New Rule for Science Journalism...

Agreed!



[Hat tip to PZ Myers]

Why did NPR fire Juan Williams?

Fox News and other right-leaning media seem to be jumping out of their chairs over NPR's firing of Juan Williams, claiming it was unjustifiable and politically motivated.  But was he really fired over his recent comments on Fox (see the video below), or did he violate his contract with NPR?

Wind May Have Helped Moses Part Red Sea? Probably Not

This story got lots of coverage a few weeks ago (even NPR picked it up), but there were problems with the coverage and so I decided to write about it. Unfortunately, I just now realized that I completely forgot to post what I'd written!  So for better or worse, I decided to dredge up old news and clicked publish.

This story is a classic case of "science journalism FAIL" - despite all the media coverage, it seems nobody gave the story a critical look to see whether or not the conclusions actually follow from the research, and nobody seemed to be calling the authors' motives into question. PZ ranted about it here, Brian Keim over at Wired Science wrote this rather uncritical piece (where I left a couple of comments), and it was covered here at the lead author's place of employment.  Like Brian Keim's article, the NPR piece seems to lack much criticism, so here's my take on what they missed.

Should Scientists, Journalists "Take Sides"?

Ed Yong has a great post up on his (excellent) blog Not Exactly Rocket Science, which I hope you'll read. There, he writes (emphasis mine):

It is clear to me that science journalists should not take the side of any particular scientist, of a specific idea, or even of science itself. But it is imperative that we take the side of truth. That may seem obvious but many of the strictures of traditional journalism are incompatible with even that simple goal.

You can read more details on the topic of objectivity, science journalism, and "taking sides" in his post, here.

Discover Magazine on Intelligent Design

Discover Magazine has a 30 year anniversary issue out, and among it's pages is a short list of some big scientific blunders from recent decades. Included on the list: Intelligent Design/Creationism.

Intelligent Design:
Not satisfied with the biblical God who created the world in six days, creationists developed a "science" that aims to explain the supernatural force behind the whole shebang: intelligent design.  Because we cannot reverse-engineer things like the human eye, they say, it follows that all must be designed by a higher being. (The human knee presumably came together during a moment of distraction.)  This tactic had some success easing intelligent design/creationism into American public-school science lessons. But in 2005 a jury prohibited its teaching in the schools of Dover, Pennsylvania, delivering a stinging rebuke.

If you saw my previous post, you've likely already noticed a mistake which the NCSE has rightly pointed out.

Discover errs in attributing the verdict in Kitzmiller v. Dover to "a jury"; it was a bench trial, and the decision — which was indeed a stinging rebuke to the scientific pretensions of "intelligent design" — was due to Judge John E. Jones III.

Warning!!!

Check out these awesome Journalism Warning Labels by Tom Scott.  Admittedly, I probably overuse (i.e. link to) Wikipedia here on the blog, but hey - at least I'm up front about!

If you'd like to print some out yourself, there are two PDF templates at the bottom of the page you can download and print.

[via PZ]

Evangelist Kem Ham Embraces Bad Science Journalism

In my previous post I mentioned a recent example of bad science journalism. Despite the fact that those news articles are a clear misinterpretation of the (freely available) original journal article at PLoS Pathogens, and that various bloggers have pointed out their mistakes, there are those who apparently really liked that incorrect interpretation and embraced it readily.  So who might have such an interest in the chicken coming before the egg?  None other than Creation "Museum" director and Answers in Genesis CEO, Ken Ham.

Remember, Answers in Genesis and it's Creation "Museum" exist to spread a particular, literalist version of Christianity - and they do so by denying basic science and working to cripple public science literacy. 

So what did Ham say about the (erroneous) news that chickens came before eggs? It can be summed up in a single phrase: non sequitur.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

I smiled yesterday as I read this news story from MSNBC:

It is an age-old riddle that has perplexed generations: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now British scientists claim to have finally come up with the definitive answer: The chicken. The scientific and philosophical mystery was purportedly unraveled by researchers at Sheffield and Warwick universities, according to the Daily Mail newspaper.  The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken.  The protein speeds up the development of the hard shell, which is essential in protecting the delicate yolk and fluids while the chick grows inside the egg, the report said.
“It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,” said Dr. Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University’s Department of Engineering Materials, according to the Mail.

Well, the secular world is catching up to what the Bible has taught all along.  At our student assemblies over the years, I have often taught children the answer to this chicken and egg problem this way:

“What came first: the chicken or the egg?  Well the Bible teaches us that God made the flying creatures on day five of creation, and God told the animals to be fruitful and multiply.  So obviously the chicken (a bird) came first, and then they laid eggs.”  So the kids would learn it this way, “The chicken came first because God made the birds on day five of the creation week!”

Poor Ken Ham, if that blog post were a video, it would no doubt star in one of the "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" series on YouTube.

Ken goes on to ignore everything we know about eggs from fossils to the various kinds of living reptiles (the closest living relatives of birds), monotremes (egg laying mammals) and other egg-laying organisms.  He rattles off this bit of unfounded nonsense...

Of course there is also the design issue, which is also alluded to in the article.  All the parts/chemicals etc. have to be there for the egg-laying system to work in the first place—it certainly couldn’t evolve.

You can read the entire article at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/?Gt1=43001

Oh, gee, right - the egg couldn't have evolved without a hard shell, because... wait, why?  Hasn't Ken ever seen soft, leathery reptile eggs before, or gooey fish eggs?  Is he intentionally ignoring all that evidence - which suggests how chicken eggs could have evolved - or is he just ignorant of those facts?

Listen, Ken, you shouldn't bullshit the people you're trying to convert - it makes you look dumb, and come off as an untrustworthy source of information.  Also, you should direct your readers to the actual, primary sources of information (e.g. in this case, a link to the article at PLoS Pathogens).  If it's available, quote the primary source - not a secondary source of information like a news article... well, unless you're more concerned with being persuasive than correct. 

Anyway, this part of Ken's blog post made me smile...

By the way, even the evening TV news programs on Wednesday covered this story, including The NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.  The CBS Evening News program ended its segment on the chicken/egg study with the follow-up question, “And the chicken came from... ?” Well, the anchor did not offer an answer but maybe that’s good—he might have given an evolutionary answer.

Fortunately, everyone in central Ohio watching the news last night did hear the science-based answer: that birds almost certainly evolved from dinosaurs.

Ken then tries to poison the well to ward off any criticism:

I wouldn’t be surprised if atheist scientists will loudly complain that this study actually supports the creation account in Genesis and then try to attack the research.

Well I would be surprised, actually, and here's why: the study in no way supports the creation account in Genesis, so there's no need for even the most unscrupulous scientist to "attack the research" based on his or her religious beliefs.  They need only point out the non sequitur, and they're done.  Ken apparently didn't even read the abstract of original article, otherwise he'd know this.

Photos of Wildlife Affected By The BP Oil Spill

There is a growing collection of wildlife photos from the gulf oil spill up on the web (e.g. here, here and here), but like so many other wildlife photos in the media many organisms are woefully unlabeled, or even labeled incorrectly (gasp!).  I mean come on folks, "bird" and "turtle"? We can do better than that!

Check out the photos below, for example, and if you're an ID-fiend feel free to take a stab at identifying these species (speculation and/or solid IDs are welcomed in the comments section).

On a side note, the media has basically been shut out of most of the affected areas.  This basically cuts off public access to these kinds of images which portray the huge impact the oil spill is having on coastal and marine ecosystems.  Images like those below or others like these from the Boston Globe, are less common in the press than they should be - so do take some time and check them out.


Photo #1:

A bird covered in oil flails in the surf at East Grand Terre Island along the Louisiana coast Thursday, June 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Photo #2:

A sea turtle is mired in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Grand Terre Island, Louisiana June 8, 2010. (REUTERS/Lee Celano)

Photo #3:

An oil soaked bird struggles against the oil slicked side of the HOS Iron Horse supply vessel at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana Sunday, May 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Photo #4:

A dead turtle floats on a pool of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in Barataria Bay off the coast of Louisiana Monday, June, 7, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

ScienceBlogs Losing Bloggers Over Questionable Pepsi Deal

Update:  According to this post by PZ Myers, the Pepsi blog is gone. Science writer Carl Zimmer also chimes in.

If you don't follow the blog "Good Math, Bad Math" you should check it out - well, you should check it out once it finds a more permanent home. It looks like blogger Mark Chu-Carroll is done with ScienceBlogs, and headed elsewhere. He explains why here.

ScienceBlogs recently decided to host a blog on nutrition called "Food Frontiers," but it's run by the Pepsi company -- basically, opening up the potential for corporate pseudoscience or spin to appear along side blog posts from dedicated individuals without such conflicts of interest.

Basically, ScienceBlogs is selling their bloggers' science-cred to a corporation (i.e. a for-profit entity), with huge potential for some serious conflicts of interest. Not cool.

That said, some effort went to address these concerns before the blog went public (snippets from their first post, basically a welcome page):

PepsiCo’s R&D Leadership Team discusses the science behind the food industry’s role in addressing global public health challenges. This is an extension of PepsiCo’s own Food Frontiers blog.

This blog is sponsored by PepsiCo. All editorial content is written by PepsiCo's scientists or scientists invited by PepsiCo and/or ScienceBlogs. All posts carry a byline above the fold indicating the scientist's affiliation and conflicts of interest.

... As part of this partnership, we'll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo's product portfolio, we'll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.

You can read more about ScienceBlogs deciding to host a Pepsi blog alongside their other blog posts in the news here and here. To hear more from other sciencebloggers, you've got plenty of options including The Thoughtful Animal, Common Knowledge, Laelaps, GrrlScientist, Adventures in Ethics and Science, and some of those who have left ScienceBlogs over the Pepsi debacle: Neurotopia, Neuron Culture, and Science After Sunclipse.

You can glean more from the listing of the past 24 hours of ScienceBlogs posts, here.

Free Speech, Respect, and Tolerance

I like having the right to express myself. I like discussing controversial and taboo subjects, and at times offering up criticisms or support, as I see fit.  Though sometimes painful, I also value hearing others do the same, even when I disagree with them or find their ideas deplorable.  I also like that I live where I and others can do this without fear of being jailed, physically harmed, or worse.

Because of this, I also despise seeing those freedoms used to stir hatred or violence.  When I see such freedoms threatened or abused (see my previous post), I can't stand by idly and do nothing.

So this Thursday, in support of free speech and in support of exercising it with some decency, I'm participating in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day by sharing this post, and just for today using this background image for this website:


To be fair, since this all about freedom of speech, I've tried to include everyone in this drawing business so nobody feels like they're getting picked on: Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and yes even those with no religious beliefs (since we all have a mom) have been included. Yeah that's right -- I may have not included a deity for you, but I drew your mom!  Ha!

Oh, right, and Al Gore too... just because I can.

I've made an effort to go easy on everyone, and not be unduly disrespectful.  Still, if you find the image offensive, I hope you'll share why in the comments below, but only after first considering the following.

Islamic Extremists vs. Cartoonists: A Brief, Recent History

Imagery is an effective vehicle for criticism, making it a natural target for anyone wishing to censor those who speak out against them.  Sadly some religious extremists use threats of violence to try and accomplish that censorship. This, by definition is terrorism and the effectiveness of those attempts at censorship depend in large part how the whole of society responds to those threats.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
--Thomas Jefferson

As part of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, (which has unfortunately become for some more about just being offending Muslims, and less about protecting free speech)  I here wanted to just recap some of the events that motivated the day.

Insane Clown Posse comes to Columbus, OH -- It's a Miracle!

The Insane Clown Posse (comprised of one Violent J and one Shaggy 2 Dope), made news a few weeks ago with their release of Miracles. A religiously motivated song with some overtly anti-science lyrics.

Today, while getting coffee on my way to help with a science education program in central Ohio, I saw the following in an issue of The Lantern about ICP's Sunday concert in Columbus, Ohio.  It was in a piece titled "No reason to be scared of these clowns." 

Most recently, the duo has been placed in the spotlight thanks to the YouTube sensation its most recent music video has become. The video, based on ICP’s single “Miracles,” features the group rapping about the things it finds to be amazing. The use of the word “miracle” has caused most of the strife the duo have received.

“I know that magnets aren’t magic,” Utsler said in reference to the song’s most beleaguered line: “F------ magnets, how do they work?” as he shrugged off online comments and a Saturday Night Live parody. “The song is about appreciating the little things in life, not that we think science is bulls---.”

The article, however, has it wrong.  The release of Miracles earned ICP some nicely executed mockery...

SNL Does ICP.  The real Miracles video and lyrics can be seen here.

...but not because they said the word "miracle" a few dozen times. It was because the song is anti-science and seems to some to be an ode to the God of the Gaps more than anything else.  Furthermore, it was the lyrics following the mention of magnets in the song that were most objectionable/ridiculous...

Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
...

I should pause to admit that I like a lot of music that other people find offensive: dramatized violence, vulgarity, insanely loud or raucous noise used as music -- I tend to like it if it's got a solid bass beat, lots of energy, and a catchy chorus. Yes, even some ICP songs. Take for example one of their more popular songs from a while back - one you'd think would be far more objectionable than Miracles...

Anyway, thanks to the Lantern article getting it wrong, I finally realized why Miracles seems to bother people more than Fuck the World -- or at least more than I would have expected.  Over a decade ago, in the late 90s, Spin magazine ran a four page cartoon mocking ICP, and apparently claimed...

"ICP is offensive not for their obscenity, but for their stupidity."

This actually makes some sense: Obscene is tolerable, but willfully ignorant?  Less tolerable.  Miracles seems embrace mystery and ignorance for the sake of mystery alone, and not out of any deeper appreciation for magnets, stars, plants, rainbows, giraffes, crows, feeding pelicans fish, etc. 

Fortunately, the article did get one important thing right: whether you like science or hate obscene music, there's certainly no reason to be scared of these clowns.

BCA Drops Libel Case Against Singh!!

Update:  According to Ben Goldacre, Singh may go after the BCA to recover his legal costs. You can read more on the case and the remaining need for British libel reform in Goldacre's article in the Guardian.

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has dropped is libel case against science journalist Simon Sigh following the recent ruling that Singh could appeal an earlier verdict against him.  Details can be found on the BCA's website here (PDF) via the Sense About Science site here or at the Libel Reform Campaign website here.

BCA V SIMON SINGH - PRESS STATEMENT – 15th APRIL 2010

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.
...
The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

Despite this big victory for Singh, it's only a non-loss for free speech.  Libel laws in the UK still need reform to protect free speech and promote open dialog -- and not just in the UK, but world-wide.

I would have preferred the outcome where Simon won his case on appeal, setting legal grounds for future libel cases against journalists. To learn more about libel law reform in the UK, visit the Sense About Science and The Libel Reform Campaign websites.

Small free speech victory: Singh wins right to appeal!

For details, jump on over to this BBC article. While you're there, definitely watch the video and listen to what Singh has to say on the need to reform libel laws in the U.K.

I couldn't find a way to embed that video here, but here's a little more from him after the ruling...

To learn more about what you can do to help reform libel laws in the U.K., visit the Sense About Science and The Libel Reform Campaign websites.

---

Update:

More from the BBC...

Evolution of flight

In case you missed in on TV...

Follow the link above to YoutTube for parts 2-4.

Want to learn more about H1N1 flu, seaonal flu, vaccines, and who's most at risk?

Today I caught part of a radio broadcast of a special edition of Second Opinion: H1N1 Special Edition. From what little I heard, it sounds like a fantastic discussion - one I hope you'll find the time to watch in it's entirety.

"Amsterdam is a mess... a cesspool of corruption, crime..."

I visited Amsterdam once while waiting to catch a plane following a trip to the Den Haag (and no, I didn't do anything there considered illegal here - although I did walk past plenty of cannabis cafes and brothels), and overall it seemed like a nice place. That said, it's great to see someone throwing some factual information at Fox News when they get it wrong:

More on vaccination and science literacy

I just ran across a post to the blog Sandwalk, that points out the role of journalists and scientists in helping the public make informed decisions when it comes to their health. Have a look at this video (embedded below) from this post by Dr. Ben Goldacre to his blog Bad Science.

Dear scientists: "It's good to blog"

The well known science journal Nature came out with a nice editorial piece last week that affirms my decision to create this blog. The title of the piece says it all: It's good to blog.