Comments on: Astronomy to Zoology, Poetically

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:30:43 +0000

Okay. I think I get your point Andrew. Carl is an excellent writer and yes he does a lot of research (that’s obvious) in his work.

By: Andrew Sun

Andrew Sun — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:00:04 +0000

@ David: Then why Coturnix praised only Carl? The only reason I get from his post was that Carl did long time research on what he wrote. Therefore what Coturnix called for is actually something produced, not interpreted or reported, by the writer. He chose a journalist for example. However he was asking for scientists.

A reporter stays ‘good’, when confronted with vast area of topic, by keeping his/her own knowledge/opinions away.

If one stays ‘good’ by relying on his/her own knowledge/opinions, it is hard to do so if confronted with vast area of topics

This is not my real opinion. I am just trying to propose one possible view point.

By: rpg

rpg — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:15:51 +0000

“I would not worry about all that. There is just too much science to read firsthand”

f1000.com :)

By: claude lambert

claude lambert — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:46:32 +0000

I would not worry about all that. There is just too much science to read firsthand, so we need you and people like you. I worry more about how much junk science we see nowadays. It comes with pressure to be first and ease of publishing. But it also comes with lack of training in statistics.
The more science journalists we get the better. The more trained in basic stats we all are, the better what we report and how we report and how we understand.
The main problem of a scientific reporter should be to miss an essential discovery. Sometimes we just do not evaluate the importance of what we read. In the Lippincott dictionary of 1871, Darwin had five lines, his father had a whole column. I am very much afraid of doing the same mistake.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:42:41 +0000

Not sure I get you Andrew. Carl Zimmer isn’t a research scientist, he’s a journalist.

By: Andrew Sun

Andrew Sun — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:33:46 +0000

Hi, David!

When Coturnix mentioned Carl Zimmer, he was actually talking about writing something researched by oneself, not by others, about a scientist being a science writer him-/herself.

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:58:12 +0000

Good post – it is good to hear about someone’s motivations behind what they post.

I sometimes think that the whole idea of ‘science’ as a separate subject might not be very helpful. I often go about things that don’t seem like science at all in a very scientific way, and sometimes will do science in a non systematic way. For instance at the moment I have a problem in the lab which is stumping me so I have just done something at random in the hope that it might give me some insight even though I have no clue how. A good journalist can entertain and inform you at the same time – does it matter whether it is about science or not? Or what the background of the journalist is? Bill Bryson’s book for instance is a pretty good introduction to science by a non-scientist. Primo Levi’s Periodic Table is basically a biography. There is science in it and it was written by a scientist, but it isn’t really a science book.

By: steffi suhr

steffi suhr — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:54:05 +0000

I agree with you David (and with rpg..). The debate of ‘science bloggers vs. science journalists’ seems extremely polarized at the moment, and maybe unnecessarily so. There are too many people with an axe or two to grind, and I don’t think either side is doing themselves a favour. A lot of science journalists could certainly do a better job… as could science bloggers (language, people!!).

Ultimately, there are a lot of people who don’t read science blogs and maybe never will, but they do glance at the science stories in traditional media from time to time – so we need good science journalists.

By: Bertalan Meskó, MD

Bertalan Meskó, MD — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:35:45 +0000

RT @sciencebase: Hah! I just wrote a riposte to Bora – http://tinyurl.com/cwsgry

By: Johnx

Johnx — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:44:53 +0000

David:
To respond to whether or not you are a good science journalist, I vote good. My background includes physics and mathematics; however, I have long since left the science and mathematical fields. My weakest area is, of all things, chemistry. However, I read your material daily, even the chemistry articles. Even if I do not understand all of that chemistry, I leave the article more versed than when I entered it. That’s the sign of a good science journalist. Even so, I dare not comment on your chemistry material, lest I display my complete ignorance of the field.

If I were a journalist (I am not), I would not report on the subject of chemistry — the scientist interviewing me could fool me or even accidentally allow me to infer an untruth. But, I know bad science or junk science when I see it in many fields — and there is plenty of it absorbed and regurgitated by “science journalists”.

Carl Zimmer once wrote “I am not a scientist, I am only a science journalist”. I think that he might be a better scientist or science professor than many practicing the professions.

Once, when you were stating that not many people respond to your work, I responded by saying, in effect, I don’t know how to respond to your material, but I read it and that I rate you up there with Zimmer and several others.