Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway was high on my ‘to read’ list. When I heard Naomi was coming to speak at the Science Communication seminar I attend, the book went straight to the top of the list – I had a week to read it.

In a nutshell, the extremely well-researched book reveals the tactics several high-powered yet contrarian scientists used to spread doubt about matters that had already reached scientific consensus, namely tobacco smoke and climate change.

I was surprised to see how witty, charismatic and down-to-Earth Naomi was.  Instead of repeating what is in the book, she took us through some of the challenges they faced during the research process and once the book was published.

Dealing with the media was no doubt one of those challenges. Naomi is particularly selective about what interviews she gives precisely because appearing in a debate about climate change with a “doubt merchant” simply fuels the point that the jury is still out, when in fact there is no debate. It is happening. Period.

But the author of a best-selling book has to appear in front of the cameras at some stage and my favourite part of the seminar was when Naomi shared some of the tricks she picked up on how to make the media work to your advantage, not the other way round:

Never Wear Hemp

That goes for any other granola stereotype. Right or wrong, people do not always listen to what is being said but to who is saying it.

If you feed into the stereotype, the public will automatically side-line you as alternative and disregard what you are saying.

Make-up is a Must

Make-up may not be your thing but unfortunately cameras can be particularly unfriendly machines. The first US presidential debate televised was the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960. Nixon refused to wear make-up and lost the debate because he looked too tired and old to run the country. Sad but true. Get yourself some BB Cream and eyeliner if a personal make-up artist is out of reach.

Heels and a business suit

The basis of the corporate look is to change the perception that scientists are not normal human beings. They are weird and simply not like the rest of us. If you are unsure what is meant by this, look up the Draw a Scientist test. Bright colours work well too by showing your fun side.

After reading this you may not be surprised to find out that Naomi drives a BMW. I am undecided about this one. Do you think it is appropriate for the winner of the Climate Change Communicator of 2011 award to drive such an un-environmentally friendly car? Or do you think it conveys the message that climate change advocates aren’t necessarily hippies trying to attack your way of life?

Going Statistically Senile

Just some stats to start you off…

• 150 000 women die of anorexia in the USA per year
• You will accidentally swallow an average of 8 spiders a year
• men think about sex every 7 seconds
• There are 200 000 stalkers in the USA

Wait… what? did you believe my statistics? …well do you believe these ones? top five false figures 

The study by Clive Seale in 2010, titled ‘How the mass media report social statistics: A case study concerning end-of-life decisions’ looked at the progress of statistics about this topic through reporting by the mass media. The study showed the way certain numbers underwent ‘number laundering’ where a simple ‘guess’ by one individual gets repeated so many times it essentially becomes ‘fact’. It also showed a phenomenon termed ‘mutant statistics’ whereby the meaning behind the statistic is left on the floor, forgotten, and trampled on.

Mutant statistics and number laundering can rage out of control like a wildfire in the Australian bush. the numbers can be “stretched, twisted and mangled and distorted”, until a virtually unrecognisable statistic appears. It’s all like an intense and speedy game of chinese whispers… a game that no one can win…

But is it a case of chinese whispers or something more sinister at work? journalists need snappy stories, memorable stories, and so using the shock factor is an obvious tool to use to stay in the fore front of peoples minds.

I don’t know about you but I feel like I’ve been lied to, like I’ve been deceived!

What do the journalists think? do they believe that they’re simply ‘putting a spin’ on news stories? or do they know that what they’re writing isn’t true? or do they genuinely believe that what they are writing is correct?

Do you think there is a way to stop this? Do you think there is a way to tell fact from fiction when reading a news story?

References:

Seale, C. (2010) How the mass media report social statistics: A case study concerning end-of-life decisions. Social Science and Medicine, 71: 861-868.

Image 1:http://spong.com/article/26199/Industry-Chinese-Whispers-2-4-Xbox-720

Image 2: http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/false_information.asp

Image 3:http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/wikipedia-usage-data-is-complete-again.html

Online Journalists: Far More Than Journalists

In a previous post, Noelynn has discussed about the shift from traditional science journalism to online science journalism, and several features of it. Of course, as the workers who need to survive in the new industrial environment, more and more science journalists are becoming online journalists. However, besides just changing the workplace from press offices to home and cafe, the industrial shift means much more to online science journalists.

Declan Fahy and Matthew C. Nisbet from American University mapped the new science media ecosystem in the USA and UK basing on a systematic review of recent studies, from the interviews the conducted with some prominent science journalists in US and UK, it shows that roles of science journalists are shifting.

Image via vegas-times.com

The vital change is journalists are going pluralistic. They are no longer the privileged conveyors staying in the office as a transmission; they are adopting the “newsgathering cultures”. Many of them are working as freelancers. A reporter of science news could be the author of an editorial giving opinions on others works; they are either end of a dialogue. Moreover, their jobs are not only offering a good story of new findings or studies, but also developing an encyclopedia to meet the accessibility of new media.

Their roles, not only as storytellers, but also as reporters, writers, communicators, are also required by the organization in the shifting industry they are working for. Therefore, online science journalists have to be social and interactive, to practice as convener, public intellectual and civic educator, within scientific community, industry, and policy-oriented organizations and general public.

It’s very impressive that the huge shift of roles for journalists in happening under tumultuous media environment. Obviously, some science journalists are doing great jobs to adopt their new roles and building up a strong penal which helps the media they are working for survive the challenge of online journalism ecosystem. Do you think it’s better to be an online journalist? or we have to do so? Here is an article about the pros to be an online journalist, but any cons can you think of?

Blogging Supplanting Science Journalism

This semester’s first blog issue has an interesting article on scientific blogging. Geoff Brumfiel asks whether science blogging will replace a declining scientific journalism. Most research science papers or just communicating science to the public were done through written papers. However, to this age and time, this journalism practice has slowly taking a different phase. It has diverted to more techno-type.: just to mention blogging, wikis, web stories and other online articles writing and reading. 

It was pointed that communicatin science to the public has reached a standpoint from a paper age to a golden age, blog. Many are now diverting to provide content of blogs, web stories and podcasts – something that science journalists weren’t doing five years ago. While the whole article was interesting  read through, what captured my attention the most were the following  facts described about the shift :

1. Fast and dirty – The conditions the main stream media’s need for quick and accurate science content and demands for short time before publishing sees pressure. At the same time the demand for stories and ideas has been matched by an increase in supply. So I thought science journalists should be picking up the  phone and talking to scienctists directly. But it is not, infact its more than that. To communicate science, online research and collaborative discussions takes place and even through blogging.
2. Straight to the masses –  Science journalists and scientists themselves tend to reach out to mass audiences through the internet. This is to say that journalists are expanding their mainstream work into their blogs, bloggers with roots in the lab are moving into print. However, there will always be a need for professional journalists covering science.
3. Culture mash – This point stages the culture of a journalist and a scientist. Both profession had to recognize each others needs, they are kind of fusing the two cultures.

Therefore, with these points in mind, in my opinion I think that writing about science or communicating science as far as the public knowledge is concerned, is changing phase. It is shifting to more online oriented, as this blogging is concerned. What do you think this shift would take the world of communicating science to? Is it taking us as science communicators to a compatible age? Or should we refrain and rely totally on our professional  jounalists with qualified reporting skills to continue with their profession?

Wildlife conservation causes need creative help!

How many native animals in your country can you name? What about narrowing it down to mammals, human’s closest ‘relatives’?

It was during my wildlife management unit in UWA that I learned more about the various species of marsupial mammals that exist in Australia!! Before this the only marsupials in Australia that I knew of were the kangaroo, wallaby, koala, wombat, possum and Tasmanian Devil.

Koala resting on a summer day

Since 2011 I found out that there are other marsupials like quokka, bettong, phascogale, bilby, quoll, dibbler, bandicoot and numbat to name a few. Some  of them are very rare, unique and endangered.

So I asked some kids here if they could name me a few native animals and they seemed to know the same ones I knew before… and I’m not Australian!! It made me realise one thing… we usually only know what we are exposed to, unless we have an interest and go searching. And that is apparent for environmental issues such as wildlife conservation. Much of these are known to us because it was presented in the media, not because we were searching. Sometimes the news we get on these issues are biased, sensationalised and highly politicised. The correct knowledge of native flora and fauna species in unique habitats and those that are endangered will help us understand how our individual and collective actions affect our environment and how we should rectify our past mistakes.

Most people around the world know about pandas, lions, tigers, elephants and orangutans.

Panda and Asian Elephant

Wildlife conservation causes seems to be centered around creatures that are cuddly cute when young and majestic or strong when mature. Popular nature shows focus on dangerous animals and adrenalin pumping encounters. Movies are made of such characters, often depicting them in ways that they do not naturally exist. My view of the Tasmanian Devil completely changed when I saw them live! My earlier perception of them was based on Taz from Looney Tunes!

Tasmanian Devil

Sure there are excellent popular media coverage for wildlife conservation too! Besides Animal Planet and National Geographic, one movie worthy of mention is Happy Feet, which provided a brilliant insight into issues on climate change, endangered species, human greed and its multiple effects on the environment. That was one movie that grabbed at my heartstrings, being passionate for wildlife conservation.

Now it gets me wondering… How did you find out about the wildlife species and conservation issues you know? What are the effective ways we can use the media for wildlife conservation?

2011 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 3,600 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 60 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Something I Saw

Hi all,

Whilst watching The Hamster Wheel tonight I saw this segment on Science in the Media so I thought I would share it with you. I couldn’t work out how to cut down the episode, but the segment runs from 23:55 onwards.

Because of ABC’s restrictions, the movie won’t embed so click here to be taken to The Hamster Wheel Episode 5

What do you think about how science is portrayed here? I found it incredibly funny but how do you think it affects the reputation of scientists?

-Madeleine.

Not only for fun

Can science and humour work together in a popular media?

Definitely yes.  You may be able to point out several TV programs, like The Big Bang Theory or Mythbusters.

How about science education and humour?

Again yes.  Several researchers have shown that implementation of humour works well.  “[These] benefits include creating a more supportive learning environment, retaining knowledge, creating a sense of community, and reducing stress.” (Hellman, S,V. 2006. P 1)

Well, then, how about scientific (academic) research and humor?

The answer is… Yes.

Thinking too much?

What do you think about these research titles?

• “An analysis of the forces required to drag sheep over various surfaces” 2004, Physics award
• “Pressures Produced When Penguins Poo—Calculations on Avian Defecation” 2005, Fluid dynamics award
• “Discovering that symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller coaster ride” 2010, Medicine award.

These are research titles that were published in scholarly journals, and received the Ig Nobel prize award.

The Ig Noble prize is the award for researchers and inventors, who did remarkable and humorous research (whether they intended to be humorous or not).

Sounds like a bad joke?  Well, maybe yes, but the organizers of this prize are quite serious.  Quite a few acknowledged scholars support the organization. The ceremony is held in an auditorium at Harvard University and the prize is presented by a number of people including a few Nobel Prize winners.

The criteria for nomination is,  “First make people laugh, and then make them think.” (Improbable Research,2011)

So, what does this motto mean?

Let me explain.

In 2011, the annual theme of the Ig Nobel prize was chemistry, and the winners were Japanese researchers, who “[Determined] the ideal density of airborne wasabi (pungent horseradish) to awaken sleeping people in case of a fire or other emergency, and for applying this knowledge to invent the wasabi alarm.”

Even though I am Japanese, and even though I love wasabi, I gratefully refuse to wake up to that intense smell.

But if I was visually and hearing impaired?  How could I know I’m in danger?

Some of the awards are chosen to raise awareness about something crucial but easily missed.

When we are communicating with someone, humour is quite helpful for delivering messages.  “Funny” means something extraordinary.  A healthy sense of humor makes a topic stands out, and helps to develop a critical mind.  When considering framing theories, humour works quite well as a positive frame because it is comfortable to watch or listen too.

Also, humour is one alternative method that can be used to challenge authority.  Some research topics seem extraordinary, but we must remember that radicalists made a lot of scientific breakthroughs.

Now, after you reading this blog post, I hope you had a nice smile, and also you get convinced for the power of humour in science communication.  If not, I’m always happy to tell you more and more and more.

References:

Hellman, Stuart V. (2006) Online Humor: Oxymoron or Strategic Teaching Tool.

Presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and

Community Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis,  available at:

http://www.umsl.edu/divisions/conted/education/mwr2p06/pdfs/A/Hellman_Online_Humor.pdf

The improbable research:

http://www.improbable.com

Science blogs, beneficial for public engagement with Science, or not?

 

So I’ve always assumed, yeah of course Science Blogs are good for the public engagement of science, no question about it. But then I read this article that says it wasn’t, and I was all like, really? So this article¹ says that like, it’s not because the average Joe can’t understand what they’re talking about in science blogs, and thus don’t become engaged in the blog. But I beg to differ. I think even someone who has as badder grammar as I’ve just displayed can understand or at the least appreciate most science blogs. A lot of the blogs take out the scientific jargon and replace it with colloquialisms and common names.

 

Are the public this engaged when reading science blogs?

Blogs are way easier to understand than say, a scientific paper, If I was a non-scientist (God forbid) and say was looking around for information on cancer because a member of my family had just been diagnosed, I’d easily choose reading a blog to get information over a scientific article. Blogs are more personal, often use humour, and are more like a conversation, so even if the average Joe can’t understand every word they cans till appreciate the writing style, unlike the usual scientific paper format which is dull in comparison, let’s admit it. I think that by scientists writing blogs that use humour and are personable also contribute to the public wanting to become engaged with science, by showing that scientists are just normal people like you and me, which can only be beneficial (see my last post).

 

One of the main arguments that the author of this article makes is that “Certain developments, such as the public engagement of science, can only be facilitated if the technology is embedded within the network of social actors and structures.”¹ Whilst I don’t think it is necessary to have structures in place for engagement to occur, I thought it would be helpful to have some sort of worldwide science blog search mechanism, where one could search for blogs understandable to the average Joe, and filter out more complex blogs aimed at people with background knowledge of the topic. What are your thoughts on Science Blogs? Are they helpful or unhelpful to the public’s engagement with science?

 

 

¹Kouper, I 2010. ‘Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities’, Journal of Science Communication, vol. 09, no. 01, pp. 1-10. Available from: Google Scholar [01 November 2011].

Pic source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpeckler/2522647545/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

The Bloggers Cannot Save Us

How things have changed?  I remember as a child if I wanted to expand my knowledge I would have to make a trip to the library.  The books, although interesting generally, were dated.  The way forward would have been to join a group, but these days life is made easier by the vast amount of online communities.

What is an Online Community – Myles Dyer

If you have a passion or require support, there are also online communities that will support, guide and help you through your journey.

Macmillan’s Online Community

The web has also allowed the development of citizen journalists with the success of such online reporting as the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, giving us the ability to receive up to date news and being informed on local and international development.  But how does this relate to science communication can blogging be an effective tool to inform and engage the general public?.   From one point of view the ability to discuss science themes allows the debunking of negative ideas, but on the other hand in some communities such as The Flat Earth Society, it also re-enforces their believes.  Scientist have the ability to develop a global online community to allow an open discussion on ideas and research as predicted by the following video.

The Internet Generation – science in the global online community

As a member of the general public and a scientist, I want to be involved with latest developments.  Having the ability to express my view online either as a blogger or in forum is a great step forward.  The web 2.0 has given us this ability to be a global community without borders.  As long as the science community takes advantage of this situation and we all get involved and don’t leave it to some dominant persuasive journalist, there might be a chance that the blogger could save us.

Reference;

Limitations of Blogs  Mooney, Chris & Kirshenbaum, Sheril (2009) Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,  Basic Books, New York.  Chapter 9. P109-116, 71-75.