Saturday, March 23, 2013

Blog prompt #8


To get at the question of “balance” that Dean Winegar posed to the class yesterday, I’d like to return to the Chris Mooney piece we read in the second week of class (http://www.thenation.com/article/unpopular-science#).  As you’ll recall, it covers the decline of the newspaper, media conglomeration, and the development of new media, among other things.  In this article, Mooney also brings up what he believes to be one of the huge failings of the current state of science reporting in the media.  He says:  “Then there's the problem of "balance"--the idea that reporters must give roughly equal space to two different "sides" of a controversy. When applied to science, especially in politicized areas, this media norm becomes extremely problematic. Should journalists really grant equal time to the small band of scientists who deny the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS when the vast majority of researchers accept the connection between the two? Should they split column space between the few remaining global warming "skeptics" and scientific experts who affirm the phenomenon's human causation? Again, experienced science journalists will know best how to cover such stories and will be aware of the scientific community's very justifiable abhorrence of unthinking "balance".

Reflect on Mooney’s quote for this week’s blog post.  Is Mooney right?  Or is “balance” always something to strive for in science journalism?

It is our responsibility as science writers to inform the readers, one way or another. Our perspective and the track which we decide to take in the long run is, one way or another, going to reflect our truthiness on the subject, which means that if there are two sides of an issue, we are going to already be aligned with one of them. But that doesnt mean that we can simply ignore the existence of one side and one school of thought entirely. We cannot waffle and simply give equal space to two sides of an issue, unless we are inherently uncertain and ourselves conflicted on the truth of one side or the other. We may even think that both sides are right. But all this combines to cement our responsibility to make the attempt to put both sides positions, and at least some of their information forward. 

Its been said in class a few times; "Its almost impossible to prove things with science, our only recourse is to dis prove things." Or something along those lines, anyway. In this, its a failing of liberal arts educations, where most journalists stem from - in liberal arts practice, especially in papers, we have to support our papers and construct them by showing, showing understanding of, and sometimes disproving the counterpoint to our own arguments. This is a good trait in a paper doing a critical analysis of a text or expounding a philosophical question. Less good when we are charged with writing a factual, informative article. 

So yes, I would say that it is our responsibility to show at least some balance, but not to the point of giving equal article space to both. Rather, we should make our argument and our intent clear, and, for example, with global warming and such, say "there are some who place the causes of global warming at different sources, as well as some who deny the existence of the phenomena." All that needs to be said on the topic, and it gets the point across. We do not need to be the scales of justice, perfectly weighting the heart of the issue against a feather. We simply need to let it be known that there is an opposing school of thought, and that they may eventually be able to prove something about their hypothesis, if they ever get so far as formulating one. 

Monday, March 18, 2013

Blog Prompt #6


Blog Prompt #6

We often follow our gut when we make decisions.  When I was offered an assistant professor position at Ursinus in 2002, I accepted it over other offers because it felt right, in my gut.  Eleven years later: I love my job and I’m certain I did the right thing by following my gut (thank you, gut!).  You may have based your decision to come to Ursinus on the very same gut reaction. 

There are, however, other types of decisions where following your gut may not be the best mode of action.  Like those where science has something to say, such as:  Should I lease my land to Acme Gas for hydraulic fracturing?  Should I get a flu shot?  Should I eat less Cheetos?  Should I wash my hands before I eat Cheetos?  If I take green coffee bean supplements, can I eat more Cheetos?  Should I get more sleep?  Is it safe to eat genetically modified foods?  How about that apple juice in Wismer – should I worry about its arsenic levels?  Should I take my umbrella today as I walk over to Wismer?

In class yesterday, Dean Winegar introduced Stephen Colbert’s concept of “truthiness.”  (If you missed class or need a refresher, watch this).  In this week’s blog post, discuss the extent to which you rely on truthiness to make decisions in your life in which science has something to say.  Then consider whether you, as a science writer, should base your stories solely on the truth (as far as you can tell), or whether it is acceptable/responsible/ethical to write in a manner that is merely truthy.  Why might science writers sometimes choose to tell the truthiness?  Consider how the substitution of truthiness for truth in the media might affect the sorts of decisions individuals, policy makers, and corporations make.  

Truthiness has its importance in what we do, unquestionably. Its sometimes the best way that we can make a decision; to take the road less traveled or to follow the pack, to attempt something new based on a gut feeling that its the right things to do. We all convey information in whatever way we believe to both get the information across the most clearly and to be as believable as we can - even this is an aspect of truthiness. And truthiness in writing can be a good thing; the things we are truthy about are the ones that we believe in the most strongly. But theres a very important, very small word in that sentence; can. Conviction that ones own views on something are right is one of the definitions of "truthiness"... and the majority of the groups that champion vaccine exacerbated autism are being truthy in their portrayal of the facts. And as opinion, thats alright... some of the time. If you're spouting off about the actual state or caused of disorders or diseases, then you should be certain that you at least have hard, conclusive data to support your position - and I stress position. Even if you have that supporting data, without secondary proof or secondary study, you have posed no more than a hypothesis.

So yes, as science writers and as writers in general we have the responsibility to ensure that our writing is not only "truthy" but supported by truth, data, and the american way. By which I mean it needs to have independent verification by a neutral source to be even counted as a theory, much less convincing "truth". We all make assumptions on science, or at least I know that I do. When we hear something that sounds improbable, or like theres no way that our knowledge of science can support it, the general response is either "bullshit" or "No way, that cant be true." We all have a tendency to apply our own truthiness to things, especially when they are things that we dont know a great deal about. It is acceptable to write in a truthy manner. It falls under ethical so long as you arent telling people that "this is the truth absolutely, I am the voice of all things scientific, I am Oz, the great and powerful!" or anything of the sort. So long as we science writers couch our writings with the reality "we are making a series of educated guesses based on what we know, the information that has been revealed to us, our own conclusions, and the work of scientists", then it is legally, ethically, and morally responsible to put forth our findings and our writings.

Thats not to say its easy to be absolutely truthful and straightforward, especially with an audience. If we couch things in pure data, people are going to get bored and not want to read it. That means we have to simplify and make things interesting. If we do that, then our writing is no longer entirely scientific or entirely true, necessarily, but we can only do the best we can. Its easier to keep a stable of readers with the truthiness than it is to keep them with the science, especially when sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This could affect any number of things as people who read our writings make decisions of policy, corporate direction, research, and even employment based on what we simplify, synthesize, and put forward for them to look at. If we keep things as close to the truth as possible, rather than as close to the truthiness, then we ensure that at the very least, those who make these decisions are well informed, and able to make these decisions based upon their own truthiness, and not a twisted version of truthi-falsehood that comes from twisting our chain of truthiness and assumptions into a mobius strip of information interpreted in different ways or assumptions based upon other assumptions. Truth is what we need to attempt to keep to - truthiness is all well and good, but in the end, like Jenny McCarthy, its all opinion.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Blog prompt 7


Describe your set of drawings and analyze the gender, age, facial expression, clothing, grooming, and physical characteristics of your scientists.  Pasted below are a few drawings from Seed magazine.  If your drawings are like these, then you probably have a bunch of older white males dressed in a lab coats with crazy hair.  But do these drawings really look like the scientists you know (consider your Ursinus professors in biology, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, psychology, etc.)?

In your blog post, consider whether your drawings reflect a certain stereotype about scientists, and why this stereotype not only might be bad for science but also might make your job as a science writer particularly difficult.  Finally, consider whether the general public’s mistrust in science we talked about a few weeks ago might not lie with science itself but rather with certain myths many of us have about scientists (e.g., “Scientists are not like us, so we shouldn’t trust them.” or “Scientists are dull, strange, and slightly inhuman; but that Jenny McCarthy – she is a mom who is caring and real.”)

In general, there are a number of substantial similarities that turn up when people are asked to draw or describe a scientist. The common factors are usually a white lab coat; messy, disheveled hair flying off in crazy directions, and glasses on a middle aged white male. That was the general subset of my results. Scientists can and do come from all backgrounds, cultures, walks of life and heritages, working at all ages and in every country. However, the majority of scientists in mainstream media are played by, portrayed by, or exemplified by males, generally middle aged white men. Edison, Einstein, and Tesla, are the three most famous non - fictional scientists of our age, and all of them can be described as... middle aged white men, with crazy, disheveled hair. But beyond the actual existences of well known scientists and inventors to not only rationalize, but proliferate the idea, in most fictional media, scientists, be they megalomaniacal geniuses hell bent on taking over the world, absent minded inventors who release a terror to plague the world, or valiant geniuses, creating technology on the level of Deus ex Machinae to save the day, all tend to have a few similarities in portrayal... most wear white lab coats. Many more have wild, disheveled hair, giving them the drawn out and expected scientist look. And one overriding factor tends to link them together; Nearly all of them are middle aged, white males. 

Media has a massive tendency to shape peoples expectations of professions and people, changing what we expect them to be and coloring our perceptions of what they actually are. Deep in our hearts, we expect scientists to be mad geniuses, laughing madly as lightning dances around them. We expect archaeologists to be whip wielding supermen, able to take on any foe and solve any problem dashingly. And because the reality pales, we stick to our illusions. This makes difficulties for both scientists and science writers, as the general populace tries to consider the work they are doing against a fictional matrix, expecting flying cars and hoverboards to be the reality that is created, rather than minor advances in improving efficiency of fuel cells, or oxygen production of algae. If we cant manage to make things that interesting, the public will be disappointed, less interested, and more likely to just drop the article and move on to the funny pages. That stereotype make people tend to disregard science, or brush it off as "just one of those things". And we as science writers, if we only assume that reliable or interesting scientific developments and information are going to come from middle aged white men in lab coats with crazy hair, then we cut out a sizeable portion of the scientists in the world, and for all we know could be taking scientific policy advice from a mental patient. 

Its entirely possible that our media fueled expectations that all scientists are Viktor Frankenstein style mad scientists shape our actual views on science as a whole, and perhaps even probable. But that shouldn't lead to a public perception of "scientists cannot be trusted because they aren't like us" or because they are "dull, strange, and slightly inhuman." There is no such thing as "normal" in this world - everyone is different and strange in their own ways. And at least to my point of view, its not scientists that cannot be trusted for the listed reasons, its celebrities like Jenny McCarthy. Scientists have far more in common with us regular people than celebrities out to "make a difference"... and gain themselves a great deal of publicity and public sympathy.