Do you know what you're being fed? Truthiness or Fact?

As much as I would like to say I am not a victim of "truthiness", unfortunately I think all of us at some point are forced to rely on nothing more than our gut feeling about something.  We are constantly bombarded with contradictions about what is healthy or not.  One day high fructose corn syrup is the worst thing possible and the next day it's just syrup made from corn - it has to be healthy, right?  So with all the information that is being shoved down our throats on a daily basis we have to learn to sort that in some way.  We usually do this through our intuition about the facts.

Science writers may sometimes choose to tell the truthiness simply because they believe the information that they are providing.  I would hope that the intent would not be to mislead but instead to offer the best possible explanation for what may be a very confusing array of information.  In this case the writer is providing what they think is the most accurate fact, even if they are using their intuition in order to arrive at this fact.  I would suggest that the writer would also have to do research and provide additional sources with this fact in order to arrive at their gut instinct instead of the other way around.

If information began to be replaced by truthiness in the media I honestly don't think the majority of people would notice.  That may seem like a bleak outlook at the human race, but honestly with our scientific literacy in this country, I find it unlikely that the average person is doing background research on anything they hear in the media anyway.  Most people take information that they hear in the media (be it, television, news, twitter, radio, etc) and accept that information as fact with a second question.  There are several "fact" based sites that you can follow on stumble upon or twitter in order to obtain strange or uncommon facts; these facts do not come with a side of sources or data, and thus most people take them as honest fact when in reality my little brother could have a twitter called "THE MOST AMAZING FACTS" and be tweeting anything that pops up into this 11-year-old head.  I therefore make the sad claim that: the average person would NOT notice if they were being fed truthiness or fact.  

Vaccine-autism advocates: illiterate or mislead?

     I do not think it is accurate to claim that vaccine-autism advocates are scientifically illiterate, perhaps confused would be a more accurate term.  With all the controversy surrounding the relationship between vaccines and autism it makes sense that people would be confused when scientists can't even agree.  Although the relationship between early vaccinations and autism has not been proven, it is important to note that it has also not been ruled out as an option.  Autism is a complicated disease that deals with the developing brain and unfortunately this is when children are being exposed to these vaccines.  This is what makes studying this relationship so difficult and explains why scientists are having a hard time 
    An important fact to consider is the government's seemingly controversial role in vaccinations. If vaccines aren't harmful then why is it that the CDC tried to cover up the harmful nature of ingredients included in vaccines?  Why was the CDC using an invalid study (in which the "researcher" disappeared with the $2 million he supposedly spent on research) as it's source for proving mercury based vaccines were safe for children? Why did we remove Thimerosal if the toxic nature of the preservative was originally denied?  If vaccines aren't harmful why are we shipping them off to third world countries instead of using them on Americans?  Why did Bill Gates call vaccines a form of population control in third world countries when he said, 

                    "Let’s take a look. First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion 

                   people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job 

                  on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower 

                                                        that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent" 

in a Ted Talk about his philanthropy foundation's work with vaccines?

     All of these questions still remain unanswered, at least to the general public.  Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I would like to put forth that there are still unanswered questions about vaccines and their risk/benefit factors.  Perhaps, they aren't causing autism, but the fact is that we cannot say that with absolute certainty.  
     As a science writer, taking all this into consideration, I think it is important that the proper research be done in order to clear up this muddy subject and hopefully end the spread of misinformation.  Knowing that people can be so easily persuaded by misinformation, it is important as a writer that intends to spread honest information that you check your sources.  We learned from several of these autism studies that it is important to background check studies for things such as: funding for research, sample size, methodology, replication of data, scientific validation in the community, and more.  As a science writer, we cannot also take research for granted.  It is our duty to find the correct information and make sure that is what is being spread.

Science for the Common Good

     I read an interesting book lately, not a science book, but a book written by a journalist who was interested in the relationship between science and art.  The journalist is Jonah Lehrer and his book is titled Proust was a Neuroscientist.  The book posited the idea that art - in its various forms - discovered secrets about the brain before "neuroscience" ever even existed.  Lehrer talks about Walt Whitman and how he united the mind/body duality through his poetry by showing how we are one with our bodies.  We can see an example of this in his epic poem, "Songs of myself," when he says: “I am the poet of the body, / And I am the poet of the soul".  This example shows how Whitman was able to discover the relationship between the mind and the body long before we had the technology to look into the human mind.  Lehrer uses many other examples to show how through various means of art we have been able to discover facts about the brain before neuroscience.  
     Lehrer wrote this book because he was interested in the relationship between art and science.  I think it takes this type of passion to go out and write about something that you find interesting.  I learned many things from this book that I did not know previously, even as someone who is studying in neuroscience.  Science is something that should be given away for 3 main reasons: 1. Because you did the research/discovered something yourself, 2. Because you are interested in the research 3. Because you think the information is relevant and should be more widespread.  If a writer feels compelled by any of these reasons they should pick their topic and write about it in order to spread the wealth of knowledge.  This benefits the common good by making science knowledge more accessible and adds to the general scientific literacy.
     I do not think that there should be one set way to write about science, that being said, there is no one way to write something that is going to interest everyone.  You could present the same information in 10 different ways and each way is going to appeal to a different type of person.  In order to write about science that is going to appeal to the most amount of people you have to turn it into a story.  This is what makes it interesting and relevant to the reader; this is what Jonah Lehrer did.  In order to give science away in a manner that is going to reach the most people in the most effective way the facts have to be presented in a creative way as to almost trick people into learning.  You want the reader to crave more knowledge at the end of your story so that they are intrigued enough to go out and seek additional information on their own.  A science writer should be able to effectively do this in order to spread science information for the betterment of our nation's scientific literacy.  

keep science alive!

Science is about finding the way to discover the world around us: interpreting the magic of our existence.  This is what children are doing everyday as they are growing up.  Kids in their early years are still learning new things every day.  This is why science is so exciting at an early age; we are able to make sense of our environment.  I believe this is why science is so interesting to kids early on and why they are so involved.
     Later on in life, for example at the middle school age, children are still figuring out their own worlds but this begins to change for them as they become more social and less scientific.  Science is not seen as something new and exciting anymore.  Instead, children are forced to study and read books and complete less experiments.  At a young age, we are all scientists, running experiments of our own: seeing what we can get away with on a daily basis.  Later on, we already know what we are capable of and somewhere along the way we lose sight of that inquisitiveness that we all have as children.  Perhaps its the textbooks, the classroom structure, and the lack of recess and FUN that is included in science when we're younger.
     I think the science writer can and should be motivated to change this problem and reintegrate science in the inner child of every adult.  If we work to keep the fun in science and show older children and teenagers that science can still be fun we can keep them interested.  I remember I had a science teacher that showed us experiments with dry ice and worked with different color flames (everybody likes fire) that made our class excited to go everyday to see what we would see!  We didn't even realize we were learning on the way because we were intrigued and most importantly, we were having fun.  In order to keep science alive we must work to keep the interest.  This includes less work in the classroom and more field work; less lectures and more questions; less passivity and more action.

Can education make us less literate?

            The ASR findings provide us- as writers, scientists, and citizens-with a wealth of information about what the general public feels about the scientific community.  Not only does it shed some light on this image:  it also allows us to envision a way in which we can work together as citizens to improve that image by providing relevant and useful scientific information in a way that anyone can understand.  The article shows that among conservatives, especially those that are considered ‘educated’ on their scale, showed the greatest decline for trust in science over the last few decades, compared to moderates, and liberals.  Speculations that have been derived from these results hint to the idea that, maybe, educated conservatives are less likely to believe something that is outside of their repertoire of beliefs because they are more educated on how to defend their opinions. 

            As a science writer, the best way we can interpret the ASR findings is that there is a clear problem that needs to be addressed with regards to scientific literacy.  It is crucial that we make the general public not only aware of scientific discoveries and theories, but that we instill in our citizens a desire to learn; to question; to trust in science.  If we recognize that certain groups of people are not going to believe in global warming because of their personal beliefs, then we must learn how to help them see that it is a legitimate and imminent concern.  We can do this by serving as a liaison between the scientist and the citizen.  We have the access to – and knowledge of – scientific information that is relevant to the general public and must find a way to make this knowledge comprehensible.  A good science writer should be able to explain the same concept to a neuroscience graduate student and a curious 10-year-old. 

The scientific writer must focus on providing not only information about global warming, but also: the research behind it, global trends in temperature, alternative energy sources, opposing theories and their legitimacy, and etcetera. The story must include a title that is neutral yet controversial and intriguing: “The Scoop on global warming: is it real and should we care?”  This title (rough draft, I know) states what the article is about, shows no bias to a specific side (in order to appeal to a more general audience), and intrigues the reader by playing to the controversial nature of the topic. 

Another important lesson that we can take from the ASR article is the importance of writing about information that is backed up in academia.  One must not be tempted to write about a topic based purely on its ability to generate publicity or stir up controversy.  If we truly wish to increase scientific literacy we, as writers, need to write about scientific information that is not just mainstream issues but also issues that are not being addressed, such as GMO’s.  This would eliminate some of the problems that we see with articles on the same topic that conflict and cause confusion – does coffee help with stress or cause our hearts to explode? - for example.  We must strive to write articles that are informative; provide the reader with further resources and data; create an environment that facilitates an inquisitive mind.    

As a scientist, it is crucial that we must first deal with the problem of reputation among the scientific community.  As clearly shown in the ASR article, there is an issue with the legitimacy and reliability of science because the general public is losing their faith in the field.  In order to restore this faith, scientists must strive to do honest research on information that is relevant to the general public.  If you know people are less willing to trust your data, do things to build a better reputation such as working on your reliability and validity and not reporting results that are irrelevant or misleading.  As a scientist, it is our duty to make your research known.  It is important to make someone understand why your research is pertinent and what implications it has for the average person.  As a scientist you must: make your research relevant, make it relatable, and make people care.  As a scientist, one must not always be so stuck writing in the prose of a scientific paper, but also be able to explain the ideas in a way that your average Joe would be able to read and interpret.  From the ASR paper, we see the decline in trust in science; we must act now in order to rebuild the bridges we have burned – perhaps this time, more stable, and with a bit more transparency in our methods.  In order to build a better reputation for science as a whole, it is important to operate on a basis of honesty and relevancy. 

As citizens, we must also be aware of the influence that we have in creating a world that is more scientifically literate.  One of the main problems here lies in education.  The ASR article highlighted the problems with education among conservatives, but did not touch on the holistic problem of education in this country.  It is important as citizens to take matters into our own hands; we cannot simply rely on writers or scientists to provide us with information.  It is important to ask questions, to do follow up research, to create your own experiments.  Although, this may seem unlikely, at the very least we need to create a society of people that are, once again, inquisitive. 

We must work on recreating the education system to one that will foster creativeness and inspire an inquisitive mind.  We must create a system that encourages children, at an earlier age, to question whatever personal belief system they may have – whether they be derived from family, religion, or personal preferences.  If children are taught at an earlier age to question everything; they are more likely to be able to develop their own opinions at an earlier age: which may decrease some of the issues with educated conservatives in the ASR article.  Perhaps if one is more educated from an earlier age, and taught to be more hesitant about receiving information, perhaps this would carry over to adulthood and one would be more likely to question an article on the effectiveness of tomato juice in curing AIDS.  It is our duty as citizens to establish a better system that will hopefully foster the creative and questioning minds that make it possible for a scientifically literate community to exist: this starts with education.

Overall, it is important that we all- writers, scientists, and citizens- alike, work together in order to inspire the general public alike to be interested in and pursue scientific information.  Scientific writers must work on their ability to provide scientific information that is more relevant and more accessible.  Scientists must work on improving their reputation by carrying out and reporting validated data and results.  Citizens must work on creating a society that desires to learn about science and questions what they read or hear on TV.  It is important that we address these problems that were highlighted in the ASR article, and work together in order to create a nation that is more scientifically literate.

Importance of scientific literacy

     If more people were scientifically literate they would be more comfortable developing opinions on social or political issues.  If you are knowledgeable in an area, you have a better understanding of the issue and what goes into making a decision about the matter.  For example, if one understands what stem cells are and how they are used in research, they can then develop their own opinions on the ethics of using them and whether or not we should pursue the research.  When a person is not knowledgeable about the science behind an issue such as stem cells, they are more likely to develop opinions based on propaganda that they hear. 

                I believe that scientific understanding of important issues allows individuals to become more involved in the decision process.  A more informed citizen is able to make better decisions regarding these issues because they understand the scientific relevance of the issues.  If citizens become more aware of topics such as stem cells, then they can become more involved with the political side.

The first of many

Now I know how to blog!