Standing up for science in public

Posted on 22 Jul 2009 by Maxine Clarke

Reporting of scientific research is sometimes exaggerated or at worse inaccurate. Researchers need to change this and have the power to do so. So states the August Editorial in Nature Immunology (10, 795; 2009). Although attention-grabbing headlines might increase subscriptions or traffic to newspaper websites, such reporting is irresponsible to the public and to science in general. Even if the article itself is more balanced, many readers never get much beyond the headlines, which include: "Man flu is not a myth; “Burger fellas firing blanks”; red wine is a “cancer-busting antioxidant”; and a 47-million-year-old fossil of a lemur-like animal is a “missing link” in human evolution. Although the Editorial gives some pessimisitic examples of science journalism, it also reports some better news of initiatives to which scientists can contribute. “Several websites that critique the scientific press have started to evolve. In the UK, the National Health Service provides an ”https://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx">unbiased and evidence-based analysis of health stories that hit the media. HealthNewsReview.org is a website dedicated to improving the accuracy of news stories about medical treatments, tests, products and procedures. The Yale Environment 360 website provides unbiased opinions from scientists and journalists on issues such as climate change. These are just a handful of examples." In addition, organizations such as the Voice of Young Science network are providing advice for researchers on how to stand up for science in public and correct misinformation in the mass media.

Holiday reading suggestions from Nature Methods

Posted on 13 Jul 2009 by Maxine Clarke

The Editorial in the July issue of Nature Methods is the journal’s popular annual round up of summer reading (Nat. Meth. 6, 471; 2009). According to the Editorial, for those who look hard enough there are a few good fiction books to be found with refreshingly realistic biologists as central characters in laboratory settings. A mix of the old and the new follows, including brief accounts of Cantor’s Dilemma by Carl Djerassi; Intuition by Allegra Goodman; Long for this World by Michael Byers; Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis; Experimental Heart by Jennifer Rohn; and Mendel’s Dwarf by Simon Mawer.

At the journal’s Methagora blog, Allison Doerr emphasizes one benefit of science-in-fiction: as a “medium for overturning stereotypes about scientists, and for getting more people interested in science and for educating them about what scientists do.” Comments and suggestions of good science-in-fiction from readers are welcome at Methagora.

Nature Methods’ previous science-in-fiction recommendations.

NSMB on US visa procedures for scientists

Posted on 09 Jul 2009 by Maxine Clarke

The US State Department promises to accelerate the visa process for foreign graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, a promise welcomed by Nature Structural & Molecular Biology in its July Editorial (16, 677; 2009). The Editorial decries the occasions when researchers have been severely delayed in trying to obtain or renew visas, leaving some stranded and others unable to travel to the United States for work or to attend scientific meetings.

The US State Department is now streamlining its procedures, aiming (eventually) to deal with routine requests within 2 weeks, an improvement on the current reported 4 months’ average delay for applicants from China, for example. The Editorial concludes: “We must continue to attract and retain the best and the brightest from all over the world if we are going to retain America’s global competitiveness, and reducing visa-processing delays is definitely a step in the right direction. If we don’t, America’s loss will be the rest of the world’s gain.”

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology journal home page.

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology guide to authors.

June highlights from Nature Biotechnology

Posted on 25 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

Nature Biotechnology’s June issue contains several articles of particular interest to scientists as communicators, authors and entrepreneurs. Here are a few highlights:

Nature Biotechnology 27, 514 – 518 (2009).

Science communication reconsidered.

Tania Bubela et al.

As new media proliferate and the public’s trust and engagement in science are influenced by industry involvement in academic research, an interdisciplinary workshop provides some recommendations to enhance science communication. Among these are that graduate students need to be taught about the social and political context of science and how to communicate with the media and a diversity of publics; that the factors contributing to media hype and errors (largely of omission) are explicitly recognized to allow science institutions and media organizations informed communication policies; research on science communication should be expanded to include online and digital media; more investment in the systematic tracking of news and cultural indicators, including traditional news outlets but also radio, entertainment TV, religious media, the web and new documentary genres; and a new ‘science policy’ beat in journalism courses to fill in the gaps between the technical backgrounders preferred by science writers and the conflict emphasis of political reporters. Finally, the authors argue, if there is a major threat to science journalism, it is that science journalists are losing their jobs at for-profit news organizations; new models of support for science journalism are needed, in which online digital formats blend professional reporting with user-generated content and discussion.

Nature Biotechnology 27, 528-530 (2009):

Maters of their universe.

Genentech—the biotech venture that launched a thousand companies—is no longer its own master. In March, majority stakeholder Roche reached an agreement with the South San Francisco, California–based company under which the Swiss drug maker would take over the biotech for $46.8 billion. But many remember those first years when a small team of bright, intellectually disciplined young scientists—often rowdy and personally eccentric people—got the company up and running. Randy Osborne and Laura DeFrancesco caught up with a few of those pioneers to talk about that era, their time and how they felt leading the charge.

Nature Biotechnology 27, 531 – 537 (2009).

Wasting cash—the decline of the British biotech sector.

Graham Smith, Muhammad Safwan Akram, Keith Redpath & William Bains

Undercapitalization and overgenerous boardroom compensation for management have been major contributors to the poor performance of UK biotech. Despite historic leadership in European biotech, the UK’s industry has suffered a near collapse in the past two years and now has little private or public investment and no candidates for world-class companies. Why do shareholders allow UK public biotech companies to accumulate top management that pays itself so much, is unmotivated to drive shareholder value and as a consequence apparently drains the company of resources, notably cash? These questions, and others, are addressed in the feature.

Nature Biotechnology website.

Nature Biotechnology guide to authors.

Nature Biotechnology conference programme.

Nature Biotechnology focuses and supplements.

Responsible nanotechnology research

Posted on 23 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

Various codes of conduct have been proposed for nanotechnology —and in the June issue of Nature Nanotechnology (4, 336; 2009), Richard Jones examines what they mean for individual researchers, particularly in the light of the European Commission’s code, aimed at academic research rather than at businesses and other commerce.

“How is responsibility divided between the individuals who do science, and the organizations, institutions and social structures in which science is done? There’s a danger that codes of ethics focus too much on the individual scientist, at a time when many scientists often feel rather powerless, with research priorities increasingly being set from outside and with the development and application of their research out of their hands. In this environment, too much emphasis on individual accountability could prove alienating, and could divert us from efforts to make the institutions in which science and technology are developed more responsible.

Scientists, however, should not completely underestimate their importance and influence collectively, even if individually they feel impotent. Part of the responsibility of a scientist should be to reflect on how to justify one’s work, and how people with different points of view might react to it, and such scientists will be in a good position to have a positive influence on the various institutions they interact with, such as funding agencies. But we still need to think more generally about how to make responsible institutions for developing science and technology, as well as responsible nanoscientists.”

About Nature Nanotechnology.

Thursday 25 June: Women in Science, Engineering and Technology – and the recession

Posted on 19 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology is hosting an evening of speakers and discussion on Thursday 25 June at the Institute of Physics,London, 6pm – 8.30pm (approx). There are some spaces left – men and women are very welcome, but booking in advance is essential.

The discussion:

Women in Science, Engineering and Technology – and the recession

Is gender equality key to recovery?

What is the impact of the recession on women in science, entineering and technology professions? We’ll look at the role of these disciplines in economic recovery, whether gender equality become a luxury in a recession, and the place of women in the new employmnet landscape that emerges.

Speakers include Ruth Sunderland (chair), Business Editor at the Observer; Anne Pettifor, an expert commentator and campaigner on financial systems, author of the Green New Deal and the Debtonation blog; Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, also a blogger; Mandy Clarke (Halcrow Ltd); Professor Ursula Martin (Queen Mary University of London); and Annette Williams (Director of the UK Resource Centre)

There will be refreshments and networking before and after. The meeting is upstairs at the Institute of Physics, but places are limited and prior booking is essential by email or by telephone (+44) 01274 436485.

About UKRC.

Incentives needed for science outreach, says Nature Neuroscience

Posted on 17 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

In its June Editorial Encouraging science outreach, Nature Neuroscience (12, 665 ; 2009) responds to US President Obama’s recent call for more scientist involvement in education. Science outreach programs are very welcome, states the Editorial, but to be effective, they must include incentives for teachers and better training for scientist volunteers if true change is to be achieved.

According to statistics released by the US Department of Education at the end of 2008, neither US fourth or eighth graders showed any detectable change in science achievement in 2007 compared to 1995; and only 28% of US high school students are well prepared for college-level biology. Initiatives to bring professional scientists into the classroom have assumed that this involvement will provide better science content and allow students to imbibe an inquiry-based learning process. They should also benefit scientists and science, for example by encouraging public discussion of issues such as use of animals in experiments or ethics of stem-cell research.

Scientists are keen to become more involved in these processes.The US Neuroscience Public Education and Communication Committee surveyed members in 2007, finding that 50% of respondents would be interested in participating in educational outreach. The organization has launched the NERVE virtual encycloportal, maintains a list of scientists interested in high-school involvement, and has announced a wiki initiative aimed at making basic neuroscience information more accessible to educators and pupils. Several universities run outreach programmes with their local schools—volunteering scientific expertise at science fairs, running teacher-training programmes or arranging for scientists to visit classrooms.

The Editorial goes on to point out that many schools and teachers lack the resources to reform their science curricula, and that many scientists do not have the skills to educate and communicate effectively with many students. "Reforming how science is taught in schools, and the amount of it that is taught, will ultimately depend heavily on how many teachers think that scientists can contribute something to the primary and secondary education process and who thus incorporate those contributions into their lessons. Given the current burdens on educators, teachers need to be better rewarded for efforts to implement a more inquiry-based culture in their classrooms. For the most part, such changes will have to come from within the education system……to be truly successful at engaging children, scientists must be better trained to teach and communicate with the public. They also should be rewarded for participating in these efforts; one option would be to give young scientists teaching credits for participating in these outreach efforts. Designing training programs that would help young scientists acquire these skills and rewarding young scientists for sacrificing part of their time at the bench to participate in educational outreach would go a long way toward building effective teacher-scientist partnerships. "

Society for Neuroscience core concepts: essential principles of neuroscience.

Nature Neuroscience journal homepage.

About Nature Neuroscience.

Nature Neuroscience guide to authors.

Sense About Science petition on the law and scientific discussion

Posted on 04 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

This is the text of an online petition on the Sense About Science website:

The law has no place in scientific disputes

We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children’s ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

If you would like to find out more, and sign the petition, please visit Sense About Science.

Comments from some of the signatories can be found here.

Nature News 3 June 2009: Science writer will appeal libel case ruling.

Nature Network: Using the law to stifle scientific debate.

Reciprocal Space blog: Keep the libel laws out of science.

Nature Network bloggers’ forum: A message to Nature Network users.

The Nature Big Science Debate: A Biological Century?

Posted on 03 Jun 2009 by Maxine Clarke

On Monday 8 June, Nature is hosting The Big Science Debate: A Biological Century? The event starts at 7 p.m. at Kings Place 90 York Way, London NI. Physics, biology and chemistry have all helped define the twentieth century. Many world-changing innovations from physics include electric power, the microchip and the internal combustion engine. In biology and chemistry, an agricultural revolution has helped to feed a growing population. But some of these advances have also helped to create climate change and a rate of species-loss not seen since the last mass extinction. What will physics and biology look like 50 years from now? And what might the impacts be?

Join three distinguished panellists — a physicist, a biologist and a historian — as they cast their gaze into the future of science, and its possible impacts. Will we resolve the riddle of dark matter and dark energy, and will string theory remain the best candidate for unifying the forces of nature? Will stem cells have fulfilled their promise and what of the potential of genetically modified crops in agriculture?

Panellists:

• David Edgerton, Professor of the History of Science, Imperial College London

• Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine, University College London

• Alison Wright, Chief Editor of Nature Physics

Chair: Ehsan Masood, Acting Chief Commissioning Editor, Nature

Host: Nick Campbell, Managing Editor, Nature

For more info on The Nature Debate series, please email the organizers.

Tickets are available online, by email or via the King’s Place Box Office on +44 (0)20 7520 1490.

Kings Place, and how to get there.

Dangers of scientific publicity machines

Posted on 28 May 2009 by Maxine Clarke

A hyped-up fossil find highlights the potential dangers of publicity machines, according to one of the Editorials in today’s Nature (459, 484; 2009 – free to access online). The Editorial describes last week’s publication of paper describing a 47-million-year-old fossil primate with a remarkable degree of preservation, which quickly led to enormous media and internet coverage, including claims that the fossil is a “missing link” in human evolution. The Editorial describes how, "in the paper the authors explicitly state that Darwinius masillae “could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids”. The authors also refrain from claiming that the fossil changes our understanding of primate evolution."

But the circumstances surrounding the paper’s publication were anything but normal. Before the paper had even been submitted, a television documentary and an accompanying book about the find had been commissioned; a week publication of the paper, the book is out and the documentary has been aired on TV in several countries. The Editorial continues:

“Both book and documentary include the the suggestive words ‘The Link’ in their titles. A press release associated with the New York press conference at which the fossil was first officially described claimed that the fossil represents revolutionary changes in understanding. The History Channel website calls the find a “human ancestor”, and the BBC website describes it as “our earliest ancestor”.

To be fair, the authors’ claims at the press conference were appropriately measured. Nonetheless, the researchers were fully involved in the documentaries and the media campaign, which associate them with a drastic misrepresentation of their research.

Another damaging aspect of the events was the unavailability of the paper ahead of the press conference and initial media coverage. This prevented scientists other than those in the team from assessing the work and thereby ensuring that journalists could give a balanced account of the research.

There is no reason to think that PLoS ONE’s editors and reviewers did less than their duty to the paper. Nonetheless, the clock was ticking at the time of submission. Nature has over the years received occasional offers of papers associated with television documentaries, and the offers usually come with broadcast dates attached. Where the refereeing process might have been compromised, we have always said no to these papers. When time is tight, there is a risk that the broadcast will go out even if any problems uncovered by peer review cause the paper to be delayed or rejected.

In principle, there is no reason why science should not be accompanied by highly proactive publicity machines. But in practice, such arrangements introduce conflicting incentives that can all too easily undermine the process of the assessment and communication of science."

Amid all the vast quantity of media and internet coverage of this research, I highly recommend this excellent post, ‘Why Darwinius is not our ancestor’, by Karen James at her Data Not Shown blog. I also recommend this Nature Network blog post by senior Nature editor Henry Gee.

Nature journals’ embargo policy.

Nature journals’ policy on confidentiality and pre-publicity.

nature.com blogs

Category Archives: Public and media