I know, it’s been a long time — months, in fact — since I’ve posted here. That’s too long. The problem, though, is that since I decided to do some science blogging, I’ve simply found it difficult to find topics that haven’t already been discussed to death elsewhere. That’s my own shortcoming, though. I need to get over that. It’s like the notion that in fiction, there are only three (or five, or seven, or a billion, depending on which “expert” you speak to) original plots, but it’s your own spin on that plot that will make your story great. The topic of the zika virus has been done to death, but who’s to say I won’t have something useful to add to that anyway?
My other worry is that I still have much to learn with regards to reading scientific papers and other original sources. I don’t want to be the type of “science” journalist who relies on press releases — or worse, dubious articles in the news — about science. Science is a complicated process, and in order to learn anything, you have to take the long view, and accept that Facebook memes and Twitter messages simply cannot convey the actual richness and information that science has to offer.
I want to be the kind of communicator who takes this stuff seriously, who actually studies and learns the material, and who can report not only scientific findings but the scientific process in a way which is not only informative but entertaining as well. I doubt that a Facebook meme which breathlessly exclaims “DARK CHOCOLATE CURES LUNG CANCER” will ever link to an actual study that probably shows no such thing except in certain lab studies that did not include human trials, but one can always dream.
Good science communication, versus bad. John Oliver nails it in the segment below:
In a time when it seems that ignorance is considered a virtue and intelligence and wisdom are scorned, it’s hard to believe that anyone would go out of their way to follow up on actual studies. We all have a lot to learn.