#1 By: Maggie Koerth-Baker, December 14th, 2013 17:00
#2 By: Fascinoma, December 14th, 2013 17:37
I don't think it's news that the media is completely science illiterate.
#3 By: Alice Weir, December 14th, 2013 18:10
Probably would have been put to better use explaining how to pronounce Dr. Somethinggreek's name...
#4 By: mtdna, December 14th, 2013 18:20
Maggie resembles that remark...
Edit: [sarcasm]Maggie resembles that remark...[/sarcasm]
#5 By: Boundegar, December 14th, 2013 18:30
I disagree, I find her quite literate, though not actually infallible. Also, the duon is far more exciting than it used to be - it now sounds like a subatomic particle!
#6 By: Maggie Koerth-Baker, December 14th, 2013 18:39
That's about the best endorsement a girl can hope for. Thanks!
#7 By: Cynthia Bonville, December 14th, 2013 19:53
I thought that was why they named it that. "Duon"="Doh" (as in Homer's familiar utterance). Or der, duh, uh-duh....
#8 By: Immutable Michael, December 14th, 2013 20:32
Does that mean we get to accelerate them?! Awesome. That'd make it real science.
#9 By: mtdna, December 14th, 2013 21:28
I'm really sorry! My sarcasm didn't come through. Maggie is an excellent science journalist and I always look forward to her posts. I was responding to the ridiculous hypocrisy of the first poster simultaneously agreeing with a science journalist (Maggie) and claiming the media (Maggie by association) are completely science illiterate.
I would further disagree with the first post by saying I think science journalism these days is actually really good. It might not be evident in the daily papers and tv news, but tons is available if you look around even the tiniest bit. I like PhysOrg.com, Space.com, and New York Times online. Some magazines, like Scientific American and New Scientist, have free stuff. There's way more available than when I was a kid interested in science.
#10 By: DrRuss, December 14th, 2013 21:32
It's not uncommon for the press office that writes the press release to make the news seem more newsworthy than it is in order to get it picked up by editors. Scientists have a lot of trouble dealing with this kind of overstatement, whether it is about them, or they are reading it. This story exemplifies a good way to make the other people in your field stop talking to you (and favorably reviewing your grant proposals and submitted manuscripts).
Being a media-savvy scientist is just as hard as being a science-savvy journalist. But both are important for getting the ideas and excitement out effectively.
#11 By: heng, December 15th, 2013 04:09
I predict that anything that can happen in biological systems will happen. As much so for the genome as anywhere.
#12 By: Boundegar, December 15th, 2013 05:09
I agree, but that doesn't mean ordinary journalism is any good at science - which was, I think, your point.
#13 By: Víctor, December 15th, 2013 06:53
Incoming pseudo scientific wackos claiming duon magical properties in 3, 2, 1...
#14 By: Purplecat, December 15th, 2013 08:27
And that's actually a horribly serious problem.
We currently have a situation where good writing about science is available to people who already know a bit about science, and can actively seek it out; but in the non-specialist mass media the information is all too often sensationalised or just plain wrong, to the extent that they leave out the actual science in an attempt to be more "accessible".
This leaves people who have a passing interest in science, (or children who are starting to be interested in science) horribly misinformed, with the obvious consequences.
#15 By: chgoliz, December 15th, 2013 11:44
There's a reason I give gift subscriptions to Science News. Once you get people into the loop, most are appreciative and can take it from there.
#16 By: deathisastar, December 15th, 2013 16:01
Thank you, Maggie, for pointing out the exaggerated claims. It's not just the media misrepresenting the science: the article itself downplays previous findings.
#17 By: Maggie Koerth-Baker, December 19th, 2013 17:00
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.