After last night's airing of Horizon - Science Under Attack, I find some of the comment on the program unfathomable. Dr Michael Brooks, quoted by many says "Scientists (well, white haired, white male scientists) wring hands over public engagement. Does Brooks expect us to believe that a younger, female, non-white scientist would hold a differing point of view?
Sir Paul Nurse presented his arguement well, and illustrated points in a manner easy for all to understand. This though, is where I feel the problem lies. Nurse, in a slightly condacending way I felt, referred often to "the public". James Delingpole, the butt of many online comments yesterday, almost got to the root when he commented "I don't have time to read peer-reviewed literature."
What he should have said is that he has neither the scientific knowledge neccessary to disseminate these documents, nor the finances required to access them. This is where the problem lies. A great many members of the public, myself included, are interested enough in issues such as climate change, to research the subject further. However, peer-reviewed papers are thick with impenitrable scientific terminology and also prohibitably expensive for members of "the public" to access.
With reference to the "Climategate" incident at the heart of the program, from what I could tell, the reliably hysterical British press got hold of the fact that a scientific body had mis-labeled a graph.
Big deal.
Gordon Wilson
No comments:
Post a Comment