Comments on: Goldacre and Drayson live debate at 7pm: Science reporting – is it good for you? http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2009/09/16/goldacre-and-drayson-live-debate-at-7pm-science-reporting-is-it-good-for-you/ Online journalism news Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:16:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Science journalism needs fewer science writers and more editors, says Goldacre | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2009/09/16/goldacre-and-drayson-live-debate-at-7pm-science-reporting-is-it-good-for-you/comment-page-1/#comment-17892 Science journalism needs fewer science writers and more editors, says Goldacre | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:30:53 +0000 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=14075#comment-17892 [...] Science journalists were subject to intense criticism in a debate between science minister Lord Drayson and Bad Science blogger Ben Goldacre on Wednesday night. [...] [...] Science journalists were subject to intense criticism in a debate between science minister Lord Drayson and Bad Science blogger Ben Goldacre on Wednesday night. [...]

]]> By: Pragmatist http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2009/09/16/goldacre-and-drayson-live-debate-at-7pm-science-reporting-is-it-good-for-you/comment-page-1/#comment-17853 Pragmatist Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:27:00 +0000 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=14075#comment-17853 Great stuff, I was glued to my TV, err, PC! I think that there was some convergence of opinion in this discussion which constitutes that each influenced the other. I think that Drayson disclosed an undesirable trait of governance early on in revealing a willingness, intent perhaps, to pander too much to commercial interests. I like Ben a lot, 'Bad Science' may be a book that will achieve a historical significance. Though Ben is not without his flaws, which he himself acknowledged, "I hope one day I am sufficiently grown up to say something like that", was one reply to Draysons eloquence when pressed by Simon Mayo on a sensitive area of government policy, Ben does and has raised issues about science in a wider sense than the topic for this debate. If Ben tempers some of his views and prepares to be more balanced by not solely focusing upon weakness there is every possibility that a future government will recognise his worth. However, to make serious progress for humankind there must be recognition that debate about science, information economies, monetary economies, and natural economies must expand from this beginning debating coverage in the media. Online editions of newspapers are considerably more interesting than their printed editions by virtue of user generated comment. Many comments trot out the same old text-book conditioning endemic in the state in which we find ourselves. A minority of users are suggesting alternate views and expressing concern for the future. I began with a distrust of Drayson and grew to appreciate him more. I began with favoritism towards Goldacre, acknowledged his value, but recognised his single mindedness for a weakness. I began with a healthy scepticism of journalism and retained that. Last nights debate did not distinguish between pure science and its application. Pure science needs to shed some of the corrupting influence of commercial interests. Reporting would be better for relying less upon commercial expediency. But above all there is substantial scope for improvement in the application of science as applied to the populations of whole nations and with particular concern over the management of chronic disease. Thank you for letting me shout at you. Great stuff, I was glued to my TV, err, PC!
I think that there was some convergence of opinion in this discussion which constitutes that each influenced the other.
I think that Drayson disclosed an undesirable trait of governance early on in revealing a willingness, intent perhaps, to pander too much to commercial interests.
I like Ben a lot, ‘Bad Science’ may be a book that will achieve a historical significance. Though Ben is not without his flaws, which he himself acknowledged, “I hope one day I am sufficiently grown up to say something like that”, was one reply to Draysons eloquence when pressed by Simon Mayo on a sensitive area of government policy, Ben does and has raised issues about science in a wider sense than the topic for this debate.
If Ben tempers some of his views and prepares to be more balanced by not solely focusing upon weakness there is every possibility that a future government will recognise his worth.
However, to make serious progress for humankind there must be recognition that debate about science, information economies, monetary economies, and natural economies must expand from this beginning debating coverage in the media.

Online editions of newspapers are considerably more interesting than their printed editions by virtue of user generated comment. Many comments trot out the same old text-book conditioning endemic in the state in which we find ourselves. A minority of users are suggesting alternate views and expressing concern for the future.

I began with a distrust of Drayson and grew to appreciate him more. I began with favoritism towards Goldacre, acknowledged his value, but recognised his single mindedness for a weakness. I began with a healthy scepticism of journalism and retained that.

Last nights debate did not distinguish between pure science and its application. Pure science needs to shed some of the corrupting influence of commercial interests. Reporting would be better for relying less upon commercial expediency. But above all there is substantial scope for improvement in the application of science as applied to the populations of whole nations and with particular concern over the management of chronic disease.

Thank you for letting me shout at you.

]]>