I'm sure you've all
seen these articles shouting at us that "science's" picture of human ancestry is "muddied," "challenged," or in "doubt."
Lots of other people have blogged on this, so I'll just make a couple points and then send you to them for your edification. Because I'm lazy and it's my blog, that's why.
It seems like the only people who really think evolution is either cut and dried or some kind of straight line are journalists. My first point is simple and quick -- the articles are incorrect in their overblown assumptions of what this means for the study of human evolution, nothing is cast into doubt, and our understanding of where we came from is still substantially the same as it has been. For further reading on this topic, see
Questionable Authority, Pharyngula, and/or John Hawks.My second point is that this isn't the first time "science" journalists have blown something out of proportion. I feel I'm in a relatively good place to comment on this, as I graduated with a dual major in
Magazine Journalism and
Earth Sciences. When I attended Newhouse, there were no -- zero -- none -- zip, nada, zilch -- classes on science journalism. This appears to
still be the case. I asked my advisor why there were no science journalism classes, he told me that nobody wanted to take one and nobody wanted to teach one. He acknowledged that this was problematic, and that there are only about five really competent science journalists out there, but that the school wasn't going to offer a course nobody wanted, that nobody needed, and that they couldn't get anyone interested in teaching. While it's nice that you are required to take six credits of science classes (FYI, at SU that's two 1-semester, 3-hour/week courses), just knowing science and knowing newswriting really isn't enough. A good science journalist needs to be able to understand what is going on, and needs to be able to describe that well to laypersons. This doesn't seem to be something that is/can be developed by taking biology 101 one semester and newswriting 305 the next. Students wishing to go into science journalism would be better served by an integrated course that offers basic intro-level information on a variety of "hot" topics, as well as instruction on how to communicate this information to non-science folks. It's easy enough to design a course like that, certainly. But Newhouse is an extremely good journalism school, and if they don't even offer a science writing course, well, what's up with that?
I'll tell you what's up with that. In all honesty, the people interested in becoming journalists are not, generally, in my experience only, people interested in science. I don't know why, really, except that science still has an image problem with a lot of people. Our kids aren't excited about it, people who like it are "nerds," and I think, personally, if you don't develop an enthusiasm for it when you're young, you just don't "get" it.
In addition, scientists aren't interested in journalism. The stereotype of the guys in white lab coats up in their ivory tower has some basis in reality. They often can't be bothered to clear up miconceptions about their work, and may not even know what the mainstream media is doing with their findings.
For any journalists who come across this entry, please know there are plenty of scientists just ITCHING to answer your questions. Good information is out there, so stop spewing shoddy crap you're all repeating off each other!
Seriously! If you have questions about evolution, go
here. Biology, natural resources, natural hazards, geology, and water, try
here. Weather, climate, fisheries, oceans? Try
here. Cool space stuff, try
these guys.