On Research&#8230;

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
3 Comments »

Fifteen minutes of fame . . .

What’s more believable?

The announcement at a gala, premier event of a new primate fossil, touted as a “missing link” connected to human evolution, and acclaimed by its media-savvy, showmen-scientists . . .

Or . . .

The publishing in a formal, staid science journal that the fossil, along with a distant relative, is more akin to nocturnal lemurs and basically unrelated to humans. . .

Sadly, that’s the kind of dilemma faced by those who follow science in the media. It’s the unsettling challenge that modern research scientists now seem to be facing: Choosing between the newer broad, short-term public interest in the research, or remaining with the plodding, glacial pace of traditional science publication.

Most researchers will quickly say that they’d never sacrifice accuracy and fact for fame and the potential of fortune, but the episode of the Darwinius fossil earlier this spring, as well as other so-called “discoveries,” shows that the answers aren’t always so simple.

Comparing the news media coverage of the two aforementioned events seems to suggest where the public comes down in the battle between flash and fact.

The announcement of the Darwinius fossil, fueled by the opening of a new museum exhibit, the airing of a national documentary and the sale of a popular book, generated nearly 800 stories in the news media within two days.

But this week’s publication in the respected science journal Nature reported that a new early primate fossil, Afradapis longicristatus, and the earlier Darwinius fossil, belonged on a branch of the evolutionary tree far removed from humans. While the published paper basically disproved the claims that were so broadly hyped earlier this year, the research only garnered one-fifth as much news coverage.

Nature's representation of the primate family tree. Credit: E. R. Seifert, Stony Brook University

Marketing folks have long-known that being first with new information can often be more useful than being right. But that kind of mindset has usually been absent in science where the validity of the information has been paramount. Ironically, the nature of science is that the early “discoveries” are often proved less-than-right, if not outright wrong. But that’s as it should be – science is inherently self-correcting and our knowledge shifts as we gain more data.

But seldom do scientists ever use this evolution in our understanding to capitalize on the opportunities to mislead. So when it does happen, seemingly intentionally, as in the Darwinius episode, it suggests a new question:

What’s wrong with promoting findings quickly since other scientists will eventually correct whatever errors are made?

Plenty!

The public’s faith in the competency of researchers hangs in the balance in cases like this. And the fact that the public’s memory for detail is short is no excuse for “gaming” the system. Surveys continue to rank scientists high on the lists of those held in esteem but at the same time, the complexity of science in virtually every discipline is constantly doubling, making it harder for the citizenry to even begin to “understand” most science.

Instead, they’re left with a simple faith in the honesty of science, and of those who do it.

That’s way too valuable to risk on just a few minutes of fame.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
No Comments »

How it’s ’sposed to be . . .

As far as anthropology goes, 2009 is becoming a banner year for the field. While the scientists themselves may point to a host of discoveries, the lay public will likely only remember two – “Ida” and “Ardi.”

The announcements surrounding the unveiling of each of these two ancient primates filled approximately 1,000 stories each in the news media and held the public’s interest for days. But while they’re similar in the “buzz” they inspired, the two episodes differ drastically in how their stories were told.

They were, quite frankly an example of the worst and the best of communicating science to the public.

Ida’s story, spurred by its behind-the-scene marketing (here, here and here), filled the public eye late this past spring. “Ida”, a superbly preserved fossil of Darwinius masillae, dated back perhaps 47 million years and was unveiled at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, Norway. Described first at a much-touted press conference, the fossil find was also the subject of a two-hour documentary on the History Channel and a companion book describing its finding and study.

Book based on Darwinius fossil find

Billed as a “missing link” in human evolution, television ads promoted the discovery with claims such as “the most important find in 47 million years” and “this changes everything,” in hopes of increasing the television documentary’s viewership.

Information about the discovery had been withheld from science writers until the last moment, resulting in much of the reporting being done by journalists who lacked the basic understanding of the field, and who therefore were unable to critically judge the importance of the announcement.

At the time, researchers involved in the Darwinius effort defended their strategy , explaining that “pop bands and athletes are doing the same thing” as they did in promoting the discovery. And when, after a few days, knowledgeable reporters found a myriad of falsehoods surrounding the announcement, the public had already moved along.

Marketers could look on the Darwinius example as a grand success, given the attention it garnered. But it was explicitly the worst-case scenario for explaining science to the public.

Last week’s announcement of the fossil remains of Ardipithecus ramidus, however, was picture-perfect, an example of the best practices in science communications. Fifteen years after the first of ”Ardi’s” bones was unearthed in Ethiopia, a team of nearly four dozen researchers described their discovery through 11 scientific papers published in the journal Science. A handful of news stories, an editorial and the cover of that issue of the journal were devoted to the find.

Issue of Science featuring Ardipithicus

As with all content in the major science journals, science journalists had been alerted in advance to the upcoming publication and spent the week before publication preparing their reports, questioning experts and affirming the discovery’s importance. The release of the information to the public was flawless, thanks to the planning and partnership of communicators at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science’s publisher, and members of the research team.

According to Scott Simpson, an associate professor of anatomy at Case Western Reserve University and a member of the Ardi team, the scientists had agreed in the beginning on a set of guidelines about discussing the fossil find and the project.

“It isn’t like we were being spiteful by sitting on this information for 17 years,’ he said. “It’s just that we wanted to be right when we announced it.”

Speaking after a lecture Friday at Ohio State University, Simpson said, “Some people will pick up a fossil in the field and then run to the nearest city and have a press conference. Doing so can bite you in the ass!”

As for the Darwinius episode, he said, “There actually was an ulterior motive – self-promotion” on the part of the discoverers. “They went over the top and said that it (the fossil) rewrites human evolution. I don’t think they were being very responsible,” he said.

“I believe they tried to make it so extraordinary that they stretched the bounds of what they themselves knew to be true.”

Historically, anthropology has been a somewhat contentious field. Experts within the discipline will disagree passionately over interpretations and significance of new finds, and that is how it should be.

But in the case of this year’s two main discoveries, both offer insight – the latter as a model to emulate and the former as a strategy to avoid.__Earle Holland

UPDATE: The Discovery Channel aired a new documentary within a week after Science published its reports on Ardipithecus, but the good news is that the program’s trailers avoided grand statements and overblown hyperbole. Perhaps they learned something from the Darwinius experience.__EH

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
1 Comment »

Are huzzahs enough?

Perhaps naively, I’ve always thought myself open to new ideas.

Partly, I suppose, it’s because innovation is seen as progressive and positive, and who wouldn’t want to be seen as being receptive to new invention? More accurately though, it’s probably traceable to the general premise that one cannot embrace science without supporting new discoveries.

Regardless of the inherent bond between the appreciation of science and open-mindedness, there simply have to be limits. That’s my explanation for the fiercely visceral reaction I have to some of the efforts now underway that claim to be in support of science.

Science Cheerleaders

Topping the list should be the website “Science Cheerleader,” an effort by a former cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team to more vividly bring science to the public. Darlene Cavalier explains that her early years as both a college, and then professional, cheerleader and a job at Discover Magazine eventually led her to earn a master’s degree.

. . . I realized I need to combine the academic attitude of UPenn, the mass reach of Disney, and the in-your-face, pom-pom waving personality of a 76ers Cheerleader to kick-start the process.

I founded the Science Cheerleader to get the conversation going, rally the troops, solicit views from all sides and change the tone of science and science policy in this country.

Optimistic? Sure! Energetic and determined? Of course! I’m the Science Cheerleader!

The first stop at the Science Cheerleader website is a page offering a “Brain Makeover” that promises to reveal “what everyone needs to know to be a science literate” (sic). Eighteen little video vignettes fill that page with messages like . . .

“The universe is regular and predictable”

“Atoms are bound by electron glue”

“All living things are made from cells, the chemical factories of life.”

The USAToday-like factoids are offered by attractive young women in full cheerleader garb, replete with shaking pom-poms, in an effort to raise the scientific literacy of the website’s visitors.

But aside from acknowledging that some viewers’ will likely experience a sudden enhanced activation of their endocrine system, I can’t see what this will do to improve their understanding of science. Bare midriffs may have helped auto dealers sell more cars in the 1970’s but I hardly see how they’ll make quantum mechanics any less dense today.

Perhaps Cavalier’s project represents a street-savvy effort to foster a public “appreciation” of science. In recent years, the traditional goal of a public “understanding” has given way to the alternative “appreciation,” if for no other reason, to acknowledge the growing complexity of science. It’s far easier to appreciate than to understand, or so the logic goes.

Lord Paul Rudd Drayson

And perhaps that was what was behind the position taken British Science Minister Lord Paul Rudd Drayson last month when he debated a well-known critic of British science journalism, Dr. Ben Goldacre. The exchange, touted widely within the science communications world and still available on the web, was anticipated because the two speakers were diametrically opposed in how they saw the way the British news media’s efforts at reporting on science.

For his part, Lord Drayson was congratulatory of the reporting arguing repeatedly that the continuing coverage of science and medicine in that country’s newspapers kept the fields foremost in the minds of British readers.

Goldacre, who operates a popular website called “Bad Science“, however, saw the situation with a glass-half-empty view and pointed to the glaring inaccuracies, exaggerations and sensationalism that he said permeated their national science coverage.

Dr. Ben Goldacre

Drayson suggested any science coverage helped the cause and therefore should be applauded while Goldacre withheld tolerance – much less praise – for reporting that ultimately was wrong and misled the public.

And that, I guess, is the sad state of affairs that now exists.

We’re either torn between attitudes where we are so desperate for any attention given to science that we’ll rejoice at the mediocre and accept the inaccurate, or we demand a level of precision and fact that requires more from most readers than may be reasonable to expect.

Science, like most subjects, isn’t easy – it takes effort. Then again, most things worth knowing take work.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
2 Comments »

A matter of time . . .

There’s been a recent trend among the scholars and science communications’ practitioners to suggest that researchers and scientists should speak out more publicly in explaining their work. If more researchers were visible and vocal, the logic goes, the public would be better informed about the science affecting public policy decisions today.

On its face, that makes a lot of sense. But it is fundamentally flawed.

All things scientific have become enormously complex in the past decades. Grasping the implications that new research advances bring requires a basic understanding of the subject. How can the public seriously discuss the merits and risks of genetically modified organisms or stem-cell research if they don’t understand the basic biology of DNA, or how proteins and enzymes work in the body?

The gap between the public’s basic collective knowledge and the scientists’ understanding has become gargantuan. Bridging it requires more than just better presentation skills on the part of researchers.

But that concept – that scientists should learn to be better communicators – is at the core of a movement supporting “framing science,” and one of the country’s most vocal proponents of it, Matt Nisbet, is touting its benefits in an upcoming paper in the American Journal of Botany. A column last week in the respected Columbia Journalism Review focused on this issue.

The basic notion of framing is, as I understand it, that to effectively convey information to an audience of readers, viewers or listeners, one has to tailor the message so that it corresponds to audience interests. These “frames,” as they’re called, are the architecture by which information is conveyed, the structure around which facts and context are built.

In essence, the teller-of-the-tale determines the best path along which to lead the audience.

Where this seemingly logical approach falls flat is the fact that the “teller” plans beforehand where he/she wants the audience to go. That’s straight-forward persuasive communications, but traditionally scientists – and science journalists, for that matter – are supposed to be providing information, not swaying opinion.

In essence, doing so differs little from the current trend of marketing and “messaging” where a specific set of statements is continually thrown at an audience in hopes that with time and repetition, the audience will absorb the new mindset. As a tactic long used in advertising, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach. In the area of public health, for example, it is the wisest and most effective method available. We want the public to adopt safe activities and actions – our motives are transparent.

But that doesn’t apply for most of the sciences where the object is to uncover information and make it available to all. This issue of the intent of the story-teller is problematic for science.

But that’s not the biggest problem:

Simply put, most researchers simply don’t have the time to enhance their communications skills and, if they did, few have the time available to undertake the kind of evangelism to the public that these “science framers” would like.

In my response to the CJR posting touting the Nisbet paper, I wrote:

In 2007, more than 6,000 researchers responded to a survey by the Federal Demonstration Project intended to gauge how scientists spent their time while working on federal research grants. The report said then that 42 percent of the researchers’ time was now “devoted to pre- and post-award administrative activities – not to active research,” and that compliance issues — adherence to regulations, and the simple management of projects — stole time away from their doing the actual science.

And the case here at Ohio State University, for example, seems even worse concerning available researchers’ time. According to Julie Carpenter-Hubin, director of Institutional Research and Planning, the results of a 2007 faculty survey provide a clear picture of the challenge of faculty finding more time for public engagement.

According to the survey, university faculty say their typical workweek lasts 57 hours (for assistant professors), 56 hours (for associate professors) and 58 hours (for full professors). All faculty surveyed were either tenured or tenure-track.

Assistant professors report spending 36 percent of their workweek on research. Associate professors say they spend anywhere from 21 percent to 29 percent of their time on research and full professors say 31 percent of their time can be spent on research. The rest of their time, they said, was spent on non-research activities like teaching, meeting with students and preparing for class.

Surprisingly, both associate professors and full professors said that they spent 1 percent of their time “talking with the (news) media.”

The question rests with how researchers should spend their time. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press showed that the public’s respect for scientists and their work was substantially greater than it was for clergy, journalists, lawyers and business executives, in that order. One assumes that it is the work scientists do that’s held in such high regard.

What’s worrisome about all of this is the notion that some so-called experts continue to suggest approaches that are unrealistic. How are research faculty supposed to find the additional time to devote to more communications when their average workweek already surpasses the standard American’s by 25 to 50 percent?

Scientists are not opposed to doing more science communications.

But they’d much rather do more science instead.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
3 Comments »

Mere bumps in the road . . .

The news last week that the Large Hadron Collider, the massive particle accelerator deep underground at the European physics laboratory CERN, suffered another major setback seemed to garner a much milder response than some people might have expected.

Tunnel at the Large Hadron Collider

Officials running the huge device staged an impressive soiree early last fall for dignitaries and journalists to tout the near completion of what could be argued as one of the most complex construction projects of all time. And while all concerned understood that the event was mostly symbolic — that is, they weren’t “starting” the actual physics work – it was important then to signify what had been accomplished and to increase the anticipation for when experiments actually began.

But then disaster struck in the vast 17-mile underground tunnel when an explosion killed power to some of the huge superconducting magnets meant to guide the subatomic particles, damaging electrical connections and halting work leading to the experiments. Instead, all attention turned to repairing the damage and rechecking equipment. Those inspections yielded other problems with wiring splices that could limit the effectiveness of the giant superconducting magnets.

The verdict: The start of actual scientific work is now postponed until this fall and even then, the apparatus will be run at only about half of its planned capacity for some time until the researchers are confident all the bugs are worked out of the machinery.

What’s surprising about all this is not these unexpected delays and postponements, or even the stepping back from pushing the machinery to full power. Engineers and researchers alike will quickly point to the fact that massively complex projects like this will inevitably face delays and unexpected hurdles, and when they are encountered, caution and prudence is the only wise approach.

No, what’s surprising is that there has been no loud outcry about delays and cost overruns on a project that’s already taken 15 years and cost $9 billion. A look back at earlier big, expensive science projects almost always included loud voices when deadlines were missed and the price tags rose. The public, often fueled by politicians, complained over additional costs and seemingly unkept promises.

Consider the Hubble Space Telescope, for example.

Originally proposed to cost around $500-600 million, delays and construction problems forced a near tripling of that cost. When it was finally launched, the Hubble was seven years behind schedule and $1 billion over budget. And then came the problem with the instrument’s blurred vision which required a Space Shuttle mission to replace components and correct its “eyesight.” Add to that the cost of operating the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore and several “servicing” missions to the Hubble by the Shuttle and the total costs for the project as of this year has been estimated at more than $10 billion.

Where is the outrage that we’ve come to expect over the unplanned cost of major science projects like the Hubble program?

Perhaps in the current economic situation, with a global recession and governmental bailouts reaching trillions of dollars, the idea of spending more tens of millions on the project seems small potatoes in comparison.

The widely viewed Pillars of Creation image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.

More likely, it simply vanished in the awe and fascination that came with the wonderous images of the universe that Hubble has produced. When looking at the now-famous image of the Pillars of Creation, where massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust form the birthplace of stars, how can one worry about the price?

Hubble let us peer into the vastness of space, to see for the first time the far reaches of our universe and the magic of creation. In doing so, it humbled us somewhat, reminding that regardless of how serious our problems appear, we are but a speck in the cosmos.

The LHC should do likewise, peering into inner space and the vastness of the subatomic world, to seek out the most elemental building blocks making up all that we know and all that we are. And if it costs a bit more money and time, I, for one, am patient, anticipating the as-yet-unseen Hubble-like wonders it should bring.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Physics, Researchers, Science policy, Space by earleholland
3 Comments »

Sympathy ill-placed . . .

Last month, the publication The Scientist did something really weird. In its July issue, it devoted several pages and an editorial that, in effect, supported some researchers who had acknowledged their scientific misconduct.

The magazine story, “Life After Fraud,” detailed three cases where researchers recalled their experiences after being the focus of misconduct investigations by both the feds and their own institutions. One of the cases involved a respected Ohio State researcher, although the names in all three cases had been changed.

These vignettes, told largely from the researchers’ points of view, all explained that the individuals involved had signed voluntary agreements with the federal Office of Research Integrity acquiescing to the charges and agreeing to sanctions generally prohibiting their serving on review panels and receiving federal support for research, usually for a period of three years or less.

These findings were then reported in ORI’s own publications and on its website, as well as being cited in the Federal Register and other government publications. Those latter citations were the crux of these researchers’ statements that they were being victimized long after their penalty periods had expired, since the information was searchable on the internet.

The premise of the story was that these researcher’s admissions of misconduct, by signing the ORI agreements, were lifelong sentences since a simple internet search by potential employers routinely yielded details about their cases to anyone who was interested.

Sympathetically, the story suggested the consequences guilty researchers faced were too harsh.

Surprisingly, the magazine’s editor, Richard Gallagher, in an editorial flatly said that the punishments in these and other scientific cases were too harsh, and advocated a purging of the records after the short “sentences” ended. While one can applaud Gallagher’s sympathy and altruism towards these scholars, it seems odd that the boss for a publication claiming to be the “magazine for the life sciences” would so easily forego the traditional watchdog role that journalists routinely play.

But Gallagher writes: “It reminds me of the system present in US prisons, in which even after ‘serving their time,’ prisoners will still have trouble finding work because of their criminal records. But is it fair to compare felons to scientists who have, for instance, fudged their affiliations on a grant application when they were young and naïve?”

In fact, the rules and guidelines that govern oversight in cases of alleged scientific misconduct are extremely cautious and generous to those accused. The proceedings in these cases routinely extend for months, and in some cases years, before a finding is determined. The federal authorities rely on the accused’s institution, and therefore his/her peers, to investigate the allegations. Those investigations are staged in seriousness, based on the implications of the evidence, allowing accusations without merit to quickly crumble through lack of substance. And all such inquiries and investigations are kept secret until the point when a finding of misconduct is reached to protect the reputations of those who are subsequently cleared.

Information about the cases remains confidential until after an institution’s investigation has been completed and the findings are submitted to federal authorities for their concurrence. At that point, most researchers will have signed voluntary agreements agreeing to sanctions, as happened in the case of the scholars cited in this story.

What’s missing in Gallagher’s charitable stance is an acknowledgement of what the actual crime is – a breach of the public trust.

Our society has long-since agreed that people in certain roles may have a higher-than-normal obligation to the rest of us. Ministers must do no wrong. Lawyers and doctors have codes of conduct demanding professional behavior. Even journalists understand that a single incidence of plagiarism can cost them a career and embarrass them before tens of thousands of readers.

Why should researchers be held to a lower standard?

The truth is that scientific misconduct is an exceedingly rare event, and that rareness, in essence, is why when cases do occur they become such newsworthy episodes and remain in our collective electronic memory, the internet.

Few humans can say that they have never made a mistake, nor paid a price for it. As a society, we tend to be forgiving of those who admit their frailties and show remorse, and that’s as it should be. But scientific misconduct betrays both our trust and the culture of science itself.

Rules of behavior for researchers are clear for all to see. They just need to be followed.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
9 Comments »

Darwinius exaggeratus, part 2 . . .

In the future, scientists and science junkies alike will look back at the Darwinius discovery and recognize its place in contemporary science history. But their categorization isn’t likely to match the hopes and plans held by the cohort that stage-managed its unveiling last week.

Already, commentators are drawing comparisons between this fossil find and the cold fusion debacle of the late 1980s. [See our first take on this episode here.]

X-ray of Darwinius masillae fossil And while there is no question that the amount of coverage this ancient creature received was huge, the number of follow-up stories taking issue with how the news was released, and how accurate the researchers’ claims actually were, is large as well. Couple that with the hyperbole reeking from the promos touting Monday night’s airing of “The Link,” the History Channel documentary extolling the saga of “Ida,” as the fossil has been nicknamed.

The Darwinius authors have proclaimed that their coordinated publicity campaign, replete with the press conference at the American Museum of Natural History, a new book, a website and the TV show, were grand successes in efforts to increase the public’s interest in science.

Jorn Hurum, a co-author of the PLoS paper on Darwinius, told reporters, “This specimen is like finding the Lost Ark for archeologists.” And David Attenborough, the BBC’s famed naturalist, proclaimed, “The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it’s no longer missing.”

But now that most Americans have seen the images of the scraggly remains of this ancient creature, what they’re hearing now is how the claims about its importance were severely overblown, and the interest that originated from the announcement is shifting towards skepticism. Sadly, that growing disbelief isn’t limited to this episode alone, or even to paleontology. It is seeping into the public’s perception of what science is, and how trustworthy scientists are.

Consider the following:

Prior to the press conference, only a handful of select reporters got an advance look at the scientific paper, and they were sworn to secrecy until the unveiling. Normally, scientific journals will share advance copies of such papers with science writers who will have enough time to accurately report the story, not just parrot back statements offered at a press briefing. This insures input from experts in the field who aren’t a party to the research, providing balance to grand claims.

But in this case, the journal, PLoS One, didn’t release the paper in advance. The behind-the-scenes leaking of the paper to some select journalists was handled by Atlantic Productions, the company that had produced the documentary for the History Channel.

PLoS One’s managing editor, Peter Binfield, said in an email that the media “did not have access to the final paper,” adding that he “had no idea what version they [the reporters] did look at, but clearly it could have been any of the prior versions that the authors would have had access to.”

What’s strange about this is that most journals strictly warn authors about releasing pre-published papers to the media – although PLoS apparently has no such restriction – and researchers are universally skittish about leaking such material, for fear it might jeopardize its publication.

What seems clear is that an early version of the journal paper was handed off to Atlantic Productions by someone on the research team, contrary to typical behavior among scientists, to help facilitate the media blitz. In a later email, Binfield concurred that the most obvious conclusion is that an author leaked the paper.

Then consider “The Link,” the documentary that aired for two hours on Monday night. While reviewers reported that it garnered 2 million viewers – a healthy showing for History Channel programs – that viewership is far less than the normal viewership of PBS’ “NOVA,” the dean of television science programming.

What is, perhaps, most distressing was the overbilling of the program. Promos touted it, comparing it to other milestones in history, including the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President John Kennedy, and the Apollo program’s landing on the moon. The blustering was, quite frankly, far beyond the pale:

“A Global Event:” “Witness the most important find in 47 million years,” and “This changes everything.”

Such exaggeration doesn’t help promote science. It hurts it! Surprisingly, there were no comparisons to earlier scientific discoveries.

PLoS One logo But perhaps the most egregious act in this episode is hidden in the small type on the first page of journal article. It reads:

“Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”

PLoS’ policy on this reads:

“A competing interest for a scholarly journal is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, review, or publication of research findings, or of articles that comment on or review research findings. Competing interests can be financial, professional, or personal; hidden or declared; actual or perceived.

“Competing interests can be held by authors, their employer (whether academic institution, commercial company, or other), sponsors of the work, reviewers, and editors. They can arise in a relationship with an organization or another person.”

It also says:

“If authors know that organizations or institutions that have provided support for the work or for authors’ salaries have received any grants from other institutions or companies that have been involved or have an interest in the work described, such information should be declared.”

That seems pretty clear. The affiliation with the television documentary, royalties from book sales, even the indirect benefit that Hurum expressed to one reporter that increased visibility for this work would likely lead to support for future efforts – amounts to a probable conflict of interests on the authors’ part, or at the very least, the perception of one.

It warranted disclosure and they didn’t.

Even assuming the most altruistic motives for all concerned with this, they should have known better. The potential damage to research that exaggerated claims can bring threatens all of science, and anyone looking at the story of Darwinius as a case study in science communications should really think again.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
5 Comments »

The telephone call . . .

The telephone call in the middle of the afternoon was, frankly, a bit unnerving.

It was almost like when your first-borne asks about sex. Only with the sex question, most of us who are parents know how to gauge our answer, to duck and weave and estimate the right amount of information for that given moment.

Telephone ringing A somewhat hesitant woman’s voice asked simply, “I’m interested in getting started in research — can you tell me how to begin?”

As a science writer for more than 35 years, I clearly understand research in dozens of fields, having talked to countless experts and scientists about their life’s work. I can offer up a decent basic understanding of the human immune response, of tectonic drift, of quasars and quarks, and a healthy dose of anthropology. I know the scientific method and the idiosyncracies of the culture of science, and consider myself skilled in explaining research to the public.

But with that question, where does one begin? What field of research was she interested in, I asked.

“I haven’t really decided on that yet,” she answered.

Are you a student, I inquired hopefully? “No. I’m just interested in getting into research – how can I do that?”

I apologized to her for stammering a bit as I struggled for a starting point for the discussion. She seemed sincere, though immeasurably naïve. Her question, I explained, was sort of like asking how do you play the piano, or parachute from airplanes, or do brain surgery. Any explanation requires a common starting point and we, apparently, had none.

I explained that researchers are usually scientists or scholars who have studied, won academic degrees in specific fields, and have gone on to investigate fundamental questions that interest them. Some questions, I said, require more than a lifetime to answer – if then.

We chatted for a bit more. I suggested that, as a start, she pick a field that interested her, and a school where she could become versed in the topic. She could grow from there.

She was appreciative, or sounded so, thanked me and hung up. And after a bit of honest consternation, I admit, I recounted it to colleagues and we all laughed. But that episode hasn’t faded. It just hangs there in memory as a reminder of the void between science and the public.

Her’s was an honest call and question, and it deserved a decent answer. But a valid response required a shared understanding and she simply didn’t have it.

Teaching science Those who do science, as well as those of us watching from the periphery, often worry about the public’s inability to grasp science policy issues – stem cells, climate change, genetically modified organisms, evolution, and on and on and on. We throw up our collective hands and wail in wonder at the public’s preference for the simple over the complex, the pseudo-science over real science.

Surely, the citizenry has an obligation to invest the energy to learn enough about the complexity of the world, and science in specifics, if they are to be an informed electorate.

But we are also obliged to lend a hand to those who express interest, but who are sadly uninformed. Otherwise, how can there be positive change.

I hope the caller felt that was what I did.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Copy HTML:

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Tags: Researchers, Science Communication, Science policy by earleholland
4 Comments »

A WWAIL of a Week . . .

Last week wasn’t that good for animal rights activists. And that’s ironic since it was designated nationally as WWAIL –World Week for Animals In Laboratories – a time annually when people opposed to the use of animals in research are most vocal.

Two California activists, Lindy Greene and Kevin Olliff, were arrested Monday on felony charges in Santa Monica, CA in connection with alleged actions they took against UCLA researchers, despite a court injunction issued against their interference. Greene’s arrest is significant since she served as a so-called “press officer” for the Animal Liberation Front, an organization labeled by the FBI as domestic terrorists.
The acting director of the National Institutes of Health, Raynard S. Kington, went on record last week with an official NIH statement“deploring” terrorism against scientists involved in research using animals. Such statements of research from the NIH have been infrequent in the past and this might signal a tougher stance on the part of the federal agency most supportive of this kind of science.
And the FBI also added to its famed “Most Wanted Terrorists” list the name of Daniel Andreas San Diego, a fugitive for the last six years who is suspected of at least two bombings of biotechnology firms in the San Francisco area. That list also includes Osamabin Laden.
A protest demonstration at UCLA by activists objecting animal research, attracted only 40 people but a counter-demonstration across the street backing the scientists being attacked drew more than 400 supporters. The 10-to-1 ratio of supporters to opponents was reported widely by the national news media.

Local animal rights demonstration in front of OSU's Wiseman Hall. On the campus of Ohio State University, which national animal rights groups have targeted for decades, a local group of activists staged their own rally in opposition to ongoing research projects. On a day when 95,000 people jammed into the university’s stadium for the spring football game, the 15 or so protesters were noted by barely 20 passers-by.

As an apparent lead-up to WWAIL, PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, launched a national campaign aimed at one of Ohio State’s researchers, accusing him of doing fruitless studies on questions already understood, and killing hundreds of dogs in the process. The simplistic representations of what PETA said the research entailed were designed to infuriate the public and produce a flood of messages objecting to the work.

Sadly, all too many naïve people swallowed PETA’s statements without question and fired off cascading complaints. They either refused, or failed, to grasp the significance of studies designed to discover why some people – and dogs – are susceptible to a serious heart condition and why exercise has a protective/preventive effect against this malady. [Information about the study can be found here.]

Anti-PETA More distressing, however, is the fact that PETA’s opposition to this research was a weakly veiled effort at fund-raising, an effort designed to raise the anger of animal lovers and pick their pockets. PETA had orchestrated a mechanism on their website where folks could simply insert their email addresses and PETA would forward their objections to the university.

But perhaps coincidentally, some of those who used the email machinery received a solicitation message within a couple of days, citing the campaign against university research and asking for money. Accompanying the message was a picture of a sad canine in a small cage.

The dog, however, was not ours.

Organizations such as PETA, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Humane Society of the United States are on record as opposing all forms of research that might use animals, no matter how humanely. PETA’s chief, Ingrid Newkirk, has argued that no human life is worth the loss of a single animal.

No right-minded individual or organization condones animal abuse. We have laws against it and strict regulations to prevent it.

But if scientific progress is to be made now in the biomedical fields, we still need to use live animals in the process.

One day perhaps, science and technology will have reached a point where we have alternatives every bit as informing and valuable as animal use is today. On that day, scientists and animal activists can rejoice together.

But that time isn’t now, no matter what PETA and others may say otherwise.__Earle Holland

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page