Category: Public Perceptions

A Little Politics

Environment, Public Perceptions

Since this is a science and journalism blog I try to stay out of politics. That is why I didn’t offer my commentary on Tuesday’s midterm elections. Most of the attention in the California election went to the defeat of Proposition 19 (legalization of marijuana) but I think the defeat of Proposition 23 is also important to note.

The proposition was a move to suspend California’s regulations on green house gas emissions, backed by oil companies. According to the LA Times, industry in Silicon Valley (which is investing billions in clean energy) opposed the propositions, and may have added to the surprising defeat.

The LA Times article Prop 23 battle marks new era in environmental politics is an interesting read for the way it chronicles the cross over between science, environmental activism, and politics. I have a particular interest in the way that scientific information can shape policy through informing the public. As one of the first major public votes on issues related to climate change and global warming I find these results surprising, but encouraging.

But then again, it is just California. When Texas stands up to oil companies and makes moves to reduce green house gas emissions and invest in alternative energy, then I’ll be impressed. But for now, we have a small political victory for climate science.

Harry Potter: Scourge of the Owls?

Blame the Media, Public Perceptions, State of Journalism

New research out of India is drawing a correlation between a spike in the black market trade of owls and the popular Harry Potter books and movies. Apparently the stories, which feature a white owl (named Hedwig,) have led to a surge of people seeking owls as pets, as well as for what the BBC calls “black magic” rituals.

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

As a reader, I am interested in the research methods used to draw the correlation between the loss of owls and Harry Potter. I wish the article talked more about how the researcher came to his conclusion, because simply noting the popularity of a series that features an owl as a minor character (I think its minor, I’ve never actually read a single one of the Harry Potter books) is a far cry from actually quantifying its connection to a decrease in owls.

This type of investigation reminds me of the correlations made between video games and violence, or metal music and violence. I think that how studies of this type are conducted is a pretty important component to the story, because simply stating that something is a significant relationship doesn’t make it so, I want to see the numbers.

From the BBC: Harry Potter blamed for fueling India owls’ demise

Obama-Rama

Grad School, Public Perceptions

Today I failed at getting to see the President of the United States. Obama was speaking at UW as part of a campaign tour for the midterm elections in November. The Senate and Governor races in Wisconsin are pretty close, and I guess that makes the state a key one for the Democrats.

On Bascomb Hill. Credit: Erin Podolak

The President spoke on the library mall, which is a pretty small area on campus. The gates were set to open at 3:30 and he was going to go on at 4:45. I joined the line at 2:30 and after waiting until 5:00 was told that the library mall was at capacity and they weren’t going to let anyone else in. Really lame. But, the good news was that the President was late so I hadn’t actually missed anything yet. So, I parked myself on the lawn in front of Bascom Hall so I could at least listen to the speech as it was taking place. The rumor is that 17,000 people made it inside the rally and another 10,000 sat on Bascom Hill where I was.

The event started off with music from The National and Ben Harper – although I have to say I enjoyed the Obama transition soundtrack more (Bon Jovi and Bruce, my Jersey loves.) Then, Russ Feingold (Democratic Senator)  and Tom Barrett (Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee, and candidate for Governor) each spoke. I’ll keep out of the politics because A. this blog is not political, B. as a journalist it wouldn’t be right for me to give my personal political opinions, C. I know very little about Wisconsin politics. 
Best view in the house. Credit: Erin Podolak

While we were waiting for the President to take the stage, I found myself thinking about why I voted the way I did in 2008, and the changes that have taken place in the last 20 months that Obama has been in office. Hearing the President speak, and to a large regard defend himself and his party, was a really good experience. Even though I didn’t have a visual, hearing his voice boom out of the PA system was still exciting. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the crowd that I was sitting with, there were some very entertaining people around me. My favorite might have been the Republican who kept making snarky remarks to counter what the President was saying, who would occasionally find that he agreed and had to mark those moments by shouting “true dat, true dat.” 
There were also a few activists/protesters in the crowd, most of whom I found really annoying. There was one carrying a sign saying that 9-11 was covered up by the government and the attacks really came from within the United States. He made me angry, and I did not mind when the aforementioned Republican decided to heckle him. The same protester was also apparently against the presence of soldiers in Afghanistan. 
Credit: Erin Podolak

Overall, I am really glad that I stuck it out and stayed outside to hear the President speak live, even if I wasn’t able to get in to actually see him. It was kind of like listening to a gigantic pep talk, that honestly kind of cheered me up a bit. It was the first political rally that I’ve ever attended, but I hope it won’t be my last because even if you don’t agree with the politics of whoever is speaking, it is just great to get out and be around that kind of a group of people to experience that little swatch of the public. 

New York Times coverage of the event: Obama’s Visit Was Not Simple

This Is Not Polite Dinner Conversation

Environment, Public Perceptions, Science Policy

Francis and I have been having the most ridiculous conversations over dinner. Apparently we both favor talking about the things you aren’t supposed to talk about like religion, abortion, politics, and even global warming. I guess we are just getting a feel for each other and what we think and believe. Although I have a tendency to provide my opinions about these topics freely, which I suppose thats why getting my own voice out of my reporting was a challenge for me when I first started writing.

But on the topic of global warming, she made a fairly decent argument for why she doesn’t believe in global warming specifically (she does believe in climate change) based on the geologic record of cooling and warming trends, but she is a geologist after all. On the opposing side, I think I also made a good argument in favor of global warming and climate change. In the end it was a respectful parting of opinions, which when you share a small apartment is probably best.

This article in the New York Times reminded me of our global warming conversation, because I think it is another scientific finding that provides evidence in favor of global warming. Extreme heat bleaches coral, and threat is seen by Justin Gillis reports on the mass death of coral reefs due to high water temperatures.

According to the article, with the rising temperatures the coral are far more sensitive, so any other slight disturbance in their environment can send them right over the edge, causing them to lose their color killing the organisms that rely of them. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) scientists believe that 2010 will rival 1998 as the hottest year on record, and probably the most damaging to coral. Not that you can just accept everything NOAA says, but I do think that the article presents a concise and logical argument in favor of a warming trend and its negative affects of coral reefs.

Communicating Uncertainty: The Issue of BPA

Public Perceptions, Science Policy,

The New York Times article by Denise Grady, “In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic, No Final Answer” brings up some interesting issues not only on BPA plastic itself, but also on communicating science and how “experts” can become mistrusted when, to the public, the “facts” seem to constantly change.

Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA, is a chemical found in some plastics. For over a decade researchers have had inconclusive findings with regard to whether or not it is safe to be exposed to BPA (or in what quantities, in what forms, etc.) yet, most people are constantly exposed to it from plastic bottles, and other products. BPA is a public health concern because the chemical has been shown in studies on lab animals to mimic estrogen, which makes the chemical an endocrine disruptor.
Whether or not exposure to BPA causes harm to humans is still up for debate, and has become a hot topic for researchers, activists, parents, and politicians. Grady’s article does a good job explaining how it is possible for researchers to come up with different results from identical studies (causing all the confusion) but still be good scientists. Research at its core is based on searching for answers, sometimes the answers are elusive, but that doesn’t make the researchers inept. Even in the face of public outcry and demands for answers that won’t seem to come.
I like Grady’s article because I think she does a really good job going through the history of the BPA issue, showing what findings are new and relevant, and explaining the holdups and problems that have caused different research findings. Overall, I think the article is a good example of science journalism, and how to strip down an issue to simplify it, while building it up at the same time to give the audience all of the information they need to understand the topic.