Yes, Britain has a much higher population to patronise its science institutions, but that does little to ease my envy. London’s Natural History Museum is an awesome example of how to communicate science to the public – last year they opened the £78m Darwin Centre where visitors watch scientists at work in the lab, and even ask them questions. Meanwhile, our natural history museum is still closed after a flight of stairs collapsed in 2007, and plans to refurbish it are on hold.

In London, just down the road form the Natural History Museum is the equally excellent Science Museum. The city also boasts the Royal Society (which hosts regular public science lectures), the Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Royal Observatory in Greenwhich, a National Maritime Museum, a transport museum, the Wandle Industrial Museum…the list goes on.

And how about Dublin? We’ve got the Science Gallery, the Botanic Gardens and, erm, that’s it as far as I know. There’s also Astronomy Ireland, who run regular events and classes and open their observatory to the public. There’s often public science talks and lectures in the various third level colleges, but they’re poorly advertised off campus.

Beyond that, I’m stumped. The Science Gallery is excellent but it only really focuses on one exhibition at a time, so isn’t the kind of grand science museum we need. You could spend days or months just exploring the Natural History and Science museums in London, but there really isn’t much for a nerd to do here by comparison.

For all the the talk of developing a knowledge economy that’s based on science and technology, how much effort have we made to really stimulate public curiosity in science? Is throwing money at PhDs really enough? Where are our public science spaces? We’ve done an excellent job of creating public cultural spaces – think of Dublin’s theaters, arthouse cinemas, galleries and now, endless start-up studios and art spaces – but science has been massively neglected by comparison.

But while science is about discovering the truth of reality – simply the way things are – the idea of balancing opinions is far more important in journalism. In science opinions will only get a hearing if there is reasonable evidence to support them. In journalism any old rubbish can potentially get coverage to provide “balance” to a debate.

The most obvious example of where the concept of journalistic balance proves flawed is in coverage of science itself.  Take the notions that the HIV virus causes AIDS, that secondhand smoking causes cancer, and that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming. All three are robust scientific claims backed by a huge amount of peer-reviewed research, but all three have, at various times, been the subject of media attempts to create controversy and provide “balance” to the issues by giving significant space to opposing views. This creates a “debate” narrative for the media, which often prefers to spark false controversy than provide insight and understanding of science.

A 2005 post on realclimate.org summed up the issue neatly:

While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates.

One thing that’s noticeable in coverage of climate change is that while many media outlets give plenty of time to the notion of a “debate” on whether human emissions are causing global warming, there is almost no such debate between scientists in peer-reviewed journals. This is largely a media debate, not a scientific one.

Writing about the climategate “scandal” that purportedly undermined the robustness of climate change science – even though it did no such thing – climatologist Myles Allen made some valid points in a recent Guardian article. Commenting on an email between scientists that referred to using a “trick to the hide decline” that some considered evidence of a conspiracy to cover up falling temperatures,  Allen pointed out that what the scientists were actually discussing was how to deal with a well know error in temperature data that’s derived from tree rings. While tree-ring width is generally a good indicator of temperature, it has not been for the past 60 years or so. If it was our only method of measuring, it would show temperatures to have been colder than they actually were over this period. This is the “decline” the scientists sought to hide when illustrating the temperature record, because it is clearly false. Allen wrote:

The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of “scientists accused of manipulating their data” know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that “trick” does not mean “deceit”. They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won’t know this: so why do they keep doing it?

Allen goes on to say that journalists deal in “narratives” rather than facts.

So the narrative journalists have collectively decided upon is that a few scientists may have manipulated their data, and either (a) it doesn’t matter because the evidence for human influence on climate is so strong or (b) this shows the whole edifice is now crumbling, depending on their editor’s predilections…All without any evidence that any number, anywhere, is actually wrong.

Instead of seeking to provide understanding of the issues and emphasise where the evidence lies, the media often seeks to create controversy. It doesn’t treat every scientific issue like this of course – there aren’t any debates in the media about whether the earth is round or whether gravity exists.  There would appear to be a point at which the evidence is simply too robust – but until that is reached minority views are given excessive weight.

So how should science – or any topic that involves assessing the merits of evidence – be reported?

In an online guide to reporting climate change, journalism professor Tom Yulsman suggests the following among seven other bits of advice:

Be a referee who subjects conflicting claims to independent scrutiny. Examine the evidence in the form of primary literature, such as scientific papers and reports. And enlist the help of impartial experts who can help you put claims from partisans wielding conflicting results and opinions into proper perspective.

Your goal is to help your audience weigh the merits of these varying positions, and to alert them when one side in a debate is cherry picking the data, or exaggerating, or committing other kinds of fouls.

One recent example of a journalist following this advice is ABC Australia’s Toby Jones correctly pressing Ian Plimer on his dodgy scientific claims during a debate on climate change with George Monbiot (highlights here, more detailed coverage here). Jones had clearly done his homework.

Unfortunately there are plenty of reasons why journalists might generally not be able to verify the scientific merit of different opinions – a lack of scientific knowledge could be one, a lack of time another. But these are not good enough excuses to justify reporting that misrepresents science and confuses the public.

When it comes to science journalists may feel that by shutting out certain views they are doing a disservice to democracy, but if those views had any merit they would be discussed in peer-reviewed journals in the first place.

In an excellent editorial in 2005, Mark Trahant of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer argued – rightly – that truth is a higher calling for journalists than fairness. He wrote:

It’s time for journalists — and especially those of us who write opinion — to declare outright that truth is a higher calling than fairness.

That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps.

Ronan McGreevy writes in the Irish Times: [Bellamy] said a period of global cooling had already begun, citing evidence that the Alps had more snow last winter than at any time for the last 26 years.

I have no idea if the Alps had more snow last winter than at anytime over the past 26 years, but it’s irrelevant. We’ve heard the same line trotted out before about Antarctica gaining ice and this being evidence against global warming, and it’s been pretty thoroughly discredited. A simple look at a map like the one below shows that while, yes, some areas of the planet have gotten colder (the blue), most have gotten warmer (the red). Localised cooling doesn’t mean the overall globe isn’t warming.

This map shows the difference in surface temperature in 2006 compared to the average from 1951 to 1980. Map based on data from NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Claims that the earth has been cooling in the past ten years have been knocking about recently. They typically refer to the fact that 1998 is the hottest year on record, and that this record has not been broken since. But the explanation for this is quite simple: there was an exceptionally strong El Nino in 1998, which produced temperatures that were abnormally warm and above even the current warming trend.

The only other thing Bellamy was quoted as saying in relation to climate change was: “The argument [for man-made global warming] is going downhill. Climate change is a completely natural thing. It is based on the sun, and at the moment we are into the 24th sun cycle and there has been no sunspots for two years.”

It’s hard to even know what point Bellamy is making here, but he seems to be saying that the sun was behind rising temperatures in the last few decades rather than greenhouse gases. This has been rebuked many times (variety of sources here).

According to the Met Office:

“There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades.”

In 2007, a study by the Naval Research Laboratory at NASA concluded that “if anything,” the sun contributed “a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years.”

The sun does play a crucial role in our climate, but it’s just one player. As New Scientist points out in this excellent synopsis of the sun’s role in climate change:

“According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat.” So the sun is just one component of climate – temperatures can be very hot even if the sun’s activity is diminished because of the huge role greenhouse gases play in trapping whatever solar heat is available.

News reports like the Irish Times’s on Bellamy’s visit raise interesting questions about journalism. I don’t believe there should be a need to defer to journalistic “balance” when one side of an argument is supported by vastly more evidence than another. But in an incidence like this, when some simple research would make it clear that Bellamy’s claims are unsupported by evidence, shouldn’t the Irish Times have reported this evidence and given more weight to it?

Another week, another example of political ignorance towards science and evidence. Last week it was Dublin City Council and busgate, now Fianna Fáil TD Bobby Aylward seems to think a Sunday Times experiment on his reaction times when driving after two pints proves it’s safe to drive after a few “social pints”. Aylward is one of the backbench Fianna Fáil TDs opposing stricter drink-driving laws.

Mark Tighe and Colin Doyle write in the Sunday Times:

Both Aylward and Richard Oakley, a Sunday Times journalist, were required to complete a series of emergency stops on a simulator at three different speeds. The drivers were tested sober and again after consuming two pints of beer, which put them over 50mg but below 80mg, the current limit.

After two pints of Guinness Aylward’s performance was better at all three speeds tested. Oakley’s was better at two. Scientifically the results are meaningless, for a few different reasons. Firstly, only two people people were tested – there’s no way the results could be extrapolated to the general population with such a tiny sample size. Secondly, both the subjects and those running the experiment knew when alcohol had been consumed and when it hadn’t – the experiment was neither “blind” nor “double blind”. Both drivers could have just consciously made more of an effort the second time around. And for simulator results to be transferrable to the actual road there would need to be solid evidence that the simulator in question accurately mimics road conditions – I have no idea if there is or not.

Of course the Sunday Times isn’t claiming the experiment was scientific.  But Aylward seems to think the results validate his opposition to stricter drink-driving limits:

““I’ve said all along that people in rural areas are capable of having a pint or maybe two and be quite capable of driving home.”

Presumably people in rural areas metabolise alcohol differently than those in urban areas.

Aylward added: “People who have had a social pint will not cause an accident. They are of no danger to anyone.”

As opposed to people who have an unsocial pint, right Bobby?

Speaking to the Sunday Times, a Road Safety Authority spokesperson stressed the test was not scientific, and added that the “overwhelming body of scientific evidence” shows that even one drink impairs driving.

One thing that’s been glaringly obviously in this whole debate is the lack of real evidence offered by rural backbench TDs and publicans to support their position – unless, of course, you count ignorant statements that people in “rural areas” who have a “social pint” or two can still drive perfectly well as evidence.

In making their case, councillors opposed to the busgate pointed to claims by the Dublin City Business Association that business had dropped by 30 per cent since the busgate was introduced. If this is what our councillors believe to constitute evidence, we should be worried.

As far as I can tell, no effort was made to find or produce independent, statistically sound evidence on whether there has actually been a decline in business, or to separate the effects of economic decline from any effects of the busgate. It seems 35 members of Dublin City Council essentially accepted the word of a vested interest group without any attempt to independently verify their claims. Would the council members just accept the word of say, a factory owner, that the effluent he was pumping into sea was clean?

It wouldn’t have been terribly difficult to get some decent stats on the issue. My research-design skills are quite rusty, but some basic research could have: compared the financial performance of similar businesses inside and outside the city centre for a period that covered the four months since the busgate was introduced and the four months before; examined whether there had been any increase in business in outer-city shopping centres since the busgate began and surveyed customers at these centres to see how many had previously shopped in town; compared any decline in the performance of Dublin city centre businesses to those in other Irish cities without a busgate; and considered any existing international research on the effects on local businesses when busgate-like measures are introduced. Any figures for financial performance should have been independently audited.

None of this was done. Either 35 members of the council don’t understand the notion of solid evidence, or they succumbed with remarkable speed to a small group of business lobbyists. Or both.

The idea that government policy should be based on solid evidence doesn’t sound revolutionary, but it still seems to be ignored. An evidence-centred approach to policymaking would start by seeking solid research on the effects and effectiveness of a policy. Of course evidence isn’t the panacea of making policy – it can’t consider ethics or ideology, for example. Regardless of its effects on business, some might argue that concerns about climate change demand restrictions on cars in Dublin. And even if the evidence indicates a particular drug is harmful, for example, many would say people should still be allowed to take it on grounds of personal freedom. Fair enough.

But policymaking also needs to be informed by solid evidence about existing realities and the likely effects of new policies. Thirty five city councillors voted against the busgate primilary because of its supposed impacts on city centre businesses, and they did so with no solid data to back them up. If they can succumb to corporate interests and flimsy evidence so quickly early in their term, how are we to expect them to competently and rationally handle the many other policy challenges that no doubt await them?

Have a read of  Labour’s Neil Ward’s excellent blog post on this topic here. Neil works for the Labour Party.

Disclosure: I am a Green Party member.

I took the picture of the clouds in Galway last Friday just before dusk.  I have no idea what type of cloud it is, and the fine folks at the Cloud Appreciation Society seem unsure too. It appears to have the wispyness of a cirrus and the bulk of a cumulus, but nothing in my Cloudspotter’s Guide resembles it.

Anyone have any ideas?

Next up: mushrooms. If Paul Sterry’s Complete Irish Wildlife is anything to go by, I’m guessing the pointy cylindrical mushrooms are the shaggy ink cap, Coprinus comatus. The book says they’re typically seen in “troops” in grassy areas between August and October, so that fits the bill. If it is the shaggy ink cap it will liquefy and blacken as it gets older, the first of which also happened to Michael Jackson, the second of which didn’t.

It’s the last photo of the wide cone-shaped mushroom that has me stumped – any ideas?