JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

My pet project of late involves a personal campaign to establish a “real science” section on HuffPo.  I have several reasons for pursuing this campaign:
1) To introduce the concept of “junk science” to HuffPo readers via Twitter and this blog (in case they aren’t aware that most of the content purported to be science on the website, isn’t).
2) To highlight specific examples of “bad science” that currently are pervasive on the website.
3) To motivate scientists and science communicators to use the HuffPo phenomenon as a teaching moment for all science lovers.
4) To perhaps influence HuffPo to consider the damaging effects of their current content.
5) To encourage HuffPo to actually establish a “Science” section on the website.

Now, the opponents of my little campaign include upstart bloggers and well-established science writers.  Some have directly challenged the wisdom of my pursuit while others have passively expressed their opposition to the idea of partnering with HuffPo, whom they consider to be an “enemy” of science.  The most resounding message emerging from the opposition is the idea that having “real science” share a platform with “bad science” will ultimately tarnish the reputation of the legitimate scientists and science communicators who choose to participate.  This is essentially the same argument Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others take when refusing to debate creationists.  The concept here being that by sharing the stage with creationists, scientists lend credibility to the creationist arguments.  In some ways, I think this is a cowardly response.  If you have a sound argument, the opposition should not win the debate.  I suppose if you feel that your argument can be defeated based on issues other than the facts, it might seem reasonable to choose not to even participate in the debate.  However, one must consider, if high-quality science communicators fail to show up for the challenge, other less qualified individuals will.  It appears that on HuffPo “woo-wooists” like Deepak Chopra will step into the role of scientist.  In this case, scientists miss another opportunity (40 million opportunities each month) to reach the public.  As these 40 million viewers visit the Huffington Post monthly, HuffPo dissenters hide in their basements tapping on their keypads in futile opposition.  I say stand up to the beast. Point to its ugliness and make it known to all.  HuffPo and others cannot continue to blur the lines between science and fantasy this way.

The recent soap opera that transpired at scienceblogs.com is a prime example of scientists failing to see the potential opportunity in holding steady in the face of confrontation.  Despite many years of frank language about the importance of scientists communicating effectively, some of the greatest internet science communicators tucked and ran out the back door when Pepsi landed a spot in their neck of the woods.  For me, it was a sad defeat for science.  The scientists owned the playing field.  The “enemy” entered their territory and rather than rallying together to insist that the “enemy” change its ways or exit the field, the scientists took their ball and went home.  This epitomizes the elitist mentality that these bloggers and writers rail against when talking about science communication.  What a missed opportunity to bring Pepsi to the table and hold them accountable for their bad science!  Who knows?  Maybe this community could have identified some good science behind that “evil” Pepsi Logo or, even better, they could have pressured Pepsi to correct some of their “bad science” ways.  Instead, like a World Cup Futbol chump, the scientists pulled a poorly executed flop hoping to draw a yellow card on their opponent.  Pepsi, on the other hand, simply went back to their corporate jet and headed back home, uniform untarnished.

Now back to the HuffPo.  Once the “real science” section has been created, I have few concerns that the section will receive traffic.  Further, I have confidence that science will not lose face, assuming HuffPo follows some basic rules (see below).  Why do I have such confidence?  Because I see science side-by-side with unsavory content everyday on the internet and television and in magazines and newspapers.  For example, while watching local news, there might be a story about Lindsay Lohan going to prison followed by a story describing the most recent archeological discovery.  Most often, the news anchor leads the science story with “Scientists have discovered…”  In these circumstances, I give the public enough credit to distinguish the science news from entertainment news.  Not to mention that every major broadcasting channel carries reality TV, daytime programming, infomercials, talk shows, news and, occasionally a science show (if you consider Jack Hanna to be science).  The public knows the difference between the different types of programming.  I also believe the public is smart enough to know that the falsified articles by NYT’s Jayson Blair do not impact the science writers of the NYT Science News.  People do have the ability to compartmentalize, therefore I know the public will be able to recognize when they click on the “science” section tab, they are getting different programming from the “comedy” section. 

With this in mind, I feel that a well-managed “Science” section on HuffPo could become a respected voice for science.  When I say “well-managed” I mean the stories, articles and blog posts on the “science” section must meet very basic criteria:
1) The stories must be based on peer-reviewed science as is true for any other science publication.
2) The authors of the articles and blog posts must be qualified “science” communicators.  Qualified means they must understand and respect the value of the peer-review process of science and they must apply this to their own work.
3) It must be explicitly stated on the “science” section that articles appearing in other HuffPo sections shall not be considered “scientific” unless they also meet the criteria described in 1 and 2.

Because my first choice for manager of the HuffPo Science section, Bora Zivkovic, has clearly rejected this noble task, I must seek other potential candidates.  Any suggestions?