Scientific Researchers and Web 2.0: Social Not Working? forum: topic
This is a public forum
Scientists interacting at the Guardian website
Maxine Clarke
Tuesday, 03 March 2009 13:00 UTC
From The Guardian yesterday:
The portrayal of science and scientists in the media often leaves something to be desired. Most stories cover studies published in dry, academic journals. Usually, they are important, occasionally they are entertaining, and every so often, they are truly awe-inspiring. But overwhelmingly, the science stories that make the headlines tell us little about how science works and how those involved see the world around them.
The paper has therefore asked four scientists to write monthly for its website (i.e. one column a week), about anything they like with a scientific theme. We are promised a wide range of topics, including biology, physics, psychology, ethics and new media. The columnists are Simon Singh (particle physicicst and popular science book author), Chris French (psychologist), Andy Miah (ethicist and “emerging technologist”) and “the leading American evolutionary biologist” [sic] P. Z. Myers. The articles are open for comments from readers. The first column is by Simon Singh, and can be seen here. He reveals that two members of Spurs football team have symmetry groups named after them.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
This seems (in retrospect) like a really good solution to the ‘science isn’t covered well in newspapers’ complaint. Why has no one done this at this scale before? May turn me into a Guardian reader…
-
But overwhelmingly, the science stories that make the headlines tell us little about how science works and how those involved see the world around them
Maxine, I realize that the above words are not yours, but rather quoted from The Guardian, but what do you think the criteria for “work” and “involvement” in science might be? These terms could mean very different things to different scientists; for example, does working science require active, regular involvement in original research projects? Does involvement require the typical model of peer-reviewed publications in “dry, academic journals” and extramural grant support, or perhaps include broader and more flexible definitions of working science?
-
Hello Kristi – I have to admit I pulled out that particular quote in order to provoke a little debate, as it seemed to me an arguable point. What I was thinking when I read the article in the Guardian, and those words in particular, was that there are many extremely interesting, accessible articles about the doings and workings of scientists, as well as “reports of scientific research papers”. I apologise in advance for mentioning Nature, but it is the main journal I read every week. Each week there are two or three News features about topics such as what happens when you don’t get funded (a recent very popular article), and the fascinating “diary” in the current issue Being Bob Langer. You definitely do not have to be a scientist, or even have a scientific background, to read and enjoy these articles, which give a great sense of what it is like to do science, to be a scientist, and what impacts science has in various broad ways. (I am sure that other publications provide a similar fascinating diet.)
To me, you don’t need to “sell” science to make it interesting, by a quick news report summarising a peer-reviewed paper and then saying “this will cure disease x” or similar silly claim at the end.
I don’t think I have really answered your question, I’ve instead explained my own reaction to reading the Guardian piece. (Also, I wish they had chosen a cell/systems/molecular/organismal biologist – someone who is really steeped in doing active research. And a woman might have been nice ;-) ).In short, I think my answer to your last question is “yes”!
Katherine – have you seen the regular Times column by Marcus du Sutoy, a mathematician? That is rather on the level of “explaining a concept” so far, but interesting as the paper is giving space to science (if maths is a science, which it sort of is) without a hook of “cure disease x/end of world/new star” that seems to be regarded as “necessary to qualify for coverage”.
-
The Simon Singh article is not really about science. It is about naming scientific objects, whether they be new species or symmetry groups. It is also written by a science writer/interpreter (who does have a Physics PhD) rather than by a currently active researcher. So I am not sure whether it really counts as scientists writing about science.
-
And the other three are an ethicist, a psychologist and P. Z. Myers…..
-
which give a great sense of what it is like to do science, to be a scientist, and what impacts science has in various broad ways
This is what I would look for in such science writing as well, and I agree that scientists, male or female, who are actively engaged in research would have been more interesting choices for The Guardian. But then I’m a very process-oriented person, and some of my favorite blog posts at NN, for example, are those that describe the process and hurdles in day-to-day, hands on, benchtop or fieldwork scientific research – whether in an area I’m familiar with or not.
Since I now spend most of my work days engaged directly in medical and dental school teaching, I suspect I would resent an education column written by a person who perhaps gives just one or two lectures to medical or dental students each term. I’d much prefer a person who is “in the trenches” almost every day, teaching in lab courses, lecturing, remediating students, advising, designing curricula, writing textbooks and lab manuals, etc.
I also agree that science doesn’t need to be “sold”; as Edward Tufte has written, “pitching out corrupts within”.
-
Maxine – I agree that there are some great pieces in Nature about the science life that are readable and informative about what science is like, but how widely are these disseminated? I recall that some Nature stories used to get syndicated to one or more newspapers. Does that still happen?
-
I think a good example of how some writers, who are not actively involved in scientific research, might make serious errors when reporting on research issues, have been described very recently on the DrugMonkey and Respectful Insolence blogs. The issue in question has to do with whether mice used in research are covered by federal animal welfare regulations in the US (they are, as are their embryos and pups). The mistake, on another science blog, was corrected, after one of the above bloggers made a comment, but in any case, an active researcher who has written and maintained a number of IACUC protocols for vertebrate animals would never have made such a serious error.
-
Frank – our press office can answer that question with unerring accuracy (press AT nature.com). Some time ago we ran the Nature Times news service (one Henry Gee was originally hired to be its writer in one of its incarnations), and more recently we had a regular syndication deal with Le Monde. So far as I know, nowadays our syndication is ad hoc not systematic, but the press supremae will have the details.
Of course, we have a very large number of media organisations that are signed up for our press release, and hundreds of thousands of individuals get the table of contents alert (by no means all scientists) so these news features get a lot of coverage outside institutions with site licences and personal subscribers….quite often they are free to access for a limited time. -
Yes, the Guardian had a good idea, but perhaps a bit of a missed opportunity? I guess they chose those particular writers because they needed someone who could turn out reader-friendly articles to deadline without too much hand-holding by the editors. It’s a shame they didn’t look at Nature Network, I think some of the bloggers here would have made excellent columnists, being both working scientists and capable of writing stuff that non-specialists might actually want to read. Perhaps some of the regular NI bloggers should suggest themselves to the Guardian, if they haven’t already…
Results
-
