New Media!

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy shared my quantum dots story with its Twitter followers today. I thought I should catch that tweet and put it on the blog before it faded away into Twitter oblivion. Like catching a firefly in a jar.

Whether or not I, as an ethical journalist, should relish this occurrence, is beside the point.

In other news, Rolling Stone just changed the world.

Crisp Commentary

I'm beginning to accept that the web-based argument between those that say journalists should leave science communication to scientists, and those, myself included, who think that's one of the worst ideas ever, is just one of those eternal conflicts like Democrats v. Republicans and Yankees v. Red Sox.

As a scientifically-minded journalist-in-training, I find this to be a relief. For the past few months, the debate has caused an annoying level of cognitive dissonance, which is finally subsiding.

Now, I'm not saying (some of) the relentless tweeting and blogging back and forth on this topic doesn't continue to add value to the scene. Why else would I be writing this post? Communication is the lifeblood of any relationship, and the dialogue between scientists and journalists is extremely important to truth-telling.

Often the crowd reaction to these science-communication-flavored web transmissions ends up being just as meaningful as the original post, and many times the comment thread is where the best content hides.

Take, for example, this post by Sophia Collins. It's well-constructed analysis the question that won't die: Should we replace science writers with scientists writing about their area of of research and expertise? It concludes that there are many ways to communicate scientific concepts, and the more diverse the communication ecosystem the better. There are niches that need filling from both scientist-writers AND science writers.

That's my view too, provided no one is misrepresenting, which is why I thought this comment from Ed Gerstner, a Senior Editor at Nature Physics, was poignant:

The big problem I have with the idea of doing away with journalists is the inherent conflict of interest in scientists writing about own work. This is an immense problem with the increasing prevalence of churnalism on the web. Actually, it's not really churnalism, but pure PR. That is, an increasing number of science stories I see on the web are not stories (in the journalistic sense) but university press releases.

And if you want to see misrepresentation of the worst kind, you could barely find worse than that of scientists writing about their work for a popular audience.

Yes, science news is more difficult to get to grips with than, say, entertainment news. But I utterly disagree that it's that much more difficult than say, financial news. Or legal news.

Should we do away with financial journalists as well, so that bankers can put a clearer case for banking reform? Or legal journalists so that litigators can put a clearer case for, say, libel reform?

Thoughts?

ARTiculation

Ferris Jabr, professional hitter-of-the-nail-on-the-head, explains two big reasons science journalists are needed. And the man speaks of more than a "cute story." (Emphasis mine)

I agree that science journalism, and journalism in general, could benefit from much more integration of raw data - especially when that data appears as an engaging infographic and when the reader is provided with the original source of data.

But scientific data is collected by people using tools made by people. It certainly isn't infallible.

Quotes and characters bring a lot to journalism that data cannot offer: emotion, personality, narrative, an articulated perspective based on years worth of experience. Quotes and characters are vital to helping readers relate to a story and engage with the science. If science journalism was pure data and analysis, people wouldn't read it for the same reason they don't read through research journals: it's too boring for most people.

Explanation

There has been a fair amount of online discussion and tweeting lately about the "role" of journalism and journalists, specifically in the context of science journalism.

(Some of the most interesting examples, in no particular order: A well-argued essay by Bora Zivkovic, aka @BoraZ, posted on his Scienceblog, a thought-provoking set of interviews with several of today's most visible science journalists by Ontario-based science journalist Colin Schultz, and a fascinating recorded discussion with Andy Revkin, hosted by Chris Mooney and sponsored by the Center for Inquiry)

Let me first say I think writers and readers of science-related content should definitely be engaging in these types of discussions, and hashing out their meanings and repercussions together.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Every time I turn on the television, log-in to the New York Times, cruise around the Twitterverse, or refresh Matt Drudge's report and Josh Marshall's blog, it's clear that peeps and tweeps are walking (or sitting) around carrying at least several different definitions of the word "journalism" in their heads.

How can we have a discussion about journalism's role before we discuss what journalism -- either in general or specifically within the context of science communication -- is? A conversation between a scientist and journalist, about the journalist's role in the communication of science, can be productive only if the interested parties work together to determine a mutually-held definition of the term in question.

So, in the spirit of Explainthis.org, I have opened two questions up to the crowd:

What is journalism?

What is "news"?

The Thing Called Journalism?

One of my favorite things to do is watch for the tweets that provoke/inspire me, and then respond, with the goal of repaying the favor. Last night, I had this exchange with Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

@Revkin tweeted:@mtobis nearly right saying "science journalism in future will mostly be conducted by scientists." Sub "communication" for "journalism."

I responded: @Revkin so what happens to journalism then?

He then answered: @mike_orcutt Journalism is shrinking slice of growing communication pie. Media that survive will expand beyond the thing called journalism.

Ok. But what exactly is this "thing called journalism" that you refer to, Mr. Revkin? And are you saying the term will eventually go away?

Look, I'm all for moving forward with the discussion about scientists, journalists, and their respective "roles" in communicating science to the public. But first, let's make sure we who are invested in this discussion are making the same assumptions about the word "journalism." That way the conversation will be more productive.

Ars Technica: Don't block our ads!

Ars Technica is a well-above-average science information website. Their content is varied, reliable, aesthetically pleasing, and obviously passionate -- creating the environment for the emergence and evolution, over the past 12 years, of a vibrant community of Ars Technica followers. The image that comes to my mind is a bacterial colony radiating from central point in a petri dish.

But the sad irony is that the type of communities that tend to form around sites like Ars Technica also tend to have a lot of individuals who use a browser tool to block ads. By blocking ads you are killing your favorite websites, says Ars editor-in-chief Ken Fisher in this recent post.

This graf goes a long way to clarify the challenges web publishers face in today's advertising market. In short: TV and internet ads are apples and asparagus.

Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. Invariably someone else will pop in and tell me that it's not their fault that our business model sucks. My response is simple: you either care about the site's well-being, or you don't. As for our business model sucking, we've been here for 12 years, online-only. Not many sites can say that.

Did you know that? Now you know...

"We were after the holy grail. And if we didn't get that we didn't care."

Michael Kanellos, the skeptical dude in the 60 Minutes piece and the editor-in-chief of Greentechmedia, pointed his pocket camera at K.R. Sridar and asked all the questions 60 Minutes should have. Science journalism!



Here's my existential question: Energy is how we move and stay warm. Nothing is more important than fuel. We have fought wars over fuel, and will continue to do so. Considering the ENORMITY of the fossil fuel conundrum this planet faces, how is this video not front page news? This is a man, backed by $400 million from the most famous VC firm in Silicon Valley, claiming he just invented the holy grail. Why don't we care?

This is a huge deal, and not just for technology junkies and aspiring energy reporters.

Notable moments:

"We knew what we were after. We were after the holy grail. And if we didn't get that we didn't care." --Sridar

Kanellos: "I heard you had backlog of a billion dollars in orders."
Sridar: "Uh, no comment on that."

Blah Blah Blah Bloom Box

Here's the first piece of content I'm going to talk about.

Throughout this piece, there is a casual implication that the fuel cell is a new invention, which couldn't be further from the truth.

The segment with Michael Kanellos of Greentechmedia.com was by far the most informative part, especially when he said fuel cells were "like the divas of industrial equipment" that engineers have been trying to make work since the 1830s. His skepticism of the dazzling new box was refreshing.

Still, I would guess the takeaway for the typical viewer is that Bloom Energy CEO K.R. Sridar is a genius -- a mad scientist whose knowledge is other-worldy, and inherently inaccessible to the feeble minds of nonscientists. And this is sad, because even though energy production is incredibly expensive, is actually a fairly simple concept, thanks to the wonderful Law of Conservation of Energy.

The real question, which the piece fails to answer (I'm not sure the producers even knew to ask it) is simple: How is Bloom's fuel cell different from existing models? One of the things that has kept fuel cell divas prohibitively expensive is that researchers have only been able to get them to work by using expensive catalysts (the material that drives the energy-producing chemical reaction inside the cell), usually platinum.

Did Sridar's group find a new, cheaper catalyst? Cause that would be a big deal. But all we are told is that he uses beach sand for something, paints the disks green and black (WHY?), and that, instead of platinum, Bloom uses a "cheap metal alloy." There are lots of "cheap metal alloys." And what is meant by cheap?

Another important idea that gets minimal explanation in this peice is that distributed energy is ideal. Placing energy sources in the vicinity of the facilities they power would be a significant improvement over transporting coal from a mine to a coal-fired power plant, burning it, and then transmitting the electricity it through power lines. All of that takes energy -- the very thing we are trying to save. If something like the Bloom Box proves it can work (for a long time!), and can compete with solar, wind, and fossil fuels at the energy marketplace, it could solve some real problems.

But I'm not convinced that will happen. In fact, the only thing this video convinced me is that 60 Minutes doesn't mind airing infomercials. And the urgency of the global energy dilemma doesn't leave us much time for those.