Tag Archives: Sheril Kirshenbaum

Is Stephen Colbert’s love of science compatible with his new job (host of the Late Show) on US network television?

Leave a reply

For those not familiar with Stephen Colbert and his body of work, here’s a brief description from David Shiffman’s April 11, 2014 article (Stephen Colbert Is the Best Source of Science on TV; Will he be stuck interviewing dingbat celebrities at CBS [Columbia Broadcasting System]?) for Slate.com (Note: Links have been removed),

David Letterman announced last week that he will soon be retiring from The Late Show after hosting for more than 30 years, and CBS has confirmed that Stephen Colbert will replace him. While switching from The Colbert Report to The Late Show will be a huge career advancement for the comedian and TV show host, it could be a big loss for television coverage of science.

Stephen Colbert is one of the only news or faux-news anchors to regularly cover scientific discoveries and interview scientists. “The Colbert Report has certainly been one of the best television programs ever for showcasing scientists—and I don’t just mean ‘for a comedy talk show,’” says science comedian Brian Malow. He points out that the guest who has made the most appearances is Neil deGrasse Tyson. “More than any movie star! And Tyson isn’t even the only physicist he’s featured!”

Among the other physicists Colbert has interviewed are Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, and Lawrence Krauss. He has hosted oceanographer Robert Ballard, neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland, surgeon Atul Gawande, and evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin as well as experts in science policy such as then–Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins. The online archive of interview guests includes separate categories for “academic,” “medical,” and “scientist.”

Shiffman provides a description of the current situation regarding science coverage in the mainstream media (Note: Links have been removed),

Colbert’s transition comes at a terrible time for coverage of science. “Traditional science journalism has been gutted in recent years due to the economic downturn,” says Sheril Kirshenbaum, the co-author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. …

The consequences were clear most recently in CNN’s horrifically bad coverage of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. CNN cut its science, technology, and environment team in 2008. When host Don Lemon was covering the lost plane, he speculated on air that there could be some supernatural explanation, or perhaps the airliner could have disappeared into a black hole.

Meanwhile, Animal Planet is airing fake documentaries about mermaids.

I hadn’t realized until reading Shiffman’s article that Colbert covers science news in addition to interviewing scientists (Note: Links have been removed),

Colbert features science in many of his show’s segments, not just in his interviews. Colbert’s recurring series “The Craziest F#?king Thing I’ve Ever Heard” is often about interesting new scientific discoveries. He has discussed neuroscience, insect reproduction, and the Large Hadron Collider. He put the scientific Journal of Paleolimnology “on notice” for proposing an explanation for walking on water that differed from the biblical account.

The Colbert Report covered a mishap in University of Maine Ph.D. student Skylar Bayer’s research in marine biology. A bucket of her samples—scallop gonads—was accidentally taken by someone else. A Colbert Report producer saw her blog post and thought it would make a fun segment for the show; they turned it into a mock crime drama. …

I recommend reading Shiffman’s piece which is lively and interesting. One observation though, while he decries the loss of science journalism in mainstream media, he makes no mention of science blogs as a source of increasing popularity, It’s odd since he himself is a science blogger on Southern Fried Science.

If you have the time, follow the links in Shiffman’s article, in particular the one leading to the faux documentary about mermaids.

I wish Mr. Colbert all the best as he takes on his new job and I hope that he is able to include a science presence on the new show.

Janus particle breakthrough; science knowledge or illiteracy?

4 Replies

It’s a two-faced particle named after the Roman god, Janus (love the reference to Roman mythology) and complete control has been achieved. The Janus particle is made up of at least two different substances according to this 2005 news item on Phyorg.com. From the 2005 new item,

A Janus particle is composed of two fused hemispheres, each made from a different substance than the other. This means Janus particles could, for instance, carry two different and complementary medicines.

For instance, one side could hold compounds that bind to molecules specific to a certain tissue or disease, while the opposite side would carry the appropriate drug.

There are other potential applications as researchers at Duke University note in their media release posted on Phyorg.com on Aug. 12, 2009. The Duke researchers have achieved control over the particle’s movements. From the media release on Physorg.com,

Duke University engineers say they can for the first time control all the degrees of the particle’s motion, opening up broad possibilities for nanotechnology and device applications. Their unique technology should make it more likely that Janus particles can be used as the building blocks for a myriad of applications, including such new technologies as and self-propelling micromachines.

There are more details and a Janus particle video here. I did get a little confused with this description,

“Past experiments have only been able to achieve four degrees of control using a combination of magnetic and optical techniques,” said Nathan Jenness, a graduate student who completed his studies this year from Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering. He and co-author Randall Erb, also a graduate student, were first authors of a paper appearing online in the journal Advanced Materials. “We have created a novel Janus particle that can be manipulated or constrained with six degrees of freedom.”

I looked at the video where the range of motion appeared to be much broader than the 6 degrees that the researcher mentions. Perhaps the phrase “of freedom” is of more significance than I know. This brings me to Andrew Maynard’s discussion (on his blog 2020 Science) of a book on science illiteracy. Titled Unscientific Americans: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, the book’s authors (Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum) caught my attention with their recent essay (based in part on their book) on Salon.com where they elucidate their position.They make a compelling argument and one I find emotionally satisfying unfortunately it’s a little problematic as Maynard points out here.

It’s more than just amusing when Maynard (a scientist by training) notes that he could be described as scientifically illiterate since there are scientific terms that he doesn’t understand and that “Math makes my head ache.” If you take the comment to its logical conclusion,you can infer that all scientists are scientifically illiterate since none of them can know everything about science. Maynard notes that he enjoyed the book but has some major issues with the term “scientific illiteracy” as promotes and “us vs them” mentality and the book’s intellectual depth. He also offers some recommendations for reading about science and society.  I do have some hesitation about one of his recommendations but more about that tomorrow.