Science

[blike]

Figure I'd try and get some healthy discussion going on around here...

 

What is an aspect of science--be it an institution, practice, methodology, etc-- you feel is currently bad for either the public or the scientific community as a whole, and how would you propose to fix it?

[atinymonkey]

Animal research and Ninjas.

[Lance]

atinymonkey said in post #2 :

Animal research and Ninjas.

 

 

Oh right, We had better do the research on the ninjas then?

[Sayonara]

I see non-science media mishandling reports on new strategies, breakthroughs, discoveries or inventions as being something of a problem.

 

I'd solve it by forcing newspapers and web sites to put a big disclaimer before their articles saying "Warning: We might not actually understand this, and could be writing bollocks."

[Skye]

As the price of aquiring new knowledge increases, so does the power of whoever foots the bill to determine what that knowldge might be.

[Glider]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

I see non-science media mishandling reports on new strategies, breakthroughs, discoveries or inventions as being something of a problem.

 

I'd solve it by forcing newspapers and web sites to put a big disclaimer before their articles saying "Warning: We might not actually understand this, and could be writing bollocks."

 

I agree with that absolutely!

 

The media always use the excuse that they're 'making it accessible to the public', which loosely translates as 'cutting all ties with reality and sensationalising it to sell copy'.

[Ms. DNA]

Glider said in post # :

 

I agree with that absolutely!

 

The media always use the excuse that they're 'making it accessible to the public', which loosely translates as 'cutting all ties with reality and sensationalising it to sell copy'.

 

Like Sayonara said, the first thing that came to mind was the media's mishandling of science. Instead of "dumbing down" the science, we need to "smarten up" the general public and make people aware of the importance of science in their daily lives. People need to realize that science isn't just about collecting facts; it's a system of examining facts and solving problems. Plus, it's also cool stuff.

[Photovet 97]

I agree that we should "smarten up" the general public. However, how do you do that without making it too technical? The mass media is in a bit of a catch-22 in that regard, I guess.

[Glider]

Yes, I can understand that. I don't think it excuses innacuracy in reporting research though. I think that often, the media are attracted by a title, or some other 'catchy' element of research, and write it up without fully understanding it themselves. This is also understandable, but no more excusable when what the public often receive at the end of the process is misleading rubbish, which defeats the object of 'smartening up the public'.

[MishMish]

I think the first step to smartening people up might be critical thinking classes in the schools. I did not have anything of the sort, but have heard good reports from those who have.

[Photovet 97]

Critical thinking in schools is a good start. I think that most science writers in the media have a difficult job as to communicating technical information to the public. Does that excuse inaccurate reporting? Absolutely not. However, is that the writer's fault, or the editor''s fault for trying to make the story "readable"?

[Cookie]

I agree wholeheartedly about the media's mishandling of science. One of the reasons I am interested myself in getting into science journalism - there are far too few journalists with a thorough scientific background (in Canada at least - I don't know how it is for other places). My biggest pet peeve with non-science reporters is that they almost never report about science as a PROCESS. They treat it like a series of "groundbreaking discoveries" - half of which seem to conflict with what they reported about the same thing last week (i.e. Eating food X will kill you...no wait, maybe it don't.). What the public gets from this is "scientists are chasing their tails" when really it's just the scientific method at work.

 

I can understand the challenges to journalists trying to cover science - some scientists are so hostile toward all journalists just as a general rule that even the good ones have a hard time sometimes. And some editors dont' understand the science, even if the journalists do - and quite often something can wind up in print different from the way it was written because the editor has misinterpreted. And part of the problem is also that science coverage costs the most to produce, on a line for line basis - so unless you're a major paper, you don't cover 99% of the science that's going on. Hard to stay balanced when you're only scratching the surface like that.

 

A great book on science in the media is Dorothy Nelkin's "Selling Science," if anyone is interested.

 

Cookie

[YT2095]

here`s what annoys me;

I`m all for Science fiction of most types, but when a breakthrough occurs and you hear some less Informed person say "well that`s not new, they`ve been doing that on Star-Trek for years".

and also the assumption/stereotype of a scientist, large heads, balding, huge rimmed glasses, messy hair (what`s left), beady eyes and long finger nails Type of portrayal. I really hate that!

I know quite a few Scientists and apart from the odd one or 2, NON of them fit that image.

 

as for how to "Fix" it, I fear it maybe too late or would certainly take more than one generation to remove this strereotype.

[Glider]

Yeah, good point. The way scientist stereotypes are presented doesn't help at all. I know quite a few scientists too, and none of them fit the stereotype either. Well, one does, but he was weird long before he was a scientist.

 

I agree also with MishMish and Photovet. I think critical thinking needs to be introduced in schools. It is a skill which is developed through practice, and so cannot really be taught, but an early introduction into the principles would certainly help.

[creature]

I think there should be more of an emphasis on science in school. Math is rightfully taught everyday, core (english, history, geography) two periods everyday (at least at my school, I assume other schools are fairly similar) but science is taught only 4/5 days of the week.

[Photovet 97]

In undergrad, we had biology classes called the "Biology Core Curriculum," or Biocore. The classes included Evolution and Ecology, Cellular Biology, Organismal Biology, and the corresponding lab classes. The exams in these classes were not just multiple choice or regurgitate lecture notes. The questions presented you situations or problems that forced you to think about your answer and logically back up your answer. Yes, you had to know your material, but the impetus was on critical thinking and problem solving.

[Ms. DNA]

I know what Photovet's talking about -- I took those courses at the same time he did. I have to agree that you needed to know the material well to take those Biocore tests. The second semester of Organic Chemistry, OTOH, was all about memorizing reactions for quizzes and tests. Needless to say, I remember more from Biocore than I do from Orgranic Chemistry.

 

I think people need to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills before they reach college, though. You don't necessarily need to learn them through science; I learned a lot about analyzing evidence when I was in debate and forensics in high school. But once people have those skills, they can use them in their science classes and in reading news articles about science.

[Crash]

We have special classes for the "higher thinker" during my tertiary education, it was all about problem solving in that way

[fafalone]

I like Nietzsche's model for higher education.

[alt_f13]

Don't worry, the general population is basically sub-human anyway.

 

The scientists need only discover a way to train these monkeys to do their bidding and everything will turn out fine.

 

(I was only half joking btw, as most people really don't have a will of their own when confronted with generally accepted public media. Absorb, accept, project, rince, repeat.)

[daisy]

I have to agree with the comments regarding the reporting of science.....it's usually on the "sensationalist" side. The "public" tend to act on what's reported (erroneously or otherwise) in the mass media...not on what's reported in peer-reviewed science journals. That's why we've had a massive problem here in the UK regarding MMR vaccinations.....the public responded to a flawed study that was reported in the press (probably because the doctor involved was a good self-publicist). This study has now largely been discredited because the main author was being paid by parents of allegedly affected children (unknown to the Lancet who published the paper)...but the damage was done and large numbers of parents haven't had their children vaccinated. On a lighter note....I agree with YT2095....I am not bald, nor do I wear glasses (huge or otherwise!) and I'm not a nerd!!

[Guest magister]

One aspect of science (more an aspect of science as it's usually practiced) that I think needs to be looked at is the whole idea of "publish or perish". Certainly scientific advancement relies on the publication of new research, but too often there is excess pressure placed on researchers to write-up an experiment to appease the powers that be. This often leads to work being rushed which has the unfortunate effect of diminishing its quality. Quite apart from the undue influence of funding agencies or research grant boards, such a situation is surely antithetical to the scientific process, not to mention its stifling effect on creativity and original thought. Basically, I think the dictates of making money shouldn't be part of a scientist's purview.