DailyDirt: Is Mixing Science And Journalism A Bad Recipe?
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Facts aren't always as reliable as they seem -- that's been a consistent theme here. And we're always interested in folks double-checking facts -- especially if it leads to a better understanding of how things work. When the process of verifying experiments or stories is blocked, everyone loses out. The conversation to clarify knowledge should be allowed to evolve, and generally science is pretty good about verifying experiments. But when it fails, it's usually a spectacular failure. Let's hope that arsenic NMR or proper mass spectrometry measurements will prevail in determining whether life can survive without phosphorous around.
Rosie Redfield's commentary critiquing the announcement of arsenic-based lifeforms has been widely published and discussed. Peer-review either isn't what it used to be -- or it's never quite as good as people think it should be. url, url, url, url Meanwhile, journalism may be slowly adapting to admitting mistakes with a "report an error" button. And perhaps science journals need to start doing this, too. url The Medill school of journalism votes in favor of changing its name. Is journalism like a rose? url What would happen if everyone had a chance to vote on what science projects were funded by the government? We might find out. url