When I took courses in physics or chemistry, there were certain pre-requisites- background skills needed to understand the material. Most American students are math-phobic and didn’t want to take advanced math, so our universities dumbed down the science curricula, giving math free chemistry and physics course, which consisted of memorizing facts. No wonder that the US government doesn’t want our students to take the international advanced math and sciences testing (TIMSS-A). It’s disgraceful that we don’t want people to know how badly our teach to the test approach prepares students for real math and science.

Consider this example of the ridiculous media “look what those scientists say today” approach, from the Washington Post, which pretends to be one of our better newspapers. This is Seth Borenstein’s recent: Scientists: Appendix protects good germs”. First of all, this is NOT a study, as seen by its appearance in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. It is a theoretical proposal. Readers need some background or prerequisite: that very few mammals have a vermiform appendix- dogs and pigs, whose diet may resemble ours, do not. We start with the assumption that the Appendix probably has a useful function and is found in rabbits, higher apes, man and marsupials- so what do chimps, gorillas and humans share that makes the appendix useful to them and not to dogs, pigs and fish? Is there a risk that we share or a protective function that other species have and we lack. Intestinal infection and parasites are a problem for all animals. We know from studies like those cited by the Bollinger paper that bacterial numbers are much greater in the cecum and proximal colon than in the distal colon (also in rodents who have no appendix) and that those bacteria are often found in crypts. The finding that the appendix has more bacteria and more biofilm fits right in but doesn’t answer the question why do so few mammals have appendices? Maybe those of us with appendices have fewer crypts or cecal crypts of different type. Humans without spleens have real problems in certain circumstances- that’s why patients with sickle cell anemia stay on antibiotics. If the appendix is a useful reservoir of commensals, maybe humans lacking appendices recover more slowly from diarrhea and other disturbances when they get broad spectrum antibiotics (as in patients on chemotherapy with suspected ‘sepsis”) – until some evidence for this emerges, there’s no reason for newspapers to carry this stuff. Most offensive of all is the way that the author finishes by referring us to some “talking heads” just as we get when we hear about Iraq, foreign policy, global warming- no background so that we can possibly understand the story and no reference to web sites that review the background material, just an appeal to authorities- giving us two opposing authorities is no answer.

Why does the Post do this? Why didn’t Mr. Borenstein take some time, read the paper and lay out some background? Clearly they are not trying to educate anyone. Whether it is to distract us from bad news, to titillate or just as filler, I don’t know but I don’t appreciate it.

“We need to increase critical thinking, not less [sic].”

As much as an increase in critical thinking will be absolutely necessary for our survival in the increasingly hostile economic and environmental conditions we will soon find ourselves in, a statement like the above speaks exactly to the flaw in current scientific communications strategies that Mooney speaks of.

In order for the scientific community to regain the stature it once had in American political discourse, it will be necessary — as it has always been, to some extent — to simplify findings and their implications in order for the average American to understand them and put pressure on politicians to take action. You cannot talk down to someone and expect them to take you seriously. Right now, there is no dialogue because of this.

We cannot expect people to begin to take science seriously until the scientific community makes a concerted effort to reach people where they are, on their level. Then, and only then, can we begin to expect critical thinking to increase.

The technical phrase for that is “gross oversimplification.” Yes, the fifties and early sixties had Murrow and a couple of other genuine delights on tv. But the amount of sheer garbage was absolutely stupefying. I know. I saw it.

For some insight into how bad tv really was – it’s not any better today or much worse, imo – pick up the uncut Beatles on Ed Sullivan and watch them all from beginning to end, if you dare.

You’ll never characterize “the Golden Age of Television” as the “age of Murrow” again.

Regarding effective science communication, you bet. All for it. Love Mythbusters and a lot of the science shows.

The devil’s in the details. Most science is hard for us laypeople to understand and much can’t be finessed, I gather, without distorting it. And it makes no sense to hide from the religious right or the anti-global warming crowd; they take such action as signs of weakness and, like The Blob with a monkey on its back, demand more, more, more.

Better an all-out confrontation, get it out in the open. It expands the range of acceptable discourse. Otherwise, you will end up being pummelled further and further to the right and further and further into making concessions not to the religious but to religious nuts.

Sounds like something whispered into the ear of a seventh century Arabian merchant , or worse, an invitation to elevate the underlying problem to the status of a solution