On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:27:12 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
There's an equally lightweight BBC Radio 4 programme with similar
subject matter called "Science Now". If you really must learn about
science from a lowbrow source, that is probably the one to listen to.

There are science magazines that aim slightly higher up the
intellectual scale, the best known being "New Scientist". It isn't
highly rated by scientists, but appeals to people who like to follow
science but aren't personally involved in it.

I've subscribed to NS for 40 years and consider myself to be a scientist. NS
is not what it was, though never considered as a "peer reviewed" type of
magazine.

My view was confirmed about it's use and worth many years ago when they
reported on some research that I (in a commercial organisation) and
researchers at a(n) University were undertaking. The text was wrong.

We were trying to find out whether bugs could be transferred from one medium
to another and whether this posed a risk. We were struggling to find any
risk and loaded the medium excessively with bugs to test the hypothesis.
Still we could not find a transfer and hence possibly no risk.

The reporter spoke to both the University researcher and myself, produced
the draft upon which we commented advising the person that the conclusion
was the complete opposite of what we had found and gave the individual the
opportunity to revise the text accordingly.

The individual did not and the title to the article was "Daily Stun"
headlines. In those days, I managed to get a letter into the next edition
commenting upon the validity of the article. My name was mud within the
industry for a while.

Today, at least there is an Errata section at the right hand bottom of the
Letters page.

The magazine has changed significantly in recent years in order to be global
and whilst it has been doing that I have been irratated but they are
probably right in doing so, (I could be staid in my ways).

Currently, in my view, it should be viewed as a vehicle to find out what is
going on but should never be relied upon regarding facts.

There are one or two reporters who can be depended upon to give a reasonable
report but I think most reports should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a story!


I have had similar experiences with journalists working for newspapers
and non-specialist magazines. Friends in unrelated careers have had
similar experiences.

Journalists are the problem, and journalists and specialist subjects
(including science) just don't mix.