Mellow (not?) Monday at the Blogs

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


There is, as you may have noticed on the right-hand side, a new Image of the Week. There is also an updated listing of submissions so far for the Open Laboratory 2011.

Our Passions of Food special topical day was a great success as far as reader response, traffic, incoming links, comments on posts, discussions on social networks, and....it kinda continues ;-)

First, Jason Mark wrote a response to Christie Wilcox's post - Myths: Busted - Clearing Up the Misunderstandings about Organic Farming.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

Then Christie Wilcox wrote a response to Jason Mark (and other critics) - In the immortal words of Tom Petty: “I won’t back down”

 

If the phrase was not already ruined by an un-named quasi-news organization, I'd say "We report, you decide". But is it really just "he said, she said"? Read and let them know in the comments.

<2c>My two cents? Words matter. Words have different meanings depending on who uses them - their geography, background, research tradition (if in science), context, etc. Scientists and non-scientists use the word "theory" very differently. Physicists and Biologists use the word "law" very differently (and certainly much differently from lawyers, or politicians). Evolutionary Biologists and Evolutionary Psychologists have all sorts of subtle differences in which they use terms like 'evolution', 'selection', 'adaptation', 'heredity', 'trait', 'genetic' etc. I argued before that journalists and non-journalists use the word "story" very differently.

Likewise, different people mean different things when they say "organic" when discussing food.

A small farmer, perhaps due to habit or tradition, may think of himself as an "organic" farmer. But everyone else - the consumers - use it in a very different way: "organic" is whatever USDA labels as "organic" as that is important for their choices at the grocery store.

So, when a consumer goes to the Farmer's Market, the word "organic" is not what they are thinking, but rather "local" - they can ask exactly how the food was produced as the farmer is standing right there. When they say "organic" they mean "labeled as such at Whole Foods" - which is not local but industrial organic.

So when someone critiques "organic" (and in case of Christie are very explicit about meaning "USDA Organic"-labeled), they critique the industrial organic, not the small local farmers. But as small local farmers think of themselves as "organic" producers, they take umbrage, erroneously think they are the target of the criticism, and get all up in arms to defend...not themselves but the big industrial farms that managed to get the "organic" label, thus confusing everyone involved.

But just read all of the "Passions of Food" posts for a variety of angles on the topic.

 

Apart from the food fight, there was quite a lot of other good stuff on the network over the weekend and today - so check the posts all out:

- John R. Platt - Dugong Deaths Way up Down Under

 

- Christina Agapakis - Worms Expanded

 

- Bora Zivkovic - BIO101 - Cell Structure

 

- Glendon Mellow - Science-art Scumble #22andTools change, view is the same

 

- Joanne Manaster - Children’s Science Video Contests

 

- Jason G. Goldman - Sunday Photoblogging: Pisa, Italy and Century City, CA

 

- Krystal D'Costa - Scent of a Woman

 

- Kelly Oakes - Oxygen might be hiding behind grains of cosmic dust

 

- Rob Dunn - Biologist Finds Himself Spending Way too Much Time Thinking about a Discovery he Might Have Made on Jon Stewart’s Body

 

- Lucas Brouwers - Where does milk come from?

 

- Ingrid Wickelgren - Money Can Buy Isolation

 

- Charles Q. Choi - A Modest Proposal: Transparent Tablets

 

- Mark Fischetti - Review: New Documentary Explains Engineering Failures that Drowned New Orleans during Katrina

 

- Kevin Zelnio - Evolution’s Tempo, Movement I: Adagio

 

- Elizabeth Iorns - How outsourcing will transform scientific research

=======================

If you like any of the posts by our bloggers and if you think the posts can be easily edited and formatted for print, submit them for the next edition of The Open Laboratory.

Conversations on our articles and blog posts often continue on our Facebook page - "Like" it and join in the discussion.

You should follow the Blog Network on Twitter - the official account is @sciamblogs and the List of all the bloggers is @sciamblogs/sciambloggers.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe