I am recovering from surgical complications. Will be back soon.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Finding a Reliable Source Near You
The quintessential scientist, Carl Sagan, once said, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”
Never has it been more crucial for the lay public to be scientifically literate. That’s where outdoor writers, using science, come in. In nearly all fields, outdoor writers deal with scientific facts from time to time. It is extremely important that writers get the facts right! Outdoor writers are often perceived by the public as authorities on fish, wildlife, and environmental issues. The writer has a responsibility to be accurate, as well as interesting and entertaining. The credibility of the writer will be judged on the accuracy as well as the readability of his/her work. The writer who has a reputation for accuracy and readability will sell more articles.
The goal is to make your product as
scientifically accurate as possible, while still interesting and entertaining. “Where
does the writer find the information necessary to produce an accurate yet
interesting article?” You need to find experts.
Experts, “Who needs ‘em and why do we
need ‘em?” you might ask. The short answer is: “We all do.” We call on experts all the time in our daily lives.
Every time we visit our family physician, go to a hair stylist or take our cars
to the repair shop we are seeking the services of an expert. Why shouldn’t we
consult an expert when we’re communicating science to the public? Few of us as
writers have the expertise necessary to explain adequately how cancer cells
invade surrounding tissue or how an e-mail message travels on the
internet.
In general, an expert is
described as someone who is recognized by his or her peers or by the public as
a reliable source of knowledge, information, and/or abilities. Just the fact that someone hunts,
fishes, or photographs wildlife does not mean that person is an expert on fish
and wildlife; it may mean, however, that a person is an expert on where
to hunt, fish or find wildlife to photograph or what equipment is best for a
particular site. We need to consult experts in the natural history and biology
of the animal we’re writing about. How do you distinguish among real experts,
pretenders, and ambitious individuals who want to use you to publicize their
work and ideas? Finding an expert is not hard. Finding a
credible expert
with the proper credentials is a different matter.
Experts; Why do we need
them?
One reader questioned a 2010
Smithsonian article on "Our Earliest Ancestors" presenting evolution as a fact, and not a theory.
There is an equal body of scholarly work that supports the creation theory
(i.e., The Institute for Creation Research). My problem with the article is NOT
in its publication, it is in its presentation as absolute fact, which is not
the case. What would prevent Smithsonian from presenting BOTH theories
objectively, and allowing the readers to come to their own conclusions? Would
that be any less scholarly?
What is the confusion here? Evolution as fact or theory…
What is the difference?
We know what a fact is, right? “The
sun rises in the East”, that’s a fact. You can’t argue it—it happens all the
time. But, what is a theory?
In technical or scientific use,
theory, principle, and law represent established,
evidence-based explanations accounting for currently
known facts or
phenomena or for
historically verified experience: the
theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy. Often
the word “law” is used in reference to scientific
facts that can
be reduced to
a mathematical formula:
Newton’s laws of motion. In these
contexts the terms
theory and
law often
appear in well-established,
fixed phrases and
are not interchangeable.
Where we run into trouble: In both technical and
nontechnical contexts, theory is often used synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena
or relations, serving
as a basis
for thoughtful discussion
and subsequent collection
of data or
engagement in scientific
experimentation(research) to rule out alternative
explanations and reach
the truth.
In these contexts
of early speculation,
the words theory and hypothesis are often
interchanged “this idea is only a theory” when it’s barely a hypothesis.
Pasteur’s experiments helped prove the hypothesis that germs cause disease. Certain theories that start
out as hypothetical
eventually receive enough supportive data
and scientific findings
to become established,
verified explanations. Then, and only then, does the hypothesis become a theory, the thought/hypothesis has evolved from mere conjecture
to scientifically accepted fact.
Conventional wisdom also can be a big problem when presenting
science to the public. Yes, even scientists can be guilty of accepting
something as fact when it is not fact, or is an interpretation of facts that
still have substantial uncertainty related to them. This problem has become
particularly troublesome with respect to environmental issues. Ecology and
environmental issues related to ecological matters generally involve greater
uncertainty than the so-called hard sciences (physics and chemistry). An
example is the statement that “fire is an ecological necessity”. This statement
is accurate only if a particular stage of ecological succession must be
maintained. In the absence of fire, succession will proceed in a different
direction. It is more accurate to say, “Fire is natural, but it is not
absolutely necessary”. Finding reliable sources that can and will distinguish
between organizational policy or conventional wisdom and scientifically valid
information may be difficult, but it is well worth the effort.
The
credibility of the communicator, the media and, ultimately, the scientific
enterprise itself, is at stake in our coverage of risks to human health and the
environment. Many readers and listeners look to the media for some guidance in
understanding the risks that we face and how to deal with them. Sometimes the
best we as communicators can offer is the simple truth that science currently
has no clear answer, so we need to learn to live with uncertainty. This fact,
in itself, is not easy to communicate. We owe it to our audiences to provide
more sophisticated, balanced reporting that goes beyond the “fear factor”
approach. It is extremely important that writers get the facts right, and that
they interpret these facts appropriately!
Who and Where are These
Experts?
Colleges and Universities are full of
‘em. Government agencies, such as the County Extension Agent, and state
agencies such as the state fish and game agency and even high school teachers
can be experts. Successful business people can be experts, though this
expertise may have been gained the hard way—by trial and error, not considered
research.
A word of caution however, be careful
when relying on specialties. Not every aquatic biologist is an oceanographer.
In this age of interdisciplinary research, the boundaries between fields are
often blurred. And always, remember that a scientist speaking may not be
speaking as a scientist. Rely on them only when they are speaking within their
area(s) of expertise. Really good scientists will tell you when they are expressing
personal opinions or when your question is outside of their area.
Now
that you have a few good sources, how do you interpret the scientific
information to make it understandable and interesting the public? First, be
sure that you understand the topic and the information you have collected. If
you don’t have a complete understanding yourself, you will not be able to
communicate the information accurately. Being a good science writer doesn’t
require a college degree in science, however, it does require some healthy
skepticism and the ability to ask good questions about things that can affect
research studies and other claims. To separate truth from trash, you will need
answers to these questions:
1.
Was
the study done, or claim made, on the basis of evidence only? How was the study
designed and conducted? Was it laboratory research, field collections or
observations?
2.
What
are the numbers? Was the study large enough to reach believable conclusions?
Are the results statistically significant?
That phrase simply means that based on the scientific standards, the
statistical results are unlikely to be attributable to chance alone.
3.
Are
there other possible explanations for the study’s conclusions?
4.
Was
the study conducted free of any form of bias,
unintentional or otherwise?
5.
Have
the findings been checked or replicated by other experts? And, how do the
findings fit with previous knowledge on the topic?
What You Need to Know
about Science
You
must understand five principles of scientific analysis to find answers to these
questions. They are the basis of scientific inquiry.
1.
Some Uncertainty is Acceptable. Science looks at the statistical
probability of what’s true. Conclusions are based on strong evidence, without
waiting for an elusive proof positive. But science is always an evolving story,
a continuing journey that allows for mid-course correction. This can confuse
the public, especially when preliminary information is reported as fact.
Scientists then are accused of “changing their minds or flip-flopping.”
2.
Probability and Large numbers. The more subjects or observations
in a study the better. A commonly accepted numerical expression is the P (probability) value, determined by a
formula that considers the number of events being compared. A P value of .05 or less is usually
considered statistically significant. It means that there are 5 or fewer
chances in 100 that the results could be due to chance alone. The lower the P value, the lower the odds that chance
alone could be responsible. Science writers don’t have to do the math, they
just have to ask researchers: “Show me
your numbers.”
3.
Is There Another Explanation? Association alone does not prove
cause and effect. You must be able to distinguish between coincidence and
causation. A chemical in a town’s water supply may not be the cause of the
illness there. A study’s time span can be very important so that normal cycles
are not confused with study results. Ask the researcher and yourself: “Can you
think of any alternative explanations for the study’s numbers and conclusions?
Did the study last long enough to support its conclusions?”
4.
The Dimensions of Studies. For costs and other reasons, all
studies are not created equal. Old records, statistics and memories are often
unreliable, but sometimes used. Case studies involving only one or two subjects
usually are not considered a basis on which to draw broad conclusions. Far
better is a study that follows a selected population for the long term,
sometimes decades. Ask researchers in all scientific fields: “Why did you design
your study the way you did? Is a more definitive study now needed?”
Nevertheless, always bear in mind, exceptional claims require exceptional
evidence.
5.
The Power of Peer Review. The burden of proof rests with
researchers seeking to change scientific conclusions. Science is never accepted
until confirmed by additional studies. Science writers should look for
consensus among studies.
In Summary
Above all, have fun. Science is
intriguing, funny and essential to everyday life. If you write too loftily, you
lose some of the best stories and the ones to which your readers most relate.
You must:
·
Know
your topic. First, do some old-fashioned library research.
·
Find
an expert.
·
Schedule
a face-to-face interview if possible. Phone conversations and email
questionnaires are ok if the
expert is not local.
·
Be
sure you understand the FACTS before you begin to write,
·
Check
again with the expert, if you feel unsure.
Being a non-expert will not make someone a good science writer. But it’s
not the kiss of death either. If you pay attention to detail, ask good
questions, and aren’t afraid to admit how little you know, you can actually
turn your ignorance to your advantage. I’ve found that if I can get an
expert, often my husband— who has a doctrate in zoology, to explain something
to the point where I can understand it, then I’ll be able to explain it to
anyone else.
Remember: your credibility will be judged on
the accuracy as well as the readability of your work. The writer who has a
reputation for accuracy and readability will sell more articles, as well as
provide greater service to the public.
Further Reading
Altimore, M. 1982. The social construction of a
scientific controversy: Comments on press coverage of the recombinant DNA
debate. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 24-31
Ananthaswamy, Anil. 2011. Why I
Write: Writing about Science—A Way to Pay Attention to Nature. http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3658
Blum, D., M. Knudson, and R. M. Henig.
2006. A field guide for science writers; the official guide of the National
Association of Science Writers. 2nd edition. Oxford Univeristy
Press, New York, NY.
Crettaz von
Roten, F. 2006. Do we need a public understanding of statistics?
Public Understanding of Science 15(2): 243-249.
Clarke, George "Woody". 2009. Justice and science: trials and triumphs of DNA evidence. Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Coyne,
Jerry A. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/caturday-felid-how-do-falling-cats-right-themselves/ Science video
Dingwall, R. and M. Aldridge. 2006. Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution. Public Understanding of Science 15(2):131-152.
Duke
University. 2000. https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/
Gardner, Daniel. 2008. The science of fear;
why we fear the things we shouldn’t—and put ourselves in greater danger.
Dutton, New York, NY.
Gould, S. J. 1999. Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public
Drama (Writing Science). Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA
Laudan, L. 1982. Commentary: Science at the bar — causes for concern. Science, Technology, and
Human Values 7(4):16–19.
Lewenstein, B. 1992. The meaning of
‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of
Science 1:45–68.
Losse, J. 1993. A historical introduction
to the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Miller, S. 2001. Public understanding of
science at a crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10:115–120.
Nickum, Mary. 2009. Experts: Who needs ‘em
and Why? Outdoors Unlimited May, 2009
Nickum, Mary. 2009. Anatomy of a Science Article. Outdoors Unlimited April
2009.
Nickum, Mary.
2008. Sell Biology 101; Accuracy, readability form
backbone of bankable science article. Outdoors
Unlimited 69(1):1, 6.
Nisbet, M C, D. A. Scheufele, J. E. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard and B.
Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model
for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research 29:504–608.
Pardo, R. and F. Calvo. 2002. Attitudes toward science among the European
public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science
11:155–196.
Peters, H. P. 2013. Gap between science and
media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 110 Suppl 3:14102–14109.
Prewitt, K. 1982. The public and
science policy. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 5-14.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2007. The black
swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York, NY.
West, Berndadette, M. Jane Lewis, Michael R. Greenberg, David B.
Sachsman, and Renee M. Rogers. 2003. The Reporter’s Environmental Handbook.
Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, N J.
Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood
misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of
Science 1:281–304.
Wynne, B. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds.
1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of
science. Pages 19–47 In Misunderstanding science?
: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge
University Press, London, UK.
Wynne, B. 2002. Public understanding of
science. Chapter 17 In Jasanoff, S.,
G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson T. J. Pinch, eds. Handbook of science and technology studies, revised
edition. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yankelovich, D. 1982. Changing
Public Attitudes to Science and the Quality of Life: Edited Excerpts from a
Seminar. Science, Technology & Human Values 7: 23-29.
Additional Websites
http://casw.org/ Council for the Advancement of Science
Writing
http://www.nasw.org/ National Association of Science Writers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
