Slashdot Mirror
Is Good Scientific Journalism Possible?
scida sends in a link to his blog post exploring the question of whether, roughly speaking, science journalism is an impossible task. From the post: "I have spent the better half of the past six months trying to understand one thing: how can you effectively present primary scientific literature to the general public? Is this even possible? ... During the past few months, I have spent entire days locked up in my office, writing my first manuscript to be submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. While doing so, I have come to realize the following: details can change everything. There are a number of assumptions I have been forced to make while analyzing my data, many of which are critical for both my methodology and the development of few of my arguments. Why? Often, the information I require simply isn't available (the studies haven't been done, or the studies that exist are based on assumptions of their own). Now, can someone unfamiliar with a particular field, nay, a sub-discipline of that field, recognize these assumptions for what they are?"
A couple of good examples of science writing for non-experts:
* Stephen J. Gould's books (e.g., "The Panda's Thumb") about natural history. He made a point of never "lying" to his students or readers. He believed that teachers only needed to fudge the truth if they didn't understand the material well enough themselves. His books are clear, informative and enjoyable, and they don't cut any corners on the science.
* Science News ( http://www.sciencenews.org/ ), which is one of the best examples of science journalism anywhere. I've subscribed to it, off and on, since the 1960s. (It's been published since the 1920s.) They're excellent journalists.
Public funding can be used to obtain private patents in this nation. Until such fundamental rules change there will be heavy pressure from administrators to impede open publication as much as possible.
I agree with you that current publication methods are a bit ludicrous; however, it will be at least half a generation before those in charge have any grasp of how to publish.
Right now, there already are a whole slew of online publications some of which are open access. The issue is one of prestige and acceptance. If I were to do major research, do I go to a newer publication whose reputation for peer review is still not well established or do I go with a big name. Having something in the New England Journal of Medicine is a big deal. It can establish a career for someone. At that point the fact that its not open access becomes a secondary concern - the journal is widely available to whom it would matter. This brings me to another point - elitism. It would have to be overcome before people will be fully willing to hand over access to these sources.
My experience has been that the resistance to open access runs deep. People question whether an open access journal could maintain the quality of the traditional sources.
When all else fails, try.
This is news:
"One person was killed in a 2-car head-on collision at the corner of 6th Ave. and 7th Street last night between 2 and 3 AM. The victim was a 33-year-old man. The name of the victim has not been identified pending notification of the family. The driver of the other car was taken to a local hospital. His identity has not been released."
Not news:
- Speculation about the accident's cause
- Advice to wear seatbelts
- Quotes or positions of any advocacy groups for or against any cause. Example: MADD says [the usual thing they say] about the speculated cause of the accident
- Any kind of race baiting related to the different races of the police, the drivers, or the people at the hospital. Did the victim die because he was of a different race than the ambulance dispatcher? Channel 5 says no (wink, wink), of course not.
- Predictions of the accidents in the future.
- Polls about how people feel about car accidents
- etc.
Real news tends to be boring. If it seems interesting, that's a sign it might not be news at all, or it may be essentially false. We've seen that on Slashdot. The stories that seem most interesting are most likely to be false.