tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post6202099242203002857..comments2024-03-17T21:38:11.530-07:00Comments on The Tree of Life: Twisted tree of Life Award #13: Press release from U. Oslo on new protozoanJonathan Eisenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-88574343912117634612012-05-02T10:35:50.592-07:002012-05-02T10:35:50.592-07:00I might be wrong, but I think the vast majority of...I might be wrong, but I think the vast majority of scientists and science writers would agree with the solution proposed by Larry (see above) on how to fix the increasing flow of deceiving press releases and misleading science communications.<br /> <br />Also, similar to Jonathan (see above) and Larry, dozens of other Bloggers make highly significant contributions to both science and science communication.<br /><br />However, as popular as some Blogs and Bloggers are, their individual reach and impact, even when overlapping, only goes so far, leaving the gate of ugly science wide open.<br /> <br />Will this gate eventually close? Obviously, that’s written in the fiber of science, but Bloggers have the opportunity to speed up the process at a rate of: <i><b>what about right now!</b></i><br /><br />While Bloggers’ should maintain their individual flavors and takes, which makes blogging so interesting and addictive, it would make sense to join forces in drafting:<br /><br />(1) <i><b> codes of ‘conduct‘</b></i> for both scientists and science writers, for whatever the ‘conduct’ is, such as writing press releases and interview-based articles.<br /> <br />(2) <i><b> principles of basic ‘sciences’</b></i>, whatever the ‘sciences’ of interest might be (e.g. Evolution, Big Bang, Tree of Life, Gravity, RNA interference, etc.).<br /><br />These ‘codes’ and ‘principles’ would be used as reference by both, science writers and scientists, and their followers. To give a specific example, it makes no sense, whatsoever, that after half of century since Crick proposed his hypothetical Central Dogma, which should be among the ABCs of Molecular Biology, hundreds of authors of science textbooks and articles, and even more students who follow their teachings, are not sure what it means?<br /><br />It would be great if Larry and Jonathan, together with their many experienced colleague Bloggers, take the initiative in setting up this Science Open Project. I think many scientists, science writers, and science enthusiasts will join in. And, please, make a list of those who join and support such a sensible and worthy project, and also a list of those who don’t; just leaving this last category out as an anonymous amorphous group might be just what they want in order to maintain the status quo of confusion and ugly science in which they can flourish.Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-9374637461046916402012-05-02T07:19:17.599-07:002012-05-02T07:19:17.599-07:00I don't mean to be rude, but I find this post ...I don't mean to be rude, but I find this post really funny. I actually LOL-ed, particularly at your responses to the excerpts.<br /><br />Maybe you can consider doing some stand-up comedy on the side. :)junhoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509159834371645093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-27797230117003413592012-04-30T15:43:38.407-07:002012-04-30T15:43:38.407-07:00This is worth to be repeated, in bold:
All author...This is worth to be repeated, in bold:<br /><br /><b><i>All authors of the paper in question have to agree to the content of the press release and there should be a statement at the bottom of the press release naming each author and saying that they specifically approve the content.</i></b><br /><br />And, this should be highly recommended also for interview articles on specific papers; maybe a notch more relaxed, but still. I have a hint that some of the authors of the paper under discussion here, I’m referring specifically to Dr. Keeling, whose work I’m relatively familiar with, are not happy with quality of science communication associated with their paper.Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-16115198480271271582012-04-30T13:56:22.284-07:002012-04-30T13:56:22.284-07:00Brilliant LarryBrilliant LarryJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-76306943829862537992012-04-30T13:50:18.599-07:002012-04-30T13:50:18.599-07:00With respect to university press releases my solut...With respect to university press releases my solution is ...<br /><br /><i>All authors of the paper in question have to agree to the content of the press release and there should be a statement at the bottom of the press release naming each author and saying that they specifically approve the content.</i>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-44653240857025784392012-04-30T09:24:13.452-07:002012-04-30T09:24:13.452-07:00…writers also bear a responsibility to check detai...<i>…writers also bear a responsibility to check details and not just take the scientists at their word.</i><br /><br />You are right, which brings us to the issue raised by Laurence A. Moran (above), that of the need to improve the working relationship between scientists and science journalists. <br /><br />It would make sense that, before publishing, science writers get feedback on all their stories from ‘third party’ consulting scientists, preferably from ones who have broad and solid understanding of science. In exchange, the scientists are acknowledged for their contribution, or in cases where their contribution is substantial even become coauthors. <br /><br />In the process, the scientists would improve their science writing skills, and increase their appreciation for it; not to mention, that when their own ‘big discovery’ comes along, they are already connected!Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-18554475950642618362012-04-30T08:10:37.197-07:002012-04-30T08:10:37.197-07:00Well, the scientists definitely had some strange s...Well, the scientists definitely had some strange statements. But the writers also bear a responsibility to check details and not just take the scientists at their word. And Welsh's article has some issues (not as many as the one I linked to). <br /><br />For example<br /><br />" If that's true, they would be some of the oldest eukaryotes, giving rise to all other eukaryotes, including humans."<br /><br />That is just wrong. No living organisms are older than any others. And no modern organisms gave rise to all other eukaryotes.<br /><br />And <br /><br />" It's an organism with membrane-bound internal structures, called a eukaryote, but genetically it isn't an animal, plant, fungi, algae or protist (the five main groups of eukayotes). "<br /><br />These are not the main groups of eukaryotes known today.<br /><br />So she did not do a good job here ...Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-64542759050966892982012-04-30T08:04:24.651-07:002012-04-30T08:04:24.651-07:00Here is another take on this article: http://www.l...Here is another take on this article: http://www.livescience.com/19955-ancient-protist-kingdom.html<br /><br />The problem here is with the scientists, not so much with the writer Jennifer Welsh. According to Kamran Shalchian-Tabrizi, the ‘senior scientist’ on the paper, the organism they report “evolved around one billion years ago, plus or minus a few hundred million years”, which “gives us a better understanding of what <b>early life</b> on Earth looked like” (emphasis mine).<br /><br />Apparently, Shalchian-Tabrizi has a different perspective than most other scientists about when life started kicking on Earth. Maybe he can tell us more about it!Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-34117714959054700892012-04-30T06:23:18.425-07:002012-04-30T06:23:18.425-07:00* "Excavates"* "Excavates"Anders K. Krabberødhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14457954631721761759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-16136820052625479622012-04-30T06:22:54.824-07:002012-04-30T06:22:54.824-07:00"Excvates" was also used in the original..."Excvates" was also used in the original Norwegian print, it does not resemble any Norwegian word at all.Anders K. Krabberødhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14457954631721761759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-43115229333842473972012-04-30T05:06:26.554-07:002012-04-30T05:06:26.554-07:00I'd send you a pdf but don't have access
...<i>I'd send you a pdf but don't have access</i><br /><br />I have a PDF copy; email me at: cbandea@cdc.govClaudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-48710595656514523532012-04-27T15:22:35.532-07:002012-04-27T15:22:35.532-07:00The original source doesn't really matter. Fac...The original source doesn't really matter. Fact is, ScienceDaily copied and reproduced the article without recognizing how bad it was.<br /><br />Last Monday I went to a talk on <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/04/communicating-science.html" rel="nofollow">Effectively Communicating Your Science</a>. As usual, it was mostly science journalists lecturing scientists about how to publicize science correctly.<br /><br />I see very little evidence that science journalists are doing a better job than scientists. I think scientists should go to <i>their</i> meetings and lecture <i>them</i> about effective science communication.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-10328737736771903842012-04-27T15:20:27.604-07:002012-04-27T15:20:27.604-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-21209716941813741942012-04-27T12:12:40.497-07:002012-04-27T12:12:40.497-07:00I'm guessing that "excavates" made i...I'm guessing that "excavates" made it to print because it is also a fairly common English verb -- it passed the spellcheck test.Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02968872267548865219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-61735849090632643832012-04-27T10:23:48.632-07:002012-04-27T10:23:48.632-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bigeniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12719380435628351017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-65926654943606835822012-04-27T06:50:51.062-07:002012-04-27T06:50:51.062-07:00It can't be with those authors - they all gene...It can't be with those authors - they all generally do interesting thingsJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-38538850386494876792012-04-27T06:50:08.027-07:002012-04-27T06:50:08.027-07:00Anders - thanks for the clarification.Anders - thanks for the clarification.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-36457480813446453872012-04-27T05:45:17.858-07:002012-04-27T05:45:17.858-07:00The main problem with this "press release&quo...The main problem with this "press release" is that it is not a press release and was never inteded as one either. It's an interview of the group that works on Collodyction made by a journalist from the Apollon magazine with little knowledge about biology, and not a press release prepared by the scientists who published the Collodyction paper (in MBE; I can send it to you if you want to read it). The Apollon magazine that printed the interview is a small popular science magazine read by all kinds of people at the University of Oslo, from students and employees in the administration to scientific staff. Sadly this kind of article is often the result when journalists without in-depth knowledge about biology tries to make unfamiliar scientific content "accessible" to a broad non-scientific audience and reflects. Among the things that are considered to difficult for a non-scientific audience are names like "Collodyction", unikots and bikonts. (Actually I'm kind of surprised that the reference to excavates made it to print.)Anders K. Krabberødhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14457954631721761759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-89890766749210583922012-04-27T05:44:29.095-07:002012-04-27T05:44:29.095-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anders K. Krabberødhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14457954631721761759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-73913695300173247462012-04-27T00:05:51.887-07:002012-04-27T00:05:51.887-07:00I want to know if the paper is as bad as the press...I want to know if the paper is as bad as the press release. Surely it isn't...!Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-68764102550832582642012-04-26T23:49:07.869-07:002012-04-26T23:49:07.869-07:00Dare I ask Andreas - is the Norwegian as painful a...Dare I ask Andreas - is the Norwegian as painful as the English version?Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-48219725793653045522012-04-26T23:22:13.811-07:002012-04-26T23:22:13.811-07:00I read the original press release in Norwegian (ht...I read the original press release in Norwegian (http://www.apollon.uio.no/artikler/2012/urdyret.html) and it must be that paper. The untranslated release talked about "Collodictyon".Andreas Sjodinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04432701412742781525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-1947834806704244622012-04-26T23:14:21.619-07:002012-04-26T23:14:21.619-07:00Took a few clicks but I think this is the paper: h...Took a few clicks but I think this is the paper: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/06/molbev.mss001<br /><br />I'd send you a pdf but don't have access.Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-13913819479660860702012-04-26T22:30:27.312-07:002012-04-26T22:30:27.312-07:00Awhile ago I heard an account of a Cavalier-Smith ...Awhile ago I heard an account of a Cavalier-Smith lecture where the guy changed his mind *in the middle of his talk*. Which is actually awesome, but still funny.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-69881264322550624342012-04-26T21:03:12.829-07:002012-04-26T21:03:12.829-07:00Plus I should add - the unikont -bikont split is a...Plus I should add - the unikont -bikont split is apparently no longer considered correct even by Cavalier Smith http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/7Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.com