There’s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know. Scientists lament that public opinion on scientific issues is often shaped by fear and ignorance about science.
A new pair of surveys, published Thursday in the journal Science, shows that there is, indeed, a large gap between public opinion and that of scientists on a wide range of scientific topics. The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn’t mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw. The biggest gap between scientists and the public came on issues that may elicit fear: the safety of genetically modified (or GMO) foods (37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists) and the use of pesticides in agriculture (28 percent of the public said foods grown with pesticides were safe to eat, versus 68 percent of scientists).
There was also disagreement over the cause of climate change (50 percent of the public said it is mostly due to human activity, compared to 87 percent of scientists). Finger length 'not a pointer' for future sexual behaviour. Friday February 6 2015 Finger length is related to hormone levels "How to work out if your partner is cheating on you?
Check their fingers," the Daily Mirror advises. How the Toronto Star massively botched a story about the HPV vaccine — and corrected the record. This study of hype in press releases will change journalism. Many scientists greet the prospect of media coverage with a combination of excitement and trepidation.
The attention can be heady and show the importance of a researcher’s findings. But there’s also the chance that the news media will hype the scientist’s findings. A lab study in rats ending up in the paper with the claim that more bacon jerky could prevent cancer can be embarrassing at best. Brain Injuries: what NICE doesn't tell you. The title of this post is a play on the title of the magazine "What doctors don't tell you" (a rag so packed to the brim with pseudoscience and anti-vaccine propaganda that it's practically a quack's guidebook, but that's a story for another day).
As regular readers will be aware, I believe doctors generally do tell you absolutely what you need to know. Unfortunately, it seems the UK's governing body that assesses among other things, what doctors should tell you, has been resisting calls from a range of experts to inform people who have had brain injuries about a piece of information that could save their life. Nice is the acronym for the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the body that decides the guidelines British doctors should follow. If Newspaper Headlines Were Scientifically Accurate. Researchers: your guide to hitting the headlines - Health News. Friday December 27 2013.
What a difference a day makes: How social media is transforming scientific debate (with tweets) · deevybee. The seven deadly sins of health and science reporting. Benjamin Franklin said two things are certain in life: death and taxes.
Another one we could add to this list is that on any given news website and in almost all print media there will be articles about health and nutrition that are complete garbage. Some articles that run under the health and nutrition “news” heading are thought provoking, well researched and unbiased, but unfortunately not all. Whomp! Using invited editorial commentary to neutralize negative findings. Hello there!
If you enjoy the content on Mind the Brain, consider subscribing for future posts via email or RSS feed. William Hollingworth and his colleagues must been pleased when they were notified that their manuscript had been accepted for publication in the prestigious (Journal impact factor =18!) Journal of Clinical Oncology. Their study examined whether screening for distress increased cancer patients’ uptake of services and improved their mood. The study also examined a neglected topic: how much did screening cost and was it cost-effective? These authors presented their negative findings in a straightforward and transparent fashion: screening didn’t have a significant effect on patient mood.
Lessons from the L'Aquila earthquake. Sex Makes You Rich? Why We Keep Saying “Correlation Is Not Causation” Even Though It’s Annoying. Sex and money: the Bearina IUD, a conceptual intrauterine device design that would incorporate a copper coin.
One of the most effective forms of reversible contraception is the copper IUD. For more information, click the picture. Image: Ronen Kadushin. Risks of placing scientists 'on message' 17 February 2012Last updated at 17:16 By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News Government science agencies exist to serve the public good and usually do.
Evgeny Morozov: The Naked And The TED. The new pamphlet—it would be too strong, and not only quantitatively, to call it a book—by Parag and Ayesha Khanna, the techno-babbling power couple, gallops through so many esoteric themes and irrelevant factoids (did you know that “fifty-eight percent of millennials would rather give up their sense of smell than their mobile phone”?)
That one might forgive the authors for never properly attending to their grandest, most persuasive, and almost certainly inadvertent argument. What Jonah Lehrer reveals about popular science writing » Daniel Bor. Jonah Lehrer is one of the hottest science writers around. But this week, in a dramatic fall from grace, he resigned from his staff position at the New Yorker, and his publisher has removed his latest book, Imagine, from sale. The catalyst for these dramatic events is the fact that he fabricated quotes from Bob Dylan, as uncovered by the online Tablet magazine. I had a few small interactions with Jonah Lehrer in late 2009, and looking back, they perfectly reflected both the reasons for his fame, and his impending troubles. At the time he was in charge of the Scientific American Mind Matters blog, and I was writing a piece for this. New Yorker's Jonah Lehrer quits over fake Dylan quotes. 31 July 2012Last updated at 01:21 GMT.
'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science. A coalition of leading climate scientists yesterday filed a 48-page document to the US Congress refuting an attack on climate science made earlier this year by the Ukip deputy leader, Lord Christopher Monckton. The detailed rebuttal addresses nine key scientific claims made by Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic, to a house select committee hearing in May. It includes the responses of 21 climate scientists who variously conclude that Monckton's assertions are "very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics".
Monckton, a former journalist and policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who has been the deputy leader of the UK Independence party (Ukip) since June, was invited by the Republican party to give evidence to the house select committee on energy independence and global warming. In response to the document, Monckton today told the Guardian: "It is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to this.
Interdira-t-on les prévisions climatiques. C'est une histoire tellement incroyable qu'il vaut mieux commencer par livrer les faits tels que les a rapportés, lundi 28 mai, le News & Observer, journal implanté en Caroline du Nord. Les autorités fédérales américaines ayant estimé qu'en raison de leur relief peu élevé, les côtes de cet Etat étaient vulnérables face à la montée du niveau de l'océan due au réchauffement climatique, il a été demandé à une commission scientifique d'évaluer les risques.
Son rapport, rendu à la Commission des ressources côtières de Caroline du Nord, a expliqué qu'il fallait s'attendre à une montée des eaux d'un mètre d'ici à la fin du siècle, avec pour corollaire quelque 5 000 kilomètres carrés de terres passant dans la catégorie des zones inondées ou inondables. Ce qui signifie, en clair, des conséquences économiques importantes avec le bouleversement de la politique locale d'aménagement du territoire, la fin de projets de stations balnéaires et l'obligation de construire des routes surélevées. What eight years of writing the Bad Science column have taught me.
I've got to go and finish a book: I'll be back in six months, but in case it kills me, here's what I've learned in eight years of writing this column. Alternative therapists don't kill many people, but they do make a great teaching tool for the basics of evidence-based medicine, because their efforts to distort science are so extreme. When they pervert the activities of people who should know better – medicines regulators, or universities – it throws sharp relief onto the role of science and evidence in culture. Can we trust scientists who give TED talks? I came across an interesting article this morning in Slate questioning recent papers on the “contagiousness” of factors ranging from obesity to divorce.
The papers were published in top journals like the New England Journal of Medicine (I wrote this enthusiastic blog post about the findings back in 2008) and have generated a wide range of media attention, including the TED talk which I’ve embedded below. Climate change education can still be part of a slimmed-down curriculum. The Great Beyond: New intelligent design centre launches in Britain. Why I spoofed science journalism. Bizarrely, the most read article on the Guardian website last week wasn't about Ed Miliband or the Labour party conference, but a quirky special-interest piece spoofing science journalism which I assumed only about three people would get. Pornography in hospitals. Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2010. Journalism warning labels. Journalism Warning Labels.
Creationists seek to insert their own brand of 'truth' into education. Thirty reasons why man is not descended from apes may seem an unlikely thing for children to learn on an educational school trip. Not fit for television. When we turn on the TV and see an ‘expert’, we assume that person is a carefully selected specialist. But that isn’t how it works. In which I continue to whine about crappy science journalism blogging. This is a news website article about a scientific finding. When did announcing science become the same as publishing science? Faked data, unsubstantiated claims, and spirituality add up to a math journal retraction.