Primum Non Nocere - Part IV (Scientists and the Media)

Scientists Generally Happy With Their Media Interaction. (Title compliments of Science Daily).

The article cited is based on a report in Science, entitled Interactions with the mass media (see Reference).

Key findings of the survey included:

1. Increasing the public's perception of science was the most important benefit mentioned by scientists as an incentive to interact with the media, with 93% indicating that achieving 'a more positive public attitude towards research' was an important motivator;

2.However, lack of control of media outcomes remains an issue for many scientists, with nine in 10 respondents identifying the 'risk of incorrect quotation' as an important disincentive.

The survey was sent to over 1,300 (1,354 to be exact) researchers over a two year period (2005-2006). They had a response rate of 43%, so a little over 580 of them responded.

Perceived impact of media contacts on career by country. Distribution of answers to the question: "Consider the totality of your media contacts over your career. How great has their positive or negative impact been on you professionally?" Only respondents reporting media contact(s) in the past 3 years are included in the graph.

So, what does this all mean? I think it's clear that this begins to eliminate the stereotype that scientists simply hole up the lab and don't speak to anyone from the outside. I think it means that scientists are comfortable with working with the media, and see the interactions as generally pleasant. Scientists do care about how the public perceives them and their research, and they will go to great lengths to get the word out accurately. I think this reflects positively and runs true to my comments about the obligation of scientists to do nothing to harm the reputation of science as being a very beneficial tool (see my Primum Non Nocere series). Scientists are concerned with people taking their science seriously, and I think they know that in this day and age, they need to keep the public well informed if they're going to generate interest for their research. Interest does equate to dollars. The scientist that can put their research into easily understandable terms, and can point out the importance of their work, is IMNSHO, bound to have a better chance of generating the interest that will allow them to receive funding. It's all about communication folks.

References
Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., Tsuchida, S. (2008). SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: Interactions with the Mass Media. Science, 321(5886), 204-205. DOI: 10.1126/science.1157780

Primum Non Nocere - Part III

Was reading Laelaps recently and came across the following entry entitled Paleontological Profiles : Robert Bakker. It's a good read, at least from my perspective, and an excellent interview conducted by Mr. Brian Switek. Personally, I know I grew up loving dinosaurs, my favorite exhibit "Of All Time" being the dinosaur exhibit in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Heck, I fell in love with the place the minute I saw their T. rex on display. I still look at their virtual tours from time to time.

At any rate, the interview seemed to be standard-fare except for the very end when Dr. Bakker dropped what could only be described as a bombshell for most of the ScienceBlogger audience. This part of the interview went as follows:

[Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the "bones of contention" and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?

[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition. Hitchcock is a far better model. He had his battles with skepticism. He did worry that the discovery of Deep Time would upset the good people of his congregation. But Hitchcock could view three thousand years of scriptural tradition and see much of value - and much concordance with Jurassic geology.

Shit storm ensued. While a few agreed with his comments, a whole heck of a lot did not.

Mr. Switek, in response to the hullabaloo, wrote back to Dr. Bakker and received a reply which he recently posted.

Personally, I commend Dr. Bakker. I think he's done a good job summarizing everything I think is wrong with how the vocal minority go about the defense of science. Once again, there were a few who definitely were not happy (Though, in this blog entry PZ Myers goes after both the original interview, approximately a month after it occurred, and the latest reply). Yet again, his readership froths at the mouth. This gem here by Etha Williams is one of my favorites.

Well, what other option is available for a theistic scientist? Either you have to distort reality and logic (creationists) or just compartmentalize and ignore reality and logic when thinking about religion (Bakker, Ken Miller, etc). Or you could just stop wasting mental energy trying to defend indefensible notions....

I like the false dichotomy she puts forth. Either you fully accept the truth and become an atheist, with the implication that you can then become a good scientist, or you're faced with two options. You can either ignore logic if you're a creationist, or you can compartmentalize. Either way, I believe the implication is there that theists really don't make good scientists. Her comment wasn't the first along that line in the comment section of that blog entry, and it certainly wasn't the last.

Religion As A Litmus Test?

Etha Williams boneheaded comments are typical of what you see in the commentary section of Pharyngula. She's even been bestowed an award by PZ Myers for her "excellent commentary" on his blog entries (which I think is more of an indictment of his blog than it is a testament). I don't know if I should be relieved that a lot of these comments seem to be made by people who don't have advanced degrees in the sciences (which appears to include the excitable Ms. Williams), or if that should concern me. At least under these circumstances we can attribute them to ignorance and the indiscretions of youth. However I do believe these reactionary diatribes do not bode well for future discussion between scientists and the laity. If this is what is to be expected, I'd say it's an alarming trend. It is also exactly this sort of "militant atheism" which Dr. Bakker was talking about. Nevermind that Dr. Bakker has probably done more for the advancement of science than Etha Williams and her ilk have done, or may ever do. The fact that he dared criticize them, and the fact that he's Christian, was enough to set off a series of shotgun blasts in the direction of religion in general. There were few criticisms of Dr. Bakker, there were more criticisms of religion in general. How the two must be inextricably intertwined is beyond me.

Nevermind the fact that since science never sets out to prove the existence (or non-existence) of a God or gods, one has to wonder exactly who is defending indefensible positions. Religion is a matter of faith. If you don't have that faith you're probably at a minimum an agnostic, or an atheist. If you do have that faith, you're probably at a minimum a deist, or more likely a theist. That faith however, is pretty much inconsequential when it comes to the proper practice of science. I believe Stephen J. Gould's Nonoverlapping Magesteria is in effect. For those wishing to get their heads out of their asses on these matters, I would recommend the National Academy of Sciences 1999 publication entitled Science and Creationism.

But what do we have instead? We have Creationists claiming that evolution is a farce, and instead of science claiming that evolution really doesn't have anything to say about the Bible, we have a few loud and vocal members of the community (who happen to be atheists) saying that people who adhere to religion are stupid. So much for addressing the actual issue head on folks! To make matters even better, some go so far as to say that religion should be eliminated. And then we wonder why Creationists have essentially waged war on evolution specifically, and on science in general? It's because some members of the scientific community developed verbal diarrhea and their vacuous clones ran off at the mouth as well.

Not only is this indicative of the lost opportunities that science has had to discuss matters with non-scientists, it is also a lost opportunity for those who have come under criticism to reassess their approach. Instead of taking Dr. Bakker's comments under consideration, they were summarily dismissed and the man was attacked instead. What a waste, what a shame. If members of the scientific community can't be expected to keep a level head in the face of opposition (whether that be data, ideas or opinions) who can we expect to keep a level head?

Primum Non Nocere - Part II

Was reading my copy of Microbe, which is put out by The American Society of Microbiology (ASM), yesterday and came across this article by Bernard Dixon. It's entitled "Questionable Experiments" and leads off as follows:

Imagine that you understand little or nothing about microorganisms, genetic modification, toxins in the natural world, or the biological control of plant pests. Now consider the following. A scientist tells you that he has been breeding venomous scorpion spiders in his laboratory. He’s also been cultivating some extremely infectious microbes, and he plans to alter them genetically so that they produce the same potent poison as the scorpion. The poison is called a neurotoxin because it attacks nerve cells, causing paralysis and death. The scientist now plans to produce astronomical numbers of his mutant microbes and release them in the countryside.

A lot of lay people would freak out. The reason being, they're not trained in the practices and principles which guide scientific research. They don't know about the safeguards which are put into place, and while they might be told about them, they can't relate to them. Sometimes they can't judge between what is safe practice and what they should be rightly leery of. It also doesn't help that with just about any scientific finding, there are going to be people who object to it. Unfortunately, a vocal few are of the "conspiracy theory" type and they will do their best to convince people that such research endeavors are dangerous, impractical, and will ... if allowed to continue ... tear at the very fabric of society, killing children, ruining crops, allowing millions to starve, etc etc.

In fact, the exact opposite will most likely be the result.

People can be naive, and if something is presented to them in a coherent and cogent form, they'll take it at face value. It's the first impression, and it takes a lot of effort to persuade someone that that impression was wrong. Which is why it's important that the scientist be there to give that first impression. If a "conspiracy theorist" (e.g., an anti-vaccine type) gets there ... woe be to science. Getting the fear out of that lay individual will be a nearly impossible task. I imagine there are a lot of reasons for that, but by and large it's rather simple, people don't want to consider the fact that they've been duped. If they admit that for one idea, they have to consider it for others. Sometimes it's just too hard to accept. This is why people fall for scams, and when they finally figure it out, rarely go for help. It's bad enough that they've been duped, they don't want to let others know about it too.

So, after they've adopted that first impression, they're probably not going to come to you (the scientist) for clarification. Especially after they've been warned that you're the source for current and/or future potential problems.

What can be done? Well, I think a lot can be done. Scientists need to be active in the community, they need to be active on the internet. Putting a face to a name is essential for proper and effective communication. Touch base with people who might be considered "customers". For example, if you work with swine pathogens, are you talking to the National Pork Producers Council? Are you speaking with local swine producers? It's not enough to be holed up in the lab thinking that your ideas will help advance science and eventually help people. You need to let people know what you're doing, and how it might eventually impact their lives for the better. In my experiences, while most people may not understand the principles behind molecular biology and/or microbiology (or any other science they're not trained in), they can understand the story the research tells. As long as the storyteller (i.e., the scientist) takes the time to explain it. Unfortunately, this is seen as a burden (for reasons which are unknown to me, since 99% of the scientists I know love to talk about themselves, and as an extension ... their research, if you give them an opening).

What is the current face of science? From my vantage point, at least in the biological realm, it's dominated by people who, while brilliant, are not necessarily in-tune with the rest of society. They take antagonistic approaches (ala P.Z. Myers and Dawkins) to beliefs held dear by the majority (e.g., religion for example), which is going to automatically result in that portion of society tuning them out. Where is the connection between these scientists, in their ivory towers, and everyone else? I don't see it.

A lot of work needs to be done to bring good scientific discussion to the dinner table. Unfortunately, I think it's a skill which isn't taught to scientists, and in this, the Age of Instant Information (Some of Which may not be True), it is a skill which is very much in demand. If we don't fill in the blanks for people, someone else will ... and it may not be filled the way we want it to be, or the way it needs to be.

Primum non nocere - Part I

Translated: First, do no harm.

For those involved in the many scientific disciplines, this is a phrase which should be considered throughout the facets of their professional (and personal) lives. Earlier I mentioned that scientists need to behave responsibly when communicating with the layman because, like it or not, they represent science and scientists in toto. Act irresponsibly, and you tarnish the rest of us. Now, I'm sure that some people will take the Charles Barkley line of defense (i.e., "I'm no role model") and claim that each individual (and their message) should be judged on their own merits ... but we all know that doesn't happen. Never mind that some of the very people taking up this defense probably tend to lump groups of people into convenient, broad brush categories themselves.

Doing harm can come in many forms, but they all have the same outcome - that being, they serve to turn off the individual who is confused, disparaged, insulted or otherwise offended. How does it happen? It happens by talking over the audience, refusing to acknowledge non-scientist inquiries, open mocking of certain groups, and through insults and harassment of opinions and people holding them. I doubt this list is comprehensive, but I think my point is clear. Some people grasp these facts, others do not.

Case in point: Science Blogs. (Well, there goes my invite). I've taken to reading as many of the 71 blogs there as time permits, I stop to leave comments where appropriate, and I truly enjoy a number of them. I think denialism is a great read, and I also enjoy Not Exactly Rocket Science, particularly because Ed Yong spends a lot of time using Research Blogging. As scientists, I believe we need to be cognizant of the fact that our duties don't stop at the edge of the lab bench. That data needs to be interpreted and made known to society. And the thing is, 99.9999999% (a rough estimate) of the population are non-experts in the field we're reporting on. So, part of our role is making sure that we can distill down the important points and give it in digestible chunks for the layman. A lot of blogs do that, and to that end, I think they do the scientific disciplines a great service. The more people are informed the better their ability to grasp the importance of the work, and thusly, the more likely they are to support those efforts (in terms of policy and public funding).

But then, there is the opposite side of the spectrum. These blogs are, IMO, more noise than actual content. They're more screed than treatise. It's almost ironic that one of the entries of the linked blog (on May 4, 2008) was this one, lamenting that television programming devotes so little time to factually representing science. In the meantime, this same individual is taking pot shots at religion, here, and here, and here, and ... well, you get my point. And when he is talking about science, which he admittedly does well, he can't avoid putting in that last jab. And while I don't have the exact site statistics, judging by the numbers of comments left behind in his posts, I'd surmise his blog is one of the (if not the) most visited blogs on the site. So one must ask, what good results from this sort of screed? Other than the fact that he manages to insult a large portion of the members of American society ... the very people who pay the taxes which contribute to his research funding (if he has public sources of funding that is) ... I can't see what good can come of him professing that this is a scientific blog. It is this very type of screed which no doubt led to his being manipulated by Ben Stein. He got suckered because he has a big mouth, and can't keep it shut ... and because of that, the rest of us have to mop up his verbal diarrhea.

In my time doing research, I have found that people, regardless of political or religious affiliation, are more than willing to help you do your research and therefore develop applications which can benefit everyone. I try very hard to put a face to a name, for both their benefit and mine. When you establish that rapport (which for me isn't the most comfortable thing I have to do, being an introvert), you open a number of doors for the betterment of your own scientific program. I don't bite the hand that feeds me, I don't insult someone just because I have a platform to do so, and dozens of people will laud me for it. What exactly would it achieve?

As a microbiologist who currently studies microbial population structures in agriculture, I study microbial relationships which have obviously developed over long periods of time. I am constantly constructing phylogenetic trees ... plotting the evolutionary history of the organisms I am using to develop applications for advanced agriculture. My customers, none of whom are geneticists or microbiologists and who'd I guess are mostly evangelical Christians given my location (and probably have a dim view of evolution, and a probably even lesser understanding of it), see this and don't raise a fuss. They know I'm here to see to their problems and recommend solutions to it. I don't go around insulting their religious beliefs because I know that to do so would only make my life harder. If you don't want to get jabbed by the horns, don't poke the bull with a stick! It's as simple as that. And in the end, when they need to understand evolution, my hope is that they'll remember their discussions with me and they'll come to me for a way to understand it. This way, everyone wins.

Unfortunately, most people remember the bad. Probably because the bad is sexy ... everyone loves looking at the train wreck. Bad news and drama sell. Unfortunately, drama is the last thing scientists should be feeding into. Alas, not everyone feels this way and as a consequence they wind up harming us all.