[PLUG-TALK] Agricultural Research Finally Hits Big Time

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Shepard <rshepard at appl-ecosys.com> writes:

Russell> I am compelled by recognition to refer the gentle reader to
Russell> this analysis of how science is typically reported:

Rich>    Recognition ... of what or of whom?

The article to which I linked provides an analysis of the typical
"science journalism" one finds in the mainstream media.  Here's the
link again, in case anyone missed it:

 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html>

Here's his thesis:

  "It is my hypothesis that in their choice of stories, and the way
   they cover them, the media create a parody of science, for their
   own means. They then attack this parody as if they were critiquing
   science."

He rags a bit heavily on humanities majors, but otherwise I thought it
was worth the short read.  You'll be prepared the next time you see a
science story in the meda. "Oh, it's the old paradoxical health
story," you'll exclaim.  Or whatever it happens to be.

Perhaps you didn't read it that way, but the several versions of the
story I saw appeared to cast the fluorescent pigs firmly in the
WTF-are-they-wasting-our-money-on-that-for! category, if perhaps
obliquely.  There is probably a good reason for their work, but the
science journalists do an excellent job of never really giving you a
clue what it might be.  And that is the fundamental criticism found in
the "Bad Science" article I linked to, and that was my spasm of
recognition.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com