Aloha, Science Blogs.
15 years ago
Showing posts with label Science Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science Journalism. Show all posts
Found on the ninemsn news website, this reports on the case of an innocent man who was convicted through DNA testing. The article focuses not on the story itself but on the inquiry that is taking place over the accuracy of DNA fingerprinting, in particular reference to cold cases.
DNA has been used for 17,000 cold cases dating to 2001 and in the inquiry, so far only this one has been proven to have been in error. The cause of this error is also known - a human mistake of placing the wrong sample in the well during gel electrophoresis.
The quotes in the article, and the article itself defend this method, and state that they aim to limit the possibility of human error even more by using robots and the like. It is very clear that the mistake in this case lay with the lab technitions and not the method: "he stressed the science behind DNA testing was not in question".
It draws to a close reminding the public that science is not infallible. It claims that people place too much faith in DNA fingerprinting despite the fact that it is not an "exact science": "People who look at that science - and they are lay people, judges and juries - are disproportionately impressed by it."
This is an important message - people need to be aware of the failings of science as well as the success. They need to have an accurate view, not a glamorised picture. It is good that this article highlights the errors that can occur in a process such as this, but encourages people to keep their faith in science and even in DNA fingerprinting. One mistake should not condone a method (as long as the mistake is human error and not the method itself causing mmajor problems).
The article also says that one form of evidence should not stand alone, which matches my last post. Evidence should appear from all sides and the majority should agree.
So don't throw science out there just to impress people. That is not what it is for. Science is all about truth.
Image from news article.
So this is my catchup post - the internet was being stupidly slow the other night, so I gave up. And so I'm catching up now.
This post is a warning - check your sources. Multiple sources. This is something I am not very good at. I'm a bit lazy in that. But sometimes one source, even though it is normally reputable, is wrong.
Example number one of this: my last Newsflash. The hair solar panel? Apparently it's a scam. Thanks to annon who pointed this out - I had not heard, I had only heard that it was right. Now my reasons for believing this were as follows:
1. It sounded nice and would save the world.
2. It was on the Daily Mail website. I thought that was reputable. I was wrong.
The comments at the bottom of the article do discuss this briefly, however I did not scroll down that far initially and did not read them.
This blog also reported on it and was corrected. The discussion is very good though.
Another good debunking site for this myth is this.
Another good example is this story about dead fish exhibiting brain activity. Of course they don't normally and they are not alive, but if we twist what we find, or only report some of the results, this is what happens.
This is a big trap for reporters - if they don't understand the science, then it is easy to believe fake science, or at least mistaken science, and report on it. Which in turns leads others who also don't understand the science to false knowledge. Leading to widespread untruths.
It kind of comes down to what I said about being science ambassadors - we have a responsibility to ensure the science we pass on is correct and true. If it involves asking experts, or reading different sources to ensure its right, then that is what we need to do. People trust communicators, they trust the media, to give them the truth. So communicators need to ensure they are passing on the real truth, not psuedo-truth.
*Sigh* Me included. No more just trusting news sites.
This post is a warning - check your sources. Multiple sources. This is something I am not very good at. I'm a bit lazy in that. But sometimes one source, even though it is normally reputable, is wrong.
Example number one of this: my last Newsflash. The hair solar panel? Apparently it's a scam. Thanks to annon who pointed this out - I had not heard, I had only heard that it was right. Now my reasons for believing this were as follows:
1. It sounded nice and would save the world.
2. It was on the Daily Mail website. I thought that was reputable. I was wrong.
The comments at the bottom of the article do discuss this briefly, however I did not scroll down that far initially and did not read them.
This blog also reported on it and was corrected. The discussion is very good though.
Another good debunking site for this myth is this.
Another good example is this story about dead fish exhibiting brain activity. Of course they don't normally and they are not alive, but if we twist what we find, or only report some of the results, this is what happens.
This is a big trap for reporters - if they don't understand the science, then it is easy to believe fake science, or at least mistaken science, and report on it. Which in turns leads others who also don't understand the science to false knowledge. Leading to widespread untruths.
It kind of comes down to what I said about being science ambassadors - we have a responsibility to ensure the science we pass on is correct and true. If it involves asking experts, or reading different sources to ensure its right, then that is what we need to do. People trust communicators, they trust the media, to give them the truth. So communicators need to ensure they are passing on the real truth, not psuedo-truth.
*Sigh* Me included. No more just trusting news sites.
Bonus Post!
Aren't you lucky?!
This is just to let you know that my article has been published on the ANU news website. You can find it here if you want to have a look:
http://science.anu.edu.au/News/NewsStory.php?ID=369
Aren't you lucky?!
This is just to let you know that my article has been published on the ANU news website. You can find it here if you want to have a look:
http://science.anu.edu.au/News/NewsStory.php?ID=369
Greetings everyone!
Well I figured I should hurry up and start my blog, and I'll fix the template to something more exciting later.
So, welcome to Experiments, Explosions and Elephants!
I plan to post regularly to make it easier on my followers. The plan is to post on Mondays and Fridays - a great note to start and end your working week with. So keep an eye (or an RSS feed) open on Friday.
I would like to begin with some thoughts on science presenting, as this is what I am most interested in, and what this blog will primarily be about.
This last week in Australia was National Science Week. It used to be combined with Science Festival, but this year they split them. I'm not sure why, but at least it gave science more publicity - two weeks dedicated to science awareness. :) Although on the other hand, splitting one whizz bang event into two doesn't give two wizz bang events. At least not yet.
As I am doing a science media course this semester, our assignment was to attend a NSW (National Science Week, not New South Wales, in this case) event on assignment (word duplication intended for effect), and write a news article about it.
I attended the 'Just Add Water' presentation by Dr Peter Wothers last Tuesday. Dr Wothers is from the University of Cambridge in the UK and had been presenting public science lectures for 10 years. This lecture was for school students in years 7-10 (he ran repeats for years 11-12, and the general public later in the week) and schools from all over Australia attended (well, I saw at least one from Melbourne and Sydney). It was very good and included lots of explosions (hydrogen balloons + fire = awesome explosion) and fires (sodium oxide and water on rice bubbles), which everyone loved.
From a potential future science presenter, or at least as a person imensely interested in the topic, I felt that he was good at communicating with the audience, particularly for the high school students. The worst elements were the late start (20 minutes) and the cluttered set (which can be excused to a degree given that they were improvising some equipment from the ANU Chemistry department. But I do think a good, well thought-out set will emphasise the presentation, compared to a cluttered set up which distracts). He knew his stuff (as you'd hope he would with such an intense background in chemistry) and knew how to commmunicate it clearly.
Importantly, Dr Wothers made it exciting. I think this is vital for communicating to kids or teenagers. Adults too, but I want to focus on children. I'm sure everyone will agree that there's nothing like a good explosion to attract kids to science. There's nothing wrong with using 'flashy demonstrations' to grab attention. Sure, it's not a totally realistic portrayel of science, but kids will realise that as they become more serious about science. If they start off believeing that science is fun and exciting, then hopefully they will continue to find it exciting, even the parts that aren't so flashy, per-say.
The Excited Particles at Questacon also use this technique. They are very fond of hydrogen explosions, and use them whenever they can get away with it. The slogan of Questacon is 'Making Science Fun', and demonstrating the flashy elements equates to fun, I think.
Its ok to use entertainment when communicating science. People are after entertainment more than straight facts (no matter how much we hope for the contrary), and will remember what they learned better if they can relate the information to explosions and fires. And if all they remember in 2 weeks is that hydrogen explodes, then at least they learnt something.
So go on, explode something. You know you want to.
On a side note: my news report of the event has been accepted by the ANU media centre for publication. It will appear on the ANU website and in the ANU On Campus Newsletter. I'll post a link to it when it appears. :)
Well I figured I should hurry up and start my blog, and I'll fix the template to something more exciting later.
So, welcome to Experiments, Explosions and Elephants!
I plan to post regularly to make it easier on my followers. The plan is to post on Mondays and Fridays - a great note to start and end your working week with. So keep an eye (or an RSS feed) open on Friday.
I would like to begin with some thoughts on science presenting, as this is what I am most interested in, and what this blog will primarily be about.
This last week in Australia was National Science Week. It used to be combined with Science Festival, but this year they split them. I'm not sure why, but at least it gave science more publicity - two weeks dedicated to science awareness. :) Although on the other hand, splitting one whizz bang event into two doesn't give two wizz bang events. At least not yet.
As I am doing a science media course this semester, our assignment was to attend a NSW (National Science Week, not New South Wales, in this case) event on assignment (word duplication intended for effect), and write a news article about it.
I attended the 'Just Add Water' presentation by Dr Peter Wothers last Tuesday. Dr Wothers is from the University of Cambridge in the UK and had been presenting public science lectures for 10 years. This lecture was for school students in years 7-10 (he ran repeats for years 11-12, and the general public later in the week) and schools from all over Australia attended (well, I saw at least one from Melbourne and Sydney). It was very good and included lots of explosions (hydrogen balloons + fire = awesome explosion) and fires (sodium oxide and water on rice bubbles), which everyone loved.
From a potential future science presenter, or at least as a person imensely interested in the topic, I felt that he was good at communicating with the audience, particularly for the high school students. The worst elements were the late start (20 minutes) and the cluttered set (which can be excused to a degree given that they were improvising some equipment from the ANU Chemistry department. But I do think a good, well thought-out set will emphasise the presentation, compared to a cluttered set up which distracts). He knew his stuff (as you'd hope he would with such an intense background in chemistry) and knew how to commmunicate it clearly.
Importantly, Dr Wothers made it exciting. I think this is vital for communicating to kids or teenagers. Adults too, but I want to focus on children. I'm sure everyone will agree that there's nothing like a good explosion to attract kids to science. There's nothing wrong with using 'flashy demonstrations' to grab attention. Sure, it's not a totally realistic portrayel of science, but kids will realise that as they become more serious about science. If they start off believeing that science is fun and exciting, then hopefully they will continue to find it exciting, even the parts that aren't so flashy, per-say.
The Excited Particles at Questacon also use this technique. They are very fond of hydrogen explosions, and use them whenever they can get away with it. The slogan of Questacon is 'Making Science Fun', and demonstrating the flashy elements equates to fun, I think.
Its ok to use entertainment when communicating science. People are after entertainment more than straight facts (no matter how much we hope for the contrary), and will remember what they learned better if they can relate the information to explosions and fires. And if all they remember in 2 weeks is that hydrogen explodes, then at least they learnt something.
So go on, explode something. You know you want to.
On a side note: my news report of the event has been accepted by the ANU media centre for publication. It will appear on the ANU website and in the ANU On Campus Newsletter. I'll post a link to it when it appears. :)
Posts
