Many scientists do have agendas. I have seen it many times in the field of herpetology. This is not only evident in gray literature but in peer-reviewed literature as well. And of course books. Many academics throw out statements in the discussion sections of papers or preview sections of books making claims such as, "commercial collection is decimating populations" or "you should never catch a herp as a pet just take a picture." They don't offer any data or proof for these statements. Many academic researchers are really animal rights folks with degrees and they are pushing a banning agenda. There are many instances of this as of late. The whole turtle banning agenda originated from concerns over turtles exported to China for food. That should be a concern but bag limits or limits on export of adults solve that problem. Instead turtle keeping (captive propagation = conservation), harvest and commercialization has been banned in many states. The Burmese Python in south Florida is part of the new invasive species banning agenda. This was originally publicized by scientists to acquire grant funding to eliminate pythons and protect endangered species in south Florida and has morphed into the Lacey Act listing of widely held species of boas and pythons nationwide crushing thousands of small businesses and making private keepers criminals. Grants keep academics working after all. The chytrid fungus in amphibians has been documented to be spread by academic field researchers and its origins in native populations are not known yet, once again, scientists along with NGOs have pushed a banning agenda (expensive prohibitive screenings) on the import of amphibians. I know this is a side topic of the one being discussed but I had to agree with Mr. Lawrence that "scientists have agendas, too."
Mike Welker El Paso, TX ----- Original Message ----- From: David M. Lawrence To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing >> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an >> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter >> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the >> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. > Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad > idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that > it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the > reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a > story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying > the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different > actions in different circumstances. > > Jane Shevtsov > > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<[email protected]> >> To:<[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general >> public: are scientists making science readily accessible? >> >> >>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces >>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons >>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same >>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I >>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval >>> of a story I wrote involving them first. >>> >>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard >>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running >>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a >>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it >>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our >>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent >>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for >>> approval? We cannot. >>> >>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such >>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my >>> statement. >>> >>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist >>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from >>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support >>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The >>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less >>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material >>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to >>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" targets that >>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to >>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our >>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit >>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science >>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked >>> to have their name taken off of the byline). >>> >>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries" where >>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask a >>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself >>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are not >>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could offer >>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such >>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know what >>> to say. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: >>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get >>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were >>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming >>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted >>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece >>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ... >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 >>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 >>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected] >>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo >>> >>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo >>> >>> "No trespassing >>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 >>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
