Freedom of press vs scientific responsibility

November 10, 2014November 10, 2014 Philip Moriartyfreedom of press, media, peer review, public engagement3 Comments

Isabel Palmer

How can the mainstream media balance the arguments surrounding emotionally charged scientific issues between real experts and powerful layman advocates?

Professor Chris Rapley is a scientist who has devoted his career to studying earth sciences and climate. He has been executive director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere, director of the British Antarctic Survey, director of the Science Museum and is currently working on Climate Science at UCL in London.

Lord Nigel Lawson has a degree in PPE from Oxford, and a long, successful political career. He does not, however, have any background in climate science whatsoever. He is also renowned for being a climate change sceptic, saying climate scientists are “alarmist” and “scaremongering”.

The video in the link below shows the two men in a short clip from an episode of the BBC’s Newsnight, debating climate change. Lawson and Rapley were each given equal air time and appear to be given equal credibility too. This seems to be a common occurrence in the media.

Every day on breakfast television and popular news shows, experts in their field are pitted against opinionated members of the public to discuss emotive scientific current affairs (e.g. climate change, vaccination, nuclear power). A recent example of this is the media debate over Ashya King, the child with brain cancer whose parents removed him from hospital in an attempt to get a new form of treatment, Proton Beam Therapy, over conventional radiotherapy.

I don’t want to pass judgement as to whether Mr and Mrs King were in the right or the wrong, but I do want to examine how the story was dealt with. The media leapt on the story and newspapers and television were flooded with opinion pieces from people who knew very little about the science behind either of these treatments stating their views one way or the other even though the oncologists working with the child had publicly stated that they did not believe that Ashya would significantly benefit from Proton therapy.

Freedom of press is a very important value in this country. However, what are the moral implications in giving sceptics the platform with which to spread unfounded beliefs over the evidence provided by real experts? Is it fair, and is it responsible, to give a layman advocate with strong opinions but little to back them up equal credence as a man who has devoted most of his life to researching and working on the issue at hand?

Many people including those in positions of power such as governmental or industrial figureheads form opinions based on how issues are portrayed in the media, so these activists, broadcasting their views with little scientific back up can actually affect how our country is run. We cannot simply ban these people from airing their views, every argument has two sides and people must be allowed to display opposing views. But surely there has to be some balance in allowing debates to be had, and arguments to be made, but still giving weight to those people who can truly be called “experts”.

Women in science: I am not the exception

November 9, 2014November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartypublic engagement, scientific method, social media, women in science5 Comments

Caitlin O’Brien

A recent BBC Horizon episode “Is your brain male or female?” got me thinking (in a “female” kind of way). In this particular episode the two presenters (Dr Michael Mosley and Professor Alice Roberts) discussed whether men’s and women’s brains were wired differently from birth, or whether the differences we see between the genders are born from societal influences. Basically put; a debate of nature vs. nurture. Some of the research presented seemed to suggest that, indeed, men are born with a more innate interest and talent for engineering and related subjects than girls are. As a scientist I should be able to consider the points they offered as evidence for their claim and review them in a logical manner. But as a female studying physics I just found myself frustrated and shouting “No! No! No!” at the screen.

It is only in recent years that we’ve really started seeing initiatives and government funding getting behind the issue of women in science. The balance is shifting, albeit slowly, and to start quoting evidence that women are born less able or with less capacity for science is about as damaging to this drive as you can get. I’m not suggesting that funding will dry up, but more that it will be another nail in the coffin when it comes to our attitudes as a society towards girls studying science.

Take this example. There is little that is more damaging to maths education in schools than the term “a maths brain”. The myth that some kind of “maths brain” is needed in order to understand basic mathematics has resulted in young people giving up on the subject from a depressingly young age. This trend then continues into adulthood and starts a vicious cycle. You don’t hear people say “Oh I just don’t have a ‘history’ brain…” do you!? But this phrase doesn’t (yet) present itself as being based on gender. But what if it did?

If we continue to present subjects such as physics and engineering as ’masculine’ to children from a young age, however unconsciously we may do so, it will be as damaging to girls who want to study physics as it is for boys who want to study English. Obviously there is a lot of work to be done in schools in the area of encouraging girls to take physics and maths A-levels but the messages we give our children start long before they turn 16.

In short, as a girl, studying physics as university, I know I am just as able as my male counterparts and I know the majority of my female peers feel the same way. To suggest that we are the exception rather than the rule is annoying, not only for us, but for all those that came before us, and all those who will follow in our footsteps. Only when you completely remove environmental influences can you truly reveal what is decided by our chromosomes alone.

Have social media improved the perception of Science?

November 9, 2014November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartyeducation, edutainment, public engagement, social media, YouTube1 Comment

Isabel Clarke

Over 6 billion hours of videos are watched on YouTube each month¹, that’s equivalent to 684,477 years worth. Whatever you’re looking for, chances are you can find it on YouTube, whether that’s a baby monkey riding on a pig² or a coherent explanation to the origin of quantum mechanics, in under 4.5 minutes³!

Experiments and explanations are quite literally at your fingertips without having to step foot in a lab or lecture theatre. Thanks to websites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, science has become more accessible to the everyday user. These websites act as translators, taking difficult scientific concepts and explaining them through everyday situations and items. In this, any viewer of any age can grasp a basic understanding of the laws of physics — it just depends on the approach taken. Torque and force can be explained through American football⁴ , and there’s an answer if you ever wondered how long it would take to charge a person needing 2500cals from a microwave’s energy input (1.9hrs, just so you know)⁵. These may not seem like ground-breaking discoveries, but all this leads to getting people to think about science and to show that it’s involved with every action of every day.

The beauty of social media is that any interaction whatsoever increases the exposure of science. Even if you don’t directly like ASAPScience, a friend sharing one of their posts has increased its reach. You might not follow Neil deGrasse Tyson, but a retweet from someone who does may appear in your feed and for that moment you’re made aware of their musings. All of these posts allow replies or comments and get conversations started. Even if it’s purely to satisfy boredom, surely that’s better than not at all?

We’re seeing more and more scientists take the form of “online celebrities”; people who are enthusiastic about topics and just want to share that with others. Social media breaks down the misconception that someone can’t be both scientist and person. People like Elise Andrew, creator of I F***ing Love Science, is the perfect example. Not only is she a female scientist, Elise contributes daily to sharing both entertaining and current scientific posts with over 18.5 million followers⁶, defying any belief that science is “boring”.

In the current age of technology, we’re glued to smart phones, tablets or some other device in constant search for entertainment. That may sounds depressing, but at the same time, we have more platforms catered to this than ever before. With the aid of social media, any information can be shared in any form, be that video, image, blog post or limited to 140 characters. There are no rules or hoops to jump through. And with that a new widespread appreciation of science has been born.

YouTube statistics — https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html

Parry Gripp, Baby Monkey — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_sfnQDr1-o

Minute Physics, The Origin of Quantum Mechanics — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1TVZIBj7UA

Minute Physics, Football, Physics, and Sym — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-5CDVdglp4

ASAPScience, Amazing Energy Facts To Blow Your Mind–https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnNixMosUIo

I F***ing Love Science, Facebook — – https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience?fref=ts

Is Richard Dawkins Closed-Minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, peer review, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Owen Letts

Dawkins has been called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” for his aggressive form of arguing in debate and his avid determination to spread evolution as the only theory, of the creation of life, which anyone should believe in. In a recent review of the first of a two part autobiography of Dawkins’ life, John Gray has taken this view to the extreme; and is more of a slander of Richard Dawkins in general than a book review. A rebuttal article was made and can be seen here, but what I am more interested in is what led to such an article in the first place and also whether Dawkins really is as close-minded as is portrayed.

If you were to read the Wikipedia page of Richard Dawkins you would find some quotes of his that seem intolerable such as “faith is one of the world’s great evils” and if you were to visit the r/atheism subreddit you wouldn’t be wrong for assuming Richard Dawkins is the leader of a cult instead of a scientific writer. An opinion piece that Dawkins wrote for the Guardian gives great insight into how he views religion; particularly when religion conflicts with the current theories of scientific research. He is clearly someone who believes that religion should not exist within education and that science should answer the questions that religion says it does.

Much of the above would definitely appear to make a case that Dawkins is close-minded. Having read slightly deeper into the situation I have found myself doubting that stance. The first piece of evidence I found was that in Dawkins autobiography he was in fact raised Christian and only over the years of his childhood did he decide to turn his back on religion. Also in his book, “The God Delusion”, he formulates his own spectrum of theistic probability. This alone isn’t an argument to say he is open-minded however he has said in interviews and debates that on this spectrum he would consider himself a 6.9 on the scale as he is willing to change his views if evidence of a God(/s) was to arise he would have to accept it as the scientific method dictates.

Even in light of this it is hard to go as far as to say that Richard Dawkins is open-minded. He appears to have grown up with changing his views and believing that objective evidence is the only thing that can confirm his beliefs and that therefore he does not have a “faith” by definition. However because of his disbelief in religions subjective nature he appears unable to see the benefits of religion and can only see the disadvantages. There are many debates involving Richard Dawkins that are freely available however this one made by Al Jazeera English seems to show how Dawkins is a great thinker but has closed his mind to the idea of positive religious benefits for society.

Can science be crowd-funded?

November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartycrowd-funding, economics, peer review, public engagement, social mediaLeave a comment

Joe Mason

£1 Billion. That’s the total amount raised by the top two crowd-funding (CF) websites over the last four years. That’s the GDP of a small nation being given to around 100,000 projects by regular people. Government spending on basic research sits at about this amount every year since 2011. That these figures are even close suggests that if science uses CF, we could see some amazing discoveries.

CF works by people buying into someone’s idea for a product. They see the idea on social media and with a few taps they can pledge amounts to back the project. The inventor then receives the money they need to get going and, hopefully, they’ll be successful. I like this because there’s nowhere else where a consumer can be involved so organically with the creation of their product.

By crowds of people paying the cost upfront, with some risk, everyone wins. Companies finance most research but for them there is a need for it to be product oriented. It must
be ultimately sellable. Governments also have agendas. They answer to voters and what voters think should be invested in. This allows for open minded research but it is still restricted to what the public are interested in. Charities are also concerned with public opinion and they have to be seen to be investing in the right things. Charities can’t finance things which aren’t relevant to their cause.
Overall, I think there is little scope for passion, imagination or enthusiasm in today’s scientific community. For sure, scientists love what they do but gone are the days of the explorer, free to chase the stars. Could CF liberate science? Kickstarter has a failure rate of 60% which I think indicates a community not entirely driven by success. This promises research without fear of failure. But why would people CF research?

CF is no altruistic act. People invest for the product or for what the product says about them. If researchers can get people to emotionally buy in to their research then CF could work for them. Making this possible is the fact that everything people do and say on social media is all on some level to project a persona. Companies get exposure by having a brand which people want to align themselves with. Alignment with brands is behind all viral advertising and therefore the success of CF. So if research can be branded compellingly I think people will buy into it because they will want to look however that brand makes them look.

CF is growing. From feature films to AI headsets. Why is this? Partly because people want great products but also because they want to be a part of something. CF won’t solve the problems science has with money. What CF will do is make people care about science. It’ll make science more present on the timelines and news feeds of the world. And if there’s one thing Companies, Governments and Charities pay attention to, it’s what everyone is talking about.

Is Richard Dawkins closed-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Benedict Adrian Vincent Poole

Probably the most outspoken atheist in the world Richard Dawkins does appear to enjoy causing controversy but does he actually address people’s responses or is he just closed minded?

After recently releasing his autobiography Dawkins has, as always, not held back his views on religion. Dawkins discusses his life and there are certainly moments where he appears to be very one-sided. At one point he refers to Elvis as obviously being religious because “He came from an uneducated working-class family in the American South”. It is this kind of statement that Dawkins haters latch onto.

He has also published books such as the God Delusion which became a #1 bestseller. It caused huge amounts of controversy but it is this that engages the public. The controversy is there to sell the books; he is just doing his job.

One of his beliefs seems to be that people who don’t have the access to higher education believe in a God to fill gaps in their knowledge. In interviews with Dawkins he spends a lot of time just insulting religion rather than actually dealing with the reasoning behind his views. Statements such as “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness” are commonplace.

But if he truly wants to convince the public that there isn’t a God he’s not just got to be able to understand the science he needs to understand religion so he can address the arguments properly. Dawkins couldn’t have a proper debate over the ins and outs of whether there is a God without knowing a great deal about religion. He claims his aim is to educate people about his field and this, for him, means explaining why the ideas about evolution completely disagree with the concept of God. Interestingly Dawkins also wants the Bible to be taught in schools saying “It needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and culture”. If he was closed minded he wouldn’t encourage the education of the Bible.

Dawkins has spent his whole life devoted to the research and development of the theory of evolution; it is fair that he has such strong views related to it. Dawkins sees evolution as the complete facts because it has been proven; there is evidence for it.

However he still has put his faith in science. The theory of evolution is not an unalterable truth but rather the best account we have so far of how life has developed. This is no different from religious people with religious beliefs putting all their faith in God. It appears that he rejects the whole of religion because it is wrong in some particular cases. Science is wrong a lot of the time, does he reject science?

He is passionate, opinionated and most certainly very one-sided when he puts his opinion across. Does this make him closed minded?

Do Social Media have a role to play in the scientific process?

November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartyimpact, peer review, public engagement, scientific method, social mediaLeave a comment

Christopher Glew

Before the advent of the internet, scientific advances were reported through either journals or, in the case of major research, in tabloid newspapers. But today, in the age of the internet and social media, even the smallest of scientific advances can be shared, ‘Liked’ on Facebook or tweeted about. But does this mean that social media has a role to play in the scientific process?

The role in the scientific process can be viewed in a positive light. Prior to social media, much of the research undertaken by scientists would have been largely inaccessible to the general population. However, in this modern era, where a large proportion of the population use Facebook and Twitter, this research can be more easily accessed. So in this case, the role of social media in the scientific process is good not only for the general population, but for the researchers also, as it allows their work to reach a much wider audience than would have otherwise been possible.

On the flip side of this, social media’s role in the scientific process could be viewed negatively. The impact on scientific research as outlined above could provide issues if such science was disproved later on. One interesting case of this was in a paper which stated a research team were able to see Hydrogen bonds within molecular structures. As this was a large step forward in this area of research, the paper gained a large number of Facebook ‘likes’ and tweet, making the research gain popularity until it was eventually picked up by large media outlets, who reported the information. This would first appear to be good news for the scientific process, as more people are being made aware of the research making both the general population and the scientific community excited.

It is important to note that this research has been since disproved relatively recently, but this has not been so widely publicised or picked up by social media. So the role of social media in the scientific process also has negative connotations, as people amongst the general population may not necessarily understand the research which is being put forward, which in turn puts strain on the belief system within science.

So the question of whether or not social media has a role to play in the scientific process is a clear yes, as it is able to heavily influence which types of research get picked up by the mainstream media. However, the effect that this in turn has on the scientific process can either be positive or negative due to the influence of Facebook ‘likes’ and Tweets; and it’s this question which will need to be answered in the near future.

Is Richard Dawkins closed-minded?

November 9, 2014 Philip MoriartyDawkins, public engagement, religion, scientific methodLeave a comment

Rebecca Louise Andrews

The phrase “closed-minded” is defined variously as
“Having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook” (oxforddictionaries.com), “Having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments” (dictionary.reference.com) and “One who thinks that just because he hates it means everyone else should.” (urbandictionary.com)

Without the benefit of an entry in any legitimate dictionary, I shall have to define Richard Dawkins as “that pompous, condescending, militantly atheist guy who’s always doing interviews and debates”.

It’s important to distinguish though between Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins – one is a 73 year old man who has a wife and daughter and lives in Oxford; while the other is a public figurehead who is held up by some and ridiculed by others, who debates the big questions on a world stage, and has written 13 more or less extremely controversial books. Without having a close personal relationship to the man, I can’t comment on his closed-mindedness on religion (or choice of biscuit, for that matter) but I can look at the apparent views of Richard Dawkins which are all too easy to find.

In interviews, Dawkins focuses a lot on if ‘religion is true’, more than if it’s useful in any way – something that most people would argue is more important. And some would say he is very closed-minded because of his insistence on relying on evidence, as is evident in his infamous debate on Creationism with Wendy Wright (here).

But isn’t that the point of science? To rely purely on the evidence at hand? Just as the fundamental Christians he seems to constantly bump into insist on relying on faith alone, it doesn’t seem fair to deny him a similarly stubborn approach.

Also, isn’t that the point of televised debates? The participants don’t turn up with an open mind, ready to accept the other person’s point of view – that’s what the audience is there for. They are about watching two opposing opinions collide, and any weaknesses like being ‘open-minded’ will be brutally exploited. Dawkins wouldn’t be invited back if he switched sides halfway through.

But he is also a scientist, and any scientist has to be open-minded in order to critically evaluate their own, and others, work. Drawing scientific conclusions from data and letting go of any personal bias requires a mind so open it could be said to be empty.

So I think a more important question is whether it matters. After all, there are plenty of people who are very vocal on the subjects that Dawkins regularly speaks on – namely religious vs scientific explanations for nature and the universe, and whether religion is a force for good. And it’s easy to see that (as in many things) there is a spectrum of religiosity, and Dawkins is definitely at one extreme.

But someone’s got to be there, and if Dawkins doesn’t represent the staunchly atheistic, closed-minded end of the spectrum, someone else will take his place as the perfect straw man for the religious extreme.

Scrutinising scrutiny: Is peer review working?

November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartypeer review, public engagement, scientific methodLeave a comment

Piyumi Athulathmudali

Peer review is essentially the weeding out of the ‘bad’ science from the ‘good’ – in an ideal world. It is also the encouraging of the former into the latter through constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement, often to the author’s dismay…

Nobody likes rejection, but I imagine it can be particularly vexing to see your almost sound, countless hours of work to effectively be deemed inferior to a perfectly fraudulent piece of almost-immediately-obvious junk. We’ve seen even seen it with a less-than-subtle fabrication of gold nanorod ‘chopsticks’ – so crudely fabricated in fact that I find it hard to believe that this wasn’t put out as an attempt to shine light on the shortcomings of peer review. But I think the common expectation we have for the first chronological step in peer review to be capable of policing fraud is an unnecessary one.

Even in the minority of cases surfaced of bad science, or non-science, passing through the apparently not-so-tough barricades of peer review, it’s only the rarer cases where failure hasn’t been spotted so quickly that have the potential to be more troublesome. The longer bad things go unnoticed the greater the chance that irretrievable sums of funding and lengths of hard work will have gone to waste, and in the worst cases, created more bad than good. Part of the problem is that once a paper is published, many take it as assured. Perhaps there has to be a greater distinction between published and generally accepted by the scientific community.

Though not perfect at its job (being a process controlled by humans), it is better than nothing at all. What’s important is whether peer review in its current state is the best approach possible. A question complicated by the variability and lack of transparency in standards/processes.

Reviews can be single blind (the current norm – only the reviewers’ identities hidden), double-blind (both authors’ and reviewers’ identities hidden) or open (all identities known). The common preference for double-blind to single blind makes sense – while not completely eliminating bias, it is a push in that direction. Sure, in cases, the high specialisation around a may hinder the anonymity of authors, but the alternative is no better in this regard.

Recently, post-publication peer review platforms, such as PubPeer, are becoming more widely used, going hand in hand with the movement from print publication to online publication, unrestricted by printing costs. Stating the obvious, here studies are reviewed after publication, voluntarily or by invited reviewers.

I favour a system in which trained reviewers act in the first phase to check the validity of the study, and if appropriate, to check the raw data itself. The second (voluntary) post-publication phase would allow further spotting of errors, and recording of repeated tests. When results have been reproduced, readers can think about giving them real value.

Is peer review working? Its working pretty well I would say, and though not at its optimum, its future seems brighter.

Image credit: Courtesy of James Yang, http://www.jamesyang.com

Is ‘Carrot on a stick’ funding the future for science?

November 9, 2014November 9, 2014 Philip Moriartycrowd-funding, economics, impact, politics, public engagement, scientific methodLeave a comment

Mitchell Guest

This year is the three hundredth anniversary of the passing of the Longitude Act, and David Cameron’s Tory government is glamming up the archaic principle to impose on 21st Century researchers. The Longitude Prize, first introduced back in 1714, is intended to inspire armchair scientists to become more active in the direction science moves in; instead of letting academics and business leaders govern the flow of science funding.

There are, of course, benefits to the act. Supporters note that it will accelerate the development of crucial drugs, intended to prevent anti-bacterial immunity. Whilst I’m sure this will be the case, I believe that funding for science is not simply an investment into a later technology. However, with the Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to a discovery with ‘significant commercial potential’, arguably for the third time in ten years, maybe the way that the general public perceive science funding is different to mine. In an age of continuing austerity, it is right that all government spending is scrutinised, however it should not be the case that all taxpayers’ money is judged using the same materialistic criteria.

Ultimately, I like to think that science has moved on since the last time a British government offered a reward-for-science incentive. Scientific research is now a team sport, requiring expensive materials, high-tech laboratories and knowledge well surpassing that of a hobby scientist. Whereas in 1700’s, well off statesman could dabble with a little science in their spare time, the explosion of knowledge that we have witnessed in the previous few decades has all but guaranteed that the era of part-time researchers is well and truly behind us.

Finally, I feel like the big PR campaign around the award is being used to distract the public about the severe lack of government funding into scientific research. No amount of television time or large, corporate judging panels can plug the funding hole left by successive Westminster administrations. Whilst the prize money, set at an ambitious £10m, is by no means insignificant, I cannot help but wonder if it will be ‘money well spent’. Universities are having budgets slashed, and are expected to produce the same level of outstanding work that has become synonymous with British scientists, without the help and support from the ruling parties. In conclusion, I feel like the prize is no more than an expensive gimmick, with little chance of engaging the public with the complicated web of science funding. I can only hope that the incentive will lead to some good breakthroughs in one of sciences biggest challenges.