On Research&#8230;

Copy HTML:

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

Tags: Climate change, Researchers, Science Communication by earleholland
6 Comments »

Cibola, Eldorado, & the Holy Grail . . .

Part of human nature is to seek things beyond our grasp.

Such quests by modern men still persist, even in spite of all evidence against them. Perhaps the most common – perpetual motion machines – arise in the public’s eye every few years as contraptions that seem to violate the basic laws of the conservation of energy, but which actually don’t.

Fueling all such quests is the potential of great rewards for little effort. Such formulae seldom work.

Next year marks the 20th anniversary of one such crusade – the supposed discovery of “cold fusion,” the dream of nuclear reactions producing more energy than they require, and doing so with the simplest of equipment and an absence of harmful radiation.

Time cover cold fusion When Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced their purported success of achieving tabletop fusion with little more than an enhanced apparatus for the electrolysis of water, the world went mad. For days, the promise of cheap – if not free – energy glistened in the public’s eyes and dependence on fossil fuels seemed as archaic as gathering firewood.

Announced at a surprise press conference, the research hadn’t gained peer review and subsequent attempts at duplicating the duo’s work eventually failed. The clamor arising in the weeks following reflected the public’s discontent at having their hopes dashed and at feeling duped. The scientific community was less gracious and “cold fusion” has since become the descriptor for anything that seems scientifically shaky and questionably unorthodox.

That taint made last week’s announcement that a Purdue University engineering researcher committed scientific misconduct seem even stronger. News reports said that an investigation by outside experts ruled against Rusi Taleyarkhan and found that his published journal papers about what he called “bubble fusion” were intentionally flawed. While different from Pons’ and Fleischmann’s work, it still centered on gaining energy from a simple reaction, in this case, the bursting of bubbles within a liquid.

The Taleyarkhan case has groaned along for nearly six years before this apparently final ruling. And it, along with the original “cold fusion” debacle, might seem to be the nail-in-the-coffin for this kind of work.

Not hardly.

Next month, organizers expect researchers from around the world to gather in Washington, DC for the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion. Reporters are being wooed and bloggers are buzzing, and it’s a safe bet that some news stories will tout supposed new progress in the field of cheap energy production. Starving people will always grasp for crumbs, and in the current energy environment, who can blame them for desperately seeking a magic solution.

Prudent readers shouldn’t let their wishes exceed their wisdom.__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: Uncategorized by earleholland
6 Comments »

A matter of trust . . .

The culture of science and the culture of journalism are remarkable similar. Both seek answers. Both look for facts, and both struggle to explain the machinations of our world and society.

You’d think that both communities would revel in their affinities, but they don’t!

scientist illustration All too many scientists distrust the media, believing that journalists’ need to simplify can only misinterpret the subtlety of their research. Journalists, on the other hand, often think that scientists, immersed in their abstract and esoteric studies, fail to see the relevance that most people need in their news.

In truth, both views are skewed and inaccurate, but they have been firmly embedded in the folklore surrounding interactions between journalists and researchers. And that gives most dialogues between journalist and scientist an edge of uncertainty.

Those of us on research university campuses who interpret the science and explain it to the news media know the actual frailty of this folklore, but the hesitance of young researchers to interact with journalists still is influenced by elders in their field whose encounters with reporters were less than successful.

A new study published last week in the journal Science adds data to the discussion. A group of researchers from the five leading R&D countries – United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom and France – now say their research shows these meetings of journalists and scientists are “more frequent and go more smoothly than was previously thought.”

They surveyed more than 1,300 scientists from the five countries who had recently published in peer-reviewed journals and asked a bevy of questions about their subsequent interviews with reporters. All had been contacted by journalists at least once regarding their work, and some experienced up to five such calls.

journalist illustration One interesting finding was that nine out of 10 of the surveyed researchers seemed altruistic in their reasoning for talking to the news media. They said doing so “increased public appreciation of science,” promoted a “more positive attitude toward research” and fostered a “better-educated general public.”

At the center of these relationships rests questions of trust. Can the journalist trust the scientist to explain clearly and simply what people need to know? And can the scientist trust the journalist to include the precision, context and accuracy that science requires?

The new study suggests the answer to both is yes, and that’s a good thing for both camps, as well as for the public.

But with trust in the balance, an ABC News medical producer who had an advance, embargoed copy of the study from the journal emailed a large list of information officers at American medical centers, citing the study and arguing that it supported more open communications between reporters and their medical researchers.

His actions in breaking Science’s embargo on the content and sharing it a day before publication violates that trust and should make those who received his message wary.

Some things change . . . some things don’t.__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 »

Not on tonight’s newscast . . .

The paradox of science writing is often that the more you write about a field of research, the more intrigued you become. Common sense suggests that familiarity breeds boredom, but that’s seldom the case with research.

I’ve spent more than a quarter-century writing about the work of Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and research partner/husband Ronald Glaser and their quest to understand how psychological stress affects the human immune system. After a dozen and a half stories now, I’m as enthralled as ever.

Scientific Journals The latest findings, published in the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, and headed by one of their graduate students, Jean-Philippe Gouin, reinforce, in part, what our mothers told us growing up: Control your anger!

The study of nearly 100 volunteers showed that people whose anger control was weak – either they exploded in rage or “swallowed” their anger – had higher levels of the cytokine cortisol in their blood.

And that increase in cortisol contributed to wounds healing more slowly.

The researchers hoped that teaching relaxation techniques to the more angry volunteers might speed up their healing, but the study results showed it didn’t help.

As basically interesting as this work is, you won’t see much currently in the news media about it, sadly.

Newscast illustration That’s because the published paper on the work somewhat slipped into the literature, perhaps unnoticed by many of us on watch for interesting papers as they appear.

Our monitoring of the databases listing new research publications unveiled this paper only last week, even though the journal publication actually emerged last December.

The news media that cover medical advances are more fickle now than ever. What they consider “news” really has to be “new,” and a paper that’s six months old — regardless of its significance – will be supplanted by something published in the last week or two.

And with the number of scientific journals multiplying like rabbits, keeping track of all that’s new and important is sadly a losing battle for those of us who try. And the lack of news coverage for research that deserves it hurts us all in the end.__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 by earleholland
5 Comments »

What writing teaches . . .

When we post news releases, it’s always hard to judge what the response to them will be. Some flop like a fish out of water while others far exceed our expectations. But a recent story elicited a truly unique response.

IM clients Shortly after we posted a story about the positive affects of instant messaging (IM) in the workplace, researcher R. Kelly Garrett and I were contacted by a staffer from a state agency in New York. Workers and managers there were at odds over installing instant messaging software because of arguments for and against its use. The worker requested a copy of the original study so that he could convince the agency to start using IM.

That request was unexpected, to say the least. But my personal reaction since speaking with him has been even more unexpected.

It’s easy to forget how much I can impact my coworkers. While I can readily drop in and ask questions when they are just down the hall, it’s also easy to forget how much that interrupts their workday. A conversation over IM or a quick email takes just a few moments, but a face-to-face conversation inevitably lasts longer and can get off topic easily.

And the success of dropping in is always unpredictable. There’s the hope that the person will in fact be in their office when you drop in and they have time to talk. But even if they do, there’s always the question of how much of an intrusion you are.

A phone call here, a person dropping by to chat there, it all adds up to more interruptions and less work done in the end.

Since writing that story, I’ve changed the way I communicate with my coworkers. Whenever possible, I use email to see when they are available instead of dropping in.. I keep my conversations brief and on topic. That way, I know my impact on coworkers is kept to a minimum and the office runs smoother on both ends.

As writers, we try to bring information to people. We are challenged every day to impact lives whenever possible with our stories. Instead, we often take more from our stories than the people we are trying to inform.

Often, we are the ones affected by our own words.__Jenna McGuire

#

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page