What we’re reading 5.16.13

Posted on May 16, 2013 by

Say it isn’t so, CJR

The Columbia Journalism Review may be cutting back or dropping The Observatory and its editor, Curtis Brainard, according to a post by Paul Raeburn at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, based on an article by Joe Pompeo at Capital New York.  This would be a huge loss of an important, and critical voice in science journalism, especially concerning environmental science.  And, it comes on the heels of the January’s announcement by the New York Times that they, too, are cutting back on their commitment of staff and resources to coverage of environmental news.  This includes the recent cancellation of the Green blog that Brainard 1st reported.    As climate change and other environmental issues appear in the news with increasing frequency, this couldn’t be a worse time for critical voices to be silenced.

The moral and scientific issues surrounding Plan B

I have struggled with the appropriate reading of the issues swirling around the implementation of Plan B as an approved and freely available emergency contraceptive. On the one hand, there is the clear scientific evidence that Plan B is a contraceptive, preventing ovulation, not an abortifacient drug like RU486.  However, assuming that there is little basis for concern about any possible negative health effects of Plan B on young girls, and that is not entirely clear, was it inappropriate for our executive branch of government to modify the recommendation from solid physiological and medical science to make a policy conform to a different social norm (i.e., concerning parental responsibility for minors)?  A recent piece by Joanna Weiss at the Boston Globe provides a compelling perspective on the debate that I hadn’t seen before.  She offers the view that making Plan B freely available to all ensures that those, generally poorer girls who lack significant parental guidance will still be able to avoid unwanted pregnancies.  Since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and pregnancy is a significant challenge to a women’s health, there is a significant medical and scientific basis for seeking to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy.  If making Plan B freely available can help, even if it sidesteps a parent’s responsibility for a minor, but sexually active daughter, then that’s what we should do.  So, I’m rooting for Judge Korman on this one.

Posted in biology, climate science, contraception and abortion, medicine, news media, science writer | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I’m back

Posted on May 16, 2013 by

I am returning to active writing on this blog after a hiatus of nearly 9 months.  Not coincidentally, this is also the period of my academic year as a university professor that followed starting up the blog last summer 2012.  This is when my work as a classroom teacher, research mentor, and professional colleague all took precedence over my contributions to the blog.  This is regrettable, and unacceptable, as the purpose of a blog, I think, ought to be regular postings to stimulate continuing conversations, in this case, about public science.  But also it is unnecessary, as there is no reason why my work on Dissecting Public Science should have lower priority than other activities in my professional life.

After all, I consider my writing and research on public science to be a distinct part of my continuing scholarship as an academic scientist, along with my laboratory research on olfaction and my pedagogical research on classroom technology.  But perhaps that’s the rub.  In approaching my blog posts as scholarship, I usually am engaging in a time-consuming process of research, fact-checking, and editing that prohibits timeliness.  After all, “dissecting” requires careful attention to detail.  And I can be rather obsessive-compulsive about research and writing, as my colleagues, students and family know well.

Yet, public science is anchored in journalism, which is often fast paced and can’t wait for too much depth.  While I would prefer science journalism to be more scholarly at times, I recognize that events often move too quickly for that.  Daily deadlines and competition to be first proscribe depth, or at least interfere with work on anything else that day.  Comprehensiveness comes later, upon reflection and more extensive research.

So, what’s a scholarly blogger to do?  I’ve decided to follow the suggestion of my daughter Amy, who is editor of this blog, to institute a weekly “What We’re Reading” post that will give short comments on a small set of recent articles that deserve more attention (including here, in subsequent, more elaborate essays on the blog).  At the very least, this will keep the blog current, and provide a hint of more expansive things to come.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Overbye’s teaching moment about scientific discovery and uncertainty

Posted on August 26, 2012 by

In my humble opinion (alright:  IMHO), the best science writing combines reporting on current advances in science — the knowledge or content — with insights into the process of science — how the new knowledge was acquired, and with what certainty.

Thus, I was delighted to read a recent article by Dennis Overbye in the New York Times about the kerfuffle over the claimed discovery of a so-called Goldilocks planet — aka, Gliese 581g  Continue reading →

Posted in consensus, doubt, news media, physics, replication, scholarship, science writer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Our “Darwin problem” is really about power and influence (and doubt)

Posted on August 23, 2012 by

A key challenge to the public perception and acceptance of science, and to the scientists and science writers charged with communicating scientific results to an interested public, is the increasingly common rejection of mainstream science by influential non-scientists. A long-standing example of this problem concerns public reception to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This past February, biologist Ken Miller took the occasion of Darwin’s 203rd birthday to address in The Huffington Post what he called “America’s Darwin Problem.”  Miller is a Continue reading →

Posted in biology, blog, book, climate science, doubt, evolution, peer review, reporting, science denial, science vs. religion, science writer, scientist, theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Searching for objectivity in the nature vs. nurture debate

Posted on August 8, 2012 by

We like to think that science is objective, that its approach to knowledge derives from the lack of bias. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the best of intentions, scientists confront and fight with bias all the time, both within themselves and  when interpreting the work of others.  Scientists have agendas just like anyone else, whether it’s a pet hypothesis or a cultural ideology, and it can be manifested in the way that the data are collected and interpreted.  So, how can the interested non-scientist find the truth amid the bias in the science they’re reading and hearing about? Continue reading →

Posted in blog, nature vs. nurture, news media, objectivity, peer review, psychology, science writer | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Why do women leave science?

Posted on July 25, 2012 by

I happened across a thoughtful essay this morning on women in science, at the blog zinemin’s random thoughts.  The blogger is a senior postdoc in physics, apparently living and working in the Netherlands.  She highlights two problem areas — cultural and  structural — that may have the most impact on a woman’s decision to leave science.  The cultural problem is the lack of other women in the workplace, to serve as mentors, role models, collaborators and friends.  The structural problem is primarily the lack of adequate institutional support for families and the choices parents must make to juggle work and family, which, unfortunately, still affects women more than men.

Her observation reminds me of a recent, more general debate about whether women can “have it all.”   Continue reading →

Posted in blog, physics, scientist, women in science | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Hitting sweet spot in reporting on new subatomic particle

Posted on July 21, 2012 by

So, Wednesday, July 4, was supposed to be THE day, when physicists scheduled an announcement about the 30-year search for the existence of a subatomic particle known as the Higgs Boson.  The Higgs Boson is predicted to exist by the so-called Standard Model, a theory that describes the interaction of the energy fields and associated particles that make up all matter in the universe.  Finding the Higgs would complete the Standard Model.  The buildup to the announcement began weeks and months earlier.  Back in December 2011,  physicists at CERN, which runs the Large Hadron Collider on the Swiss-French border where the most recent experiments have been done, offered preliminary evidence for the likely mass of the sought-after boson.  Mass is a critical characteristic of the particle, and narrowing down the range of likely mass was an encouraging sign that scientists were, finally, on the right track in their search.  The intervening weeks and months provided ample opportunity for scientists and science writers to lay the groundwork for the possible discovery.  We were treated to everything Higgs (e.g., Dennis Overbye, Beth Teitell, Ben Zimmer, James Weatherall, Numbers Guy, Curt Brainard, etc.), both before and after the announcement.

And, yet, on the big day, there was a curious reticence in the way physicists were describing their findings.   Continue reading →

Posted in big science, news media, physics, reporting, science writer, theory | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome!

Posted on July 20, 2012 by

This is the inaugural post to our new blog, Dissecting Public Science.  As articulated more comprehensively in the Mission statement, our goal is to open an ongoing conversation about how the process of science is represented, or misrepresented, in the public media, by science writers, science journalists, and scientists.  Regular posts will touch on a variety of topics concerning public science, including currently hot topics such as climate change, the Higgs boson, science vs. religion, childhood vaccines, GMO’s, the self-correcting nature of science, evolution, scientific fraud and free will.  We invite you to join the conversation with comments contributed to specific posts.  We also encourage you to suggest ideas for new posts by entering comments under Just Ask.  This blog is particularly intended for science students and educated non-scientists, but we welcome all who are interested in discussing the nature of science, including science writers, science journalists, and scientists.

Posted in blog, climate science, evolution, first principles, fraud, GMO, science vs. religion, science writer, scientist | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment