DailyDirt: Is Mixing Science And Journalism A Bad Recipe?
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Facts aren't always as reliable as they seem -- that's been a consistent theme here. And we're always interested in folks double-checking facts -- especially if it leads to a better understanding of how things work. When the process of verifying experiments or stories is blocked, everyone loses out. The conversation to clarify knowledge should be allowed to evolve, and generally science is pretty good about verifying experiments. But when it fails, it's usually a spectacular failure. Let's hope that arsenic NMR or proper mass spectrometry measurements will prevail in determining whether life can survive without phosphorous around.Rosie Redfield's commentary critiquing the announcement of arsenic-based lifeforms has been widely published and discussed. Peer-review either isn't what it used to be -- or it's never quite as good as people think it should be. url, url, url, url Meanwhile, journalism may be slowly adapting to admitting mistakes with a "report an error" button. And perhaps science journals need to start doing this, too. url The Medill school of journalism votes in favor of changing its name. Is journalism like a rose? url What would happen if everyone had a chance to vote on what science projects were funded by the government? We might find out. url
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, science
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://xkcd.com/829/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: XKCD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when do you peer review a discovery?
Peer review is when you write a paper, or conduct a study of your discovery, and the peer review, is a well, review of your work by your peers.
what are they going to do to peer review your discovery?
(say,,, "yep, looks like you find what you said").
Other scientists commenting about a discovery in the media is not peer review, it is just fair comment.
You're not really 'up' on these things are you Mike !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when do you peer review a discovery?
This publication WAS peer reviewed... so I'm not sure what you're talking about? In any case, discoveries are also certainly subject to peer review. There are TONS of things that peers can say when they review a discovery -- in fact, many of the critiques that have been published after the arsenic-life announcement mentioned that their suggestions SHOULD have been part of peer review before the paper was published.
And actually, many papers that don't get anywhere near as much attention are also "discoveries" -- and get peer reviewed before publication. Many "discoveries" are rejected in that process as well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when do you peer review a discovery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Since when do you peer review a discovery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Since when do you peer review a discovery?
And that isn't even new...for those of us who remember Dorpus (may he live forever,) he was maintaining this standard operating procedure religiously 5 years ago or so (and for all we know, he may still be here.)
Darryl is Dorpus for the new generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peer Review
The subsequent criticisms are also part of the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I Suggest You Don’t Use URL Shorteners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I Suggest You Don’t Use URL Shorteners?
I'm using bitly links because I like to see how many people click-through on the links (so I can get a vague idea of how popular a topic is). The stats will eventually influence what topics I choose for future posts.
Not sure why people hate bitly links so much... especially when the full URLs are provided. But if people REALLY hate them, we'll try to look for alternatives. (Any suggestions on how to track clicks without using a URL shortener?)
Thanks for the feedback,
mikeho
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I Suggest You Don’t Use URL Shorteners?
The trouble with URL shorteners is they introduce another link into the chain that, if it fails, breaks the whole chain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can I Suggest You Don’t Use URL Shorteners?
Also, as long as bitly is operational, you can see what the original link is by adding a "+" to the end of the shortened URL.
http://bit.ly/pages/help#i_3_4
On top of that, I've included the original URL at the end of each blurb.... and those won't go away either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not science what fails. Science is the best tool we have to evaluate theories. These can be confirmed/discarded as evidence amounts in favour/against. Science has a self-correcting built-in mechanism. Hence, science never fails. Theories do.
"Peer-review either isn't what it used to be -- or it's never quite as good as people think it should be."
I think you're missing the point. There have always been different levels of quality when it comes to peer review. It can be a never ending process. The arsenic bacteria research being heavily criticised is absolute standard. These things happen all the time. It's in the nature of the scientific method and it's not a failure. It's the self-correcting mechanism in action. The press likes sensationalistic headlines. Don't fall for it.
When it comes to science news it might be better to read the headlines and head for the source. Science journalism looks plagued by writers who never took a science class, who mislead and who need sensationalistic headlines to sell. There's a very healthy science blogosphere out there. No need to waste time with the rest of the media.
Sorry for possible language mistakes.
A good place to start
A bit of humour on a sad reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never fails?
In this particular case, I think the standard process of publishing a paper free of "big errors" wasn't exactly followed. It happens all the time, I know. But for articles that have less impact, no one cares too much. For this arsenic lifeform story, the evidence should have been scrutinized a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the area of tobacco control, apparently serious studies are used to generate press releases with a summary of headline generating conclusions. By the time the actual study is released and it is possible to validate or debunk the already publicized result, it's too late to correct the damage done. Corrections don't generally drive headlines.
Tobacco control in the United States and the UK use this amoral propaganda technique with clear conscience, reasoning that tobacco use is too destructive to merit any real discussion of objective truth. The debate, they claim, is over.
Public health campaigns in the works to denormalize alcohol use/abuse and food related disorders including the most visible, obesity, can be expected to follow the tobacco control model.
While there may be some small value in study based reportage, the temptation to propagandize society for its own good and the willingness of the media to incorporate press release science into their own narratives only serve to misinform whether by accident or by intent.
Science by press release as commonly used today should be discouraged and avoided at every turn. Propaganda should never be used to persuade the public no matter how important the issue is to any given group.
Tobacco lies may be fine with those who agree with its ultimate removal from society, but the temptation to accept any morals based or flexible truth for convenience leads to more effective lies, such acceptance only serves to further muddy the waters and encourage special pleading. At least that's what I have observed.
I hope those who create, review and publish studies will resist the poisoning the well one press release at a time. Let the facts fall where they may, and let that, not ideology, drive the conclusion.
Dr. Brian Oblivion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote based funds dispersal, assuming it could even produce the best possible result, would only encourage corruption of the voting process.
It's something to be considered and debated, and ultimately discarded. Some form of vote based rating system that tracks popularity but does not prioritize or allocate funds could still be a useful organizational tool however.
But then, who asked me?
Dr. Brian Obvlivion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]