<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Science Journalism Perspectives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca</link>
	<description>News and opinions from UBC Journalism Students</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Science can&#8217;t be fun? by Terry &#187; Archive &#187; Wikipedia: Do you use it? Do you cite it? And, is it a good thing?</title>
		<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry &#187; Archive &#187; Wikipedia: Do you use it? Do you cite it? And, is it a good thing?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>[...] to the same Science Journalism conference that Dave S. spoke of in the previous post. One of the sessions, in particular, that resulted in a heated argument, was whether the internet and the whole Web2.0 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to the same Science Journalism conference that Dave S. spoke of in the previous post. One of the sessions, in particular, that resulted in a heated argument, was whether the internet and the whole Web2.0 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Science can&#8217;t be fun? by MH</title>
		<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>MH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/science-cant-be-fun/#comment-6</guid>
		<description>I think any media form of science is going to dumb it down to some extent, but that&#039;s not always bad. To take the main findings and present them in a way that anyone can understand is fine, but sometimes it goes a lot further than that... I am not sure that the internet VS printed material has much to do with that except maybe the competence of the people doing the writing, but you never know. Here are 3 problems I&#039;ve found:

1) Perception of science: people view science as a sort of religion. Science isn&#039;t a mass of facts that people believe in. It&#039;s a method to look for facts. People do not all agree with each other in the scientific world. There are very few &quot;laws&quot; for that reason, and these are really basic things such as gravity. People need to understand that all scientific discoveries are open for debate within the scientific community and can also be open for debate within public discussion without having to resort to crazy religious alternatives. Usually, for any minuscule finding, there are people who disagree and eventually one side is accepted as more plausible.

2) Skewing of facts: This relates to the above point, because often scientific findings are presented as truths instead of just information that supports a possible truth. Ie &quot;scientists prove that...&quot; kind of statements is presenting false information to the public and makes me think that the author must have no clue what science is all about.

3) Missing underlying information: Often articles don&#039;t present what researchers actually did because it&#039;s perceived as too complicated. However, it&#039;s important that this is presented in at least a general way. For example, if someone supposedly found some new potential cure for cancer, the question is, what&#039;s new about it? What has this researcher done that makes him special? I think the people who read past the first few paragraphs in an article about science aren&#039;t going to be phased if you tell them some basic information about what cancer cells do and what the traditional approach to trying to kill them would be and how this one is different. I mean, you can&#039;t get really technical, but you can usually avoid using jargon and get to the point of what&#039;s going on... It&#039;s like explaining a concept to someone speaking another language, you just explain it in plain terms, but you don&#039;t have to really &quot;dumb it down&quot;, it would just take too long to explain every detail, but it&#039;s not necessary. There&#039;s a huge step between training someone to be able to contribute to future research and avoiding information all together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think any media form of science is going to dumb it down to some extent, but that&#8217;s not always bad. To take the main findings and present them in a way that anyone can understand is fine, but sometimes it goes a lot further than that&#8230; I am not sure that the internet VS printed material has much to do with that except maybe the competence of the people doing the writing, but you never know. Here are 3 problems I&#8217;ve found:</p>
<p>1) Perception of science: people view science as a sort of religion. Science isn&#8217;t a mass of facts that people believe in. It&#8217;s a method to look for facts. People do not all agree with each other in the scientific world. There are very few &#8220;laws&#8221; for that reason, and these are really basic things such as gravity. People need to understand that all scientific discoveries are open for debate within the scientific community and can also be open for debate within public discussion without having to resort to crazy religious alternatives. Usually, for any minuscule finding, there are people who disagree and eventually one side is accepted as more plausible.</p>
<p>2) Skewing of facts: This relates to the above point, because often scientific findings are presented as truths instead of just information that supports a possible truth. Ie &#8220;scientists prove that&#8230;&#8221; kind of statements is presenting false information to the public and makes me think that the author must have no clue what science is all about.</p>
<p>3) Missing underlying information: Often articles don&#8217;t present what researchers actually did because it&#8217;s perceived as too complicated. However, it&#8217;s important that this is presented in at least a general way. For example, if someone supposedly found some new potential cure for cancer, the question is, what&#8217;s new about it? What has this researcher done that makes him special? I think the people who read past the first few paragraphs in an article about science aren&#8217;t going to be phased if you tell them some basic information about what cancer cells do and what the traditional approach to trying to kill them would be and how this one is different. I mean, you can&#8217;t get really technical, but you can usually avoid using jargon and get to the point of what&#8217;s going on&#8230; It&#8217;s like explaining a concept to someone speaking another language, you just explain it in plain terms, but you don&#8217;t have to really &#8220;dumb it down&#8221;, it would just take too long to explain every detail, but it&#8217;s not necessary. There&#8217;s a huge step between training someone to be able to contribute to future research and avoiding information all together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ‘Black’ on track – putting the www in environmental news by Why do we report on the environment? &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</title>
		<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/%e2%80%98black%e2%80%99-on-track-%e2%80%93-putting-the-www-in-environmental-news/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Why do we report on the environment? &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/%e2%80%98black%e2%80%99-on-track-%e2%80%93-putting-the-www-in-environmental-news/#comment-5</guid>
		<description>[...] chuckles from the audience and kept them interested in his talk because he asked the audience to make choices on what information would be displayed next. For example, he showed an endangered species website and asked someone to shout the name of an [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] chuckles from the audience and kept them interested in his talk because he asked the audience to make choices on what information would be displayed next. For example, he showed an endangered species website and asked someone to shout the name of an [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why do we report on the environment? by ‘Black’ on track – putting the www in environmental news &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</title>
		<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/why-do-we-report-on-the-environment/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>‘Black’ on track – putting the www in environmental news &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/why-do-we-report-on-the-environment/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>[...] The trick is to keep these reports informative. It’s not worth it to include a picture slideshow of images of endangered monkeys in news coverage, Black cautions, unless there is also information attached on why people should care. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The trick is to keep these reports informative. It’s not worth it to include a picture slideshow of images of endangered monkeys in news coverage, Black cautions, unless there is also information attached on why people should care. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Links for Reimagining Science Journalism keynote by Revitalising science reporting &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</title>
		<link>http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/links-for-reimagining-science-journalism/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Revitalising science reporting &#124; Future Directions in Science Journalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sciencejournal.thethunderbird.ca/2007/11/10/links-for-reimagining-science-journalism/#comment-3</guid>
		<description>[...] Hermida illustrated his talk with an online project of leatherback turtles: one studied at the University of British Columbia and the other in the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Hermida illustrated his talk with an online project of leatherback turtles: one studied at the University of British Columbia and the other in the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
