The American Chemical Society is not new to disliking New Media - like all businesses, they would like to be self-perpetuating and that means people have to give them money for memberships and get a magazine for free which means getting quality without paying would be very bad for their income.
Royce Murray, writing an editorial for Analytical Chemistry, seeks to engage in some class warfare and says both scientists and the public should be concerned about bloggers - which is to say that science bloggers are not scientists and the public should be protected from them by real scientists, like those who write editorials in ACS journals.
Scientific articles are 'grounded in fact', he writes, but 'the current phenomenon of “bloggers” should be of serious concern to scientists.' Well, who are these bloggers if not scientists? He writes, regarding journalism, that 'The quality of this flow of information, I believe, has been mostly high—as judged by its producers’ attention to factual reliability and impact' but how can that be if newspaper writers are not scientists? How many journalists for newspapers have Ph.D.s in science? I can't think of a single popular science journalist with a Ph.D.
I am not sure he has actually read any actual science blogging because he writes "not having a single stable employer (like a newspaper, which can insist on credentials and/or education background) frees the blogger from the requirement of consistent information reliability" - yes, he thinks there are full-time bloggers out there with no credibility duping the public. And, even funnier, he thinks science bloggers are less educated than journalists.
But these charlatans must exist, because they work for "blogging “agencies”" that "openly advertise “no formal qualifications are necessary” (as an internet search for “qualifications of bloggers” revealed)." This is just goofy. Yes, it is possible to sign up for Wordpress or Blogger and call yourself a 'science blogger' and those people are not getting checked out by anyone, but who reads them? Are they an agency? There is a lot of competition out there for eyeballs so the only ones who succeed have more quality, not less.
And bloggers have no fact checkers, he laments. Honestly, two things bloggers do not need are fact checkers and editors, which makes fact checkers and editors nervous but few others. It is unlikely a PhD in physics is going to get facts wrong that a 22 year old out of journalism school would catch and the absolute best fact-checking you will get is from a science audience. Everyone knows the best way to find out how wrong you are is to be so on the Internet.
One thing he does get right, perhaps because of the prevalence of Scienceblogs and their cultural skew, is "writing can be done for any purpose—political, religious, business, etc.—without the constraint of truth."
It's true that they tend toward politics and religion-bashing over there but that is nothing new and if his standard is 'journalism' he could have done some actual fact checking of his own before issuing forth his opinion - "without the constraint of truth" - and examined more than one site. We have science columnists and bloggers that are high science signal and low cultural noise, as does Wired, Discover, etc. Murray can be forgiven for never having heard of Science 2.0 but Wired and Discover are those magazines he says are the gold standard so implying their blogging is inferior seems like a strange argument to make, especially since ACS started hosting blogs, including some I would put in league with any science writers in the country.
Caveat emptor, indeed, but we have long applied that to ACS studies and every peer-reviewed journal out there, much less magazine pieces and newspapers. Bloggers are more popular than ever because those media sources he loves lost the trust of the public. If they want to get that credibility back, they need to take it. The days of entitlement are long gone.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "As far as I can tell, they don't seem to be wanting to investigate the idea that most of it might..."
- "How are both atheists & theists believers? Theists believe in god(s), atheists lack beliefs in..."
- "You, and Greenpeace, are doing just that. GMO is a legal definition, not a science one, and that..."
- "We lack new medicines because the patents expire too quickly and the regulatory burden is too high..."
- "The problem is, American agricultural science cannot be adopted world-wide for the simple reason..."
- Battle of Britain: NGOs and scientists clash over proposal to loosen EU GMO restrictions
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a ways off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Navigation and location can occur without external cues
- How 'trained immunity' mediates BCG therapy of bladder cancer
- European salamanders and newts vulnerable to fungal disease from Asia
- Emerging disease could wipe out American, European salamanders
- Genetic factors behind surviving or dying from Ebola shown in mouse study