I don’t think it’s news that the media is completely science illiterate.
Probably would have been put to better use explaining how to pronounce Dr. Somethinggreek’s name…
Maggie resembles that remark…
Edit: [sarcasm]Maggie resembles that remark…[/sarcasm]
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!
That’s about the best endorsement a girl can hope for. Thanks!
I thought that was why they named it that. “Duon”=“Doh” (as in Homer’s familiar utterance). Or der, duh, uh-duh…
Does that mean we get to accelerate them?! Awesome. That’d make it real science.
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.
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.
I predict that anything that can happen in biological systems will happen. As much so for the genome as anywhere.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean ordinary journalism is any good at science - which was, I think, your point.
Incoming pseudo scientific wackos claiming duon magical properties in 3, 2, 1…
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.
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.
Thank you, Maggie, for pointing out the exaggerated claims. It’s not just the media misrepresenting the science: the article itself downplays previous findings.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.