The esteemed magazine Scientific American is partnering with an industry-backed PR effort.
It's unfortunate when the supposed "newspaper of record," The New York Times, presents the public with errors of interpretation and fact in a special section of the newspaper devoted to science: the so-called Science Times.
I don't think it's widely appreciated how important high-quality science journalism is and how much effort it requires. Limited resources, time constraints and the pressure to publish sensationalist articles can compromise the quality of the work. Two recent examples illustrated this.
Putting a spin on science may grab attention -- but it's not making consumers more informed about their decisions.
I am a fan of Malcolm Gladwell and his brand of writers (their books and articles make entertaining reads and add much to literary journalism and nonfiction); I just have a problem with it being called scientific writing. I read actual science on a daily basis. This is not it.
In this week's Nature we are told that "tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree" and that molecular biologist Kevin Peterson's work "changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution."
The seemingly never-ending contraction of the media industry has resulted in a shedding of specialists in every journalistic medium. That does not, however, mean that the public's hunger for information about science, medicine and technology is shrinking.
Unless you've forsaken the modern world for a primitive dwelling deep in the woods, science is part of the molecular structure of life. HuffPost Science is here to put it under the microscope.
To re-read the original text is to be reminded, in all sorts of unexpected ways, how far we have come. Its author has since
In an interview with Wired senior editor Adam Rogers, Miéville gives insights on how readers should approach The City & The