Filter by section: Commentary

Jun 21, 2006 Commentary

Evolution and creation in the arena of scientific communication

The debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution is a unique case for observing some particular ways in which science is perceived and experienced in society. It is a dispute which is really not very scientific at all, since it ultimately derives from the attempt to discredit a corroborated scientific explanation (and to limit its teaching) by fundamentalist fringe groups of religious and political movements of various extraction. However, it is undeniable that the clash between creationists and evolutionists must also involve, in a critical and self-reflective way, the communicative weaknesses of science and its inability to assert itself as a widespread and fully shared culture, as was also stressed by the Nature magazine in April 2005. With an international viewpoint, ranging from the United States to Europe, from Australia to Italy, in this dossier we try to make a summary investigation of the current state of the debate, with a particularly attentive eye on the communicative strategies that contend in the two fields.

Two stories about evolution on The New York Times and a strange “editorial balance”

by Niles Eldredge

The communication strategies of neocreationism between the United States and Europe

by Astrid Pizzo

Not all Americans are creationists. Not all creationists are American

by Marco Ferrari

The disease and the treatment: some remarks on the Darwin issue Italian school curricula

by Carla Castellacci

Fundamentalism and science

by Massimo Pigliucci

Volume 5Issue 022006

Jun 21, 2006 Commentary

Fundamentalism and science

by Massimo Pigliucci

The many facets of fundamentalism. There has been much talk about fundamentalism of late. While most people's thought on the topic go to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, or to the ongoing war in Iraq, fundamentalism is affecting science and its relationship to society in a way that may have dire long-term consequences. Of course, religious fundamentalism has always had a history of antagonism with science, and – before the birth of modern science – with philosophy, the age-old vehicle of the human attempt to exercise critical thinking and rationality to solve problems and pursue knowledge. “Fundamentalism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences1 as “A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a 'fundamental' or pure form of religion.” In its broadest sense, however, fundamentalism is a form of ideological intransigence which is not limited to religion, but includes political positions as well (for example, in the case of some extreme forms of “environmentalism”).

Volume 5Issue 022006

Jun 21, 2006 Commentary

The communication strategies of neocreationism between the United States and Europe

by Astrid Pizzo

In their essay which appeared in 1972 in Models in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, introducing the theory of punctuated equilibrium, stressed the fact that no scientific theory develops as a simple and logical extension of facts and of patiently recorded observations, and that the particular vision of the world that the scientist adheres to is able to influence, even unconsciously, the way in which data are collected, selected and then interpreted. Scientists, being aware of the existence of an intrinsic problem of prejudice in their scientific research activity, know that, in order to produce original and innovative ideas, it is fundamental to try to revolutionise their research image, to look at reality in a new light, to read data with alternative viewpoints.

Volume 5Issue 022006

Mar 21, 2006 Commentary

Cui prodest Michel Foucault?

by Yuri Castelfranchi , Nico Pitrelli

Do we have to drag in the thought of Michel Foucault to show the political (and not neutral), partial and local (and not universal and non-historic), active (and not merely transmissive) face of science communication? Do we need the work of the controversial French intellectual to dispute the anxious search – almost a quest like that for the Holy Grail – for the “best practices” in the dissemination of scientific culture? If we read over the pages that Foucault dedicated to words and things, to the archaeology and genealogy of knowledge, to biopolitics, we have few doubts. Two elements, on the one hand the central nature of discourse and “regimes of truth”, on the other the concept of biopower (a “power over bodies”), enable us to reflect both on the important specific features of modern science in comparison with other forms of production and organisation of knowledge, and on the central role of its communication.

Medicalisation

by Mario Colucci

"For Your Own Good". Biopolitics told by J.G. Ballard

by Pierangelo Di Vittorio

Convergent discourses: neoliberalism, technoscience and journalism

by Flavia Natércia da Silva Medeiros

Volume 5Issue 012006

Mar 21, 2006 Commentary

"For Your Own Good". Biopolitics told by J.G. Ballard

by Pierangelo Di Vittorio

“In a totally sane society, madness is the only freedom”, writes J.G. Ballard in his novel Running Wild. This is a dark and at first sight enigmatic statement, but it could be interpreted as a stunning synthesis of the relationship between health policies and the practices of freedom in modern history. A game that is not yet over and the results of which must therefore still be deciphered. What do we do when faced with policies that act only for our good, which preserve life, improve the conditions of health and safety? And besides, what does it mean if these policies are seen as a threat and our freedom seeks refuge in madness as the last stronghold of resistance? These are the questions Ballard asks in his story.

Volume 5Issue 012006

Mar 21, 2006 Commentary

Convergent discourses: neoliberalism, technoscience and journalism

by Flavia Natércia da Silva Medeiros

Before constructing a translation of scientific discourse in lay terms – and with this, calling forth the ghost of the public’s ignorance about science and technology – the operation which makes up the main task of specialized journalism in the coverage of related topics consists in the construction of a discourse of its own. However, this discourse frequently only amplifies and legitimates socially that which scientific laboratories and high tech companies offer as new, without critical opinions or contextualization. In addition to this, it is also generally characterized by linguistic operations which suppress uncertainties, doubts and considerations, thus contributing to the strengthening of the authority of specialists and of the distance which has been established – “by force” – between science and society.

Volume 5Issue 012006

Mar 21, 2006 Commentary

Medicalisation

by Mario Colucci

Medicalisation means first of all a science – medicine – going beyond its boundaries: from the art of healing individuals, or systematically classifying useful information to treat diseases affecting individuals, it gradually turns into a pervasive development of knowledge and practices that, from the 18th century onward, are applied to collective issues, which traditionally are not regarded as medical issues, thus moving toward large-scale protection of the social body health. The physical wellbeing of people, as well as the protection and improvement of their health condition, become one of the main objectives of the political power, which aims not only at dealing with social marginalisation and poverty to make them productive, but also at “planning society as sphere of physical wellbeing, optimal health and longevity”.

Volume 5Issue 012006

Dec 21, 2005 Commentary

Who are the Explainers? A case study at the House of Experiments

by Miha Kos

Hiša Eksperimentov (The House of Experiments) is a very small science centre. We are situated in the centre of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. The gross area of the centre is only 500 square meters and we meet around 25,000 visitors per year. We were opened for the public in the year 2000. In the Hiša Eksperimentov there are four full-time employees and around 10 persons working and paid by fees. There are specific institutions present in Slovenia so called Student services. They help students in finding paid job on daily basis. The state still encourages students to work by lowering the taxes for their job. There are around 25 students working as explainers in Hiša. Here are some facts about Slovenia. The population is around 2 million in the area of 20,256 square kilometers. There are 18 students per 1000 inhabitants. One can play a game with numbers – taking into account the area of Hiša and the population and area of Slovenia one can calculate that there is one person expected in an area of the size of 20 science centers. And there are even much fewer students present in the same area. But the number of visitors and students working in the center proves the density is larger. Therefore science centers do concentrate the population!

Volume 4Issue 042005

Dec 21, 2005 Commentary

Training science centre Explainers. The Techniquest experience

by Colin Johnson

Techniquest was established in 1986, and in 1995 moved to its current premises at Cardiff Bay, South Wales. This was the first purpose-built science centre in the UK. It receives around 200,000 visitors every year to its exhibition, and to its programmes for schools and public audiences in the theatre, laboratory, discovery room and planetarium. The author joined the Techniquest project in 1985, became a staff member in 1990 and was the Chief Executive from 1997 until his retirement in 2004. Techniquest has three “out-stations” in Wales, and is responsible for the supply and maintenance of exhibits to the Look Out Discovery Centre in Bracknell, England. There is a Techniquest gallery at the Lisbon Pavilhão do Conhecimento - Ciência Viva, and a traveling exhibition, SciQuest, in South Africa which was also supplied by Techniquest. All these centres rely on the effective intervention of “Explainers” (at Techniquest we call them “Helpers”) to provide the best possible experience for visitors. At its most demanding, the tasks of an Explainer are varied and intensive, yet there may be times when the duties are mundane or even dull. When you rely on people to act as both hosts and housekeepers, to provide both support and stimulus, and to be both welcoming and watchful, you are asking a great deal. This article raises some of the issues concerned with the recruitment and retention of Explainers, their training and management, and the way in which their role is recognized and valued by the science centre as a whole.

Volume 4Issue 042005

Dec 21, 2005 Commentary

Should explainers explain?

by Antonio Gomes da Costa

One of the most common, and probably one of the crucial questions about science centers and interactive exhibitions is often phrased as “Ok, it’s fun, but do they learn anything?”. What follows is not an attempt to answer this question; we will just use it as a starting point for a discussion about the role of explainers in science centers. Explainers are usually very motivated people, possessing a genuine interest in science and technology and a scientific background they are eager to share. And they feel everyone else should be as enthusiastic about science as they are. This is a legitimate aspiration, of course, but how exactly does one try to achieve this goal? What is the explainer’s role? Quite often, the answer to the question “…but do they learn anything?” is: “Yes, if we teach them”. It is simple, straightforward, probably it works to some extent, and this is the reasoning that makes explainers become… well, explainers. And this should be avoided.

Volume 4Issue 042005

Search results