Tag: Science Communication

REPOST: Do as You Say, Do as You Do – Fixing Science Communication

Carl Sagan with Viking lander
Before I tell you how to fix science journalism (super glue, duh), let’s get everyone on the same page. The science journalism problem is really a science communication problem. Science journalism is just a portion of the science communication problem. It just happens to be an especially visible portion because journalists already have a forum and an audience. If we can solve the science communication problem, the science journalism problem becomes irrelevant, although the science journalists might not be happy with the solution.

I’ve actually been listening to a lot of advice from people older, wiser, and more successful than I on this topic. In doing so, I have a learned that the solution to our science communication problem is very simple. All we need to do is exactly what they did. Continue reading “REPOST: Do as You Say, Do as You Do – Fixing Science Communication”

Airport Body Scanners won’t give you cancer

With the big holidays just around the corner, thousands of folks are about to get their first taste of the TSA’s new virtual strip search machines – X-ray body scanners. Privacy issues may be the main concern for most people, but the safety of these things has some people worried.

Back in April, a group of UCSF professors with a range of expertise in x-rays and biology wrote a letter to White House advisor John Holdren (PDF) raising some potential safety concerns about the TSA’s X-ray scanners. Continue reading “Airport Body Scanners won’t give you cancer”

Knievelism – Is your stunt dramatic enough?

The Comedy and Tragedy Masks
Previously, I wrote about the issues that The 10:23 Campaign and its participants needed to consider in their laudable opposition to homeopathy. There, I wanted to focus on technical issues like safety and logic.

A major tactic of The 10:23 Campaign in 2010 was to generate educational opportunities by means of an attention gathering stunt – the mass overdose. While I have safety and scientific issues with the mass overdose stunt, it is also not clear why it should be a particularly compelling event to the relatively disinterested audience that is the general public. Why?

The mass overdose stunt is boring. Continue reading “Knievelism – Is your stunt dramatic enough?”

Safe and Effective Skeptical Activism – The 10:23 Campaign

At 10:23AM on 30 January 2010, the 10:23 Campaign staged a mass overdose of homeopathic “medicine” to protest the sale of homeopathy products in Boots pharmacies, especially under the Boots brand name. The event generated a considerable amount of media attention and increased public awareness of the nature of homeopathy, although it has not yet succeeded in getting Boots to disavow homeopathy.

Spending on homeopathy by the government and private individuals is medically indefensible. Furthermore, wasting money on medically ineffective water and sugar pills at a time when local NHS trusts regularly run out of funds, and education and scientific research budgets may be slashed is ridiculous. Therefore, I am a strong supporter of the 10:23 Campaign’s goals and want nothing more[1] than to see them succeed.

But[3] I have concerns about the safety and efficacy of the 10:23 Campaign’s approach, which I have helpfully categorized as Economic, Philosophic, Scientific, Pedagogic, and Safety. Continue reading “Safe and Effective Skeptical Activism – The 10:23 Campaign”

Dear Pew Research Forum. . .

Dear Pew Research Forum,

Your US Religious Knowledge Survey has made a big splash in the news media – especially with the conclusion that atheists/agnostics know more about religion than theists and folks who just don’t care. Thank you for pushing many people I know to the level of completely unbearable from their previous position of mildly bearable when I’m drunk. Continue reading “Dear Pew Research Forum. . .”