Lizzy and Forum: Lizzy has an excellent idea. It is thinking like hers that will help the Internet "grow up" into a more mature medium, or at least help part of it realize unrealized potential. Ideally, every web entry would be linked to all relevant links, ad infinitum, such that any reader could start at any point and follow a chain of evidence as far as desired. Universities will have to change too; if they and their professors and scientists want a more informed public, they will have to transform themselves into an increasingly integrated part of a human-wide intellectual endeavor. To do that, they will have to examine their own paradigms, presumptions, and biases, not to mention their practices and security blankets.
Your more up-to-date information about "higher" learning comports with my quite outdated experience; unfortunately this synonymy does not bode well for the future and does not speak well for the status quo. YOU make the most of your advanced thinking, and ask me for help when and if you think you need it. Your generation is the future (not to get into corny commencement platitudes), and I, for one, think it is in pretty good hands. Take the ball and run with it and we, the "elders" will be cheering you on--even coming down out of the stands, but only when you need us and want us. I, at least, will not deign to dictate what you do or how you go about it, but will join in when something important grabs me. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Burnett" <[email protected]> To: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > Wayne, > > As a current student at a university, I find that many of the professors here > who have their own research appear to be very much focused on teaching the > students the best they can. But there are also many faculty at the university > that do not want to teach and focus only on their own research. It was > pointed out in an earlier email that not all scientists are teachers, which I > think is a very good point. Perhaps there needs to be more go-between people > that know science very well and can adequately communicate it to the public. > > With these arguments about journalism and publicity in general, it is > apparent that scientists need another way that is better. I believe someone > sent an email about having a website on ocean issues. Perhaps the Internet is > a better way to go than tv and newspapers. > > I was daydreaming yesterday and I was thinking what I would want as a student > and as a citizen and as an environmentalist. It would be cool and interesting > if we had some sort of database set up, free to the public (much like > Cornell's bird database) that collected most/all of the research that has > been done and grouped it according to localities and issues within those > localities. If I was interested in the research that has been going on near > Detroit, Michigan, I would be able to go to this imaginary database and look > up "Michigan" and find which topic or issue I would like to know more about. > It wouldn't just have the actual research papers, either, but would probably > have facts/suggestions that scientists have found (much like the sections on > each species on the Cornell bird database). Even better would be to include > things that YOU could do to help this issue. > > Granted, this would be VERY time consuming and probably costly, but just > THINK of the possibilities! I know so many non-scientists that RAVE about > current issues and others that are curious about one thing or another. What > if we could simply click into the research database and find out what's going > on in our own local area? Do you think the public would be more interested > then? > > Thanks, > > Lizzy Burnett > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:22:41 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > Honorable Forum: > > The original questions were: > > 1) Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the > general > public? > > 2) What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information > to > the general public? > > 3) Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the > scientific method? > > The corollary questions (with respect to SCIENCE journalism--not quite the > same as news reporting) might be: > > 1a) Should scientists write all their papers obfuscatorily or take the leap > into "popularization" and damn the howling peers? > > 2a) As soon as they come up with something sensational, sensationalize > it--or find a journalist who will?* > > 3a) Should scientists should learn how to rite rite? Or should they depend > on "journalists" to interpret their work and get it right? If the latter, > should the journalist have any responsibility for quoting accurately and > properly, in context--or not? If the journalist writes misleadingly about > the work, either intentionally or because of ignorance or incompetence, what > recourse do scientists have beyond making a federal case out of it, perhaps > at great pain and expense? > > *The Fourth Estate should, however, have the final say on the content of > their pieces, but should not depend upon a pack of interns to vet the > accuracy of quotes and interpretations that they could, more easily and > cheaply get from the horse's mouth. INVESTIGATIVE journalists, should get > their information in any clandestine way they can, and report their findings > accordingly. There are plenty of big kings-of-the-mountain out their that > don't want their questionable work or remarks exposed that journalists don't > seem to want to touch. Go get THEM if you want a trophy. > > > The mystery "Laura" has asked rhetorical questions, of course. But they were > good ones. Most importantly, she gets at the big, big elephant in the room: > If "scientists" are going to bemoan the general ignorance of the rest of us, > it is incumbent upon them to do something about it, not merely shower us > with petals of condescension from their Ivory Towers. Noblesse oblige! > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > >>I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this >>by numbers. >> >> 1) The original suggestion was to allow "experts" to review ENTIRE >> stories. >> 2) Most journalists -- not just me -- find that suggestion anathema, >> unethical, and legally unwise. >> 3) Most reputable journalists -- including myself -- have no problem with >> fact-checking quotes or potentially difficult passages. >> 4) Item (3) is not the same as allowing the source to read the whole >> story. >> >> Point of fact: magazines have fact-checking departments. They will >> contact the source and ask if that is what the source said. (They won't >> share the entire story with the source, however.) Newspapers generally >> don't have the time, nor the support staff, to do the same. >> >> As for me, I usually have what a scientist says in an e-mail or a >> recording -- so there's no problem knowing what the source said. >> Sometimes I've even suggested to sources edited versions of quotes so that >> they can be on record as saying what the actually meant, not what they >> originally said. >> >> The problem for journalists isn't in checking facts, it is in giving a >> source access to the full story prior to publication. Journalism is far >> different from science, where peer review is routine. If we allow source >> "review" in journalism, we give up an essential independence that taints >> the quality of the work we do as journalists. Our job is to report >> matters as we see them, not as you see them. >> >> Dave >> >> On 4/11/2011 3:20 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: >>> David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. >>> Surely a journalist and a "source" can work effectively together to make >>> sure that a "story" is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups >>> that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others >>> reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that >>> would be unethical on their part. >>> >>> Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the "source's" greater >>> expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in >>> telling the story would be appropriate. The "source" does not want to >>> tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not >>> want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are >>> trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to >>> protect. No one wants you to give up your "ownersip" of a story, and no >>> one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the "truth." >>> But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are >>> not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available >>> data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter >>> of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to >>> such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, >>> specifically stating that they were preliminary and on! >> ly! >>> of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of >>> a person obsessed with selling a "potion," stating that he claimed to >>> have "proven" something he had labeled as "an odd finding, in need of >>> additional scrutiny." >>> >>> Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator >>> who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many >>> interviews he has given since. >>> >>> Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that >>> any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the >>> "source" is able to say, "That is not what I said, and my published >>> reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it." >>> >>> mcneely >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 >> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 >> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected] >> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo >> >> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo >> >> "No trespassing >> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 >> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. >
