Continuing the discussion of the evolution sticker story is this insightful essay from Maud Newton: Blog which looks at the possible consequences of fake science ending up in textbooks. The piece has lots of good reading in it, but I’ll just quote a little from the wrap-up.
It’s bad enough that adults are being seduced by, or at least remain unaware of the extent to which they’re being manipulated by, belief masquerading as fact. But as that “science” wends its way into children’s educational materials, we face the possibility that the next generation will be inculcated from elementary school in the Christian and pro-business teachings of the Bush administration and its cronies.
For a slightly different take on how the religious zealots are taking advantage of the fact that the media seems to have abdicated any responsibility to evaluate claims, but instead rely on a he-said-she-said notion of balance, check out Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality from the Columbia Journalism Review. Here’s a snippet:
Journalists face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. First, reporters must often deal with editors who reflexively cry out for “balance.” Meanwhile, determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise on the issue at hand. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they’re suddenly asked to cover.
Moreover, the question of how to substitute accuracy for mere “balance” in science reporting has become ever more pointed as journalists have struggled to cover the Bush administration, which scientists have widely accused of scientific distortions. As the Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of citizens and scientists, and other critics have noted, Bush administration statements and actions have often given privileged status to a fringe scientific view over a well-documented, extremely robust mainstream conclusion. Journalists have thus had to decide whether to report on a he said/she said battle between scientists and the White House — which has had very few scientific defenders — or get to the bottom of each case of alleged distortion and report on who’s actually right.
