I haven’t yet focused much on science in this blog, but I’d like to begin discussing it more. Science is an endlessly fascinating topic for discussion.
On Saturday, I attended the 2008 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference at the Sigma Xi headquarters. I met some cool people, attended some sessions on blogging, and had a great time. A lasting contribution of the conference may be a blogger’s code of ethics.
My group included a student from Rutgers, and many other students were also in attendance, along with 20 of the ScienceBlogs.com bloggers, research scientists, academics, and journalists from MSNBC, NPR, and Wired.
Perhaps the most interesting panel of the day was the “Framing Science” panel hosted by Chris Mooney (writer of The Republican War on Science) and his co-blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum, who talked about Science Debate 2008 and how to “frame” science to bring it to a wider audience. Their presentation was preceded by one from graduate student Jennifer Jacquet, who used Britney Spears as a lynchpin for her argument that the corporate media does not feature science, but NPR, PBS, The New York Times and The Guardian do. She seemed to be calling for some type of government regulation or ownership of media.
I agree with Rick McPherson that this should have brought in the “chicken or the egg” question (“Does the media give the people what they want to see, or does it force them to watch this drivel, when they’d actually rather be watching nature shows?”), and I tried to steer the conversation in that direction by asking why, if we’re talking about the evolutionary research of Stephen Pinker or E.O Wilson (which had been referred to by Mooney), were we ignoring their basic findings that people are social creatures, prefer looking at pictures of people to doing other types of activities, and that may just be how the state of things is going to be, wrought by evolutionary biology? In other words, are we going to force people to like science?
Jacquet replied, “Do we force children to brush their teeth?” Someone in the audience responded, [paraphrased] “We can’t use this cod-liver oil approach to science. That’s simply not going to work.” A jolly fine discussion ensued.
Many people in the audience seemed to dislike the corporate media. I wonder how many pay for a cable subscription each month or click on websites that talk about Britney Spears. I don’t do either of those things.
My point was easily proven in the next presentation, given by Jennifer Oulette of Cocktail Party Physics, when she got the best reaction and most laughs of anything in her presentation by displaying a picture of the TV character Monk. I recognized this Monk guy as a television character, but recognition ended there, and I’d never seen the show. Unlike me, it seemed that almost everyone in this audience (despite being against the “corporate media”) seemed very familiar with this show. I have vague recall of reading something about it, and yes, it’s probably a good show… but that doesn’t change the fact that showing a picture of the corporate media’s creation, Monk, got more of an immediate reaction than anything our very interesting and able physics presenter said about blogging. In the same way that “the public” may prefer a blonde lip-syncer to science, science bloggers may just prefer the TV character Monk to a presentation on science blogging. How’s that for ironic?
Brian Switek (also of Rutgers) disagrees that the public just isn’t interested in science and that scientists may have a communication problem. Personally, I liked Kirshenbaum’s approach to the question the best– all six-year-olds love science and can’t get enough of dinosaurs, but along the way something happens, and they just don’t get into it anymore. We have to take an approach to science that makes it relevant and interesting for everyone.
In the end, the best part was undoubtedly the free science swag…. books, journals, gadgets (I have reading material for ages now!) Second place goes to the “Framing Science” panel of Mooney and Kirshenbaum and the discussion it generated regarding Science Debate 2008 and a few other topics. Then “Cocktail Party Physics.” Finally, the discussions from earlier in the day, which followed the “unconference” format and didn’t really entertain me as much as the later moderated discussions– too many people would seize the opportunity to talk and run with it, never shutting up and not remaining on topic. I guess that’s what you get at a bloggers’ conference.
On an interesting note, Ryan Somma points out that not a single person at the conference smoked. Hmm. Perhaps scientists are smarter than the general public at large! 
Care to see a scientific study done on it?
Videos of the proceedings are available here.
Update: At least one person predicts that The New York Times will be bought by the ultimate in evil corporations… Google.
Tags: scienceblogging.com, NC Science Blogging 2008, Science Debate 2008, Science, Google New York Times
I thought the girl’s presentation was interesting as well. Is Britney Spears actually to blame? Or is she a creation of a society that for some reason wants to see her?
If the presenter studies science/biology, she would understand that people are inherently more interested in celebrity as compared to science. The so-called EVIL corporations are only giving the people what they want.
It is also only because of this corporate-controlled media that the blog world now exists- for example, if TV or other media were so perfect, there would be no need or demand for blogs.
James
January 23rd, 2008
The guy was dead on that 30% of people caring about science is not new, because most just don’t care. But that doesn’t matter unless you want to start controlling people.
They will say they are controlling you “for your own good,” but why not let you be free?
Small groups have always been able to change the world based on their intelligent will and ideas, so why try to bring those who don’t want to be involved into it? A guaranteed percentage of the population just won’t care.
JR
January 23rd, 2008
“My point was easily proven in the next presentation, given by Jennifer Oulette of Cocktail Party Physics, when she got the best reaction and most laughs of anything in her presentation by displaying a picture of the TV character Monk.”
By watching humans, the points just get proven again & again!
GA Researcher
January 23rd, 2008
Thanks for the link! I didn’t meet you at the conference but I recognized you when you mentioned you brought up the “humans are organisms that like to watch other humans” idea.
Just to clarify a little, I do think that there are some serious problems with science communication, but I don’t think that scientists are inherently bad communicators. The number of scientists who have begun writing/blogging/reaching out to the public runs counter to this. Improvements need to be made, but scientists still seem to suffer a little from the idea that they’re nerds who can’t talk to laypeople.
As for the point you brought up, I think that people will continue to be enthralled with tabloid media stories and be subjected to bad reporting, but as I wrote in my own post I think people are interested in scientific issues already relevant to their lives. I don’t think it’s a matter of forcing science on people but recognizing public interest in scientific issues and making the most of that. We can’t make anyone care about science if they really don’t, but hot topics like evolution, global climate change, stem cell research, etc. at least allow us to try and get good science to the public, and I suppose this is the area where most of the controversy over bad science reporting in the popular media comes in.
Anyway, it was good to see your follow-up to the presentation, and I’m glad you enjoyed the conference.
Laelaps
January 23rd, 2008
I agree with you, Laelaps, that people are interested in science when they see how it affects them. Everyone has that “Wow, that’s amazing” feeling when they hear a certain scientific story, and it just needs to be shown to people how it’s relevant to them– and they WILL be interested.
I don’t think that scientists are bad at communication, but sometimes you do need to think of your audience. The other day, I saw a group of “evolution outreach” photos to be used in presentations, many of which made fun of or outright insulted religious people. A large percentage of people are religious or consider themselves to be, so if you’re trying to reach out to them, you don’t want to insult them first and totally put them off! I’m not sure how someone could think that that’s a good idea.
Richard Dawkins is a shining example. He has put off the religious people I know, who feel like he’s insulting them and calling them stupid. They just don’t like him and won’t listen to what he’s saying.
People may agree with him underneath, but he is so abrasive with how he says what he does that the message he brings is lost.
There definitely is a lot of bad reporting in the media after new studies come out– exaggerations, misrepresentations… you really must go to the original study to get the full story. That’s where science bloggers come in now anyway
libertariangirl
January 23rd, 2008
[...] I care for kids, families, the sick and the elderly, working class, middle class, and every American. To end poverty and advance the American Dream, I am Libertarian Girl. « NC Science Blogging Conference 2008 [...]
Libertarian Girl » Blog Archive » Ledger
January 23rd, 2008
Very well written post! Great coverage and links!
My observation that there were no smokers got debunked by Abel Pharmboy. He noted that one conference-goer asked where it was appropriate to lite-up, and apparently Bora occasionally smokes also. : )
Still, that’s almost one percent of the attendees. Not bad.
Ryan Somma
January 23rd, 2008
Thanks for straightening that out! 1% compared to 20% of the population at large is excellent, if I do say so myself. That was a good observation on your part.
libertariangirl
January 24th, 2008
I read The God Delusion and thought it handled the issue with kid gloves. At least, as much as you can while trying to convince people they believe the wrong thing.
He’s no worse than anyone else out prosyletizing, so members of any faith which sends out missionaries has no right to be offended and is damned hypocritical if they are.
Engineer-Poet
January 24th, 2008
Good point about the missionaries. I was referring mainly to Dawkins’ TV appearances and documentaries, where he comes across as pretty abrasive.
I haven’t read his book yet.
libertariangirl
January 25th, 2008
Well, yes, I smoke (hangs head in shame) and some others do but only when drinking at the bar later that night, not regularly.
Also, I did not recognize the picture and still have no idea who Monk is. If I turn on the TV it is to watch some campaign-related stuff on C-span…
Coturnix
January 26th, 2008
LG, did you meet Tara Smith (of Aetiology)?
Engineer-Poet
January 26th, 2008
I did not meet her personally, but she conducted a presentation I participated in and seemed very nice and knowledgeable! There were too many people there to meet everyone personally… perhaps next time.
libertariangirl
January 26th, 2008
Sorry to burst the bubble about Bora being an occasional smoker.
I’m so sorry that we didn’t have a chance to chat (I agree that there were just so many interesting people but not enough time), but I do recall fielding your question from the front row during the framing science session. Thanks so much for being part of the conference!
Abel Pharmboy
February 11th, 2008
Well, that’s what next year is for, right? We all have to have something to look forward to
I’m still working through all the science-related literature I brought home, so the blogging conference continues in spirit…
I have also been enjoying reading your blog!
libertariangirl
February 13th, 2008
Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard
He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in —
Harry S Truman
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… Itestablishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.–
ALBERT GALLATIN of the NY Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we’ ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And they said, ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.’ –
Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.
We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out. –
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
furtive kingdom
February 21st, 2008
What I don’t get about libertarianism is -shouldn’t our tax dollars be used for good things, like giving poor people influenza vaccines?
Bill's Pub
February 22nd, 2008