Aileen Thompson, writing at Blog Herald, took note of the recently ended "Science Week” and had some comments I think the science community should note:
In case you missed it, there was an entire week (Feb. 4-10) of science blogging called “Science Week” - when an entire stable of science bloggers committed to at least one blog a day actually focused on… Science! This may seem a little bit strange to blogophyles who reasonably presume that science blogs must *of course* be about science, but this is unfortunately not always the case. At least, not among the most popular science blogs, which are primarily about politics, ideological posturing, “Culture War” polemics, popular book promotions, pretty pictures of diverse subjects, and (predictably, given the demographics) sex.
Sometimes it takes a non-science blogger to make a terrific point. Why do the most popular science bloggers on the internet attack other writers, other scientists, other science sites, other political parties, religion and generally deal with everything except science?
There isn't a writer on scientificblogging.com who's ever had a conversation (with me) about what "sells" to the audience but a frustrated writer at another site sent me just that example from where he is now. What sells at places like that is advocacy more than science. Outrage and controversy.
But is that the only way to be successful?
I sure hope not. The reading audience is vastly more educated scientifically than they were 20 years ago. According to this AP article:
In 1988 only about 10 percent knew enough about science to understand reports in major newspapers, a figure that grew to 28 percent by 2005, according to Jon D. Miller, a Michigan State University professor.
Nonetheless, controversial sites sure have an audience. What they lack is balance. There are two sides to most stories in science and we're doing a disservice to readers if we don't show them. Some things are harder than others. For example:
But there also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago.
I can't find a scientist who can write on Intelligent Design so it's hard to show both sides of that story. However, if you have overwhelming evidence on your side, the data should speak for itself. Why spend any time, or a reader's time, hurling insults at religious people? Not only is it bad science, it's counter-productive. Teaching the controversy would have a lot more value to young people than replacing religious dogma with the scientific sort.
We made ScientificBlogging.com because the science site we always wanted to read didn't exist. We have prominent scientists from many fields, enthusiastic science writers and readers who want to be able to ask serious questions without being jeered at if it's not a popular viewpoint. No one is here to expand their audience by generating controversy. We believe if we write good articles, people will read them.
It's never been more vital that people be knowledgeable about science - not just media blurbs in newspapers about global warming or public health but the method of how science gets done.
