science communication Archives - Page 5 of 8

07/07/201403/07/2014

Hard science?

Are you a hard or soft scientist?

According to one 19^th century science philosopher, the hierarchy of scientific disciplines is strictly segregated with physics and chemistry at the top, biology somewhere in the middle and social science towards the bottom (while astrology and homeopathy must occupy some nether-regions in the bowels of patently unscientific pursuit). The stereotypical view of hard scientists; scrawled equations, incomprehensibly complicated diagrams and lab coats which have definitely seen better days is in stark contrast to their soft scientist cousins; glorified stamp collectors who get into a tizzy over the finer details of the classification of the lesser-spotted something or other. There’s even a hard/soft distinction within biology; surely playing with genes, molecules and machines that go “ping” must be far more scientifically rigorous than conducting habitat surveys or behavioural experiments? I’m not suggesting that societal perception of scientific research is always so limited but the underlying biases, however subconscious, do remain.

The perceived differences between hard and soft seem to stem largely from the degree of mathematical theory underpinning your research. Physics involves maths; maths is hard therefore physics is a hard science. In contrast, traditional biology is merely comprised of learning the parts of the body and possibly frolicking in a few fields. There’s little or no maths involved so biology must be soft. Gross simplifications they may be but I think these views echo the underlying biases of many people, scientists included. They are, needless to say, rubbish.

For a start, maths is inescapable in all sciences. Elaborate equations filled with strange symbols are alive and well in all aspects of biology and social sciences. Ecologists are no more immune from the necessity of mastering mathematical concepts and techniques than their physicist brethren. Admittedly, the prominence of maths does vary according to research discipline; theoreticians are far more likely to be concerned with the finer details of some statistical method than the field biologist applying that method to study changes in squirrel populations. However, to claim that modern research in traditionally softer sciences is any less maths-reliant than the hard sciences is clearly misguided.

So if maths is inescapable does that mean that all science is hard? Well yes. To the extent that all, true science (i.e. hypothesis-driven, testable predictions with proper application of the scientific method) involves maths then yes all science is “hard”. But the application of mathematical techniques doesn’t necessarily deserve the exalted position it receives. Quantitative tests and mathematical models are all well and good but they’re virtually meaningless without real-world observations and predictions as their basis. Maths must be informed by the “softer” side of qualitative scientific observations.

Similarly, maths can be difficult, sometimes even impenetrable when it reaches the upper echelons of some complicated proof for a theory which you don’t understand in the first place. But I don’t think that maths deserves to be seen as any harder than other subjects. Leaving Cert students are now awarded bonus points for passing higher level maths. While the scheme has encouraged more students to stick with higher rather than ordinary level maths it also has the unfortunate effect of perpetuating the view that maths is harder than any other subject. Hopefully the new Project Maths syllabus will help to knock maths off its rarefied pedestal and make it more accessible to students (although the desired effect does not seem to have kicked in yet).

So break down the scientific class structure and don’t be intimidated by the special scientists with machines that go ping. Rather than nonsensical notions of hard vs. soft or hierarchies based on who uses the most complicated maths, it would be far more productive to concern ourselves with the distinction between good vs. bad science. The differences can sometimes be hard to spot but critical understanding of which scientific findings to trust is far more important than any outdated rivalries between the frizzy-haired physicists and glorified beetle collectors of bygone eras.

Author: Sive Finlay, sfinlay[at]tcd.ie, @SiveFinlay

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

04/07/201430/06/2014

We have a winner!

We’re delighted that one of our regular EcoEvo@TCD writers, Sarah Hearne (@SarahVHearne) has won a prize from the Association for British Science Writers. Sarah won first place in the new Good Thinking student science blog category for her piece, Sea Serpents off the Port Bow! published in November last year. These prestigious awards recognise excellence in scientific journalism and writing from both students and professionals and it’s a great achievement to have been singled out among such stiff competition.

Congratulations Sarah!

21/04/201428/03/2019

Soapbox Science Ireland

Are you interested in science?

From nano-materials to Martian landscapes, microbiology to neuroscience, immunology to ecology, chemistry to evolution, Soapbox Science Ireland has something for you.

On the 26th of April (this Saturday!), Soapbox Science will join efforts with Trinity College Dublin’s Equality Fund and WiSER to transform Trinity’s Front Square into a hub of scientific learning and discussion. Some of Ireland’s leading female scientists take to their soapboxes to showcase science to the general public. The aim is to dispel the myth that scientists conform to the “mad (male) scientist” stereotype and to promote the fascinating research led by women in Ireland. Continue reading “Soapbox Science Ireland”

31/03/201418/03/2014

Presentation tips: how to create and deliver an effective talk

Off the back of our recent Postgraduate Symposium, I thought it would be useful to summarise some of the advice and criticism we received afterwards. These points are a mix of the feedback from our invited speakers, academic staff and fellow postgraduate students, as well as some of my own observations and preferences. While the majority of the information below is common knowledge and most people do their best to give a good talk, the reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect talk and there will always be room for improvement; that’s fine! Just do your best and afterwards take note of what areas you would like to improve.

1) Remember: slides are an aid to your talk, they are not the focus. Your voice should be the primary focus of the audience; the accompanying slides are to help you explain more complicated ideas and results, introduce a study system or area and generally keep your audience interested (hence the inclusion of many an interesting/pretty/grotesque picture). Therefore, in general, you do not need large sections of text on your slides. As much as you may think the text is necessary, it most likely isn’t so get rid of it! This removes any temptation to read off the slides and helps keep your audience focussed on you. Furthermore, you are more likely to give a better talk with a more natural flow if you stick to this. The most informative and enjoyable talks I have seen typically contain slides with almost no text, primarily using figures, photos, cartoons etc. Also, don’t go for overkill and try to say too much. Present a concise, clear and fluid story for your audience to follow, leaving out any gritty methodological and statistical details that are not central to your research.

2) Talk to the audience – all of it – and never to your slides. This means that you always face your audience, regularly changing the direction of your gaze, speaking loudly, slowly and clearly, therefore engaging as much of the audience as possible. Furthermore, when you are presenting to an international audience, remember that English (or whatever language you are speaking) may not be the first language of many attendees. This is when it is even more important to make an effort to speak loudly, clearly and slowly (and avoid using any slang).

3) Enjoy yourself! Do your best to smile, relax and be enthusiastic about your research. Unlike a typical manuscript, a presentation allows you to inject some passion for your work. If you are not engaged or enthused, how do you expect your audience to be?

4) Always remember to state the general importance of your research and what areas it applies to. Make your research and topic as relevant to as many people as possible (within sensible limits, of course). This is sadly overlooked by many postgraduate students and can be frustrating to watch. You can do this (i) at the beginning by starting with a broad introduction (this does not equate to five slides of background information, rather it could simply be a few sentences, just to provide your audience with a context) and (ii) at the very end, discussing the implications of your results to your field as a whole, addressing the scope of the symposium/conference/session if particularly appropriate.

5) If a particular aspect of your work is complex and difficult to explain, do your best to deconstruct it with the relevant figures and always repeat the main point/finding before proceeding.

6) Always handle questions in a polite, interested and engaging way. Be open, not defensive. A good tip is to repeat each question for the audience so that they all hear it. While this keeps all of the audience clued in, it also gives you time to formulate a response in your head. When you respond, remember to address all of the audience, not only the ‘questioner’, and always mention that you’re happy to discuss things further afterwards (I’d go as far as encouraging people to come chat to me afterwards, even if it is just to grill me; a grilling is always welcome as a postgrad!).

7) Dress for the occasion. Be comfortable but also mindful of why you are giving a talk and who you are giving it to.

8) If you are using a laser-pointer, avoid waving it around excessively on the screen. Use it sparingly, only when a particular detail needs highlighting.

9) Always check the compatibility of your files, allowing time to make amendments if needed, save in multiple formats and have back-ups, whether on another storage device or in your email inbox.

10) Learn from other presentations what aspects you particularly like and dislike. For example, I prefer when acknowledgements come at the start of start of a talk as this allows the speaker to finish with a focussed, ‘take-home’ message of the research. Also, you don’t need to read out every name in your acknowledgements; people will always do it themselves so just go for the major ones.

11) Practice your talk multiple times aloud (how it sounds inside your head does not equate to how it actually comes out).

12) Finally, don’t panic; be confident and do your best.

Author: Seán Kelly, kellys17[at]tcd.ie, @seankelly999

Image Source: phdcomics.com

07/03/201402/03/2014

How to write press releases

Consider this scenario. You’ve recently published a new academic paper. It’s effectively your baby. The months or years of experiments, analysis, frustration, toil and troubles are now distilled into a stellar research article which, in your opinion at least, changes the face of science as we know it. Great! Now you need to get the word out beyond the Ivory Tower of academia and journal articles. Time to brush up on your public relations and communications skills.

Press releases are important tools for communicating scientific findings and informing the public about the importance of scientific research. From a researcher’s point of view they are also essential currency for enhancing your research profile and ticking the public outreach box on your next grant proposal. So, from all perspectives, it’s important to get press releases right.

We had an excellent NERD club session recently with Thomas Deane, press officer for the faculty of engineering, maths and science at TCD. His tips sparked a great group discussion about the dos and don’ts of writing good, interesting and hopefully popular press releases. Here are some of his useful guidelines which will come in handy next time you’re faced with writing a press release.

1) Simplify!

Remember that you’re writing for a non-specialist audience. Simplify your message as much as possible. Keep cutting things out of the article until it’s clear and succinct. Eliminate jargon but if you do need to use a particular specialised term then make sure that it’s explained properly.

2) Focus on the key parts

You already had to condense your months or years of work into a single paper. Now you need to do it again for the press release. Choose one or two of the key findings from the paper and explain them clearly and concisely. If possible ask someone without a science background to read your article. If they can understand it and identify importance of the findings that you’re trying to publicise then it’s a good indication that you’re on the right track.

3) Be active!

For reasons best known to the Department of Education, in school I was taught that you should only ever write about scientific research in a passive voice; “the animal was weighed” rather than “I weighed the animal”. This early training was reversed when I reached college but there are still some researchers who are stuck in their passive ways. Don’t fall into the trap! Writing in the active voice is easier to read, more interesting and will save on your word count. Press releases should be clear and engaging – this is infinitely easier to achieve if you write in the first person, active voice.

4) Find useful analogies

Good analogies should be engaging and clear. They’re particularly useful for attracting the attention of your audience and for explaining complex ideas. It’s a fun and beneficial exercise to come with an analogy to describe your own research. Here’s some of ours; territoriality behaviour in badgers is like the fall of the Berlin wall (they don’t respect boundaries) and ecosystem stability is like a Jenga tower (remove some key pieces and the whole ecosystem collapses).

5) Focus on the big picture

Research is inevitably piecemeal. Instead of the big bathtub Eureka moments, most new scientific findings represent small steps of progress in niche research areas. However, every tiny step contributes to an overall bigger picture. When communicating the importance of your work to the media it’s important to frame your research in a wider context. Think about why your research matters, where it could lead and why people should find it interesting. Remember that journalists and editors are short on time and probably patience. Your press release needs to include clear reasons why your work is interesting and deserving of their attention. However, one caveat to remember is that you shouldn’t artificially over-inflate the importance of your research. Don’t claim that your new findings about Drosophila are going to save polar bears from climate change!

6) Include quotes and images

A good press release is a sales pitch. You need to excite and enthuse people about your research. Striking, unusual pictures and engaging, personal quotes will help to sell your message. If you include direct quotes and captivating pictures with your press release then it’s more likely to attract the interest of the journalists and editors who take up the story. To supplement printed quotes it’s a good idea to give your contact details and state that you’re available for interviews. The media success of Kevin Healy and Andrew Jacksons’ paper about time perception in animals last year is testimony to the benefits of good images and engaging interviews for selling a story (even if people add images which slightly misrepresent the paper!)

If you keep these considerations in mind they will undoubtedly improve your skills when it comes to putting together your next press release.

Go forth science communicators!

Author: Sive Finlay, sfinlay[at]tcd.ie, @SiveFinlay

Image Source: myteltek.com

28/02/201424/02/2014

Gould Mine

The career of Stephen Jay Gould eludes easy definition because of his prolific output in so many areas. Michael Shermer characterises him as a historian of science and scientific historian, popular scientist and scientific populariser.

The popular science writings of Stephen Jay Gould (20 of his 22 books and hundreds of articles) are responsible for making me want to study macroevolution. He said of his popular essays that they were intended “for professionals and lay readers alike”. We have already covered some aspects of science communication, like how to do it and which kind of scientists should engage in it. Gould wrote 479 academic papers during his career, so any thought of public outreach damaging one’s science certainly didn’t apply to him.

Let’s have a closer look at his academic legacy. Gould is well known for his theory of punctuated equilibrium co-written with Niles Eldredge. This fuelled the debate around ideas such as species selection and the mechanisms explaining macroevolutionary patterns.

Despite this being the work for which he is best remembered it represents a tiny fraction of his output. He actually published only 15 papers with this theory as a main topic, which represents only 3% of his academic work! As a comparison, he published more papers (17) on baseball!

His primary field was invertebrate palaeontology (he was the curator of Harvard’s Invertebrate palaeontology collections from 1973 to his death in 2002) but again, even his main focus in this area (on Cerion snails) represents only on one quarter of his work. Shermer describes him as being “no single-minded fossil digger or armchair theorizer.”

Actually, nearly one fifth of his massive scientific output is primarily focused on the history of science. Again, as Shermer says, he was a “Historian of Science and Scientific historian”.

So Gould should not be only remembered for his proposal of punctuated equilibrium. Gould published 169 papers in 23 last years of last century, which gives him an average number of publications in the history of science of 7.34 per year. To put it in the historical context of the field, the only names that have been more productive are Aristotle, Kant, Goethe and Newton.

It’s rare to see a scientist who divided opinion so much, hagiographies have been written about him but he’s also loathed. Look at these for contrasting views:

“In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould’s reputation is mud.”

“Steve is extremely bright, inventive. He thoroughly understands paleontology; he thoroughly understands evolutionary biology.”

I’ll leave it to the reader to find out where they stand on Gould for there is a lot of controversy to consume. I prefer to remember him through his essays on Natural History than through his few papers about punctuated equilibrium, better illustrating the “measure of a man” (that’s Shermer’s pun). His life illustrates how interdisciplinary studies exponentially increase scientific productivity: “Gould has used the history of science to reinforce his evolutionary theory (and vice versa)” writes Shermer. And that applies as much to punctuated equilibrium as to baseball!

Authors: Thomas Guillerme (guillert[at]tcd.ie, @TGuillerme) and Adam Kane (kanead[at]tcd.ie,@P1zPalu)

Image Source: Wikicommons

16/02/201414/02/2014

3D dinosaurs are bringing down the Ivory Tower

Adam raised the point of science communication in his last blog post of how science should be communicated to a mainly interested and receptive public. The main question when thinking about science communication is “how should we do it?” However a second question, arising from this one would be “who should do it?”

I believe having an interest in popular science is the first step for starting a career as a scientist. Personally, I was influenced by Jurassic Park, which gave me the idea that in a distant future I would (could) become a paleontologist. I believe this influence is shared by a vast majority of young paleontologists of this Bakker dinosaur’s revolution generation. So, to me, even if Jurassic Park bent some scientific rules (the most obvious one being bringing stones to life), the film created a renewed interest in its related field of palaeontology.

Ok, so that’s a good reason for popularizing science then? It’s not that easy. A fairly large amount of scientists will always look at such attempts to popularize science as a “bastard” child of the scientific adventure, a kind of side effect that makes scientists, in the best case, smile ironically. In the worst case though, they think it propagates massively erroneous ideas: like the one I pointed out above or -another that “makes me smile ironically” – that paleontologists are Indiana Jones-style adventurers that wander around the world and from time to time brush the sand and discover how velociraptors (read Deinonychus) were talking to each other.

Richard Whitley in his book, Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, summarises the idea by writing that: “popularization is not viewed as part of the knowledge production and validation process but as something external to top research which can be left to non-scientists, failed scientists or ex-scientists as part of the general public relations effort of the research enterprise.”

This vision of popularizing science is linked to the idea that an increased output of popular science leads to a fatal decrease of legitimate and accurate scientific progress. This is known as the ‘Sagan Effect’ after Carl Sagan and the erroneous claim that his legitimate scientific output decreased after the initiation of his popular science TV series: Cosmos.

Can one popularize science and actively do science?

When one has a look at the actual numbers (scientific articles published vs. popular articles published), one expects that if popularizing science is reserved for “failed scientists”, people publishing more popular articles will publish fewer science articles. Michael Shermer, in his paper published in Social Studies of Science in 2002, brings down this popular belief by calculating the actual numbers of scientific papers published by these popular science writers.

Let’s take a look at the numbers.

As a base line, while the four PIs publishing on this blog all take part in extra curricular activities, they are primarily research scientists. Last year, they published all together 22 papers which gives a respectable average of nearly one paper per PI published every two months! In contrast, if you look at the great popular science writers of the end of the last century (say Carl Sagan or Steven Jay Gould), during their massive and influential popularization of their fields, they produced an average of one paper per month for Sagan and nearly two papers a month for Gould (and that for 35 consecutive years!). So they seem to have it all: “legitimate“ science output and successful careers as science communicators. Just looking at these figures, the myth of the trade-off between popular science writing and actual scientific production is just, as Shermer describes it, “a Chimera”!

Can one popularize science and actively do science?

Yes. And to go back to my first point, with Jurassic Park (which, in comparison to Gould or Sagans’ popular work can easily be classified as a “bad” way to do it), I believe that popularizing science is not a problem: in an altruistic world, scientists should focus on contributing to the advancement of their field by any means possible, not exclusively on their own amount of publications. Thankfully, most scientists manage to combine both popular communication and research output efficiently. I think that one important and still altruistic way to contribute to the advancement of a field is definitely science popularization. Richard Whitley says that “by successfully combining claims to universal validity and social utility through popularization, [Sagan and Gould] laid the foundation for the present domination and expansion of the sciences.” These contributions have a real long-term benefit to the advancement of the field. Firstly, the ideas of the authors of popular science become fixed in the public consciousness and secondly (most importantly to me), they inspire new generations of scientists that will, later on, personally contribute to the advancement of their field.

Is this bad for “legitimate” scientific production? Not at all! By popularizing evolution in a realistic (or perhaps not so realistic) way, Gould and Jurassic Park spark the interest and imaginations of the next generation of potential scientist who, through their research, will make direct contributions to scientific research!

It’s a positive feedback cycle: excellent scientists generate good science communicators; good scientific communication generates scientific interest and curiosity; scientific interest produces scientists and some of these scientists will go on to become good scientific communicators…

Author: Thomas Guillerme, guillert[at]tcd.ie, @TGuillerme

Image Source: wikimedia commons

10/02/201405/02/2014

The Heat and Light of Science Communication

The recent debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy and Ken Ham, the Young Earth Creationist got me thinking about our methods of science communication such was the controversy it generated.

There is value in communicating science to the lay public when our society is so deeply ramified by its discoveries, its ideas and its risks. And sometimes it’s easy to do so. For instance, there are people who find certain areas of research fascinating but may not have the expertise or money to read journal articles. This ‘gee whiz ‘cohort is actively interested in learning about the next big thing and will devour blogs, popular articles and newspaper reports. It helps to avoid a condescending tone (like saying gee whiz) if you have an inclination to write an article to this audience. As Steven Pinker’s editor put it “You should assume your readers are as smart as you are, as curious as you are, but they don’t know what you know and you’re there to tell them what they don’t know.”

This sounds very like the deficit model of communication, which states that, the only barrier to public understanding and skepticism of science is their ignorance. Provide the information and this deficit will disappear. I think this probably works for most of the non-controversial areas of science when the target audience is interested. I’m thinking of myself learning about subjects in physics or geology that are explained by the legion of science communicators that inhabit every form of multimedia today.

But we have a multitude of issues where the science is not accepted by a significant number outside the scientific sphere, notably climate change and the efficacy of vaccines. This is very problematic because the impact of these controversies threatens everyone, expert and lay person alike. How best to engage with these ‘deniers’? I’d argue that the problem here is fundamentalism. And how do you change the mind of a fundamentalist? To paraphrase Eugenie Scott, some people find the idea that they’re related to animals abhorrent and all the evidence supporting this isn’t going to change their minds. In other words, you don’t. The best we can hope for is that most of us are reasonable people and the lunatic element is just being especially loud.

When it comes to the evolution-creationism debate, many profs advocate the silent treatment; their rationale is that by engaging in debate we somehow elevate the status of the deniers. Much better, they say, to keep on churning out the books and interviews where there’s no risk of some rhetorician running rings around your PowerPoint presentation. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould both shared this sentiment. With Dawkins arguing we should deny them “the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.” But Dawkins has spent half a lifetime engaging with Creationists on different forums, on TV, in his books, and latterly on Twitter. I don’t see much difference. And surely scientists can muster up an individual who can speak sense to an audience while holding their attention with a stentorian voice.

So what about those people who are not particularly interested in scientific discovery but are concerned about the impact that certain fields of research will have on them? Or those of us who do not take the time to read about the controversy and may be swayed by entities like anti-vax campaigns? We have to have an included middle.

Unfortunately to some, certain theories can become “evidence-resistant” and that: “… as climate scientists know all too well, simply relating the facts of science isn’t enough. No matter that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that climate change is real, or that vaccines don’t cause autism. When scientists find themselves just one more voice in a sea of ‘‘opinions’’ about a complex scientific issue, misinformation takes on a life of its own.” (Jackson et al. 2005)

One way to prevent this is to create a space for scientists to engage with the public, where they can engage in a dialogue. This is in contrast to the one-way, hierarchical approach of the deficit model I spoke of earlier. Jackson, et al.(2005) point out that when the public are left out of any such dialogue it should come as no surprise that they are distrustful of the outcomes of the resulting applications. The arrival of genetically modified organisms (GMO) demonstrated what can happen when there is a lack of upstream public engagement regarding contested science. Frankenstein Food campaigns should come to mind!

It’s also vital to frame science so that it’s easily accessible to the widest range of people all with different biases, beliefs, and ideologies. The anti-vax campaign is successful because it is framed with ‘Think of the children!’ the climate change deniers point to uncertainty of prediction; this coupled with the difficulty in conveying the danger of something that will take decades to manifest helps their campaign tremendously.

Another idea is to teach how science works to people at an early age. This is advocated by Arons who writing in 1983 comes at the issue of science literacy from a paedagogical standpoint. He says that scientific literacy is in a “lamentable state” and crticises the idea that it could be achieved through “verbal inculcation”. According to the author this approach seems to be little more than rote learning.The central point of Arons is his repetition of the idea that scientifically literate individuals should be able to answer “”How do we know …?” and “Why do we believe …?” questions”. If the majority of people were able to give an answer to these questions on the controversies mentioned here I think we’d have much less to lament about.

One trend to be picked out of the evolution of science communication is the realization the public isn’t monolithic either. And to clump every non-scientist into one social unit is a simplification too far. With ancient rhetoric and 21st century technology we have the ability to frame our arguments to every audience who will listen, reflecting their interests, fears and concerns.

References

Arons, A.B. (1983). Achieving Wider Scientific Literacy. Daedalus. 112 (2), p. 91-122.

Jackson, R Barbagallo, F Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of Public Dialogue on Science-related Issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 8 (3), p. 349–358.

Author: Adam Kane, kanead[at]tcd.ie, @P1zPalu

Image Source: davidakirby.com

27/01/201428/03/2019

SoapBox Science Dublin!

Are you a woman in science? Are you passionate about sharing your research with the public and increasing the profile of female scientists generally? Do you let out a sigh when these events are always arranged in London? Well sigh no more, this year SoapBox Science is expanding to other parts of the UK and excitingly, across the Irish Sea to Dublin, Ireland. Continue reading “SoapBox Science Dublin!”

24/01/201410/01/2014

Science and Journalism

As scientists with access to hundreds of peer reviewed journals its easy to forget that we are a privileged bunch. We get to read science straight from the horse’s mouth without anyone to get between us and the research. Yet for the majority of people journals are hidden behind paywalls and even open access journals remain largely the domain of working scientists if for no other reason than reading scientific journal articles is hard work. They demand a high level of prior knowledge and often use terms that are completely meaningless to anyone outside their field. It’s no surprise that the majority of people get their science news from newspapers.

The problem with science in newspapers is that it’s really badly done. It’s often based on press releases from universities and others have written about how the media will take a story and run in whatever direction they please, regardless of the actual research. Science journalism has been relegated to the side-lines. While it would cause outrage if someone who knew nothing about football was allowed to write in the sports section, non-science journalists are regularly writing science stories, unable to critique the work or put it in any context. On the one hand it leads to sensationalist stories but on the other it can result in the real news story being buried among trivialities (something I’ve written about before).

It’s one thing to disagree with a news story about your own research but what about other science stories? If you have any interest in science chances are you’ve read a news story and shook your head in disbelief at the poor reporting. You may have moaned about it to friends until they wondered off saying something about “letting it go” or “getting a life”. But what, really, can you do? You’re just one person. . .

Well, it turns out there is something you can do. You can email the journalist. You can explain, politely and calmly, exactly what was wrong and then suggesting ways of making the story better. So, rather than say;

“Your article was rubbish, you don’t have any idea what you’re on about it was all wrong!”

you could write,

“I was disappointed by your article. You said that whales are a fish when they are actually mammals”.

(Hopefully you won’t see any errors that egregious!)

You may be thinking that it’s all very well and good to email them, but why should they listen? Why do they care? The story’s finished, they’ve moved on. Well, one reason is that most stories are online where they form a permanent record, so any errors will remain forever unless corrected which does nothing to help a journalist’s reputation. Secondly, most of the errors aren’t out of spite or even callous disregard, it’s because they don’t know any better. As I said, a lot of science journalists aren’t experts so they’re going to make mistakes. Even if do have a background in science they can’t know everything. Could you write as well on quantum mechanics as you could on evolution, for example? I doubt it.

This all sounds wonderful. You see an error in a science story, you email the journalist and he corrects it and everyone goes merrily on their way. Really? Life isn’t that pleasant. Well, actually, it can be. The inspiration for this post came from an article I saw hyperbolically titled “New species of terrifying looking ‘skeleton shrimp’ discovered”. The original article gave no information about who had discovered the animal or why it was important. It also had incorrect formatting on the genus and family names. I emailed the author and politely explained the problems. I had a lovely response and he corrected the formatting errors, added the information it lacks and, most importantly, gave credit for the discovery where it was due. The article now online is the amended one and while still not brilliant, is much better.

The moral of this story is that if you see bad science in the news contact the journalist. Chances are they don’t know they’re making mistakes and as long as you are polite and specific they will heed your advice. While you won’t get a 100% success rate, or even a 100% response rate, you will get some response. Focus on the smaller articles usually written by people low down the hierarchical food chain who are most receptive, who haven’t been jaded and welcome polite, constructive advice and can be encouraged to do better in the future. If we all make the effort to correct bad science reporting we can hopefully help journalists and improve science understanding in the public domain. Not bad for one email.

Author: Sarah Hearne, hearnes[at]tcd.ie, @SarahVHearne

Image Source: blogs.discovermagazine.com