SciBlogs

Posts Tagged Science

Lessons from the courtroom for scientists Peter Griffin May 03

No Comments
What do jury members ultimately base their decisions on when the evidence is laid out in court?
Charlotte Shipman
Charlotte Shipman

That depends on how compellingly the evidence has been presented says Charlotte Shipman, a Wellington-based 3 News reporter who covered the murder of Scott Guy and the subsequent trial of accused Ewen Macdonald, who in July was found not guilty of Guy’s murder.

In court each day following the trial, Shipman says she saw meticulously gathered and presented forensic evidence from ESR scientists overwhelmed by the showmanship and compelling presentation of Macdonald’s lawyer, the late Greg King.
Forensic evidence in the trial centered on analysis of footprints found around the body of Guy, which were ascertained to have been made by a certain type of dive boot.
ESR presented 960 pages of forensic analysis and four hours of expert testimony in court.
“Defence counsel Greg King did one thing to undo all of that,” says Shipman, speaking as part of a panel discussion this week in Wellington organised by the Science Communicator’s Association.

“He just counted the number of ridges on the sample 9 boot that the Crown had. That had 29 ridges. These three partial impressions around the body had 32 or 32 ridges. The impressions could not have been made by this sample size 9 boot.”

“It was this ‘aha’ moment for the jury. You watch them in court for hours. It was like a penny dropped for them and they thought ‘I can understand this, I’m gonna go with this’.”

“I believe that the jury then disregarded that science, simply because Greg King’s method was easier to understand.”

Shipman said there are valuable lessons in that courtroom anecdote for scientists attempting to communicate to the public.

“If you have an analogy or something you can work with for the layperson, it makes a world of difference.”

Adversarial system

ESR forensic scientist Keith Bedford said the “adversarial system” used in our courtrooms meant the perception created by how evidence and testimony is presented, can have a bearing on case outcomes.

“In the theatre that is the criminal justice system, if you have a report of what the prosecution says on one day, it can sound like an open and shut case. If you have a presentation on what the defense is putting up on another day, it can sound like a potential miscarriage of justice.”

These perceptions were often carried over into the media, which he gave a “mixed scorecard” for its coverage of the science of crime.

“Particularly in the current environment when increasingly the media are looking for soundbites, that sort of tabloid style, quick headlines, its very difficult to effectively and fairly provide a balanced account of the processes of the criminal justice system.”

“Many people get their concept of the guilt or innocence of somebody just from the TV news headlines.”

Shipman said the format of primetime TV news meant the need for decent science communication was even greater.

“What is the alternative when you have a news bulletin that is an hour long and has 25 stories in it?”

Full audio from the SCANZ panel discussion on the science of crime and how it is communicated is available here.

Can Obama turn rhetoric into action on climate change? Peter Griffin Jan 22

3 Comments

I just stood in the cold on the National Mall in Washington D.C. along with 600,000 people to listen to Barack Obama’s inauguration speech.

The National Mall in all its glory photo: Peter Griffin

Factions of the media have analyzed it as a very “progressive” or “liberal” speech. I didn’t take that away from it. For me it was a very American speech. It was full of references to Dr Martin Luther King, the founding fathers, 1776, the Constitution, the military, the greatness of America. It was clearly a fairly liberal crowd surrounding me, but Obama was tugging the heart strings of all Americans with his words.

It also, refreshingly, paid tribute to science and technology and urged America to harness both to reclaim the country’s position as a leader in innovation.

We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

There’s a dark hint in that first sentence that the US feels its technological lead has been wrested from it by illegitimate means. Its attempts to tighten up intellectual property law, its distrust of Chinese technology giants like Huawei, are testament to that partly justified paranoia.

But before it came something more fundamental and universal on an issue that got hardly any play during the election campaign.

 We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

The cheer that went up around me almost drowned out the following:

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.

The overwhelming judgement of science.

I haven’t listened to many inauguration speeches but I doubt such a strong statement about science has ever been made by a President on such an occasion.

Now the reality bites. As the fiscal cliff negotiations illustrated, US politics is more partisan than it has been in a long time. The economy is not growing, America is spending beyond its means. Many will be asking what Obama is going to do in the next four years about these immediate problems. Climate change mitigation doesn’t enter those discussions, it is considered a cost, a nice to have, something we can do when they lower the deficit, return the economy to a path of growth, return the US to a position of hegemony in the world.

Obama’s challenge, and if he can rise to it, he deserves another Nobel, is to change the thinking so that the issue of tackling climate change is central to all of the above. He is jubilant at this moment, he has avoided becoming a one-term president, his place in history is secure. But the real judgement of him will be measured by what he does in the next four years, where he has a mandate to pursue the agenda he laid out in the election campaign.

With several precious moments of his inauguration speech devoted to science, technology and the effort to mitigate climate change, there’s a strong hint he will pursue the issues in this space that were left on the table in his first term.

Science, suicide and open access – RIP Aaron Swartz Peter Griffin Jan 18

3 Comments

What a mess the US Government has got itself into over the Aaron Swartz affair. The heavy handedness that the US attorney’s office pursued the hacker, entrepreneur and Reddit co-founder has shades of the efforts to extradite Kim Dotcom to face copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering charges in the US.

Aaron Swartz

But this is a different deal altogether given the outcome – Aaron Swartz, 26, who had previously suffered depression, committed suicide in New York a week ago. He was facing a federal indictment in Boston for wire fraud, millions of dollars worth of fines and a possible sentence of 35 years in jail. What did he do?

The indictment papers say Swartz broke into a wiring closet at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and gained access to the JSTOR database of academic articles, downloading millions of them which he allegedly planned to distribute for free on the internet.

Swartz was, to put it mildly, an open access advocate. In 2008 he wrote a bit of a manifesto, proclaiming:

“The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our own copies and share it with the world.

Many scientists would endorse his statements, even if they themselves wouldn’t go to the lengths he allegedly did to unlock the academic content for all to read freely.

The irony of Swartz’s death is that more official efforts are underway around the world to achieve the exact end he had in mind. Many US institutions and the UK Government have demanded that research funded by the tax payer be made open access, freely available for all to read via the internet. In a decade’s time, Swartz’s manifesto will be official, Government-mandated practice for academia in most countries.

Swartz, like Dotcom, was a disruptor. Also a hacker, he was part of the team that developed RSS – Really Simple Syndication, which is used by millions of websites, including Sciblogs, to effortlessly share and update information on the internet. He was 14 when he worked on RSS. With Reddit, his mantra of openness was again evident as the website set out to aggregate news sources from all over the world and rank them based on their popularity among the Reddit community.

There will be a lot of soul-searching over this case. Were the prosecutors too heavy-handed in pushing for Swartz to spend time in prison. Did they indeed have a “humanity deficit” in brushing asides concerns about his mental health? What role did MIT play in all of this? After all, JSTOR had declined to press charges against Swartz, so the momentum for an indictment came from elsewhere. Looking at it cynically, you could say that it was simply in line with the US Government’s desire to send a message to those who attempt to unlawfully take intellectual property.

The US has lost one of its great, young innovators. In all likelihood, the conviction would only have added to Swartz’s credibility and reputation, in the same way that Kim Dotcom’s early brushes with the law, helped build the mythos around him. but we can’t imagine what was going through his head as he faced the immense pressure of a federal indictment. All we can do is continue to discuss how we can make Swartz’s vision a reality, legally, ethically and for the benefit of those who pay for it – tax-paying members of society.

Scibloggers clean out science communication awards cupboard Peter Griffin Nov 29

1 Comment

I spent an enjoyable morning at the Prime Minister’s Science Prizes where the glow of last night’s premiere of The Hobbit was obviously still buoying attendees – particularly the Prime Minister, who at one stage suggested there were “cauldrons of opportunity” in science.

Professor Shaun Hendy

The PM’s Science Prizes spell the end of the science awards season, following the New Zealand Association of Scientists awards and last week’s Royal Society of New Zealand Research Honours awards. They also represent the most lucrative of the prizes, with one million bucks going to the recipients collectively.

Full details about the award-winning scientists, science teacher and remarkable student winner Helen Ng are here.

But it was particularly pleasing to see Sciblogger Professor Shaun Hendy pick up the PM’s Science Media Communication Prize. Professor Hendy divides his time between Industrial Research and Victoria University and until recently was Deputy Director of the MacDiarmid Institute. This is Shaun’s second win – he picked up the Callaghan Medal for science communication at the RSNZ awards last week.

Aside from his blogging at A Measure of Science, Shaun has been prolific in the media. He is a regular contributor on Radio New Zealand and is often quoted in science-related news articles, TV and radio pieces. I learnt this morning that the book he is publishing next year will be called Get off the Grass, (great title!) and will carry on some of the ideas first explored in Sir Paul Callaghan’s well-received and through-provoking book Wool to Weta.

Both awards are well deserved and hard-earned. Like Sir Paul, Shaun is able to relate science to the big picture issues facing the country. He understands the needs of journalists. And he isn’t reticent about standing up for what he believes in. Amid the controversy this week over Dr Mike Joy’s comments in the New York Times about the state of our environment, Shaun, in his capacity as President of the Association of Scientists issued a statement defending Joy and attacking a heavy-handed Herald editorial about Joy.

Standing up for science

“The clear statement is that the potential damage to New Zealand’s reputation, and economic benefit of ‘big-spending American tourists’ outweighs the need for truth in  public debate,” the NZAS release stated. “This is an issue that the Association takes very seriously, and emphatically refutes criticism of Dr Joy on this basis.”

I had a chat with Industrial Research Ltd. CEO Shaun Coffey at the PM’s prizes this morning, a man who has been instrumental in giving Shaun the time and freedom to engage with the media. Coffey is running a very successful experiment in science communication himself, having amassed nearly 130,000 followers on Twitter. His updates and links to interesting articles on R&D, science, economics and agriculture are addictive reading for me.

Dr Siouxsie Wiles

Picking up the NZAS Science Communicator’s Award was another Sciblogger, Dr Siouxsie Wiles who blogs at Infectious Thoughts. Currently you can see Siouxsie fronting a national TV ad campaign for the National Science Challenges. She is also active on the media front and has been successfully testing out crowd funding of scientific research through the Rockethub platform.

What is great to see is that we have a growing number of scientists who are skilled communicators, willing to engage with the media, conscious of the news agenda and the interplay between science and the issues of the day and proactive about getting the science out to the public. Others such as Dr Mark Quigley, last year’s PM’s Science Media Communicator’s Prize winner, and Professor Chris Battershill have quickly had to hone their media skills when demand for their expertise put them in the media spotlight. In the case of Quigley, it was the Canterbury earthquakes, for Battershill it was the Rena oil spill.

The better scientists are at communicating their science, at relating its value to society the better the public’s understanding of the importance of science will be. And those who recognise that science communication is an ongoing endeavour, an investment, rather than an obligation tied to the need to promote research findings or secure funding, will ultimately better serve the people who are indirectly paying for their science.

Dominion Post unveils new weekly science page Peter Griffin Sep 03

No Comments

The concept of the newspaper science section pretty much died a death in New Zealand a few years ago as the squeeze on newsroom resources saw specialist sections ditched in favour of running science stories in the paper’s general or “A” section.

The Dominion Post’s new science page

Some saw that as a good thing, suggesting that cramming science stories into a “ghetto” in the paper meant it was just too easy to flick past that page and miss the science altogether. However, I’m of the view that devoting a fair amount of newspaper real estate to science each week is an acceptance of the importance of science to society and of the desire of the public to read about science-related issues.

That’s why I applaud the Dominion Post’s editor Bernadette Courtney for including a weekly science page in the re-vamped Dom. There will also be a technology page featured later in the week which I consider a similarly well-thought out move given the pervasiveness of technology in our lives.

The Dom’s science page will be anchored by long-time science columnist Bob Brockie who writes this week on Dr. Rebecca Priestley’s new book Mad on Radium – a history of “nuclear New Zealand”. The main piece is a thought-provoking wire story originally run by the Washington Post. Hopefully a good dose of local content will feature on this page – there are certainly enough science-related issues worthy of attention from the Dom’s own writers.

The move follows a push to expand and revamp Stuff.co.nz science coverage, one that started shakily, but seems to have found a consistent stride. i expect to see similarly increased attention to science coverage from APN with the launch of the “compact” New Zealand Herald next week.

It’s great to see the media recognising the importance and relevance of science to society in these sorts of moves and its also confirmation that science stories rate well, something online editors have been telling us for years as they seek to supply a mix of articles that generate maximum eyeballs and clicks.

 

When Brockie goes rogue Peter Griffin Jun 11

2 Comments

Bob Brockie has been writing for the Dominion Post for years as the paper’s science columnist and regularly delivers up entertaining comment on the state of science and what is filtering out of the peer-reviewed literature.

He also creates his own cartoons which adds a nice personal touch. Bob is a biologist, one of a small handful of columnists writing for the mainstream media who do in fact have a science background. But Bob’s Dom Post column today goes seriously off track. Have a read yourself… (its not online, but I’ve excerpted it below).

Screen Shot 2012-06-11 at 4.14.04 PM

Bob may well be right in his claim that we have not lost a single native plant or animal species since 1992. There may well have been an overall increase in the number of known and identified species in New Zealand’s territory – an expedition to the Kermadec Islands last year uncovered some fish species that are thought to be novel – and further international examination will determine so.

But this really is a simplistic way of looking at the state of biodiversity in New Zealand. Surely the health of our various species is as important  as the number of them and on that count, there is plenty of evidence to suggest many are under threat and in the case of some, such as Maui’s dolphin, populations are at critically low levels. Bob completely misses the point that overall, the health of our biodiversity is in decline and further pressure on the environment exacerbates this issue. It’s not like it is a disputed trend – countries the world over are struggling with this!

When the WWF released its report looking at how well New Zealand had done in honouring its original Rio pledges, we approached a wide range of scientists to run their ruler over it and see if its conclusions were supported by the science. On the issue of biodiversity, there was little dispute:

Assoc Prof John Craig, School of Environment, University of Auckland:

’New Zealand has a real biodiversity crisis as the Report states and as a country there is a need for serious debate about policies and mechanisms that leads to effective change if there is going to be a more positive WWF Report after the next Earth Summit.’

Assoc. Prof Dianne Brunton, Ecology & Conservation Group, Massey University:

The Department of Conservation (DoC) 2011 annual report from which these findings originate states that ’Most changes result from improved coverage of groups previously not assessed, and improved knowledge and changes in definitions of categories’ the DoC report goes on to state that ’57 species have declined sufficiently to trigger a change to a more severely threatened category, and 7 species have recovered under management sufficiently to move to a less severely threatened category. i.e. 50 worsened.’

Prof David Hamilton, Professor in Lake Restoration at Waikato University:

‘Beyond Rio’ leaves us with no doubt that NZ must urgently rectify its broken promises from the 1992 Earth Summit or else become a case study for some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss on the planet in recent times.

Ironically, Bob’s column is published two pages away from a write-up on the Pure Advantage report “Green Growth for Greater Wealth” which argues, among other things, that our biodiversity is under threat and needs preserving, which use of greener energy sources would go some way to help achieving.

Bob is right in that the Department of Conservation should be commended for the work it has done in bringing back several species from the brink of extinction and sheltering many others from pests and disease. But to suggest that biodiversity in New Zealand is in better health than ever goes against the science. The number of species in an ecosystem gives you no accurate indication of the health of those species and those who work in the field suggest the overall state of biodiversity is deteriorating. Come on Bob, you should know better!

Science no vote winner Peter Griffin May 23

3 Comments

On the eve of the 2012 Budget with the word “austerity” ringing in our ears, the Stuff website has done a poll asking readers what they see as priority areas for the Government.

Of the six categories listed – health, education, welfare, taxes, business and science, guess which area comes in as lowest priority.

That’s right… science.

Source: Stuff.co.nz

Source: Stuff.co.nz

It is not a scientific poll, but its results aren’t surprising anyway. Few will be excited if, as TVNZ predicts, tomorrow will see a major allocation of funding to boost R&D efforts and establish the so-called Advanced Technology Institute. Some of that funding had previously been flagged, so its yet to be seen what “new” money we’ll see – if any. Education comes out top in the Stuff poll, which is heartening, suggesting Kiwis are concerned most about preparing the next generation to make the most of their potential – in whatever field they choose.

Keep an eye on Stuff, Scoop and Herald Online tomorrow for Budget 2012 coverage.

NZAS conference – what the politicians said Peter Griffin Apr 19

No Comments

There has been some good discussion following this week’s Association of Scientists conference in Wellington and also some media interest in what the two politicians who addressed the conference said.

Find below audio recordings of the presentations from the politicians. Other podcasts will be added soon…

Minister of Primary Industries, David Carter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Labour leader, David Shearer

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

How to avoid a disappointing marriage Peter Griffin Mar 16

12 Comments

Wellington is abuzz with news of the super ministry, which was unveiled yesterday and will have major implications for a large number of public servants.

Some leaders in the science system have commented about the implications of the Ministry of Science and Innovation being bundled into the new Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Fellow Scibloogger, Professor Shaun Hendy, who is President of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, said the merger could have major benefits on the economic development front, but may marginalise important environmental and health research that didn’t have an immediate economic outcome.

Imergern a press release he is quoted as saying:

’We know that more scientific research is needed to grow industry, manufacturing and exports. But large components of the science system are concerned with the broader view, such as environmental and health science research, areas that do not often deliver an immediate payoff but which can be immensely valuable over longer time frames. Further change such as this is likely to add more uncertainty to funding structures and to science career paths, especially for younger scientists’.

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, also weighed in, saying:

’This reorganisation highlights the role that science and science-based innovation can play in a country’s development, be it through direct impact on greater productivity from enhanced services, advanced manufacturing and the primary industries, or indirectly through greater environmental sustainability and social development.

’It will be important that the new Ministry continues to give focus to the broader ways in which science advances New Zealand and I have no doubt that will indeed be the case.’

He points out also that the grouping of science, skills and economic development under one roof is not uncommon overseas. Indeed, the UK’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills was formed in 2009 as the result of a merger, one of several the coalition government has undertaken there in a drive to reduce national debt. Australia’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Research, Science and Tertiary Education came into being officially just a few months ago. If anything stands out as unique about the merger here is that it did not include tertiary education.

It is too early to tell if these major science-business mergers in the public sector have worked particularly well, but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that mergers in general are tricky to get right. This merger study Disappointing Marriage: A Study of the Gains from Merger is often cited, though looks at the the private sector.  In anticipation of a large amount of public sector merger activity, Grant Thorton and the Guardian newspaper in 2010 commissioned a survey of 600 directors and senior managers to gauge attitudes in the public sector towards mergers. In the report’s intro the authors note:

While few precedents exist and little practical guidance on successful implementation is available, there is copious evidence that reorganisation and restructuring often result in failure. This is not a problem unique to the public sector. Indeed, a review of the literature shows that between 50-80% of private sector mergers disappoint, with many destroying shareholder value.

Gramt Thornton’s advice for a successful public sector merger…

Plan — ensure that the appropriate people, skills and plans are in place, available to support implementation. Seek specialist advice (legal, financial) when appropriate to avoid any unintended consequences and costly mistakes.

•Cost — consider the full cost of implementation and ensure that a budget has been agreed and is in place before implementation begins.

• People — focus on the integration of organisational cultures and ways of working, as well keeping staff and other stakeholders informed throughout the process.

• Leadership — take the tough decisions early, making sure that the leadership team is in place to take ownership of the process and that clear incentives are in place for management to deliver change.

• Benefits — be clear about the benefits, risks, and timescales of change.

Some of the survey results from the report give an insight into the perceptions of mergers in the public sector and what leaders in the sector see as the desired and realistic outcomes of mergers.

merger fig 1

merger fig 2merger fig 3A fair amount of cynicism then in the higher ranks of public departments about the potential for positive change from merging Government departments, which may well say more about human nature than the merits of creating super ministries.

Science: are we doing it all wrong? Peter Griffin Mar 06

19 Comments

I have to confess to never having heard of the McGuinness Institute before reading their in-depth report into Government-funded science last night.

Science Embraced: Government-funded science under the Microscope didn’t come with the fanfare that recent reports like Powering Innovation did, but it will get people thinking about the science system and how well geared-up we are to undertake the innovation-based transformation of the economy the Government so eagerly seeks.

The report opens a can of worms – it identifies 30 “policy knots” holding back science and outlines a number of “myths” about the science sector in New Zealand, namely:

Myth 1: More New Zealand research leads to more New Zealand development.
Myth 2: New Zealand research informs New Zealand public policy.
Myth 3: Science ethics are embedded in science practice.
Myth 4: ‘Innovation’ is a useful term to drive the government-funded science system.

It suggests that the Crown research institute model of conducting publicly-funded science in New Zealand is wrong:

…over the last twenty years government has wrongly put its effort into creating a dynamic and creative government-funded science system, in particular through the establishment of CRIs. In contrast, we believe the role of government should be two-fold: to create a stable and evidence-based government-funded science system while at the same time working with the private sector to help make it more dynamic and creative.

It also presents what it suggests could be a strategy blueprint for the science sector:

strat info

If you are thinking, as I was, “who are these guys?”, there’s plenty of background on the website. Professor Sir Paul Callaghan penned the foreward to the report concluding:

This document provides the basis for a conversation that needs to be happening across New Zealand.

And I agree. You won’t agree with everything, but this report is the basis for some good discussion about the issues we face in improving our science system and the science-based outcomes we want for the country. I encourage you to read it and to leave her feedback on it in the comments below.

« Older Entries

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer