Some quick thoughts in response to the session led by PropterDoc and Sciencewoman.
In some sense, this is really just an extension of the problem of managing your public persona as you go through transitions in life.
Maybe it’s something even deeper than that. Maybe it’s a piece of the project of deciding who you are and what kind of person to be.
Category Archives: Communication
Won’t someone think of the children?
Around these parts, folks sometimes get het up about issues like scientific literacy (or lack thereof) in the general public, public interest (or lack thereof) in matters scientific, and whether scientists have the chops to communicate information clearly to non-scientists.
It’s worth remembering that a large group of non-scientists are kids, and that they are actively sucking information from wherever they can get it — parents, teachers, television, internet, even books.
Ahh, books. We like books. Books can get kids interested and excited about a topic even in the absence of an adult expert or enthusiast in the vicinity.
So it’s a good thing if the books are actually providing information rather than misinformation. And this is why Miriam Axel-Lute at Strollerderby would like to have a word with children’s book authors. Specifically, she’d like them to cool it with their persistent mistakes about the natural world:
A serious contender for dumbest excuse of 2008.
He defended the views he expressed in many of his radio programs and said that, because he consulted for so many drugmakers at once, he had no particular bias.
“These companies compete with each other and cancel each other out,” he said.
The New York Times on psychiatrist and former radio host, Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose NPR program “The Infinite Mind” was cancelled after it was discovered that Goodwin failed to disclose more than $1 million in income received for giving marketing lectures for drugmakers.
Dr. Goodwin seems a little unclear on the concept of conflict of interest.
Authorial pecking order.
Some time ago, PhysioProf asserted that journal articles in the biomedical sciences listing two first authors are misrepresenting the reality of the involvement of those authors.
What science, engineering, and medicine topics matter most to you?
I’ve been asked by the National Academies of Science to let you all know about a survey in which they’d like you to participate.
Yes, you!
Here’s the blurb:
What topics in science, engineering, and medicine matter most to you? The National Academies are interested in developing useful and engaging print and web-based educational materials on the topics that you’d like to learn more about. They invite you to participate in a brief survey. You can find that survey here.
In the 2-minute survey you’ll be presented with a list of topics and asked to select the five that matter most to you. At the end, you can see how your answers compare with the results so far. And you can enter a drawing to receive a National Academies tote bag!
Let the National Academies know what topics you think they should focus on so they can be sure to provide you with materials that are informative and useful. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
Whether you’re a scientist or a non-scientist, if you’re reading this blog chances are that you think there’s something interesting, important, or fun about science. You probably also care at least a little about whether the public can find objective, reliable resources about complex topics. So take two minutes and participate in the survey. (Ten lucky survey participants will even win a National Academies tote bag!)
Bad cites. Bad science?
Do scientists see themselves, like Isaac Newton, building new knowledge by standing on the shoulders of giants? Or are they most interested in securing their own position in the scientific conversation by stepping on the feet, backs, and heads of other scientists in their community? Indeed, are some of them willfully ignorant about the extent to which their knowledge is build on someone else’s foundations?
That’s a question raised in a post from November 25, 2008 on The Scientist NewsBlog. The post examines objections raised by a number of scientists to a recent article in the journal Cell:
The ethics of a low-content retraction.
Over at DrugMonkey, PhysioProf notes a recent retraction of an article from the Journal of Neuroscience. What’s interesting about this case is that the authors retract the whole article without any explanation for the retraction. As PhysioProf writes:
There is absolutely no mention of why the paper is being retracted. People who have relied on the retracted manuscript to develop their own research conceptually and/or methodologically have been given no guidance whatsoever on what aspects of the manuscript are considered unreliable, and/or why.
So, asks PhysioProf, have these authors behaved ethically?
I think in order to get clear on what obligations the authors have to the scientific community, it may be useful to start with the question of what this kind of retraction communicates to the scientific community.
The challenges of dialogue about animal research.
Earlier this month, I wrote a post on California’s Researcher Protection Act of 2008, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law on September 28. There, I noted that some opponents of the law expressed concerns that the real intent (and effect) of the law was not to protect those who do academic research with animals, but instead to curtail the exercise of free speech. I also wrote:
I’m left not sure how I feel about this law. Will it have a certain psychological value, telling researchers that the state is behind them, even if it doesn’t actually make much illegal that wasn’t already illegal? Will it end up curtailing free speech, possibly driving more people to pursue “direct actions” against researchers because their attempts at dialogue are frustrated?
In comments on this post, Clinton raised some important issues about what is — and is not — involved in a dialogue, especially around the question of research with animals. Clinton wrote:
Why is it when you write “dialogue” what I read is “getting their way”?
There is no problem with the dialogue. Particularly in these days of the internets and blogz and all that, people who oppose the use of animals in research can sound off to their heart’s content. It is very likely they can find a venue for dialog with animal research supporters as well. They are free to lobby their local Congressional representative. With just a little effort they can probably get on their local nightly news. “Dialogue” is freely available.
People on the animal rights bandwagon who are “driven to direct action” are not being driven by a failure of dialogue but rather by a failure to get their way. It is a failure on their part to convince a majority that they are correct in their extremist views.
Why would anybody want to blog under a pseudonym?
I’ve talked about a number of these issues before, but since Abel and PalMD are having some conversations (here, here, here, here, here, and here) in preparation for their session at ScienceOnline09, and since I’ve experienced the blogosphere on both sides of the pseudonymous line, I thought I’d pipe up.
Some good reasons (from the top of my head) to blog under a pseudonym:
DVD review: Veterinarians – Speaking for Research.
Americans for Medical Progress has produced a new DVD titled Veterinarians – Speaking for Research. (You can get your own free copy at the Americans for Medical Progress website.)
You might consider this DVD a follow-up of their previous DVD, Physicians – Speaking for Research (reviewed here). However, the two are pretty different, perhaps suggesting some differences not only in the intended audiences for the DVDs (veterinarians vs. physicians) but also in the concerns of the segments of the public each set of professionals is likely to encounter.
In this post, I’ll first discuss Veterinarians – Speaking for Research. Then, I’ll examine some interesting ways it differs from Physicians – Speaking for Research.