media and science
sheril | March 23, 2009Today, we move to our new home at Discover Blogs: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection
While we have immensely enjoyed being a part of Scienceblogs, we've decided together that it is time to move on. Our tremendous thanks go out to Seed for hosting The Intersection since 2006 where we've been honored to share the network with such an esteemed community of bloggers--many of whom have become good friends.
While we're excited to join Carl, Phil, and Sean, it is a bittersweet decision as we will miss the Sb 'family' tremendously. Of course, we will never be far--the blogosphere has no…
sheril | March 23, 2009As promised, photos* from last Friday with 'the Bloggerati'. Here I'm in terrific company with Misha, Bora, and Abel over lunch in Durham:
Bora and I chat with students about why we blog:
* Special thanks to Abel for sharing the images! For a terrific detailed description of the day, visit Terra Sigillata...
cmooney | March 21, 2009As any reader of this blog knows, I was for a while very critical of the Washington Post editorial page amid the George Will affair. Now, my view has changed.
Today the Post publishes, replete with links to many scientific sources, my op-ed answering three claims Will made in his now infamous "Dark Green Doomsayers" column, and also making a broader point about why we need standards in science-centered journalism and commentary.
I'm extremely heartened that the Post ran the piece, and has at least allowed me to correct Will--or, to "debate" him. Without further ado, the oped begins like this…
sheril | March 20, 2009Today Bora, Abel, and I visited Duke's Sanford Institute on Public Policy for the second year in a row to discuss the coverage of science, health, and policy. We chatted with a group of undergraduates about the evolution of science blogs, the emergence of blogging networks, the role of science blogs vs the MSM, and where open-access fits in. Our beloved scibling Isis even made a guest appearance via gchat!
We had a lot of fun and special thanks to GenomeBoy for inviting us to explore ideas with his terrific class! The other 'Beacons of the Bloggerati' had cameras, so photo to come.
After…
cmooney | March 19, 2009Ed Brayton, who I admire greatly, has a post that runs afoul of my "death of science journalism" sensitivity meter. You see, Ed came across a National Geographic story that says something dumb about "carbon dating." Ed is surely right on the point of substance, and National Geographic should not have made the error. I certainly don't mind him pointing that out; but when you also get something like this--"I've bitched and complained about the sorry state of popular science writing for years. Here's another textbook example..."--I get uppity.
The sorry state of popular science writing is not a…
cmooney | March 18, 2009My latest Science Progress column contemplates this question, in the wake of a spot of news that doesn't seem to have caused any uproar (yet)--namely, that DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is apparently holding an event to discuss the prospect of geoengineering the climate.
As I write in the column:
This is newsworthy for at least two reasons: The U.S. government has, thus far, kept the subject of geoengineering at a relative arm's-length; and one reason for that shyness is the extremely checkered past history of U.S. military ventures in weather modification, including…
sheril | March 18, 2009Last week we told you about the NYAS Two Cultures Conference coming up on May 9, 2009 in celebration of the 50 year anniversary of C.P. Snow's famous Rede lecture. Politicians, academics, writers, and the media will converge to discuss
science and society--including keynote addresses by E.O. Wilson, John
Porter, and Dean Kamen.
Today we're pleased to announce that the website for the event featuring the full schedule is now available here. Tickets are going fast so we encourage readers to take a look at the agenda and register soon. We hope to see you there!
sheril | March 17, 2009
Yesterday, we considered the meaning of scientific literacy in America... or lack thereof. So let's take this discussion one step further as it's a particularly interesting topic. According to the National Academies:
Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
Scientific literacy means that a…
sheril | March 16, 2009
In our forthcoming book, Unscientific America, Chris and I mention those national surveys where regularly, a large percentage of U.S. citizens fail to correctly answer basic science questions that they supposedly learned in school.
Last Friday, the latest results were released from the most recent quiz by the California Academy of Sciences and Harris Interactive. (See how you do answering test questions here).
From Science Daily:
Despite its importance to economic growth, environmental protection, and global health and energy issues, scientific literacy is currently low among American…
cmooney | March 11, 2009I don't know how I missed this earlier in the week. But you really know science journalism is in danger when the Boston Globe, at the center of all things biotech, decides it can't have a science/medicine section any longer.
But maybe at least Larry Moran will be rejoicing. Think about it this way: Science journalists will make far less mistakes if they aren't writing!
sheril | March 10, 2009The Guardian:
Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs, scientists will warn today.
Say what?! Look, ocean acidification is a VERY real threat to our planet. That said, the seas are not turning to acid! (But gee, way to scare folks into envisioning the demise of the wicked witch!) This demonstrates a lack of taking the time to explore and understand what ocean acidification means--the term is used to describe the way the pH of oceans is becoming less basic as they absorb…
cmooney | March 6, 2009I've got a piece up on the website of The Nation about why we should be glad Sanjay Gupta won't be the Surgeon General. Basically, there are aspects of his medical coverage that I don't think are very consistent with what we want in the nation's doctor. A brief excerpt:
And then there was the time Gupta really tried to take a stand--on very weak foundations. Purporting to do a "reality check" on Michael Moore's 2007 film Sicko, a devastating expose of the failings of the American healthcare system, Gupta accused Moore of having "fudged the facts," and yet Gupta was the only one who got…
cmooney | March 5, 2009That's the word on the street. The poor guy would have had to take a massive pay cut.
Hmm...do folks think this is a good or a bad thing?
cmooney | March 2, 2009At a time when there is big controversy going on concerning George Will's February 15 column, why on earth did this scientific institute--centrally involved in the issue--not leave their refutation of Will concerning sea ice up on their website?
You can see it in the Google cache here. But it is not available live, and I can't find it on the website.
True, the refutation has been quoted a ton, and so it has entered the public record. But why isn't the Arctic Climate Research Center proud to be taking a stand for the knowledge it produces? Do the people there just want to keep their heads down…
cmooney | March 2, 2009I just sent Fred Hiatt a roughly 900 word oped, with references, that I believe soundly refutes George Will's three central climate science claims from his February 15 column. I also make a larger, more resonant point. I hope the Post will publish the column--but you folks will see it in some form no matter what, this I promise. Stand by, and thanks for your support.
cmooney | February 27, 2009In the wake of the latest developments in the George Will scandal, I sent him this:
Dear Mr. Hiatt,
[Introductory Comments]...I believe what I've called the "Republican War on Science" continues, and the George Will saga represents a stunning example. In my opinion, the Post editorial/oped
page makes a terrible mistake by not correcting his manifest errors; but leave that aside--you've said people should instead "debate him." Would you publish an oped by me exposing Will's egregious errors, misrepresentations, and distortions of the science of global warming,
and thus further debate?
What do…
cmooney | February 27, 2009George Will wrote another deceptive global warming column. It's full of utter nonsense, retracts nothing, and pathetically tries to defend his previous errors:
The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.
This I can only call a lie. A blatant one.
Many of the column's incorrect factual assertions were challenged, and as Will is revisiting the column due to the response it has garnered, it's inconceivable that he doesn't know that. For God's sake, Will claimed that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has…
cmooney | February 26, 2009It pains me to blog this. I think Andrew Revkin is one of our best science journalists, and I don't criticize him easily.
That might also explain why my taking a stand here is a bit tardy.
Nevertheless, I, like many others, think Revkin really blew it with this article, which begins with the following sentence--"In the effort to shape the public's views on global climate change, hyperbole is an ever-present temptation on all sides of the debate"--and then proceeds to draw a false equivalence between a minor, arguable slip-up by Al Gore and George Will's blatant, unrepentant strewing of…
cmooney | February 25, 2009My Science Progress column is now up: I try to set the George Will scandal in the broader context of what's happening in the media:
We often hear that "technology" is what's killing newspapers--innovations like Craig's List have destroyed the in-print classified advertising market; people have stopped reading physical papers and turned to online headlines from news aggregators or blogs; and so on. But there are also matters of substance and standards, and if the Post editorial page can't even print correct facts about global warming (or correct already printed errors), then how to make the…
cmooney | February 24, 2009I kinda suspected--but didn't bother to prove--that George Will was recycling parts of his anti-global warming balderdashery, particularly his strained paragraph about global cooling in the 1970s, replete with misleading references.
Well, Brad Johnson has done the work: It appears Will has a rotating (and very limited) set of global warming talking points that date back to 1992. Once in a while, he simply rejiggers the column. Wow.
The George Will scandal grows larger now. Not only is he not constrained by, or answerable to, facts; but for a national columnist, such recycling is pretty…