Along the lines of two recent posts about silly science (here and here) is this article from today's Guardian about the possible problems with the public learning science (as opposed to pseudoscience) from researchers. Excerpt:
The famous philosopher Karl Popper once noted that genuine science and pseudoscience are difficult to distinguish. To the uninitiated they can look the same, sound the same and smell the same. If we ourselves, the so-called "experts", actively conspire to mix fantasy and reality, what hope can the public have of learning about genuine scientific discoveries?
From earlier in the article:
These questions highlight the unacceptable gulf between, on the one hand, the evidence-bound conclusions reached in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and on the other, the heavy spin applied by scientists to achieve publicity in
the media. Are we as neuroscientists so unskilled at communicating with the public, or so low in our estimation of the public's intelligence, that we see no alternative but to mislead and exaggerate?
Somewhere down the line, achieving an impact in the media seems to have become the goal in itself, rather than what it should be: a way to inform and engage the public with clarity and objectivity, without bias or prejudice.
Our obsession with impact is not one-sided. The craving of scientists for publicity is fuelled by a hurried and unquestioning media, an academic community that disproportionately rewards publication in "high impact" journals such as Nature, and by research councils that emphasise the importance of achieving "impact" while at the same time delivering funding cuts.
Academics are now pushed to attend media training courses, instructed about "pathways to impact", required to include detailed "impact summaries" when applying for grant funding, and constantly reminded about the importance of media engagement to further their careers.
Click to read the rest.
Comments