[Taxacom] The bloggification of science

[Richard Jensen]

I can't find much to quibble about in Doug's comments.  The state of 
science education (dare I say, education in general) in the US is not 
encouraging.  Back in the 1980's, a very important report was released 
documenting the poor quality of science education and the need for more 
science and better science teachers.  A lot of energy, and money, was 
diverted to this problem, but I'm not convinced that those attempts to 
improve both access to and quality of science education succeeded.  Yes, 
there are some success stories, but I don't find the level of scientific 
knowledge and understanding among today's high school graduates to be 
any better than it was 25 years ago.

In fact, many institutions are regressing.  My own institution has 
decided that two semesters of laboratory science is overkill.  The 
initial proposal was to reduce our general education requirement from 
two to one laboratory course.  Those of us in the sciences had to argue 
emphatically that that was misguided.  We gained a small victory when 
the general education requirement was expanded to two semesters of 
science, one of which had to include a laboratory component.  I know 
that similar changes are taking place across the country as institutions 
of higher learning try to provide curricula that will appeal to, and 
provide a solid general education background for, an increasingly 
diverse mix of students.

Doug may be right: I, too, doubt we can blog our way out of this mess.

Dick J



On 5/4/2011 2:21 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> Dick Jensen wrote:
>
>> You might argue that the translators need open access.  My guess is that
>> the translators are, in perhaps most cases, the very people who read the
>> technical literature.  They already have the motivation and access
>> necessary to make information more accessible to the rest of us, whether
>> in a "Dummies" book or on a web site or blog.
> The need for - as Dick put it - "translators", who actually
> understand the technical literature and can present it to the public
> in a more palatable form, is a genuine one, but the question as to
> how our community can best accomplish this is a very challenging
> matter. After all, who is going to pay the bloggers to blog? Without
> support, not many scientists can *afford* to be bloggers.
>
> This relates to an aspect of our collective enterprise that has
> increasingly troubled me. For most of our lifetimes, the
> communication of science (including biology) to the masses was the
> province of a select few people who could write books specifically
> for that purpose, from the relatively unknown authors of field
> guides, to high-profile celebrities like Jacques-Yves Cousteau, who
> had an unprecedented mass media forum to reach the public (a
> prime-time TV show!). The advent of the web has, in nearly the blink
> of an eye, changed things so nearly *anyone* on earth (not just some
> select few) can potentially communicate with virtually everyone ELSE
> on earth, and not only is this is a double-edged sword, but not
> everyone is equally well-equipped to wield it. There are certainly
> many excellent scientists capable of being eloquent, informative, and
> inspiring, but whose primary concern is their next paycheck, their
> next publication, their next grant application, etc. - and will never
> be in a position to realize their potential, to reach out to that
> wider audience. Conversely, there are many folks who are not
> qualified to clean test tubes, and yet make a living by treating
> science as a political football, spreading virulent anti-science or
> pseudo-science memes across the planet, forever contaminating the
> public perception OF science.
>
> I doubt there is much of anything we can do about this, and that's
> really, really tragic. Lighting candles to fight the darkness is
> great, but not if there are people who keep blowing them out.
>
> Be that as it may, the status quo is that we have some bloggers who
> DO know what science is, and DO communicate about it well and
> honestly, but they are not unopposed - the forces of ignorance and
> deceit have their spokespeople, too, who either do NOT know what
> science is, or lie about it to suit their own ends. And, naturally,
> there are a vast array of people in between those two extremes.
> Ultimately, then, it comes down to this: how is the public supposed
> to be able to tell the difference between one blogger and another?
> Whose blog to trust? Given the demonstrable gullibility of a *major*
> portion of the general public, which manifests in new and appalling
> ways every day, it's hard not to despair for our future. Even if we
> could find ways to support and promote more high-quality blogs, is
> there any hope of keeping them from being drowned out amidst the
> babble of nonsense? My feeling is that given so many choices, people
> will only read blogs that suit their personal ideology, and ignore
> the rest. Accordingly, despite how powerful a tool we have at our
> disposal, we can ultimately expect little more than preaching to the
> proverbial choir; i.e., that (*at best*) the audience scientists can
> expect to reach is composed of the kind of people who already are
> well-educated in science, open-minded and curious - rather than
> winning any converts. To that small audience of open minds, science
> (including taxonomy) is understandable, and therefore does matter,
> but that's a pretty tiny minority. That just isn't enough. As much as
> I wish otherwise, I doubt we can blog our way out of this mess.
>
> Sincerely,

-- 
Richard J. Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674