Image: Matt Collins
In October a blog post circulated widely in the science journalism community. Larry Husten mused at CardioBrief.org about the potential benefits to society if only mainstream newspapers covered science with as much dedication as they cover baseball. Indeed, it might be wonderful. But as a big sports fan, I know that there could be unexpected consequences of heightened media interest in science. For example, imagine all-science talk radio:
“Aaaaand good afternoon, everybody, how are your vital signs today?! Mike and the Mad Scientist with you here on QED radio, simulcast on the Nobel TV Network! How are you, Michael?”
“Fine, Mad Sci, good, the new issues of Nature and Science are out, lots to discuss, including an update on the state of the Mars rovers. Spirit has a bum wheel and has been on the disabled list, but NASA has some tricks that might get it back in the field.”
“And they published the genome of the horse! I hope that comes in handy at the Belmont, Michael.”
“Don’t bet on it, Sci. Listen, they’ve had the human genome sequenced for, what, 10 years, 12 years they’ve had the human genome sequenced and they’re still giving you and me the same meds, not personalized meds, and they’ve had the genome sequenced for, what, 10 years, 12 years.”
“Good point, Michael, excellent point. Whaddya say, let’s go to the phones and hear what science fans out there have on their minds today. Morris from Rego Park, you’re on QED.”
“Hi, Sci, hi, Mike, first time long time.”
“What’s on your mind today, Morris?”
“I wanted to float a trade by you guys. How about Harvard trades Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky for Sean Carroll and a postdoc to be named later?”
“Which Sean Carroll ya talking about, Morris buddy? There’s the physicist Sean Carroll at Caltech, and there’s the evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll at Wisconsin–Madison, and you can’t just call up and float a trade like that without saying which Sean Carroll, can ya, Michael?!”
“That’s a problem, Sci, and then there’s a bigger problem—Noam Chomsky isn’t at Harvard, he’s at M.I.T. Chomsky’s at M.I.T. Pinker’s at Harvard. He used to be at M.I.T., Pinker, Pinker used to be at M.I.T., but now he’s at Harvard. Chomsky’s at M.I.T., he’s at M.I.T., so you can’t put the package together in the first place, because Chomsky’s at M.I.T.”
“There you have it, Mo, you gotta do a little more homework before you call in, a little more housework. Here we go, Jeremy from Manhattan.” (The Twilight Zone theme plays in the background, as it does whenever Jeremy calls in.) “Hello, Jeremy.”
“Evolution’s just a theory! Global warming’s a hoax!"
“And goodbye, Jeremy. Jeremy’s meniscus is touching the bottom of the graduated cylinder there. Short Hal from Queens on the line, what’s up, Short Hal?”
“Not much, Sci, how are your liver enzyme levels today?”
“You’re a wise guy, Short Hal. Short Hal’s a hepatologist in his spare time, what’s on your mind, Hal?”
“Well, Sci, I’m talking to my friend, and he says that grad students are doing all kind of performance-enhancing substances, stuff like Mountain Dew, double espressos. And I just don’t know if you can compare the results they’re getting with the stuff that the old-timers did without these kinds of enhancers.”
“Hal, this is Mike, listen, you think Heisenberg wasn’t on massive doses of caffeine? He did his best work, when, in his early 20s? You think he was sleeping more than, what, two hours a night, three hours a night? Don’t kid yourself, there was stuff they did back then, maybe not Mountain Dew, but they had ways to keep working all night. I’ll tell you what they didn’t have back then, they didn’t have competitors coming in from all over the world to their labs to compete with them. If anything, these kids today, they’re on average better. I’m not saying that the best ones are better than, say, your Einsteins or your Feynmans, but I’d say on average the average ones are better today than the average ones were back then, pound for pound.”
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentGood Fun !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is plenty of access to scientific news now. For those who want science news; it is easy to find. For those who don't, it's easy to avoid.
Most science is incremental. Most people only need or want to know about the big break throughs. The incremental stuff doesn't affect their lives.
You just described the problem with talk radio. There are much more significant problems concerning science journalism. Mainstream outlets should be ashamed by the way they report good science poorly and psuedo science at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you do a real article on how science should be reported instead of a puff piece like this? Check out NPR On the Media's recent show concerning this topic.
So... when do I get to hear a radio broadcast like this? It would improve the level of discourse... mebbe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe eerie parallel between this and football talk is that there isn't a single woman host, guest, or caller.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCulture, yuck. It's wrong to think that culture and science are separate. Therefore it's time to get working on the culture in science, choosing better culture.
Steve,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought this article was exceptional. I can't imagine why somone would call it a puff piece! Very imaginative. Good work.
Moe in R.I.
What about cost to cost? That's science radio! (totally kidding, but the callers have those kinds of details on all kinds of crazy talk)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's puff because there is no content. The point of the article seems to be wouldn't it be funny if... Unfortunately this is exactly the way that science reporting is in mainstream media. And the author writes this without a shred of irony or recognition of the issue. Listen to this about the problem. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/11/13/01
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A humorous warning for the media coverage of science"
Well said.
The advantage of a sports analogy is respect for accurate reporting of facts. Baseball fans are obsessed with stats. Opinions abound, but a fans who claimed Barry Bonds hit 80 home runs in 2001 would be soundly rebuked by all listeners as well as the host.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would welcome more media coverage of science which held the same respect for facts.
The advantage of a sports analogy is respect for accurate reporting of facts. Baseball fans are obsessed with stats. Opinions abound, but a fans who claimed Barry Bonds hit 80 home runs in 2001 would be soundly rebuked by all listeners as well as the host.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would welcome more media coverage of science which held the same respect for facts.
Baseball fans have a respect for statistics that would be welcome in media coverage of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine the reaction to a radio host who claimed Barry Bonds hit 80 home runs in 2001. Even Bonds' fans would instantly complain the host had his facts wrong. Respect for the host's integrity would evaporate.
Science allows opportunity for opinions, just as baseball fans debate whether Bonds, McGwire or Sosa was better than Aaron. Tragically, too much media coverage of science seems devoid of respect for facts and statistics.
Ya know, this making science reporting like sports reporting is making the scientific part--ya know--of me--ya know--like real excited--ya know. Now--ya know--I can talk just like--ya know--those millionaires that--ya know--spend time chasing balls of--ya know--various sizes all over the ya know. I wonder if Chuck Darwin--ya know--would have done better in a more--ya know science-friendly environment; of course--ya know--maybe us scientist guys would be more articulate--ya know--without the same interest as that sports stuff, ya know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa know, now that we scientists, ya know, are accepted, ya know, as much as those sports guys, ya know, we can be just as inarticulate, ya know, as they are, ya know. Just think, ya know, if Chuck Darwin was credited with a touchdown, ya know, for his theory (with, ya know, Huxley getting the PAT). My, how the history of, ya know, the world would have been much better than...ya know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose Dick Feynman had a contract with CalTech for $20,000,000 a season. If scientists were paid anything like sports celebs, think of the incredible advances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it would be great if mainstream media would cover more science news but I'm afraid the public at large would be dumbed down then enlightened. It would seem that many people are more interested in how much Michael Jackson's glove sold for rather then seeing what discoveries will be made at the Hardon Collider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG!!! Yes that would be INCREDIBLE!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow we know why Heisenberg was so uncertain: caffeine jitters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis Mirsky column, like most of his contributions, is really quite vapid and pointless, not funny, and says very little of value. He's not a good writer and has no insight or real sense of humor. It's a waste of space and doesn't belong in Scientific American; new editor needs to review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this