Science and the media: 27 November - 3 December Free

Steve Corneliussen's topics this week:

• A Slate article with good news about women in math and science.
• A Science commentary with good news about innovations in science outreach.
• Optimism and pessimism in Science's coverage of the post-election federal research budget outlook.
• Continued discussion in the New York Times about medical—this time dental—radiation.
• Analysis of a Wall Street Journal and New York Times climate-science squabble.

Women in science: Affirmation counters "stereotype threat"

Consider the question posed in this "lede" paragraph from an article in Slate headlined "How to Buck Up the Science Ladies: An easy way to boost women's scores in physics":

Last week, researchers at the University of Colorado published a psych experiment that seems almost too good to be true. They showed that two 15-minute writing exercises, administered to an intro physics class early in the semester, could substantially boost the scores of female students. Even more curious: the exercises had nothing to do with physics. Instead, students were asked to write about things that mattered to them, like creativity or relationships with family and friends. How could a few paragraphs on personal values translate into enduring better mastery of pulleys and frictionless planes?

The answer, writes Amanda Schaffer, is that when "it comes to math and science classes, women can be subtly hampered by negative stereotypes about their gender"—that is, by something called stereotype threat, which can "be countered, often in simple ways," showing that "small doses of affirmation can do a lot of good."

Schaffer reports as well about other studies—for example, one in which "women asked to watch commercials in which ditzy ladies gushed about brownie mix afterward expressed less interest in quantitative pursuits." The point is that whenever "people are made to worry that they might confirm a negative assumption—for instance, that girls can't do math or that white men can't jump—they may be less likely to do their best. Frustratingly, the stereotypes they want so badly to avoid instead may instead become self-fulfilling."

But Schaffer concludes that affirmation techniques can help: "In a world where women may worry that they're not as good at science, it looks as if we have an easy-to-use tool for helping them zap their self-defeating demons."

(I report all of this as a dad who, while working in science outreach under the best theories, continually told his two growing daughters that girls are good at math, only to see them both become English majors—and I report it also as a white guy who, even 40 years ago when he was still skinny, and despite any amount of affirmation, still wouldn't have been able to jump.)

"Ask a Biologist" engages students and public

If you search Arizona State University's Ask a Biologist website for the term "engagement model," you get no hits. Yet that's the science-outreach approach pervading the site, as reflected in a recent Science magazine commentary by Charles Kazilek, the site's creator and caretaker.

Scientists using a different outreach approach, the deficit model—the one that's been around for decades—seek to devise ever-better ways to deliver ever-better science lectures to passive audiences so as to reduce the silent listeners' deficit of science understanding. Scientists using the engagement model seek instead to improve public science literacy through two-way interactions that involve not audience passivity, but audience activity.

That underlying science-communication approach adds to the reasons why the Ask a Biologist site might be important even to scientists outside biology. Kazilek's lengthy commentary is designed to introduce and explain the site to scientists in every field.

He and his colleagues believe that no "other tool has been as powerful as the Internet for putting science education directly in users' hands, in multiple formats that can excite discussion and critical thinking." Their site tries to develop a "link between the public and working scientists," which amounts, he says, to a "social component of Ask A Biologist [that] has been a key to its past success and will remain a vital part of future development."

As to that success, he offers some quantification. He notes that the site has a large pool of volunteers among the more than 100 faculty and 240 graduate students in the ASU School of Life Sciences. Besides answering questions from the active audience, they've developed more than 2500 pages of supplemental materials. Moreover:

Ask A Biologist was originally created as a vehicle to host an online question-and-answer (Q&A) feature for kids. Since its inception, the Web site has answered more than 25 000 queries from students, teachers, and lifelong learners. Users come from around the globe to ask some of biology's most perplexing questions. Why do some plant leaves turn red or yellow in the winter? Why are fingers wrinkled after a long bath?

He also offers quantification at the end of this illustration of one dimension of the site:

One ... activity is the Virtual Pocket Seed Experiment. This activity provides options for exploring seed germination, energy, gravotropism, and the scientific method both online and as a hands-on experiment. Online there is a pictorial data set involving various seed germination treatments. To help engage students in the activity, time-lapse animations of each seed treatment are included. The companion Pocket Seed Packet can be downloaded and used to run the experiment as a hands-on activity in the classroom or at home. This places experimental control in the hands of students. The flexibility of the activity allows teachers to select which options best fit their students' needs as well as their access to technology. The popularity of this activity is reflected in the Web site analytics and usage requests submitted through the online permission form. It is downloaded and used by hundreds of thousands of students and teachers yearly.

Kazilek describes the workings of the site's Q&A process, which begins with a simple e-mail form, involves an established work flow, has come to profit from a growing database of answer materials, and features monitored distribution of questions to volunteer scientists. The monitoring ensures grade-appropriateness not only on a question's way in, but in the answer's way out.

He also describes

• A coloring page section that was developed in response to parents and grandparents seeking activities for kids just starting to learn to read.
• The Quizzes and the Mystery Image gallery, which "came about in response to student requests for ways to test their comprehension of articles and a desire to explore the microscopic world."
• The site's career dimension, including "Meet Our Biologists," where "students ask questions such as 'What is it like to put on a lab coat and work in a laboratory?' and 'What are the best classes to take in high school if you want to be wildlife biologist?'"
• Video channels on Vimeo, YouTube, and TeacherTube.
• The "Mysterious World of Dr. Biology," which "allows children to partner creative thinking with written language skills development around a biology-based theme."
• The site's growing inclusion of students speaking French or Spanish.

Kazilek's commentary also explains how teachers use the site and how it can insert a "human touch" into any user's effort to find reliable biology information online. "This is the power of putting the working scientist in touch with children and the public," he says.

Science budget outlook: passive gloom or active vigor?

"New Republicans Could Revise Party Line on Research Funding" says the headline on a news report in the 26 November issue of Science. In the same issue, "Protect U.S. Science Funding" says the headline on a commentary by Alan I. Leshner, who heads both the magazine and its publisher, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The news article exudes passive gloom. The commentary exudes active vigor.

The news article begins by asserting that with the Tea Party influence, the new House leadership wil be much different, possibly putting "a damper on hopes that the next Congress will deliver on a long-promised expansion of federal spending on research and education" as outlined in the 2005 Gathering Storm report—and follow-ups—from the National Academies.

The article quotes the updated Gathering Storm, subtitled Rapidly Approaching Category 5: "The nation's outlook has worsened.... Our public school system has shown little sign of improvement, particularly in mathematics and science." Then it continues:

Nobody's expecting any ... focus on science from the new speaker, Representative John Boehner (R-OH), or any of his leadership team. Neither [Virginia Republican Rep. Eric] Cantor's statement nor the more visible Pledge to America that the party issued during the fall campaign even mentions science, research, or education. The only reference to "innovation" comes as part of a passage in the Pledge on how "excessive federal regulation ... hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy." In other words, get the government off our backs so that the private sector can do its thing.

"I'm a registered Republican, although I try to remain nonpartisan," [Augustine] says.... What worries [him] is the idea that everything should be on the chopping block. "What I hear from new members is that 'we love science, but we are coming to Washington to cut the budget.' Well, to that I say, 'When you're designing a plane and trying to save weight, you don't throw out the engine.' The biggest threat to innovation is this army of pickaxes that want to sweep away everything, including research."

Leshner's commentary warns of possible "5 to 10% (or greater) cuts in R&D allocations for fiscal years 2011 and 2012" with consequences that would be "severe." That means, he declares, that "this is not a time for reticence, complacency, or helplessness. If scientists and engineers want public support and if they want to contribute fully to the betterment of humankind, they need to reach out to the public right now as a united community."

He offers this prescription:

[Scientists and engineers] should reach out and speak to the public and policy-makers at both ends of the spectrum, from their local communities, local government leaders, and congressional representatives, to local and national media outlets and leaders of the Executive Branch. Policy-makers should be invited to visit laboratories and meet with scientists and engineers at all career stages and get a sense of their research programs and future goals. Research institutes should hold forums to educate the public on how science, engineering, and technology development are critical to solving almost every societal problem. Local industry leaders could help convey the message that research is critically important to innovation and economic growth.

Leshner wraps things up by suggesting that the Gathering Storm reports "include a wealth of clearly stated information that can be used as talking points."

New York Times letters: medical physics, cont.

Early last week, a front-page feature article in the New York Times's "Radiation Boom" series continued the Times's investigation of medical radiation, this time in dentistry—specifically a relatively new device, the cone-beam CT scanner. The 1 December Times has now offered a spirited discussion of the article in four letters from experts.

A dentistry professor's letter worries that the article's alarmist tone could cause "confusion" and unwarranted "panic," but reports as well that "fear of overuse is the precise reason" that he himself hasn't bought a cone-beam unit.

Another professor cautions that the article didn't "adequately describe the advantages of this incredible 3-D technology over a digital camera or routine X-ray." He continues:

For the first time, a "dental" cone-beam CT scan emitting one-twentieth to one-thirtieth the radiation of a CT head scan allows integrated treatment of the child's airway (breathing), temporomandibular joints (clicking, locking and headaches) and facial aesthetics, allowing the orthodontist to place the teeth and the jaws in a position to prevent future snoring, sleep apnea and temporomandibular joint disorders.

A practicing dentist objects that thanks to the article, "those of us among the other 147 000 or so dentists in America who do not have the machines now have an even tougher task convincing our patients of the need for routine dental x rays to adequately diagnose and treat dental disease." He adds that the new devices "may be glitzy ... but they are irrelevant to the majority of patients and dentists in America."

One letter requires quoting in full. It comes from Evelyn M. Witkin, professor emerita of genetics at Rutgers University, who received the 2002 National Medal of Science for her work on mutation and DNA repair. She wrote:

The increasing popularity of the cone-beam CT scanner in dentistry and orthodontia is alarming, because it significantly increases the dose of radiation to which patients are exposed.

Every exposure to x rays produces chemical damage to DNA in the irradiated cells. At extremely low doses of radiation, most or all of the damage is likely to be repaired by cellular enzymes. As the dose increases, so does the probability that a damaged site in a particular gene will escape repair and result in a mutation.

Mutations are permanent changes in DNA, and some of them cause serious harm to the exposed individual, notably cancer. Children and adolescents are at greater risk than adults from the cone-beam scanner.

Regular inspection and calibration of the dosage output from dental x-ray sources are urgently needed. The use of cone-beam CT scanners, especially on children and adolescents, should be avoided whenever possible.

A little story from the climate wars

James Taranto writes the online "Best of the Web" column for the Wall Street Journal. He has often sought guffaws for what he sees as the hilarious irony in, for example, Al Gore giving a speech about global warming on a viciously cold day. But on 29 November, Taranto offered another climate-science-related contrast that may call for more consideration than do his merely silly conflations of weather and climate.

He presented for comparison two New York Times statements. The first, from back in November 2009, concerns the Climategate e-mail messages:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here.

The second, from early this week, concerns the Wikileaks documents:

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington.... The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

Two days after Taranto's posting, the WSJ opinion editors presented the two contrastable statements on the op-ed page under the recurring "Notable & Quotable" heading.

However you judge the contrastability, though, it's important to note that Taranto and those editors have done some cherry-picking.

The Times statement about the climate e-mail messages comes from Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog. On the day of Taranto's posting, Revkin updated his 2009 posting with a bracketed headnote citing "conservative commentators" who see in the two statements "a gross double standard."

In the update, Revkin rues his choice of the inaccurate word "private," but notes as well that while he "initially did not publish the contents of the climate files and e-mails (at the request of Times lawyers, considering the uncertain provenance and authenticity of the materials at the time)," he "did (from the start) provide links to the caches of material set up elsewhere on the Web."

And indeed Revkin did point readers to the messages elsewhere. Here again is the sentence that Taranto cherry-picked, this time followed by the sentence that originally contained a link and that Taranto—and the WSJ opinion editors—omitted:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics' Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.

Maybe the contrasting statements merit pondering despite the cherry-picking, and even though Revkin's partial withholding of information came at the request of lawyers when the Climategate story was still just breaking, and even though Revkin had earnestly linked his readers to the hot materials. But as with those weather-climate conflation gags, part of the operative principle appears also to include this: Why let facts intrude to spoil the fun?

Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. His reports to AIP are collected each Friday for "Science and the Media." He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.