Sunday, July 09, 2006

Science Journalism






Paragraphs and bold-faces are mine.

By Mirko Herr


Unlocking the Ivory Tower - Why we need Science Journalism




When Proteins meet Protons – Where journalists fail




Word vs. term – Where scientists could improve





  1. Half Time: France 1 Italy 1

    In the same way, the rapid deceleration of RHIC ions as they smash into each other for a very short period of time (about 10^(-23) second) is similar to the extreme gravitational environment in the vicinity of a black hole. This means that RHIC collisions should emit a bunch of thermal particles similar to the “Hawking radiation” emitted by a black hole. Since Hawking radiation is the cause of black hole decay, not formation, its existence would be yet another reason that RHIC cannot produce a real gravitational black hole.

  2. Well, what was his excuse for the case at hand?

    The simple bottomline in everyday words is: LHC is not dangerous. There is no chance in hell that it could create a blackhole the would eat the earth (though there is always one in mathematics).

    From your description, it sounded like, when faced with this simple and clearly understandable message he did press on for details, to spin the details into another simple and clearly understandable message - opposite to the one you had given.

  3. Dear Mirko Herr and Bee,


    No they do not. And this is one of the problems of science journalism (at least from my perspective). Every little result and step forward becomes a 'fantastic result', breakthrough, etc.

  4. I quote:




    Bee, the nice guy is an arrogant idiot. Don't waste your time with him.

  5. What is wrong with caramel syrup? Don't be bitter, honey bee. Sensations make life sweet...


    If that is true, it would be an extremely serious misdemeanour by the journalist in question. You shouldn't have accepted his apology. You need to get a written apology from him, his publication and a written retraction in the publicaton. You can't allow people to go around doing that.


    I agree. There was a discussion at cosmic variance four weeks ago touching on this issue, with a little different focus. The message I got from there was that in science journalism, in-depth background reporting, which is the culmination of investigative journalism in politics or economics, is nearly completely absent. Instead, new, often unconfirmed results are repeated from press releases of universities or research centres.

    In my opinion, some critical reporting with hindsight, along the line "what has happened to this breakthrough and that exciting development", would indeed be interesing and illuminating. And it is just natural that some "exciting results" end up as blunder - for example, the pentaquark could just be such a case - see hep-ex/0606014 for the latest failure to confirm its existence.

    But then, there is the question at which public such reporting should be addressed, because:

    the nice guy is an arrogant idiot.

    I cannot see this at all, and, instead, think that this attitude towards this journal and this journalist is extremely dismissive, and just ignoring the real world.

    In my opionion, this guy tries to explain to us that he is struggeling around to just do the best he can do within the constraints imposed by the journal he is working for, which has, on has to concede, not the highest claims with regard to its scientific standards.

    So, of course, one can dismiss the "Welt der Wunder" as junk and suggest to Mirko that he finds another job at a better paper. That's the point of view from the ivory tower.

    Instead, I have the impression we have to face some inconvenient facts and to address reality.

    I would guess that not more than say one third of all people living in the US or in Europe have ever heard of the "Scientific American", let alone read it once. The "well-educated layman" is, unfortunately, quite rare.

    Now, "Welt der Wunder", and the television series where the journal originates from, tries to catch the interest of those two-thirds who, otherwise, would never have heard anything at all of the LHC.

    Then, is it a bad thing when their readers get some distorted impression of what is going on science instead of knowing nothing at all? I think that this is the real issue at hand that has to be discussed.

    Of course, journals such as "Welt der Wunder" should not convey an idea of science as sheer magic, or reckless, hazardous experimentation, and this piece about Black Holes at the LHC pushes the envelope. But in general, in my opinion, such journals fill an important gap, as long as we do not have any better idea how to communicate science to really everybody. Sniffing at this journal may be justified, but it does not help anyone.

    Best, Stefan

  8. I agree with Stefan. We all know lots of people like the journalist's Mom. Not stupid but way way off the scope for anything technical. And yes these are not only the voters but the overwhelming number of elected officials and politicians. Getting through to them is important! But I don't think replacing MnF_2 with "Magnesium Flouride" is going to help all those folks understand that paper!



Comment moderation on this blog is turned on.