It will be interesting to see Specter’s response in the fourth installment of the Book Club debate (if there is one). Mooney certainly has a point about that many issues do not become topics of national conversations until our highest authorities make them so. But what pushes the authorities to do that? Specter was indeed out on a limb when he suggested that the “lowest common denominator [on the Web] is inching upward.” One hopes that even in this debilitated media landscape, however, the press retains some of its power to set the nation’s political agenda, and it must work hard to reassert that age-old prerogative.
Of course, scientific illiteracy and denialism will not be vanquished easily by any means (elementary/secondary education is another crucial factor), but it’s helpful to have rational voices like Specter and Mooney hashing out their causes and cures.
Is it true that - as Tom Philpott at Grist says ( http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-GMO/ ) - Specter's book barely mentioned climate change denialism?
> Traditional journalism appears to be key for Specter. “What we need to encourage now is the accessibility of the Internet with the standards of what the cyberworld refers to as the ‘dead tree media’
Oof. Here (2nd letter) is an example of what you can learn from The Economist about climate science:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743441
....and here is what you can learn about it from the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/ED7O1A4IQU.DTL
#1 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 01:45 AM
fyi, I posted a comment just now that got "held for moderation" - if that's code for "placed gently in the spam bucket", could someone retrieve it please?
#2 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 01:49 AM
Cjr doesn't like posts to have more than 3 links it seems. If you still have the post recorded somewhere, you can edit out the links and repost it fine.
Yeah I know. It's really annoying.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 7 Nov 2009 at 10:50 PM
Question For Curtis, Michael Specter, and Chris Mooney -- to all three of you please, i.e., it would be great for the audience to get answers from all of you on this:
Although I haven't checked in the last couple days, I don't think The New York Times ever covered the fact that eighteen leading scientific organizations sent an amazingly clear letter, regarding climate change, to all U.S. Senators, a couple weeks ago now. One of the organizations was the AAAS. Another was the American Chemical Society. And etc. etc. etc. There was a press release, and ClimateProgress did cover the letter on-line. But, The Times never did, at all, as far as I know, let alone prominently, i.e., in the way that such a letter should have been covered, under the circumstances.
So, what do EACH of you think about the fact that The Times never covered that letter, given the issue being discussed here? Might that be part of the explanation why the public doesn't understand as well as it might?
And, a simple question: Where do each of you think such a letter deserves to be covered? Not at all? In a small article on page 12? On page 3? On the front page?
These are concrete questions. Can we ask for concrete answers?
And, I'd like to hear from Andy Revkin on this issue: Where, and to what degree, does he think The Times should have covered such a letter? Can he give his own answer, honestly, here? Or, is he (or will he be) constrained to somehow offer an opinion that however The Times treated it must necessarily have been the wise and appropriate way (even though they don't seem to have covered it at all)?
Please, I'm in the public, and I'm wondering if the media and etc. will be providing concrete answers to the public on such things?
Cheers,
Jeff
#4 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 03:01 AM
Specter almost sounds as though he's angling for an advisorship with the American Council of Science and Health:
"This overpowering fear of the unknown has spawned, to Specter's mind, a plague of willful ignorance, causing people to "dive into what they feel comfortable with and ignore hard scientific data. That is...a reason people seek alternative therapies and vitamins no matter how often they are shown to be of little or no value."
"It is this retreat from reality that worries me," Specter explained."
The above is from an interview published Nov 9. The following two stories appeared Nov 16:
"Vitamin D Shows Heart Benefits in Study
Vitamin D... is known for helping with calcium absorption and for building strong bones.... But there is more and more evidence that vitamin D is a critical player in numerous other aspects of metabolism. A new study suggests many Americans aren’t getting anywhere nearly enough of the vitamin, and it may be affecting their heart health."
"New study casts more doubt on drugs Vytorin, Zetia
...The new study found that a prescription version of the drug niacin, used in different forms for half a century, reduced artery plaque significantly better in eight months than ezetimibe, the active ingredient in both Vytorin and Zetia."
(no links in this comment, so it should evade the spam filter)
#5 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:06 PM
It seems that Specter's endorsement of race-based medicine, in light of the recent findings for the cardiac drug, BiDil, may be a form of evidence-free speculation that author himself rails against. A recent analysis published in the RSS journal, Significance, of the statistical shenanigans needed to claim support for the drug's race-specific effects should have been considered by the author, if only to convince himself that there's actually "no there there."
Medicine in black and white: BiDil®: race and the limits of evidence-based medicine
George Ellison 1
ABSTRACT
When the US Food and Drug Administration licensed the drug BiDil® in June 2005 it was hailed as a significant step towards "personalised prescribing". This is because BiDil® had been patented, tested and approved for use by just one group of patients: those "of African descent". George Ellison examines the statistical evidence that underpinned the development of BiDil® as a "racial drug" and finds it less than satisfactory.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118592621/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
#6 Posted by Andrew, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 11:08 PM
Its tough being "right" all the time. It must be especially tough for Mr Specter who was driven to write a book about how "right" he is and how wrong are the masses. Especially the "right-wing lunatics" (I think that's how he phrased it). Yes, as dumb as I am I was able to figure out that a New York journalist has a political lense through which he views his science. Interesting, I heard him say on the radio yesterday that global warming is a fact with no real evidence to the contrary. I feel so relieved now that I can stop thinking about it for myself. It makes my teeny-wheeny little brain throb too much. Mr Specter, thank you for caring enough about me and all the others to be the guiding light of scientific truth.
#7 Posted by Thomas, CJR on Sat 23 Jan 2010 at 06:25 PM