From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Wed Dec 25 2002 - 15:13:00 MST
Here's an idea; instead of discussing this back and forth to no useful
conclusion, e-mail the guy and ask. Tell us the answer, then we can discuss
back and forth to no useful conclusion. We live in the 21st century now,
after all.
As for me, I'm all for more press on aging research. If said press makes
other scientists sit up and say "wait a minute, that's all wrong" then even
better. A little needling goes a long way.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:59 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Major factor in the aging cascade?
>
>
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> >
> > I agree -- *but* -- a quick PubMed scan on "Costa RH FoxM1B"
> reveals that
> > most of the research is in the liver and lung. These are tissues that
> > are (or can) divide. Further, they are explicitly damaging the liver
> > to force regeneration -- that *isn't* a good model for aging. It may
> > very well be that the aging angle got added by the person writing the
> > press release -- but a responsible scientist is going to try and make
> > sure that the press get it right. That will not always happen
> > but it doesn't mean that that we should pull any punches with
> > respect to evaluating what is reported -- that is the way that
> > science is supposed to work.
>
> What you saw was not science. It was reporting. Given what was
> published, I seriously doubt that Costa has any power over what gets
> reported as his research in press releases. I think the policy should be
> to hold scientists responsible only for their research abstracts and
> research papers, and not press releases, unless you have specific
> evidence
> that the scientist was given veto power over the press release and failed
> to invoke it. I'd like to live in a world where reporters always
> fact-checked their articles, but we don't live in that world or within a
> hundred parayears of it.
>
> > While I'm not sure about eurekalert.org, most Science Daily
> > press releases are derived directly from the university doing
> > the research. From the looks of it, the information is
> > directly from the press office at UIC, one Sharon Butler
> > (with phone number and email supplied). Extropes with
> > my "yelling from the back of the room" approach to getting
> > things right may feel free to forward to her my comments, perhaps
> > along with Eliezers (so she doesn't feel too assaulted).
> > [It would be a little too self-serving for me to do so --
> > and besides its Christmas.]
> >
> > One would *hope* that most universities allow their scientists
> > some editing power over their own press releases.
>
> You hope; I'll doubt until I see evidence. I suspect that some
> universities give their scientists editing power over press releases and
> others do not; if something looks spectacularly awful then my reaction is
> to doubt the scientist was allowed editing powers by that particular
> university or company. I doubt that IBM ran its famous teleportation ad
> past the scientists involved before publishing in Scientific American.
> (On the other hand, the Max Planck Institute's press releases are almost
> always filled with technical information and I suspect they may
> be written
> directly by the scientists or by experienced technical writers.)
>
> The degree of researcher control over press releases varies by
> institution, the researcher isn't the one who controls how it varies, and
> I think the assumption should be that the researcher is innocent until
> proven guilty. If you want to hold someone responsible, make it the
> university involved.
>
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:53 MST