an argument, rather as more-or-less straight information.”</span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span style="color:black;"></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So for Dobbs, if something is an op-ed, it needs to be demarcated from news clearly. So far, so straightforward, as all journalism should do this in accordance with industry regulator guidelines.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I asked the editor of the </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Guardian’s environment website</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamesranderson"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">James Randerson</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, whether he thinks that the intention behind their environment editorial is always clear, and he responded that everything that is part of the </span><a href="http://www.1010global.org/uk"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">10:10 campaign</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> is clearly labelled, as are lifestyle, eg Ask Leo & Lucy and comment piece, eg George Monbiot.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In the case of the Guardian I agree that individual pieces are well signposted. It is a given that their editorial stance is that the environment, alongside civil liberties, is a special area of interest. Randerson says: “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Climate change is one of those things we do have a campaigning stance on. That means we do think there is a responsibility, not only to tell people news, but also to motivate them to understand what they can do about the news… to say what actions are effective and what’s just greenwash.</span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">” <o:p></o:p></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">He adds that straight news stories on climate change are reported and written in the same way as any other topic - without a campaigning slant.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In need of a makeover</span></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">However, in general climate change journalism can suffer from an image problem because of some journalism that recklessly sensationalises or distorts the facts – or even ignores them completely.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Historically, the press doesn’t have a good record on climate change reporting. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">According to </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nickdavies"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Nick Davies</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Flat Earth News</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, “Scientists spent two decades warning the planet was heating up while journalists simply balanced what they were saying with denials from experts and oil companies.</span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">’”</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> In this case “balancing” reporting with the manufactured doubt presents an inaccurate, misleading overview of the science.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Even now, there can still be problems with balance, particularly in broadcast media, </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">which its British regulators, OFCOM, states must be impartial. According to investigative journalist </span><a href="http://www.monbiot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">George Monbiot</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> in his book </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Heat</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: “Until mid 2005, the BBC seemed incapable of hosting a discussion on climate change without bringing in one of the Exxon-sponsored deniers to claim it was not taking place.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In a case in point, Dr S. Fred Singer was called in to debate online ‘What does the future hold for climate change?’ as a climate change expert. However, Davies writes in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Flat Earth News</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> that The Union of Concerned Scientists found Singer’s work was promoted through 11 of Exxon's anti-climate change lobbying groups.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">If balance is one of the four horsemen of the journalistic apocalyse, the three others are: sensationalism, denialism and straightforward distortion.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Contrast </span></span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">this piece from the Indy on 6 degrees Celcius rise</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> by the end of the century with this, I think </span></span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/11/world-on-track-to-rise-by-6-de.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">less sensationalist piece on the same report by the New Scientist</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A recent example of distortion from the UK press is that </span><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">the Mail</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> and </span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6965342/Big-freeze-could-signal-global-warming-pause.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Daily Telegraph</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> misconstrued the work of a climate scientist called Mojab Latif to state the case that snowy weather in the UK this January contradicts the climate change consensus. </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Latif responded to clarify the meaning of his research</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> in the Guardian.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Commentators can don a contrarian stance. This probably appeals to the right-leaning audiences of certain papers, ker-ching for the right-wing press. An example of a commentor that denies manmade global warming is happening is James Delingpole, writing for the Daily Telegraph. In </span></span><a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">this piece for the Telegraph blogs</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, he uses Climategate as a basis to deny the </span></span><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">consensus of climate science</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. He calls it the: </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig)”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">To read more about what some see as a concerted effort to undermine climate science, read </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/16/requiem-for-a-species-clive-hamilton"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">this extract of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Requiem for a Species</span></i></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> by Clive Hamilton on the Guardian online.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">(As an aside re Climategate, James Randerson told me about </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Fred Pearce’s massive investigation into the Climategate emails</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">He says we’ve dug up all this dirt but it’s nowhere near as bad as many people have been saying, so where does it leave us? It leaves us that climate change is clearly happening, it’s clearly a problem, and there are issues [with the hacked emails] but they don’t change this. If we hadn’t done the big investigation first that would be just him [Pearce] spouting off, but because he’s done the investigation he can say that with credibility.</span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">”) </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In a </span></span><a href="http://www.elements-science.co.uk/2010/05/20/clive-hamilton-interview/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">recent interview where I speak with Clive Hamilton</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, he says that the media does have a responsibility to compensate for bad coverage in the past. He thinks the main priority is to tell the truth (so far, so traditional) so people are informed and that’s the first step to what he calls ‘adaptive’ behaviour, meaning you act in line with the evidence. I’ve not read </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Requiem for a Species</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> yet, but at his talk at the RSA (</span></span><a href="http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/requiem-for-a-species"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">listen here</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">) a couple of weeks ago, he did also talk about the importance of hope, and offering a positive vision. He told me some “positive stories are okay within a context of the reality of climate change.” (More on how we get might motivate people to act in the next post.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Wash hair, not brains<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It is this question of making up for past sins that made me think of how far it’s possible to go without adding your own special bias onto stories to enhance their capacity to influence people to act. Where does one article or a body of work cross the fuzzy line from campaigning to a kind of manipulation? I ask Dobbs what is his take on this? He writes:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">There's a sense in which any attempt to persuade is manipulative: You are, after all, manipulating an argument in order to get someone to change their minds or their behavior [sic]. But, again, this gets scungy when you twist facts to your cause or otherwise play sleight-of-hand. Transparency is the thing: Integrity to the facts, honesty about intentions, and you're playing fair.” </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Okay, so I have to admit to mostly being a Guardian reader (I’m not going to look at each paper in depth, don’t you think this post is long enough as it is?) but it does seem to me that </span><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">they will tackle news such as the </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">retraction of a global warming paper</span></a><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> and of course deep coverage of Climategate, which, as Randerson points out: “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">There’s no way we would publish that stuff if we were following a monomaniacal line that is like climate change is going to kill us all and everything has to fit into that.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Although it must be uncomfortable covering stories that aren’t in line with their editorial stance, objectivity is the trump card. Not ‘balance’ but representing the truth of the situation as you see it – I mean, there’s no such thing as true objectivity since we are all the subjects of our perceptions. But as long as you do proper journalist-y things with the information you have, and you aim to be as objective as possible within the awareness of your own biases, what more can you do?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">REF: doi:</span></span></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color:black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1307/6/26/262008"><span style="color: rgb(0, 110, 178); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">10.1088/1755-1307/6/26/262008</span></span></a><span style=" ;font-size:11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=" ;font-size:11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> </div></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:15px;"> <!--EndFragment--> </span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-88995877963275015882010-04-08T05:18:00.000-07:002010-04-08T08:07:33.473-07:00Investigative science journalism<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One of the big, important topics covered in the Science Media Centre's </span></span></span></span><a href="http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/files/2010/01/Science-and-the-Media-Securing-the-Future.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">report on science journalism</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> for </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">the </span></span><a href="http://www.bis.gov.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">, was the plight of investigative science reporting. Here's an extract, below.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri"></p><blockquote><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One concern that was raised repeatedly by commentators on science journalism including academics and even one journal editor was the domination of the news </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">agenda by stories from the weekly science and medical journals. Curt Supplee</span></span><span style="font: 8.0px Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">45</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, a former science reporter in the US claims that 60-70% of the weekly quota of science stories comes straight from the pages of four or five big journals including Science, </span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Nature, the BMJ and the Lancet which he described as ‘a pretty dumb way to cover science from the public’s perspective’. Another commentator said that we need to ‘challenge the stranglehold of medical journals which are essentially setting the agenda of science with very little challenge’. Some linked this trend to the absence of any tradition of investigative journalism within science writing and others argued that science journalists tend to ‘go native’ and refrain from asking scientists the really tough questions.</span></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></p></blockquote></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">You get the picture - and it ain't pretty. My favourite solution suggested by the report is a 'Before the headlines' service for time-strapped journalists feeding analysis, context and so on to them before the event that they churn out another story based on a press release. This idea came from the popular '</span></span><a href="http://www.nhs.uk/news/Pages/NewsIndex.aspx"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Behind the headlines</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">' service from NHS Choices. Check it out for evidence-based blazing of media stories. </span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Other possible solutions are funding investigations or training with the non-profit </span></span><a href="http://tbij.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Bureau of Investigative Journalism</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> and funding for month-long investigation fellowships. Also the report looked the the 64 million Dollar question: how else are we going to fund investigations into health, technology, the environment etc?</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Putting questions to the pros</span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">So, I was at the City University debate on whether science in the media was "In rude or ailing health?". Actually it turned into a bit of a spat about the (it seems) age-old blogger vs journalist argument. My favourite comment of all time was <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/">Ed Yong</a> comparing the blogger/journalist debate with the film </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">The Titanic - </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">it is tedious and never ends up going anywhere (please forgive the paraphrasing, Ed). There are a couple of blogs that covered the City debate here at </span></span><a href="http://bit.ly/bf3Hto"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Chalk and Cheese</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> by </span></span><a href="http://twitter.com/csking24"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Charlotte King</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> and here at </span></span><a href="http://alifeofpi.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/when-is-a-bloggerjournalistcommunicator-not-a-bloggerjournalistcommunicator/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">A Life of Pi</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> by </span></span><a href="http://twitter.com/harrietvickers"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Harriet Vickers</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">. The hashtag was #scimedia for those that want to check out comments and links to more blogs on Twitter.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">The other exciting thing was that </span></span><a href="http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/news/502-bis-to-unveil-science-journalism-training-fund"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Fiona Fox announced £77,000 to go towards training journalists in science</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">, hoping to improve newsroom science literacy. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">I thought that although the debate was very entertaining, it did seem to miss any sensible opinion on the future of funding investigative science journalism – not just critical analysis, which should be par for course. So I thought I'd straw poll the panelists on what kind of solutions they would favour for future funding.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Fiona Fox from the SMC said a lot of interesting things, as follows:</span></span></div><div> <!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"In the States it’s all philanthropy and </span></span><a href="http://www.propublica.org/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Pro Publica </span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">their model is brilliant – they take money from philanthropists but they also work jointly with papers on investigations [who pay them]."</span></span></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">The problem with this, as Fiona admitted to me, is that we haven't the same history with philanthropists digging into their pockets for journalism in this country. She is seeking to reverse this by lobbying science minister Lord Drayson to divert some science prize funds towards science journalism.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Two other solutions she's in favour of are gaining institution funding:</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"></span></span></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"I think as long as there are really strong protective walls between the funding and the journalism why not in The States the National Science Foundation funds all kinds of journalistic ventures but it doesn’t have editorial control".</span></span></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">And also research council funding:</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"></span></span></o:p></span></p><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"It’s not automatically corrupt. The BBC is funded by the government but I see no evidence that the government interfers in the day to day business of the BBC – why can’t we look at some of these models?"</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Andrew Jack of the Financial Times said he was for encouraging investigative journalism within media organisations, but also for more "external stimuli", such as awards for science reporting. He also sees a future for:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">institutions, whether academic or non-profitboth be funding directly in some form, either through their own resources or funding scholarships."</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Ed Yong agrees that Pro Publica and also </span></span><a href="http://www.spot.us/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Spot.us</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">, which describes itself a a community-powered journalism, are possible funding models for the future. He cites the case of Lindsay Hoshaw's New York Times story on the garbage patch as a Spot.us success story, funded by donors on the site on the basis of Lindsay's pitch. </span></span><a href="http://spot.us/stories/252-dissecting-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Here is how it worked</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">, and see below to hear about it it Lindsay's words.</span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></span></div><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqUcRYYuUHQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqUcRYYuUHQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">However, Ed highlights this is tentative: "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">if anyone knew the answer of how to fund... [investigative journalism], then I wouldn’t be sitting here being interviewed I’d be sitting at home getting massaged by Rupert Murdoch." Fair point.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 16px;font-size:14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: normal;font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The Economist's Natasha Loder is also tentative about the BIJ and Spot.us as possible ways forward as she thinks there are possible costs incurred to organisations who might take on investigative work in terms of fact-checking and legal risks, but are a good idea on the whole to cure what she calls "inefficient" science journalism:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"></span></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">If you could only get a handful a week</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">of new and novel and original stories, funded by a different source, you can immediately diversify what’s being published.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">"</span></span></span></span></blockquote></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">However, Natasha says her favourite idea is for the ABSW to give month-long fellowships to reporters to produce investigative work. I wonder whether this will apply to freelancers too or only the small handfuls of science specialists already employed full-time by organisations? Hmmmm. When Natasha pointed out there were only 80-odd staff positions in the UK it made a lot of us MA science journalism and sci comms ponder and scratch our heads. Heigh-ho: here's to the future, here's to new funding models and entrepreneurialism.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><!--StartFragment--><!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-12118425029784986432010-01-18T06:42:00.000-08:002010-01-18T14:59:30.343-08:00Science Online 2010: The emotion session<div style="text-align: left;">Plenty, and I mean <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/index.php/wiki/BlogMedia_Coverage/">PLENTY</a>, of other people have and will be blogging the <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/">Science Online</a> conference of science geekery in North Carolina's <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=Research%20Triangle%20Park&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl">Research Triangle Park</a> much more comprehensively than me. Two who pipped me to the post are <a href="http://twitter.com/cromercrox">Henry Gee</a>, on Nature Networks, <a href="http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2010/01/18/geek-central">here</a>; and <a href="http://twitter.com/phylogenomics">Jonathan Eisen</a>'s top 11 (okay, 12) things learnt <a href="http://ff.im/-erO0w">here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>So I decided to take a different angle on proceedings, inspired (or is it just the jetlag?) by a <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527431.300-five-emotions-you-never-knew-you-had.html?full=true">feature in the New Scientist on 'new' emotions</a> recognised by scientists. So we still have the usual suspects: sadness, anger, joy, blah, blah, but now also have shiny new labels for other emoted states of being - much more interesting. Here goes:</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>1. <b>Elevation</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Described as a feeling of uplift. I felt inspired by sharing of tools for blogging at <a href="http://researchblogging.org/news/?p=816">Dave Munger's workshop</a> (ditto Henry Gee). Also, by the infectious enthusiasm that scientists have for their fields, such as <a href="http://twitter.com/oystersgarter">Miriam Goldstein</a> in the <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/index.php/wiki/Talking_Trash/">Talking Trash</a> session. </div><div><br /></div><div>Even science journalists seemed optimistic about the future of science journalism online and elsewhere in the <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/index.php/wiki/Rebooting_Science_Journalism/">Re-booting Science Journalism</a> session. Even <a href="http://twitter.com/carlzimmer">Carl Zimmer</a>, who had apparently intended to put forward a cynical angle – somewhere along the way, via duck's penises (corkscrewed, in case you were in a dark hole somewhere and missed that one) – ended up with an optimistic vision of how we can make science exciting and accessible by giving it intriguing hooks, such as writing about science tattoos or science sculpture. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://twitter.com/christineottery/status/7868175807">One more example</a> that reminded me why I love blogging is what <a href="http://twitter.com/David_Dobbs">David Dobbs</a> was saying in the fact-checking session about how you can easily put up all your references when you are working online, or you can post an entry with sources to support a print article - online rocks. Simple. </div><div><br /></div><div>2. <b>Interest</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Well, obviously there was a lot to be interested in at the conference. And journalist-blogger hybrids are notoriously curious. So the challenge to this was being online as an audience member. If something was engaging enough I focused. And if it wasn't (purely subjective, and subject to what was elevating me at that particular moment), I was probably only listening with one ear: the risk/benefits of the interwebs at conferences. </div><div><br /></div><div>(More on what I was interested in above and below this, but not exclusively)</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>3. <b>Gratitude</b></div><div><br /></div><div>This is easy. It's relationship glue. And for me this was the most important thing at Science Online: the people. No question. Of course, I would like to thank Anton and Bora for inviting me to come and moderate a session, and giving me the opportunity to meet all these wonderful science bloggers and authors. Thanks to anyone that came to the session that Connie St Louis and I chaired and for all your brilliant contributions.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>I would also like to thank Michael Specter for writing his book Denialism so I could win it (Q: how many times a day do rats have sex? A: 20. I tweeted 21. How I knew this, don't ask) and get lots of other lovely clever people to sign in his absence. And Specter was <a href="http://twitter.com/specterm/status/7864661827">so nice</a> about it.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3QG6z20qpdAkRuDXJC5RLmSZpDd34tDl9XN7cPZ0iWwP2lsxLu1XKEG-KYawJq5Lp85B9nDIhHZNNdVxXP-qG0ay64zkLu3a8vOfbmQ1NIQuLcIi7LBxKTkatHuLX1p4YzYUz0ebqEU/s400/IMG_0205.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428098244647591314" /></div><div><br /></div><div>Also a million times thanks to everyone – it would make a very long list to namecheck – who made me feel welcome and like my bouncy self. </div><div><br /></div><div>4. <b>Pride</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>This is a tricky one. According to the NS article there are two types of pride: one good, and "authentic" versus the nasty "hubristic" one. I don't actually think there's that much wrong with a wee bit of pride for that reason - it can be alright if you have good and humble intentions. Personally, I reckon it is spreading a bit of joy about. Why not? There are worse things you could spread from person to person. You might even affect people you haven't met, according to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/17/are-your-friends-making-you-fat">this piece</a> on <i>Connected</i> in Sunday's Observer. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, I was proud of the fact I managed to moderate the trust and scientists session without: hyperventilating, passing out, swearing, or other potentially embarrassing behaviour. No, seriously, I was pretty pleased with how it went for my virgin conference - there was some good discussion, quite a bit of controversy in the room and over Twitter, and some solutions put forward, such as a greater transparency on the part of the scientific journals with annotated entries - see <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/index.php/wiki/Article-level_metrics/">here</a> for a starting block on article level metrics of the type they are pioneering at PLoS. </div><div><br /></div><div>Otherwise, what else came out of it was the need for scientists and journalists to work together to bridge the trust gap - this can be tricky from a journlistic point of view, as we discussed in the fact-checking session with <a href="http://twitter.com/RebeccaSkloot">Rebecca Skloot</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/David_Dobbs">David Dobbs</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/Sheril_">Sheril Kirchenbaum</a>. There was debate over whether journalists should let scientists check their copy - in some cases this is against house policy so this is worth checking if you are a freelancer. Although I don't know how this applies to publishers in the UK. </div><div><br /></div><div>5. <b>Confusion</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>It seems wrong to end on lukewarm note, as I feel happily lucid about Science Online, the people I met, and the things that I learnt. But actually I do occassionally feel puzzled in the way that it discusses in the New Scientist piece: as a kind of "time-for-change" emotion. For me this time for change seems distant in my future, when I have to decide what to do when I finish my MA in Science Journalism in June. Still pondering... </div><div><br /></div><div>One very thought-provoking issue is how I, and other nascent science journalists, are going to make money if we decide to go freelance. And I do want to be freelance, to mix it up with different media, to be independent, to be able to investigate. In the current economic climate this is probably going to be a challenge. But now I have connected with several other science journalist-bloggers that have <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/06/09/choose-life/">similar values</a> and want to strike out in similar ways, which equals support for each other. So despite the confusion, I feel shored up against the grey skies. </div><div><br /></div><br /><div>PS. If you think you spot Michael Specter's signature, it is cheeky fakery</div><div>PPS. Accurate to best of my abilities - if anyone has any corrs please comment. Thank you</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-52991798668915593842010-01-12T08:18:00.000-08:002010-01-12T09:46:14.146-08:00Breaking the ice<div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">... and the tortoise says hi to the lions *waves*</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The lovely blogger and Twitterer <a href="http://twitter.com/tdelene">DeLene Beeland</a> urged me I that I rule my blog, rather than the other way around. She's right, but I have promised some posts - some to other people and some to myself. So, here's where I say: I will do it. It might take a little while, but I will get there in the end. Less haste, and all that. </div><div><div><br /></div><div>I would love to update more regularly but this MA course and all the other work I have been doing - like <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/flibanserin-female-sexuality-drug-companies">this</a> blog on flibaserin, the "female viagra" for the Guardian's Comment is Free - plus, of course Christmas crash-out, means life has been a bit of rollercoaster recently. In an exhilarating, sleep-deprived kind of way.</div><div><br /></div><div>This post breaks the proverbial ice for more blogposts to come, there will be a veritable deluge soon. Next one is on climate change journalism. And after that there will be some stuff on the <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/">Science Online</a> conference, where I have the great honour of chairing a <a href="http://www.scienceonline2010.com/index.php/wiki/How_does_a_journalist_figure_out_which_scientists_to_trust/">debate</a> (add suggestions to the wiki! If you like...) on a previous blogpost called <a href="http://christineottery.blogspot.com/2009/09/which-scientists-can-you-trust.html">"Which scientists can you trust?"</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>I also managed to persuade my MA course director and award-winning journalist, <a href="http://conniestlouis.wordpress.com/">Connie St Louis</a>, to come and back me up when the organisers warned they were throwing me to "the lions' den". </div><div><br /></div><div>A lot has happened since I initially wrote that post. So topics we'll be entertaining at the debate will also include: Climategate, Susan Greenfield, and the South Korean fraudster stem cell scientist <a href="http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/8721/">Hwang Woo-Suk</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>For our American colleagues: you have most probably been following Susan Greenfield's sacking over Twitter, but if you haven't here are some good blogs etc that explain all and give a variety of views:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Mark Henderson in the Times on why Greenfield outgrew her usefulness as director of the Royal Institution, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6984214.ece">here</a>. There is also some links to other related pieces on the left if you scroll down.</li><li>The Telegraph <a href="http://bit.ly/7g3ouX">write</a> that Baroness Greenfield should have been sacked, not made redundant for her mis-management of the RI coffers.</li><li>The Guardian's <a href="http://bit.ly/6eLwak">editorial</a> is more sympathetic to the Baroness.</li><li>And two significant blogs are from <a href="http://bit.ly/59TC38">@gimpyblog</a> and <a href="http://bit.ly/60QvEK">@mjrobbins</a></li><li>Oh, and you might want to watch this:</li></ul><div><br /><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gg8LlUME-IM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gg8LlUME-IM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div>Again, I'm sure you're all well clued up on climategate, but it might be worth checking out these views:</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's a press briefing from <a href="http://climatesafety.org/climategate-a-briefer/">@climatesafety</a>, a nonprofit climate change blog. You decide whether you think it's optimistic spin or the real thing.</div><div><br /></div><div>And here's a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response">blog</a> from George Monbiot on the affair, where he famously apologises for being gullible, but says that the IPCC report is still valid. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are also alternative, skeptical views. But I'm sure you can easily find those yourselves through a simple Google. </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:130%;color:#3D1957;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" line-height: 16px;font-size:14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#3E4415;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div>Hope you're all having a good start to twenty-ten.</div><div><br /></div><div>Christine</div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-90611436091207707342009-11-09T15:54:00.000-08:002009-11-10T04:49:09.389-08:00Kids' eco superhero sculpture displayed in Russell Square<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402270376285779906" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 214px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center; TEXT-DECORATION: underline" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQzIwEzilKg5Yp33TArZjT9mx_QmpXt0tBQddj7v8aQ7vRfGIx2REck1ZM0U-KgjW8ZkPfg9TU3GpegnwJwvx7_CAvTAD-1P8_kT6C6s0gJcvxakfTgbEsvPdbiMyxBgauyeaSHEJi6ak/s320/IMG_2340.JPG" border="0" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0)"> <div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQzIwEzilKg5Yp33TArZjT9mx_QmpXt0tBQddj7v8aQ7vRfGIx2REck1ZM0U-KgjW8ZkPfg9TU3GpegnwJwvx7_CAvTAD-1P8_kT6C6s0gJcvxakfTgbEsvPdbiMyxBgauyeaSHEJi6ak/s1600-h/IMG_2340.JPG"><br /></a></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"><br /></div></span><div>Kids rule. They really do.</div><div><br /></div><div>Leave a bunch of refugee children between 5 and 12 to their own devices, and they will come up with the idea for an eco super hero sculpture made from reclaimed and re-cycled parts. Or, at least this is what was happened on one particular project this autumn. The kids were helped to make their imagined hero a reality by community artist Susan Swartzberg. </div><div><br /></div><div>The sculpture was recently unveiled by the blinged-up Mayor of Camden in <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=russell%20square%20gardens&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl">Russell Square Gardens</a> and will be on display for the next two months.</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The inspiration for the environmental super hero theme came from the children’s love for comic books and superheroes. This fascination with all things caped was discovered over a series of drama and storytelling workshops with <a href="http://www.pan-arts.net/PIA/homepage.html">Pan Intercultural Arts</a>, a charity that uses arts and drama as a way to bring fun, confidence and sociableness to the children.</p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402269591387387650" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 268px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWOLD1Ni4nhs6sT2T4LThKoIMeXO7g9o1845_3zOXuxXFu-BOBi_v5cmGy01hqgLgxC0jhKPmCahnpWdvku4mnSUScsovfT5EEzY4BVpKqc0d9i5R2Dmm1LEq0o_K86i1oIqG04kmmBbE/s400/IMG_2313.JPG" border="0" /> <p class="MsoNormal">Laura MacPartlin, the director of refugee arts at Pan, says: "To have their work displayed publicly is an fantastic achievement for them, it's amazing."</p><p class="MsoNormal">The children drew the designs themselves, which were incorporated to create “Eco Thunder Kid”, a super hero with the power to harness lightning bolts to use as electricity and help animals in need. I don't know about you, but I LOVE the sound of Eco Thunder Kid. </p><p class="MsoNormal">It sounds like the children enjoyed making it too (they say it's neither male or female). Sara from Iran, 7, says: "Eco Thunder Kid helps other people when they are in danger. I made every part of it." Mariam, 10, from Sierra Leone says: "I liked doing the bottle tops and hammering and threading. The superhero was made of recycled stuff like plastic bags." What did she think people might learn from Eco Thunder Kid? "They will learn how you can re-use stuff."</p><p class="MsoNormal">"It took a week to make, but we've been working on it before that for about a year. The kids have put in a lot of hours," says Swartzberg. She tells me that she worked on the main structure of the sculpture, which is made of a chicken wire and for example parts of plastic bottle for the head, and that the children decorated it and even designed details such as the globe logo on the cape.</p><p class="MsoNormal">MacPartlin explains that: "The young refugees projects are funded by BBC Children in Need, and started off six years ago as a partnership with The Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture, where a lot of families went to have psychotherapy treatment to deal with trauma they had suffered in their countries." Pan were invited to come in to help the children, and then took the arts and drama workshops for the refugees outside of the foundation.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Liz Fraser-Betts, education co-ordinator at the nearby <a href="http://www.octobergallery.co.uk/homepage.shtml">October Gallery</a>, says: "Because at the October Gallery's exhibitions are from around the world, and involve recycling and sustainability, we thought it would be a really nice combination to work together with Pan, who use art for social change.</p><p class="MsoNormal">A super hero is often on the outskirts but does stuff for the community to help and help the planet. It is showing the contributions that groups can make to their community, groups that are hidden or are secret. So a lot of the reason for this sculpture is to raise awareness of recycling but also to show incluson and real community spirit."</p></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-59987665104395102892009-10-24T15:38:00.000-07:002009-10-24T15:57:13.189-07:00Bloggage and podcasting all over the shopThis is what I've been up to:<br /><div><br /></div><div>Created my first <a href="http://www.city.ac.uk/aboutcity/environment/environment_news_blog/index.html">podcast for City's Green Week</a>. The link's to the left. No, the other left. </div><div><br /></div><div>AND <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/bullying-workplace-ed-balls">this 'ere blog</a> in on CiF...</div><div><br /></div><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 218px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4RCyhPwNbGSkI_WGpkpDoUaWjj5R2ttum5qWVRE9uOfK84C4-nwRTNkS7F2_7yR9kELzjL0_VGYDp-jnwQ9D3mNdx0Lv7mGGOTxq7cG-4CFjasmkXpuutIsqDX0dBofmcd0o1DlBirXU/s320/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5396302518424747138" /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>AND <a href="http://abhb738.portfolios.cutlines.org/">this blog</a> on my new City project blog that's metamorphosing into a blog on forests. So excited about working on this one.</div><div><br /></div><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 182px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqCuwySk5dQ4oFbPfRtygIysS15hok3Gg-JVe8uSd0QmsfkbSmwt40FXhw-OlGEiZuUlqeuhNTOfADzwPuQIxFUDucR2uJ3IkTkJPmNZBJakKUCpkLJzMZundoIQQ4QS9M4GQl_CjmA1Q/s320/Picture+3.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5396303590267878690" /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Ta ra for now!</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-47823603815766333212009-10-12T17:42:00.000-07:002009-10-18T11:23:06.761-07:00Wordpress - friend or foe?I think, hope, pray that I will learn to love my <a href="http://abhb738.portfolios.cutlines.org/">new Wordpress blog</a>. <div><br /></div><div>The idea is that is nattily combines my interest in this new-ish phenomenon of positive psychology and my concern for the environment with my need to write a uni blog - all rolled up into one neat package.<br /><div><br /></div><div>It's still in the developmental stages. Ahem. But I wrote two little blogposts tonight and will show it some love over the coming weeks, months and so on. I'm also looking forward to properly uploading multi-media content on there in a player that is not incredibly irritating for visitors.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will still be blogging on science journalism here – next posts are on presentation of climate change sceptics in the press – so feel free to enjoy both blogs as and when the whim should overcome you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ta-ra</div><div><br /></div><div><b>UPDATE: </b>New blog will be about all things tree, wood, forest and jungle. Probably not tree hugging. Although I won't rule it out.</div><div><br /></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-87313741838091639902009-10-08T08:12:00.000-07:002009-10-08T14:13:59.824-07:00The Times' new magazine about science: Eureka<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfz5DlHrObDDokuuIYqrG4vmuAEpkH2gp4JMAttDZBLA_qYq-rSKK1pkaadmOjeh1asU7yXIRJ5Dh4c_J5R5irUfTZ_xQ43lDMLc4wXOuDhFbaKgMhV8LjlvCfYWW8BFSDkVIHgXMvGV8/s1600-h/photo.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfz5DlHrObDDokuuIYqrG4vmuAEpkH2gp4JMAttDZBLA_qYq-rSKK1pkaadmOjeh1asU7yXIRJ5Dh4c_J5R5irUfTZ_xQ43lDMLc4wXOuDhFbaKgMhV8LjlvCfYWW8BFSDkVIHgXMvGV8/s320/photo.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5390252546435965570" /></a><p class="MsoNormal">Early this morning I ran out in my pyjamas, flipflops and hoody to get a copy of <i>Eureka</i><span style="font-style:normal">, the new science supplement in The Times. I even picked up two copies of The Times by mistake, and paid for one, sorry Mr Newsagent Man.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I opened up the paper and the glossy, 60-page magazine fell out. “Eureka”, it said.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Eagerly, I devoured its contents, noting: Cute little boxouts filled with graphics of ladies shoes and dogs yawning; very many cool illustrations, such as the Chinese baby being held aloft, the sprouting aeroplane, and the scientific typewriter; and excellent photography of cotton bales and a cityscape. Apart from the look of the magazine, I noticed three things about it that will send me running off to the corner shop in a semi-appropriate state of dress each month. These are:</p> <ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">It is full of wit and whim. The “Quantum of Cool” – haha. Can I feel sorry for Bono being held up as the epitome of uncool? I guess I can’t. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Has some insightful, provocative features, such as Ben Webster’s “It’s no silver bullet” on biofuel aviation. In a sentence: Biofuel from algae and crops grown on “marginal land” could halve aeroplane CO2 emissions by 2050 but it has to be ethical and sustainable. Another goodie was racy story of “Forbidden Love” told by Anjana Ahuja about research funding. Also very good to see scientists getting coverage for their work in the roundup of 12 bleeding-edge solutions to the world’s troubles. Read Eureka content online <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/">here</a>.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">It has useful stuff at the back. Stuff that people who think science is spiffing and fascinating will like. There are listings of lectures, blogs, book reviews and so much more to keep those from the mildly geeky to the incessantly curious at bay. </li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal">Methinks this is the ideal concoction of lightheartedness and substance to chew over for its target audience, who are “intelligently curious about the universe” says <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6863728.ece">Antonia Senior</a>, the editor of <i>Eureka</i><span style="font-style:normal">. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Why did The Times decide to launch <i>Eureka</i><span style="font-style:normal"> today? Ms Senior says: “We thought it was is a really good time to have a platform where we could explore all the best and most exciting ideas in the world of science. It partly comes from our commitment for the environment. We think that all of the solutions to the world’s current climate crisis will be found by scientists. And we wanted and have space and the freedom to really explore how that could happen.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hannah Devlin, science reporter for The Times adds that: “Science isn’t just worthy, it sells.” She told me that James Harding, the editor of The Times, revealed at the <a href="http://www.wcsj2009.org/">World Conference of Science Journalists</a> in July that the second biggest spike in sales other than Obama’s inaugeration, was the day that the <a href="http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/">Large Hadron Collider (LHC)</a> was on the cover. It appears the public is more interested in <a href="http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-09/st_particleguide">Higgs Boson</a> than previously imagined.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Times is also proud of its science writers, and <i>Eureka</i><span style="font-style:normal"> is a chance for them to shine. “We do have a lot of readers who are very enthusiastic followers of our science blog and big followers of people who write for us, like Mark Henderson, our brilliant science editor,” says Ms Senior. The blogsite for science has now been re-branded <a href="http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/">Eureka Zone</a>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style:normal">The Eureka site will also begin to include more audio and visual content to enhance its overall offering. In fact, there's a little video showing what </span><span><i>Eureka</i></span><span style="font-style:normal"> is about <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6847280.ece">here</a>.</span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-53533523974563300432009-10-03T19:17:00.001-07:002009-10-04T08:24:27.793-07:00A blog about a blog: Love and creativityThis week I had <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/02/love-sex-zoom-lens">my first blog on Comment is Free</a> on the Guardian online. It was based on a research paper that I managed to get my sticky mitts on into the psychological states of love and creativity. And also sex and analysis. You can learn more if you click through. But you'll be disappointed if you think I'm going to write about my sex life, as many of the commenters on the blog seemed to feel the urge to. So no titillation there, sorry.<br /><br />On my MA course we've been learning how to use our recorders (the recording things for radio-type ones not the ones you learnt how to play baa baa black sheep on aged seven). I took to the streets of Farringdon armed with my headphones, recorder and mic to quiz some people about what they thought of the link between love and creativity. And here is what I heard:<br /><br /><br /><embed src="http://www.edublogs.tv/addons/audio/player/player.swf" quality="high" width="290" height="24" name="mp3player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="width=290&height=24&autostart=yes&bg=0x000000&leftbg=0xFFBF00&border=0xFFBF00&text=0x333333&soundFile=http://www.edublogs.tv/uploads/audio/nVkxBMmaauNcpAQyXR5Q.mp3"></embed>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-33663037750490110212009-09-27T15:43:00.000-07:002009-09-28T14:14:00.748-07:00Science literacy – getting more people into science, innit<div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Part two of a two-part blog on science literacy: Science for grown-ups </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The serious bit</span></span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We have seen in </span></span><a href="http://christineottery.blogspot.com/2009/09/science-literacy-getting-more-people.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">part one</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> how education can be a pretty good way to become more science literate. But what if your science studies are but a dim and cobwebby memory? How can you keep up with the kids, if you have them?</span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Professor John Holman, the science education adviser to the government says that parents should spend time with their children watching science programmes on TV, read popular science books – “there are some brilliant popular science books around now by people like Simon Singh” –</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">read science stories in the papers, read science blogs, and take an interest in their children’s science homework.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggpuxo-hPqI9SOn8ZVOld0kex5jSQyJOppOMiLvjSMDeOt6uwJUE4D7M-lAY0jaeP1bBmg43lM7GSNsBJhrXi6AK5EkyJUcjv666OWl-m-xrPucSdtnUkMdGq5LKP6mc6cLi_SF1tTilQ/s320/IMG_2228.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5386282374171960738" /><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Even if you’re not a parent, how do you simply keep up with what’s going on in the world around you as it is rapidly and inexorably changing?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What was that saying; Ignorance is bliss? No, no, “There is no darkness but ignorance”. See the statue of Shakespeare to the left. It’s in Leicester Square. I like this because one of literature’s great, or greatests, is saying something so relevant to knowledge, or lack of, of modern science.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One of the problems is that ignorance is quite a contented state. It’s easy to walk around not understanding the technology that you use every day, or for example, how a </span></span><a href="http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/04/april-20-1940-electron-microscope-crosses-the-atlantic-zworykin-crosses-the-delaware/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">TV</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> or other devices would not function without quantum physics. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, says in his book </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Parallel Worlds</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: “Gamow [a scientist]… realised that radioactive decay was possible because in the quantum theory the uncertainty principle meant that one never know the location and velocity of a particle; hence there was a small probability that it might ‘tunnel’ or penetrate right through the barrier…” The concept of tunnelling explains the properties of electronic devices, including the cathode ray tube in old-fashioned, boxy TVs. Fascinating, no?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">But how do we interest and engage the public, especially people whose attitude to science could best be described as apathetic?</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The opinion bit</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What science needs is a tipping point. Scientists should be celebrated as modern-day heroes instead of Z-list celebs. Geek should be chic (sorry to stereotype – it’s a kack-handed compliment). Lab coats should be worn by Dalston and Hakney trend-setters.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">And for this to happen, I don’t see any way forward apart from scientists stepping up and revelling in their brainyness, or for the trendy types to acquire a passion for science to match their sexy nerd looks. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">For those of us that aren’t scientists, even if we are only marginally cool, we could lead the way and spread the science gospel. If you are excited about something scientific, don’t just sit there twiddling your thumbs: Tell your friends about the enthralling news, preferably in a way they understand.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">And then, one hopes, that a generic curiosity about science will lead to an interest into the mechanics of science, allowing people to be able to scrutinise it for themselves. Award-winning science blogger Ed Yong writes: </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“This difference, between "Science: the Details" and "Science: the Principles", is crucial to me. Lacking the former deprives you of knowledge; lacking the latter deprives you of the tools with which to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">acquire</span></span></i></span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> knowledge.” More on this from Yong </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/01/what_is_sciences_rightful_place.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">h</span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/01/what_is_sciences_rightful_place.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">ere</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Here are some ideas for getting your friends into science:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAHP8RKytz4r_T0j-2ZhXhAhnfDsD2-ACPRkNriPCr1Jai7P_nZapFmvOGqnzju3nQ4fKHTICUPpiIpTmFblYkgB_tBaJz2zUuUCgOPwbZhi-zPXOLRN6kOaLjJCC7r79Ccvk_oBhw6iM/s320/IMG_2222.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5386289915535409170" /> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Take them on a tour of scientific institutions in London. This is what we did with our MA group and we all learnt stuff. At least I think we did. And a fun time was had by all. We went to the </span></span><a href="http://www.wellcomecollection.org/exhibitionsandevents/index.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Wellcome Trust’s exhibitions</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> (above, this is some of us looking dashing at the Wellcome), </span></span><a href="http://royalsociety.org/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The Royal Society</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, and the </span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.rigb.org"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Royal Institution</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">If you think your friend might start to get a bit snarky about being taken on a tour, just lure them in with the prospect of Peyton and Byrne tea and cake at the Wellcome or even a nice glass of Malbec at the RI. I haven’t sampled any culinary delights at the RS but it is worth going just to be amazed by the stunner of a building in London, designed by Nash in a Roman classical style.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">At the Wellcome Collection’s Medicine Man exhibition you can point these out to your mate: Florence Nightingale’s moccasins; Darwin’s cane, which has a skull on the top – not a real, shrunken one I don’t think; a mummy, a scold’s bridle, used to punish women by gagging them; phallic amulets and all types of fascinating objects. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The Medicine Now exhibition has all kinds of brilliant artwork on display, such as a blobby sculpture commenting on obesity </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.wellcomecollection.org/exhibitionsandevents/exhibitions/medicinenow/Image-galleries/WTD027889.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">‘I Can Not Help the Way I Feel’ by John Isaacs</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. Also, there is a poem by Michael Symmons addressed To John Donne that rues the de-mystification of the beauty and romance of a woman’s body by knowledge of DNA code. Another moving piece was a mosquito net installation called “Veil of Tears” by Susie Freeman and Dr Liz Lee, a sad reflection on malaria.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Exquisite Bodies was both grotesque and absolutely awesome. It’s a temporary exhibition, only there until 18 October so catch it while you can.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The best reason to drag a friend along to the Royal Society or Royal Institution is probably their excellent talks - you might even get to meet a real scientist. Otherwise, the RS has a good exhibition showing instruments used by famous scientists like Faraday and Tyndell. Your buddy will realise how grateful to them we should be for civilisation as we know it. The library at the RS will become a public lending library after renovations that will be completed in Spring 2010.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Other ideas for the stoking of a scientific interest include:</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Watching cool science programmes on TV. Recently these included Adam Rutherford on The Cell and Michio Kaku on Visions of the Future, both shown on BBC 4. Bang Goes the Theory is kinda fun. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">You can </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jul/16/guerilla-science-music-festivals-outreach"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">hear scientists speak at festivals</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> like Latitude, in pubs at </span></span><a href="http://skeptic.org.uk/events/skeptics-in-the-pub"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Skeptics meetings</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> and the suchlike.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">As Prof Holman said at the top of the page, and I must agree, there are loads of fun and elucidating science books out there. Reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is a must, and you could do worse than starting with the Royal Society’s </span></span><a href="http://royalsociety.org/bookspage.asp?id=8563"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">book prize shortlis</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">t for this year. Or simply pick a topic and find a book in your local bookshop. Stem cell or string theory? Oooh, decisions.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Get jiggy with science on the internet. There are some excellent science blogs out there – some of which are handily aggregated on </span></span><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Scienceblogs.com</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> – as well as magazine websites, such as </span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.newscientist.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Newscientist.com</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> or </span></span><a href="http://www.wired.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Wired.com</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">If you are on </span></span><a href="http://twitter.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Twitter</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> follow science magazines, science journalists and scientists who will sometimes link to interesting or funny science stories.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">If you have a spare half-hour in your day, such as on a dull commute, what better way to brighten your day than by than listening to a sci podcast? Recommended: The Guardian’s Science Weekly, Nature’s podcasts, The Naked Scientists, Brain Science Podcast.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A final, outlandish, yet brilliant suggestion, is to actually do some science yourself. It is easier than you might think. Get a telescope and peer at the cosmos. Attempt an experiment. Or my favourite suggestion comes from Bad Science, in which Goldacre suggests getting a microscope, one from a large toyshop will do just fine, and check out your sperm in a slide. If you’re a woman you might have to get your hands on some sperm for this one.</span></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-37974669045524953182009-09-20T15:53:00.000-07:002009-09-20T16:18:29.498-07:00Which scientists can you trust?<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Suggested listening: [</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:Times;"><a href="http://open.spotify.com/track/3FB3ksb4oNIOFc67SnHbrV"><span style="Times New Roman";font-family:";color:windowtext;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Morcheeba – Who Can You Trust?</span></span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">]<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">How do you sort the "good" scientists or the "bad" without actually going to check out their labs? This was part of the question asked by Daily Mail science editor Michael Hanlon at the </span><a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Goldacre vs Lord Drayson debate</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> at the Royal Institution last week.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This is an important question in light of the over-blown MRSA scares only a few years ago. Ben Goldacre has written a multitude of articles and </span><a href="http://www.badscience.net/category/mrsa/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">blogs</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> about this, exposing the so-called “expert” used by newspapers Dr Christopher Malyszewicz as a fraudster with a lack of proper qualifications, who “got false positive results from his garden shed laboratory”.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Actually checking out people’s labs is something that </span><a href="http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/bch/PersonalWebpage/JamesLogan.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Dr James Logan PhD</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> says is impractical and can be misleading: </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“A trained scientist could even find it hard to tell what quality of research is going on in a lab just by having a look around – after all, in my area we get some high quality research coming out of labs in Africa and most of their labs are very run down and poorly resourced, yet the quality of the science that they are able to do there is not necessarily compromised.’</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So what can journalists do to ensure that their sources are bona fide proper scientists? Of course, the quality of the scientific method of an individual research paper and its peer-reviewed context are the most important things to look at, rather than its author (more on this if you read on).</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“Obviously though, reputation and previous can influence opinion, but in an ideal world a reporter should be only assessing the quality of the work,” says </span><a href="http://network.nature.com/people/U57F9D61A/profile"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Adam Rutherford</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, editor at Nature, “Does it affect the quality of Goodfellas that Age of Innocence was pony?”</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">However, chatting to Vaughan Bell, blogger for </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><a href="http://mindhacks.com/">Mindhacks.com</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> in the aftermath of the Godacre vs Drayson debate (which was a re-enactment of their previous widely-publicised stances, read more </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/science-reporting-is-it-good-f.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">), many questions were raised in my mind about the scientists themselves.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Especially in the light of research that Goldacre highlighted in his talk about how people, and indeed scientists, are influenced by the popularity of a science story in the MSM. In the case of the scientists, they tended to cite studies with more frequency if they are covered in the media. See </span><a href="http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/chapter-1024-in-which-my-prejudices-about-journalists-are-rendered-in-quantitative-form/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> for details of the study, in which academics were influenced by coverage in the NY Times.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Phillips DP et al. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1180-3.)</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Also worrying is </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">this</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> recent article from the Guardian about scientist selling their signatures to big pharma research. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Another reason that quantity of citations is not a good indicator of a good scientist or the quality of a paper is that studies can be cited as examples of controversial or bad research that the paper wishes to contradict.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Bell says using Google Scholar to see how many times studies have been cited can be a fairly good indicator of relevance – but whether this is for good of bad reasons, we must bear in mind its popularity is also tempered by the influence of the media.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">All in the rep</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So how else can we assess if a scientist is “good” or “bad”? A lot rides on reputation. Dr Logan says that “Reputation is probably a good indicator, and would be assessed by talking to peers.” This kind of snooping around can prevent another Dr Christopher Malyszewicz-style disaster.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Of course, reputation becomes a lot more relevant when you are not looking at a research paper, but something else as a basis of a report. This could be notes from a conference plus an abstract of the research, the result of a meeting, press conference or other less- or un-scrutinised channels.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“Then assessing credibility becomes much more relevant,” says Rutherford, “At this point I think looking at publication record can be a useful way of assessing the quality, impact and import of a researcher.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Of course, we have to be prepared that we might be surprised by a scientist deviating from their track record – “As happens with reputation in every other walk of life,” says Bell, “How do you know Tom Cruise isn’t going to make a good Hamlet?”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Even if a scientist’s reputation is good, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all of their claims are founded in good science. Mark Henderson, science editor at The Times, nudges me in the direction of his </span><a href="http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/09/does-twitter-really-damage-your-memory.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">blog</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">on Tracy Alloway’s controversial statements about Twitter dulling the memory – which she then admitted wasn’t substantiated with any research whatsoever. Just a hypothesis, then.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Would now be an appropriate time to mention </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/05/idas-father-defends-the-hype.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Ida</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">? </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Rutherford comments: “Some of the members of the team behind the world’s greatest ever scientific discovery in the world ever that changed the universe for ever aka Ida the lemur, made claims that were not supported by the peer reviewed evidence. Any further publications from those team members should be treated with the same levels of scrutiny as any other academic peer reviewed paper.”<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Peer pressure?</span><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Tricky stuff; at least with a peer-reviewed paper you know that claims about it are based on research that has been given the stamp of approval by reviewers. But can the hallowed tradition of peer review also be susceptible to bias?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In theory, no. But in reality, almost certainly. Occasionally, “bits of “science junk” slip through [peer review] – even in journals like Nature, Science and PNAS,” says Dr Logan. See this <a href="http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n5/full/7400970.html">analysis</a> of retraction of research papers by Nature.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">And here is an example of</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/25/0908357106.abstract">dodgy science in PNAS</a> (via <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/">Ed Yong</a>).</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Dr Logan also says that this is not down to lack of rigour in the peer review process, in his experience. So that leaves the shifty-looking candidates of unscrupulous editing, or nepotism amongst reviewers. Of course the opposite can happen: “Competing scientists can slam a manuscript simply because they don’t like the authors or because they want to be the first people to publish that work,” says Dr Logan.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">One scientist, a biological physicist I chat to over Twitter, <a href="http://somebeans.blogspot.com/">Dr Ian Hopkinson PhD</a>, agrees that there is politics operating within the scientific community.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:LucidaGrande;color:#3B3940;"><a href="http://twitter.com/SmallCasserole"><span style="Times New Roman";text-decoration:none;text-underline:nonefont-family:";color:#4198B6;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">SmallCasserole</span></b></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">@</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:LucidaGrande;color:#3B3940;"><a href="http://twitter.com/christineottery"><span style="Times New Roman";text-decoration:none;text-underline:nonefont-family:";color:#4198B6;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">christineottery</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Yes - politics exist. Diversity of sources probably best. Many sources should give equally good answers.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">@</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:LucidaGrande;color:#3B3940;"><a href="http://twitter.com/SmallCasserole"><span style="Times New Roman";text-decoration:none;text-underline:nonefont-family:";color:#4198B6;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">SmallCasserole</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Ooh thanks for that. So majority rule?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-36.0pt;mso-text-indent-alt:-36.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:11.0pt 36.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:LucidaGrande;color:#4198B6;"><b><a href="http://twitter.com/SmallCasserole"><span style="Times New Roman";text-decoration:none;text-underline:nonefont-family:";color:#4198B6;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">SmallCasserole</span></span></a></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">@</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;font-family:LucidaGrande;color:#3B3940;"><a href="http://twitter.com/christineottery"><span style="Times New Roman";text-decoration:none;text-underline:nonefont-family:";color:#4198B6;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">christineottery</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US;color:#3B3940;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> Unless you know your scientist well, I'd say "yes". Scientist tend to be a bit protective of their turf</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:11.0pt 36.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Outside the box</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:11.0pt 36.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This leads me to pondering about one so-called maverick scientist that I have recently heard speak at a <a href="http://skeptic.org.uk/events/skeptics-in-the-pub">Skeptics in the Pub</a> meeting: <a href="http://www.ted.com/speakers/aubrey_de_grey.html">Aubrey de Grey</a>.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:11.0pt 36.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">De Grey claims that “The first 1,000-year-old is 20 years younger than the first 150-year-old.” And guess what? He thinks they’re alive now.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:11.0pt 36.0pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">His idea for increasing longevity is to combat disease in the body by creating therapies to treat the onset of aging, such as de-fuzzing arteries of cholesterol. He proposes this can be done by isolating the genes in certain strains of bacteria used to break down cholesterol, for example, to formulate as part of an injected panacea.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Not having read any of his research papers, I couldn’t comment on the quality of the science. However, I was fascinated by De Grey as a character, and it seems he has both his opponents and, er, non-opponents in the scientific community. I was curious whether he was too marginal and outlandish to be important or whether he was in fact some kind of genius visionary. Only the rigorous testing and verification of his theories will prove this one way or another.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Rutherford makes the point that with someone like De Grey, even a sidelined position can grow to appear more mainstream then it is within the media. This is probably because it is interesting, as in unorthodox, and also because hunger of the press to regurgitate pithy soundbites. Rutherford says: “A good journalist would only reiterate this... if the argument was sound or the evidence compelling.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Mavericks are shown over time and testing to belong to one of two camps. One: Their “heretical” ideas are supported by evidence and embraced by conventional science, such as Lynn Margolis on endosymbiosis (a theory that parts of cells originally came from bacteria) or James Lovelock’s Gaia theory.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Two: Or, their maverick status becomes “self-selecting” – in other words their work is not proven and they therefore chose to be regarded as anti-establishment. For an example of this see <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution">this</a></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/evolution"> piece</a> by Rutherford on Rupert Sheldrake. </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Ahead of such a time when a scientists' theories are proven or dismissed, how should the media handle mavericks?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Henderson tells me it is fine to write up a maverick’s untested views as long as the caveats about lack of proof and peer criticisms about their work are high up in the article. He warns: “Ask yourself, though, if the hypothesis is plausible, and whether it contravenes things that are thought to be well-established. If so, it's worth applying the maxim of extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Scientist-journalist relations </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">These are worth forging as a journalist. Time to get connected. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Henderson suggests that beyond ringing the authors and independent scientists for their views on the research, it can be useful putting papers you are reading through “a kind of informal peer-review” by running them past scientists you know in the relevant field to get their comments.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Dr Logan agrees, and would like to see more scientists’ views represented in articles. He says: “It is rare that the journalist will change the piece to be more balanced when they have a skepticism from another scientists – after all that will ruin a perfectly good and interesting story! It’s usually tagged on the end.”</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">(BTW, Dr Logan big-ups the New Scientist for “giving a fair and balanced review of controversial research”).</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">From Dr Logan’s experience working with journalists on a skills exchange initiative run by the Wellcome Trust and Documentary Filmmakers Group, he would like to see more media training on “how science works and how scientists think”.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">But this is a two-way street. Dr Logan also reckons that scientists need to buck up their ideas and engage more in communication with the media. He says: “A lot of scientists are too scared to communicate in case their reputation is compromised, which is a shame.” Perhaps understanding this, as a journalist, is one small teeny tiny step in the right direction for scientist-journalist relations.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">NB Had to interrupt my science literacy series to blog this, part two coming v soon, promise.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-23860949714732560702009-09-09T03:43:00.000-07:002009-09-09T06:25:11.198-07:00Science literacy – getting more people into science, innit<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Part one of a two-part blog on science literacy: Education</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Let’s start with the basics. What is science literacy? Why is it important? What is the government doing about it? And so on.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">And who better to speak to than the science tsar of the realm, Professor John Holman? He advises the government on the science curriculum and has been the director of the </span><a href="http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/stem/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">STEM</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) </span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">programme, a national drive to consolidate action for better science teaching and a more comprehensive curriculum, since October 2006.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The aim of STEM is to enthuse enough children in school with science to feed into universities and thence to dribble into R&D. This new generation of scientists will fuel our flagging economy, help the UK become the world-leader in science R&D and generally save the world.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Also, it’s about ensuring that each and every kid grows into an adult with a fully functional sense of ‘How Science Works’, as the GSCE topic is called. It was rolled out across the GSCE science curriculum in September 2006, and forms a large part of the single ‘core’ science GCSE, and part of the double (now called “additional science”) or triple science.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Why is ‘How Science Works’ important?</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Prof Holman says: “It is about making sure that the population have sufficient scientific understanding to serve them well for the rest of the lives. So this is about not only understanding the basic laws of science, like what a gene is and what electromagnetism is, but is also about understanding the methods of science. It’s about how scientists do experiments; how they manage to draw conclusions, even if their results are uncertain; and things like peer review, sample size.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This kind of understanding of scientific method can be valuable when putting science journalism into a sensible critical perspective, as science correspondent for the Guardian Alok Jha suggested in my last blog post, but also any source of information about science. And in a world threatened by climate change, tricky health choices and inundated with ever speedier and more sophisticated technologies, including biotech, that is NO BAD THING.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For example, if people can understand what science is about, they are probably more likely to make better-informed judgements about important things like health and cutting their carbon emissions.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Is the STEM programme delivering?</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There have been some </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/23/gcse-science-tsar-standards-stem"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">quibbles</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> about this year’s set of core science questions by Ofqual</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, for having too many multiple choices, and that some of them were too easy to answer without having actual scientific knowledge.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In response, Professor Holman says: “Now, this wasn’t true about all of them, it was true about some of the questions on some of the papers. That’s an area where we’ve got to sharpen up, we’ve got to tighten up the standard of question setting for ‘How Science Works’.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But it seems that it’s not only Ofqual taking issue with the science curriculum.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I spoke to a mother of a 14-year-old boy, just about to start his GSCEs. She said that science isn’t made relevant enough to kids these days and their lives, or exciting enough.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ex-science teacher and author </span><a href="http://www.claredudman.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Clare Dudman</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> agrees that science must be made more engaging by having a “more hands-on experience in small classes where pupils discover for themselves the fun of science”. One of the problems limiting this is health and safety measure that she says are “inappropriately restrictive”. Although Clare admits it’s a while since she’s been at “chalkface”, this is exactly the same argument </span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">made by the Science Minister Lord Drayson in yesterday’s Guardian, see </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/08/science-schools-education-centre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Meanwhile, award-winning science blogger </span><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ed Yong</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> is concerned that science education in the UK, which he declaims as “sorely deficient” despite the recent reforms to include science literacy, is suffering under “</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">target-driven style of modern syllabuses and exams that encourage people to learn from checklists”. Yong would like to see children developing “reasoning skills, inquisitiveness or skeptical empiricism.</span></span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Similar criticism could (and has been) be levelled at the whole state education system. Teachers have been accused of palm-feeding children to pass exams, head teachers accused of pressurising teachers to meet targets, and the government accused because they set the targets in the first place.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This is far from the ideal scenario for nurturing curiosity and sprouting understanding in children’s minds. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For example, podcast editor at Nature and TV presenter Adam Rutherford says that in biology syllabuses evolution is covered too late and not in enough depth, something he discovered researching a programme for Teachers TV. He explains:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“An old awesome Russian dude once stated, quite correctly, that “</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution"><span style="color:windowtext;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">nothing makes sense in biology except for in the light of evolution</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">”, so it’s daft not to approach biology with this in mind.” </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On the uptake</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Despite these various critiques of the science curriculum and its contents, there has recently been a significant upwards shift in the numbers of GCSE and A-level students picking to study science, pointing to the fact that the STEM drive seems to be working – at least to some extent.</span></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">For GCSE students, more of them are choosing to study science in depth, with a 20 per cent growth in those opting for all three sciences.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Professor Holman tells me that at A-level there has been a 10 per cent rise in those picking science subjects this year. He says: “The subject that has been most endangered was physics, now A level physics numbers were up 4.5 % this year… after many years, several decades of decline.” The 70s and 80s were the lowest point in the popularity the sciences, especially physics.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Why the sudden renaissance?</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The STEM programme set out to improve science teaching. Regional, and one national, Science Learning Centres have been instrumental in training and re-training teachers. Good teachers make the subject more attractive.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Professor Holman says that there is sense of economic realism among students that subjects like physics, maths, chemistry, and biology make you employable than if you take “softer” [his quote marks] subjects.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“The evidence is very clear that if you chose maths of science subjects, you will have higher lifetime earnings that if you don’t,” he says.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Also, Professor Holman reckons that there is more of an air of optimism about science in this country than there was in decades past, that science is now perceived as more of a solution, rather than a cause, regarding the environment. For example, </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327245.600-geoengineering-is-no-longer-unmentionable.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">geoengineering</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“There are also some very interesting developments going on in technology, such as stem cell research, and this will add to the feeling that science is dynamic and has a lot of good to do to improve people’s lives,” he adds.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Extra points for STEM?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "></span></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">What about the </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/16/harder-a-levels-gove-conservative"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Conservative’s proposal</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> to weight sciences and maths with more points towards university admission? And, are they harder?</span></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">According to Professor Holman, it’s not the actual difficulty that is important (and it is hard to measure) but the perception of it.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">He suggests a market solution to counter-act this instead of the points system, which he thinks would be very difficult to calibrate:</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“I think a better way, another way, anyway, would be to say to universities, you must say very clearly which A-level subjects you prefer. Cambridge and LSE have already done this. They have two groups of subjects: these are the ones we like and these are the ones we’re not so interested in. And as you can imagine subjects like maths and physics and French and history are in the group they like.”</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Getting kids sparked up to science</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Rutherford points out a big contradiction between “the public’s adoration of natural history on TV presented by </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article35669.ece"><span style="color:windowtext;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Britain’s most trusted man</span></span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> [David Attenborough, as if he needs any introduction], and relating it to scientific thinking. But this love for the natural world is also an opportunity to learn, if it is tapped into properly and from a young age. He suggests: “Simple things like counting species as measures of biodiversity, or basic taxonomy, or collecting fossils on beaches. Darwin himself used to do this with his brood, and the evolution chest sent out by the Wellcome Trust earlier this year included lots of those types of exercises.”</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Lord Drayson, in the Guardian article in mentioned earlier, said that the solution for getting children more into science is for them to meet scientists and see what they do, such as at the </span><a href="http://www.centreofthecell.org/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Centre of the Cell</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, a new children’s science education centre.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Other ways for children to meet scientists are at festivals: music ones, such as Latitude, where </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jul/16/guerilla-science-music-festivals-outreach"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">science talks</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> take place, or specialist sceincey ones, notably the </span><a href="http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/BritishScienceFestival/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">British Science Festival</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, taking place every September (hurry, it ends tomorrow!)</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There are talks from scientists for children and ‘Family Fun’ days exploring topics from biodiversity to AIDs at </span><a href="http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=detail&section=aud&aud=41"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Royal Institution</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Or, at roadshows, such as the </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/07_july/20/bang.shtml"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bang Goes the Theory</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> series. There’s a few more dates left on the tour.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The government’s science literacy drive </span><a href="http://sciencesowhat.direct.gov.uk/SSWScienceOnTour.aspx"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">‘Science, So what? So Everything’</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> had tours over the summer with interactive beach science, and this may be repeated next summer. </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Then, of course there are plenty of museums to visit: </span><a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Science Museum</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and the </span><a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Natural History Museum</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> are the obvious ones. There is a </span><a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/about_the_museum/science_museum_at_wroughton.aspx"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Science and Industry Museum </span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">in Swindon. But also check out the </span><a href="http://www.wellcomecollection.org/exhibitionsandevents/exhibitions/index.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Wellcome Trust</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> events and exhibitions, especially with older children, although one of their current exhibitions, Exquisite Bodies, is not recommended for the under-18s.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Please comment with any other suggestions for interactive stuff, other museums or exhibits or anything parents might find useful to enthuse their offspring with the joys of science. Cheers! </span></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-11092033682489685442009-08-17T07:50:00.000-07:002009-08-17T08:48:17.334-07:00In a land far, far away: the future of science journalism<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So far I’ve discussed some of the problems facing science and health journalism. Here is one more that I’ve touched on but not gone into depth on, and it’s pretty crucial.<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Alok Jha says: “Unfortunately science is basically the direct opposite of news, which is short, sharp, to the point, and science is incredibly the opposite of that, if you invert all those values. Now, which one is correct? Which one is wrong? Well, neither are. But to be honest, when you’re trying to shoehorn science into the news, it’s not the happiest of fits.”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">According to Nick Davies, the particular problems faced by science journalism are that science is complicated and subtle, and the ‘news factory’ likes simple and clear stories. So, it struggles to get in the news, especially versus popular sports and celeb stories. Stories can get ‘distorted’ in the process of making them simple and sexing them up with an angle for the readers.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So science and news aren’t a match made in heaven. That’s a given. But, always liking to leave things on a positive note, I asked myself, and a whole host of very busy journalists, what possible solutions to the challenges faces by science journalism are?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Nick Davies pinged over: “In principle, it would help to have more specialist science writers, who would have a better grip on the underlying material and, therefore, be better placed to convert it into journalism. The trouble is that that costs money, which is precisely what is missing in newsrooms at the moment...” That’s why people such as myself are forking out a truckload of cash to get the training off our own backs.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Anyway, sounds pretty depressing. Not into feeling depressed, so here are some rays of light:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Critics, we like you</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Criticism of science journalism is very healthy at the moment, which can maybe keep journalists and editors on their toes. For example, I do think for the most part coverage of swine flu has been pretty responsible. Of course there have been </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/03/press-broadcasting-publishing-flu"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">disagreements</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> over that, but it’s just my general impression.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Blogging and tweeting</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Jha says that some science blogs are brilliant, such as Ed Yong’s, who was poached to write for the Guardian’s science blog: “He’s just very measured, and his blog is great. He’s good at critical analyses. He complains now and then [about media coverage of science] but I don’t think he feels particularly superior to anyone.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Jha says that one crucial difference between journalism and blogging is that bloggers tell the story they want to tell and journalists write with the audience in mind, and tell other people’s stories.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“Neither approach </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">is necessarily better than the other,” he says. “They're just different. We're going to need both.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">” An example of the two can work in synthesis is how blogs informing journalism by putting their very specific and specialist knowledge out there, rather than just commenting on reporter’s groundwork – although criticism is sometimes vital, too, as I mentioned above. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">As well as the internet, social media is finding a place in the dissemination of science journalism. Rowan Hooper, news editor of <a href="http://www.newscientist.com">Newscientist.com</a>, says that New Scientist uses Twitter (<a href="http://twitter.com/newscientist">@newscientist</a>) to alert over 28,000 followers of stories on the website, and also as a “news gathering-tool…</span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">being able to see, real-time, what’s going on in the world.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">How can you get followed by <a href="http://twitter.com/newscientist">@newscientist</a>? Probably by being a scientist.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Hooper would like to see more scientists tweeting, and says: “It would get really interesting because if scientists can talk directly to people they don’t go through journalists or even journals in the way that they used to – and then the game really changes. You’re not going to get much data out there in 140 characters, but they can make assertions, for sure. We’d check those out like we would any statement from scientists. I think it’s all healthy and interesting and a good way of getting information out there”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Streamlining</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Pondering on our chat about the future of not just science journalism but journalism as a whole, Jha tells me that he thinks that the role of the journalist will be streamlined as a reaction to bloggers and citizen journalists. “We'll be a leaner industry, probably more specialised and perhaps more professional. When you have a million sources of information online, how d’you know which to trust? Perhaps journalists will be the trusted guides, weighing things up, checking sources, guiding us to the most valuable information.” </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I can see his point. With the proliferation of all kinds of information sources it is tricky to sift the nourishing stuff from the useless, baseless, beige stuff - this is why good journalism in any form will become even more important in the future. However, ideally, journalists should already be doing this job, in my opinion, but I can see how that doesn’t reflect reality. I wonder how this specialisation will come to pass while journalists continue to churn and all the other multitude of journalistic sins? And where will the money come from? </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Or perhaps it is just a case of the cream rises to the top of the bloodbath, with the best journalists naturally being the best journalists because they specialise - and they're the ones that have work and so have a voice. <br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Non-profit agencies</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In Flat Earth News, Nick Davies talks about a non-profit investigative news service in the US that is successful. I don’t remember its name right now but here is </span><a href="http://www.journalism.co.uk/5/articles/534954.php"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">a list</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">. But, surely this model could be replicated for other specialist, time-consuming and butt-kicking work such as a specialist science agency?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Specialist sources</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We’ve been talking mainly about the science journalism in the mainstream media. Hooper reckons that: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The way newspapers work it's often not the science journalists, who set the tone of a story so much as the subeditors and news editors who take a story and put their own spin on it. It makes a strong case for relying on specialist outlets such as New Scientist!</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">” Good plug. But I do love the New Scientist, so I’ll let it go.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Another option, less to do with journalism, but more a kind of raising of science consciousness among the masses, is this:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">A science literate society</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "></span></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Journalism cannot be held solely to blame for people’s misinformation. Jha says that journalism’s purpose is not only to educate, but to be interesting and entertaining and relevant, so people should rely other sources. For example, their education, and state information such as the swine flu website (when it’s not busy crashing).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> The pressured state of our newsrooms also shifts some responsibility for learning critical analysis onto the audience. Good luck with that, everybody.</span></span></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Jha says that on that fundamental basis he agrees with Goldacre: ‘He [Goldacre] rails on journalists because they are a soft target, I think, when really what he wants is a more science-literate society.’</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">*** Next blog on how we achieve a more science literate society!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-58676801898705378322009-08-14T04:39:00.000-07:002009-08-14T04:41:31.064-07:00Can humanities graduates do it? Actually write science journalism?<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I bloody well hope so. I am a future science journalist. I am a humanities graduate. I feel there’s a huge amount of work ahead of gaining background knowledge, contacts and plenty of nosing around to do if I’m going to do the best, most thorough, job I can. Seems like a mammoth task but my plan is this: work hard.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hooper says: “You have to have a broad enough knowledge of stuff to know if something is genuinely new or not. And even if it is new, it might not be interesting. So you have to just judge whether that story is of broad enough interests. You have to bear in mind your audience. It might be something new but actually only a few geneticists are going to be interested in it... It’s not specialists, it’s members of the public. Will they care about it?”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Jha makes the point that “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">there are lots of very good reporters who write about science, and have no science background, but have reported science for ten years and I would say know more science than most scientists.” Also, non-scientists might ask questions from the perspective of relative ignorance that scientists might not ask, therefore serving the interests of the not-so science literate masses.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But then, surely even science grads are </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">non-specialists when they are writing outside of their chosen field? Hooper agrees: “It helps if you have a degree in astrophysics and you’re working on some cosmos story, but that’s not going to help you on a stem cell story.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">However, there are advantages to being a science grad, says Hooper: “The best thing to be said for having a science degree or scientific training is the similarities with journalism. It means you have to question claims, look for evidence to support what’s being claimed. That’s what you do as a scientist and that’s what you need to do as a journalist, so there is that sort of similarity.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Connor infers a degree of agreement with Goldacre about the fact that humanities graduates are the bane of science journalism: “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I’d like to see more science graduates in science journalism… They understand that science is complex, the world is complex.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">” Connor thinks humanities-background science journalists might make the mistake of simplifying stories into pitching two scientists against each other without giving the context about their credibility needed for the reader to fully understand the significance of what’s being said.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Connor also tells me he’s concerned that Goldacre’s attitude could put off science grads from entering the profession. He says: “It’s not true that they can’t write. And they have the intellectual hinterland…”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But surely anyone with the intellectual hinterland to comprehend science, regardless of their degree background, should be able to write it? This smacks of an intellectual superiority complex to me. Jha says: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Surely everyone, anyone, should have the opportunity to write about, play with and enjoy what science is? If not then scientists are just talking to themselves.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-27960132368522847752009-08-11T03:29:00.000-07:002009-08-11T04:03:31.185-07:00Is science journalism a danger to public health?<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I love Twitter. About a month ago I clicked on a tweet to discover this: www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In brief: A month ago a mud-slinging match started between Steve Connor, science editor at the Indy, and Ben Goldacre. On his blog, badscience.net, Goldacre wrote: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“mainstream media's science coverage is broken, misleading, dangerous, lazy, venal and silly.” Connor responded in an Indy column saying critics did not understand the time and money constraints of the mainstream media. He tells me at the Indy the past year has seen a 30 percent cut in newspaper income and a third of journalists have lost their jobs because of the recession.</span></span></p><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment--> <!--StartFragment--> <!--EndFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It’s true some health stories are misleading and this is an extremely serious business. A well-publicised case wrongly linked MMR and autism, the product of decades’ tangled mess of analysis and reporting by lifestyle and other non-specialist journalists based on the work of a scientist with a ton of vested interests (Andrew Wakefield). Throw in a dash of hysteria via lobby groups of concerned parents and it becomes the most vexed issue of science journalism to date. Serious business, as increasing numbers of children are contracting measles and mumps. Read more </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/dec/11/science.highereducation"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Alok Jha, science correspondent at the Guardian, thinks that in his chapter on MMR in </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bad Science</span></i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, Goldacre makes a mistake lumping science journalists with lifestyle journalists that misinterpreted the scientific evidence. Jha says:</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I think Ben’s a bit disingenuous, because he writes ‘science journalist’, and then when you read what he writes he doesn’t talk about science journalists. That’s a slight issue, and he’s admitted that, but I think he uses it so that it’s polemic. So, I don’t use his arguments massively seriously.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">”</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Rowan Hooper, news editor at Newscientist.com, says: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bad science [journalism] can damage your health – but remember – so can bad doctors. If anyone knows a doctor who is good at analysing statistics, perhaps one who is also a good writer, we might ask him to try and assess the deaths that can be attributed to poor science reporting and those attributable to poor medical practice.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Enough of this verbal sparring, boys – the biggest problem facing science journalism’s credibility is churnalism, the “cut and paste” recycling of press agency and PR copy into stories. Hooper says: "You might not have taken the trouble to verify things with independent experts and the danger is you have taken them at their word when it may well require extra reporting." This can result in inaccuracies and “loony claims about cancer”, for example. In Nick Davies’ book, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Flat Earth News</span></i><span style="font-style:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, he blames pharma PR-led stories on fabricated disorders, such as female sexual dysfunction (my example) or</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“social anxiety disorder – otherwise known as shyness”.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">However, despite errors and bloopers by editors and journalists that encourage a skepticism towards science journalism – which might be dangerous if readers ignore stories when they do provide vital and accurate information – I’d argue science journalism is not a completely “broken” profession.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">MSM’s treatment of stem cell research is something that Jha states as an example of “critical friend” science journalism done good: “Members of the science journalism community took the issue on board and analysed the effects and talked to audiences about why this is important.” The result: new legislation passed through government to allow the creation of hybrid embryos, for example, and therefore possible future advances to public health.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Also, MMR might actually have had, in some ways, a positive influence on subsequent health coverage in the media, for example SARS, or depending on which camp you sit in H1N1 (some good and informative, some shown to be overblown in the context of ordinary flu stats). There does seem to me to be an air of not wanting to fuck up in the same way again. Ever. Jha puts that down to newspaper editors realising that they need people on their staff that can be responsible to sort out complex issues.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Jha says he doesn’t know many scientists in UK who complain about science coverage – bar one or two. Evidence for this is a paper published in Science by a UCL researcher (Steve Miller</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) who interviewed </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1,000 stem cell scientists to see what they felt about stem cell coverage in the media, and virtually all of them were happy with it.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><o:p></o:p></b></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-61486205669560302442009-08-09T12:39:00.000-07:002009-08-09T14:28:10.496-07:00Science journalism in crisis?/Will I have a job when I finish my MA?<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Was speaking the other night to Mikey, the deputy editor of Men’s Health (thanks JT for the introduction) and he said something that relieved me… a lot: there’s a dearth of specialist health journalists with the right contacts, going to the right conferences, and all that jazz. Fitness and nutrition journos, sorted; health hacks – harder to find. They almost-but-not-quite poached one off a broadsheet. While this is not good news for Mikey, it is music to my nascent science journalist ears.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Especially because I have been working on an assignment for the course which involved answering the question: “What are the challenges facing science journalism?” Where do I even start?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Easy: scepticism. Ben Goldacre graciously obliged over email with a <a href="http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=conrad">polemic viewpoin</a>t – Thanks! Self-sacrificing of him, who relies on science journalist blunders for 90% of his material, to posit that we should just get rid of science reporters all together:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We need fewer science writers, and more editors. Radio 4 is the best place for interesting, challenging popular science, and there are some fascinating structural issues here. 70% of the words in a Radio 4 documentary come directly from the mouth of the scientist who has done the work. This makes for better clarity, better diversions, better nuancing, greater accuracy, and so on.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">You're in very big trouble, when academics and other bloggers can do it better themselves. I think the mainstream has talked itself out of a role in popular science, except for wacky dumbed down stories about miracle vegetables. It won't be missed.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I have a few of problems with this (except what he says on science blogging, on which more later). You might say that’s because I am about to join the ranks of evil science journalists (shudder, shudder, gnash teeth) myself, but it’s not only that. Here’s why:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Editors sometimes make bad decisions too. Think MMR. Whose choice was it to commission generalist and lifestyle journalists to write about this complex and incendiary issue?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Also see this shocking example of hypocritical editorial stances from the Mail. [VIA </span><a href="http://www.layscience.net/node/507"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">http://www.layscience.net/node/507</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">] In Britain the Daily Mail ran a series of anti-vaccine stories while in Ireland their campaign urged: “Roll out the Vaccine now”. Which stance reflects the bulk of scientific evidence? Do the editors care as long as they stir up a bit of controversy and sell some papers?</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Goldacre uses the example of Radio 4 as what he sees as best practice science editing. The BBC, while they’re not disinterested in ratings, are relatively freer to act out of public service, whereas the news factory clearly has to sell, sell, sell. I don’t know how he proposes to change this, beyond, like a white knight coming down from the clouds riding a unicorn, buying up the MSM and turning it back to it’s less commercialised roots.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Also, there is another issue at work here, and it’s not purely semantics. Editors and producers are, essentially journalists. They package the words of the scientists into tiny soundbitey portions. I chatted to Alok Jha, the Guardian’s science correspondent who makes the Guardian’s Science Weekly podcasts. He says: “</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Someone will have spoken for half an hour and only 90 seconds gets used in the final programme. Their words are juxtaposed against other people's, advancing a wider argument that they themselves may not be making.”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Who has the control? Ultimately, not the scientists, still the journalists, so it’s not really the panacea that Goldacre suggests.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Besides which, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">historically, publicity-shy or perhaps slightly arrogant scientists may have impeded the progression of science. For example, back in the day there was a bloke called Slipher that worked as an astronomer and made loads of important discoveries. But it was left to others, including Hubble, about 15 years later, to shout about things like ‘the universe is expanding’.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Why? Because, as Michael Brooks writes in his book </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-That-Dont-Make-Sense/dp/0385520689">13 Things that don’t Make Sense</a></span></i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">: “Slipher had a habit of not really communicating his discoveries”. It follows that specialist communicators are a boon, to tell the public what they deserve to know about taxpayer-funded research.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Sometimes what you need is a straight report of what’s happened and then you can discuss it after that.” Says Jha, “Frankly, if we didn’t exist, neither would the blogs, because they wouldn’t have anything to complain about or link to.”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Jha tells me he’s had this debate in the office before with (probably) Goldacre. He says scientists that wanted to communicate their stories would end up basically being reporters, because that's the way the industry works: “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It’s no accident that newsrooms work in the way that they do, however messy they are… this is the best way that you get news into newspapers.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">” I don’t know about this. But it would be an interesting experiment to get a scientist to work in a newsroom and give feedback on their experiences. Any volunteers?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">“Get rid of a whole swathe of journalists?” Steve Connor, </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">the Indy’s science ed,</span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">tells me, “We need more good science journalists, not less.” He explains that not many people have time or inclinations to pore over hundreds of science papers in journals in the same way journalists do. (Looking forward to it, already.)</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Chomping at the bit to find out more about the (crisis?) state of science journalism, I asked my interviewees three questions (or rather more if you’re poor Alok Jha who I had on the phone for almost 25 minutes). These were:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Is science journalism a danger to public health (Goldacre thinks it is)?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Can humanities graduates write good science journalism (Goldacre thinks major prob with media is humanities grads “wearing ignorance like a badge of honour” – from </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Bad Science</span></i><span style="font-style:normal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">)?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What’s the future of science journalism? (Please let there be one).</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><o:p></o:p></span></li> </ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">As well as Jha and Connor I also spoke to and Rowan Hooper, the news editor of the New Scientist, and even Nick Davies. I’ll blog my scintillating findings in instalments this week. Will tweet as I publish.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-80887156567783874652009-07-27T08:35:00.000-07:002009-07-27T10:19:23.772-07:00T'inspiration<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It's encouraging that TED is getting loads of news coverage because it's been held in the UK this year. Carole Cadwalladr wrote a brilliant piece about it in the Observer, </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/26/ted-festival-new-ideas-technology"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. I particularly love this Alain de Botton quote selected from his talk (check out his book </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Status-Anxiety-Alain-Botton/dp/0375420835"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Status Anxiety</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">): </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px; font-family:arial;"></span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 18px; font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"The next time you see someone driving a Ferrari, don't think they are greedy, think they are vulnerable and in need of love." </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The New Scientist were blogging about the implications of science ideas from TED, </span><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/ted-2009-cities-in-the-sand-th.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. You can watch loads of the talks for yourself on the Ted website, and hook yourself up to their back catalogue of </span><a href="http://twitter.com/tedtalks"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">tweets from the conference</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, with teasers and links to talks.<br /></span></div><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This isn't the first time I'd heard of TED, though. Like the hundreds of thousands who watch TED lectures online, I discovered TED through Googling Eve Ensler. You can see her 2007 talk, which I love, below.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQvMQEB0j_A&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQvMQEB0j_A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">When Anderson, the curator of TED Oxford and founder of Future Publishing says, </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 18px; font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"something is missing from the media diet. Beyond 'if it bleeds, it leads', and </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/celebrity" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; background-repeat: no-repeat; text-decoration: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">celebrity</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> tittle-tattle, people want to learn new things."</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; font-family:Georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I hope he is right. Of course people want to be entertained but also to be informed. Despite the anti-intellectual education system we have in this country, compared to, say, the Baccalaureate, there seem to be some green shoots - of genuine desire for people to improve their minds, enrich their cultural lives and act responsibly towards the environment and other people. There's an article in Intelligent Life arguing society is smartening up, not dumbing down,</span><a href="http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/age-mass-intelligence"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Do you agree? I feel there is a shift occurring as a backlash from over-simplified stories and pointless, fabricated gossip towards more incisive, contextualised journalism. But maybe that's just wishful thinking in the face of an media under ever more financial and resource-scarce pressure? </span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I think the way forward has to be with the editors of the mainstream media. They hold so much power. I'm sure it's a very fine balancing act between giving the masses what they want, commercial success, and gently, seamlessly guiding them about what is important to know and may directly impact their lives. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The best we can probably do as consumers is to use economic forces to vote for the best writing and editing - the outlets with the most investigative journalism and effective and honourable campaigns - ie whatever you buy you are creating a demand for. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I suppose we could also inundate readers editors with letters to rival the lobbies, but probably not without suggesting what we want covered in more depth, and how. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Ok, off to watch some more TED talks now! </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 18px;font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><br /></div></div></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3091734015700982094.post-18862247189607495192009-07-26T16:30:00.000-07:002009-07-26T17:28:31.408-07:00a proposal and an internshipI'm pretty excited as an old friend of my ex-boss got in touch through Facebook and asked if I want to get involved in some TV to web type stuff. The answer is: YES! I am really looking forward to the multimedia production part of my <a href="http://www.city.ac.uk/journalism/courses/postgrad/science_journalism/">MA at City,</a> especially the presenting. Although I don't know how I'm going to get my silly eyebrows to behave themselves and stay still. <div><br /></div><div>Also, very happy to hear I've been accepted for an internship at <a href="http://www.theecologist.co.uk/">The Ecologist</a>. If you haven't already heard, they're strictly online now. I am looking forward to joining them for six weeks during a change of direction (for them and and for me), and will come armed with all my boundless, bouncy energy, and an armful of pitches. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, check out my <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/21/ecstatic-dance">feature on ecstatic dance</a> that went up on Guardian online last week. Much jumping up and down ensued. </div><div><br /></div><div>Today I was at Columbia Road flower market honing my photography skills. Got some half-okay pics, and am learning about aperture, f-stops and all that jazz. There were some great characters. Pix below:</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSby0voWSHLk5vSADxNZ8jfsebjOS9qjz56Km0vwLjIgVljk7IjRPbxAe8kP6pKGBg5N_M4KemQFhiQy_xyguR4pVWNzqZy84_udoUAEHAnWmuPMm4z4v_3fsMm1yVkp8_l6qdTphA0gk/s320/IMG_1757.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362922063321572658" /><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZWjLYEKAr1S8-vd8b_JezRcmyBOiD9kWnJTfv_83oEuWjX5Ic6y73MCbKXqrW8HZKv1nUIc0Bu95snXxYm0FZMtsQKLWHhOiqDrxdKNjvWhEQvcBCFxthMGmWk-KnuToRFKgZ7N3k4xg/s320/IMG_1741.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362922049653176722" /><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCXkIDv1x-R3svZvWzQ4HeSSXpUe5Aaiew-w1Mpx8T_nGmr5QVSwuVYsMp7cqL4pdhtOZAhqgMgaGjg9gYybUg0ZAFEuSsIyXyIvRTyoIsBnlUDtO283vaUK1AsY-XchY4Kb_e6hMrhBc/s320/IMG_1746.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362922052387721346" /><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 214px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimG9xpuXlOphpniZfgm-ofSlTRL0bOHSQa2IngzBa8g1QYsczv4NwsRMyJqMQPpPpj743SEMdYkIH_JXM1i6TG0iHAhzv9YT37phmK86MGUq1z-vaX2IaPb4WkpDNzgcvFDp3MflZbp1o/s320/IMG_1762.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362922068067731570" /></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14574798017615705233noreply@blogger.com2