Bench Press

Sorry for the late post everyone between lab and March Madness (UCLA ftw!) it’s been a hectic couple days. Despite all that I wanted to write a quick post about a news feature on science journalism over at Nature by Geoff Brumfiel. Brumfiel’s article discusses the rapid decline of science journalism and questions whether science blogging can step in to fill the role.

It’s very well written and brings up several interesting points which are already being discussed all over the blogosphere. One idea in Brumfiel’s article really caught my attention and that is that since science journalism is atrocious to begin with, we’re better off without it. Larry Moran’s comment that “[m]ost of what passes for science journalism is so bad we will be better off without it” is sentiment that’s apparently shared by many bloggers and while I don’t disagree that a lot of what passes as science journalism is poor (thanks to a variety of issues e.g. dwindling budgets, lack of writers with legitimate science backgrounds) I can’t agree with the sentiment that society would be better off without some form of mainstream science journalism. Regardless of their failures, mainstream science journalism at it’s worst raises awareness of scientific endeavors within the general public and at it’s best ought to serve as a legitimate watchdog for scientific misconduct.

Even if hype and marketability play a major role in the presentation of science news stories, the exposure, discussion, and potential inspiration from scientific breakthroughs presented in the mainstream media outweigh much of the typical issues (e.g. inaccuracies, oversimplification, and generalizations) that scientists have with scientific journalism. I became curious about science by getting a taste from mainstream scientific journalism as a young student and I’d hate to see that possibility disappear.

The mainstream media’s science coverage is definitely flawed but that does not provide a necessary and sufficient justification for getting rid of mainstream science journalism in it’s entirety. Improvements can and should be made, however as discussed by Brumfiel’s article this will ultimately require a give and take between journalists and scientists. The editorial introduction to Brumfiel’s article puts it best:

[I]n today’s overstressed media market, scientists must change these attitudes if they want to stay in the public eye. They must recognize the contributions of bloggers and others, and they should encourage any and all experiments that could help science better penetrate the news cycle. Even if they are reluctant to talk to the press themselves, they should encourage colleagues who do so responsibly. Scientists are poised to reach more people than ever, but only if they can embrace the very technology that they have developed.

In the end as Bora Zivkovic astutely states “[s]omebody has to actually be paid to write about things as they come out”. There will always be a need for a “professional” science journalist of some sort and I think scientists can play a large role in helping these journalists be science journalists. The decline of mainstream journalism in it’s current incarnation provides a grand opportunity for scientists to help fix the problems that we currently see. The movement of bloggers into print media and John Timmer’s work at Ars Technica are just two examples of how scientists can begin making an impact on the scientific journalism establishment. Participation in the discussion and providing new ideas will ultimately help more than happily dancing on the grave of that drivvle most scientists view scientific journalism as.

Because many science bloggers are practicing scientists or experts in their field, they can provide a unique educational bridge between academia and the public and distill important experimental findings into an accessible, interactive format. Yet academic institutions have been slow to appreciate blogs as valuable mediums for facilitating scholarly discussion, illustrated by the lack of institutional blogs or blogs by established academics. It is true that few quality-control or vetting mechanisms exist to help readers evaluate a blog, which typically earns its reputation based on the blogger’s credentials and reader feedback. Yet both academic institutions and blogs aim to engage and educate the public and advance scientific knowledge and discussion. By combining the credibility of institutions—trusted gate-keepers for scientific truth—with the immediacy and networking infrastructure of blogs, we believe that these shared goals can be better served with benefits to both partners.

An excerpt from a nice paper by Shelley Batts, Nick Anthis, and Tara C. Smith over at PLoS Biology discussing blogging’s potential in academia.

The Internet is not the first thing people think of when they think of a technological improvement that has dramatically changed science. This is because most people think of the ‘net in terms of the services that it provides (e.g. “I found a cool science video on YouTube” or “I found my soulmate on MySpace”), the true impact of the Internet on science is a lot deeper than that, for two reasons:

1. The Internet lets scientists access information from anywhere quickly and cheaply. Before the ‘net, you would have to make expensive long-distance phone calls/faxes or wait ridiculously long times for “snail mail” to get access to the latest scientific findings or to engage in a meaningful scientific discussion with your peers. Today, pretty much everyone has access to Google and Wikipedia (among other resources), letting scientists from all over the world quickly (and cheaply) draw upon the thinking of other scientists, regardless of their location.
2. The Internet lets more people drive scientific discussion. With the Internet, the core of intellectual discussion no longer need be in the printed letters sections of Science or Nature, not when every scientist can have his or her own blog, Twitter account, and/or Facebook profile. Can’t find people to discuss an obscure article from Blood? Blog about it! Find the scientist who published the journal and write a comment on his Facebook wall or his blog, follow his Twitter feed, or, if you’re more old-fashioned, write him or her an email.

But, despite the great potential of the Internet for radically shifting and improving the way scientific discourse is done, many scientists are choosing not to actively participate in #2, whether it be because of a lack of familiarity with these new technologies or because of a fear of being scooped. And that is a shame. The Internet is a uniquely collaborative and social tool — meaning that it’s value comes from people being willing to both use and contribute.

Chances are if you’re reading this blog, you already understand and embrace the power of the Internet for changing how science is done and discussed. This post (and this blog) is preaching to the choir to those of you guys and gals. But, even so, we all have to endeavor to:

• encourage scientists to blog, whether it be to help educate the public about things like vaccine safety, evolution, and global warming or to help drive discussion about exciting or informative research (e.g. with ResearchBlogging.org)
• leave meaningful comments on science blogs — blogging when nobody seems to care is painful and not inspiring. Blogging when the only people who seem to care leave flames or spam is even more painful. Leave smart comments that push the discussion forward. It’s more interesting for the blogger, for you, and for the legions of people too shy to comment.
• teach your fellow scientists about Twitter and social networking, because nothing helps foster a real sense of community then using tools designed to link people with one another
• develop a Wiki for your lab — it’s easy, helps to spread information within your lab (something I’m sure your PI would love to see more of), and is a good jumping off point for demonstrating why the Internet is a powerful tool which is made only more powerful by collaboration
• reach out to new science bloggers and Tweet-ers; it’s always difficult to try something new, and it’s even harder if you’re trying something and everyone is immediately hostile or unfriendly
• use the power of the social Web — drink the Kool-Aid; use the blogosphere to help yourself find potential collaborators, new insights, or even new sources of information. Use Twitter to meet up with scientists with similar interests (and they don’t even have to be scientific interests — they could just be hobbies!)

My hope is that as the power of the Web becomes further developed and better established in the minds of the scientific establishment, the Internet will grow into something which dramatically improves the quality of scientific discussion and thinking rather than be relegated to the realm of those scientists who just happen to be tech geeks.

edit: per Ander’s comment, replaced “more and more” with “many”  (brain fart)