Study+guide+5

Q3 What are the ways that scientists communicate the results of their research? What is the purpose and value of each? Scientists publish the results of their research in journals in order to be critically reviewed by their peers and once accepted be given recognition by the scientific community generally. They also use media outlets to announce their results in an effort to inform the general public (who wouldn't normally read the journals) and so alert them or educate them to matters of concern. It is also a necessary means to justify the funding used and promote the need for further research. Sandra Powell

ML I agree with the purposes of publication that Sandra gives, but there is also the fact that scientific knowledge builds up by accretion. If work isn't published, nothing accretes (is there a verb 'to accrete'?, I hope I didn't just invent it). What about conferences? What are the modes of presentation at conferences? Communication is not just publication.

Q4 Discuss why is science often regarded as less newsworhty than sport and finance

CMF: Science is often regarded as less newsworthy than than sport and finance as, I believe, for many people the world has become so large, and there is such as incredible flow of information from all around the world, that it has become a little overwhelming for some. This may cause some people to retreat and only think about things that affect their personal lives, eg. the size of your wallet, your footy teams' performance, real estate prices etc. Science usually gets a backseat because it doesn't really evoke any personal emotion for many people, it's too big and distant, they can't relate to it. Journalism seems to have gone down the escapism path a bit as well. People generally have alot of stress in their lives (or so we are told), so journalism tends to go for the sensationalist stuff and celebrity gossip. But as the quote from R. Williams states, more Australians are interested in news about science than sport and politics, so there is a thirst for knowledge out there. It just seems most mainstream commercial media doesn't go down that path, maybe it just doesn't pull in the big ratings. Christine. ML or is it that its harder to write? An account of a game of sport doesn't require the same intellectual effort to write?

CMF: So now its the sports journalists who are dumbed down! I can live with that. Sure it is harder to write, but look at which newspapers sell the most (Herald Sun) and TV shows pull the ratings (not Catalyst, or anything on SBS.) I'm not bagging fluff journalism, because I must admit to watching 'Farmer wants a wife', but it you look at the ratings for the week in the paper, it is full of reality shows and footy.

ML:oops. I was putting the proposition that sports writing is more formulaic up as an idea. A lot of it is not, you will admit, analytical. But I think we have drifted off target. This whole things starts with a survey showing that the public would just as soon read science, so the question is 'why don't they get it?'. I suggest that its harder for journalists to write science which may mean its more costly (cost is also a factor behind relaity shows I am told), but it may also be that the survey methodology was poor.

DMc: Most people are not interested in things that don't directly impact on them. Science is incremental so most of the scientific papers, such as the ones that we are all now reading for our assessment tasks are specialist and don't have an impact on the lives of the great mass of people. So they will never make the "popular press".Catalyst on the ABC1 on Thursday night does not rate in the top 20 TV programs but it does have impact and it does cover stories that affect us all. So what is the answer - I think it is entertainment. We generally expect all media now to entertain and amuse rather than inform as the primary purpose. So unless it entertains or amuses us it is less likely to get into the popular media.

CMF: Full points to Karl Kruzelninski(?) and Adam Spencer for trying to bring science to TV in an entertaining, fun, family friendly kind of way with that TV show that was on briefly last year, I can't even remember the name now. That had potential, but what happened to it? I agree that the survey methodology may have been poor, or maybe the results were interpreted incorrectly, because look at most science oriented shows - Catalyst, Dr Karl & Adam Spencer's, Mythbusters, New Inventors even. They're all on ABC or SBS and do not rate highly, with the exception of Mythbusters there for a while I think did alright. Can anyone even think of a sciency related show that's on free to air? And please don't mention that T & A (insert anatomical words here) show that was on Channel 10 for a while, Brainiac, that was terrible in my opinion.

Stacey Mussared- I actually do a double degree and study journalism with science, the reason I believe science is not as newsworthy is because people dont see it to be interesting, and unique which are very important for writing stories, the problem with this frame of mind is that people do miss out on a lot of interesting material because they think its going to be very academic and over there heads, When I finish I'm hoping I will be able to communicate informative science research to the general public in a newsworthy and interesting way that people want to read and learn about.

I agree with Denis - I came up with a similar answer but I also think money has a lot to do with it - science spends millions of dollars on research but it doesn't have the same budget for advertising that sport and financial institutions do and they often both combine to form a formidable force for exposure. Note the latest AFL ad - who wouldn't want to sit down to 3 hours of boring football after seeing that, and who wouldn't want to invest their money with ING after Billy Connolly put his seal of approval on them? Also science can be presented as disjointed and isolated discoveries that are difficult to keep a track of - unlike sport and finance that we see everyday. Global warming may be why Australians are now more interested in science - it is already having a direct impact on us, there has been plenty of publicity surrounding it and there is a common thread throughout the science surrounding the topic. Sarah

Q5 What does it mean when a journal is peer reviewed? It means articles within the journal are subject to critical analysis and review by researchers who are experts in that field.

There is usually at least 2 independent and anonymous researchers and they also provide advice as to improvements that could be made. Sarah