Arquivo da tag: ciência

Confronting the ‘Anthropocene’ (N.Y. Times)

18/05/2011Uncategorizedambientalismo, ciência, Clima, Incerteza, Mudanças climáticas, Visualidaderenzotaddei

May 11, 2011, 9:39 AM
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
N.Y. Times, Dot Earth

NASA. Donald R. Pettit, an astronaut, took this photograph of London while living in the International Space Station.

LONDON — I’m participating in a one-day meeting at the Geological Society of London exploring the evidence for, and meaning of, the Anthropocene. This is the proposed epoch of Earth history that, proponents say, has begun with the rise of the human species as a globally potent biogeophysical force, capable of leaving a durable imprint in the geological record.

This recent TEDx video presentation by Will Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, lays out the basic idea:

There’s more on the basic concept in National Geographic and from the BBC. Paul Crutzen, the Nobel laureate in chemistry who, with others, proposed the term in 2000, and Christian Schwägerl, the author of “The Age of Man” (German), described the value of this new framing for current Earth history in January in Yale Environment 360:

Students in school are still taught that we are living in the Holocence, an era that began roughly 12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. But teaching students that we are living in the Anthropocene, the Age of Men, could be of great help. Rather than representing yet another sign of human hubris, this name change would stress the enormity of humanity’s responsibility as stewards of the Earth. It would highlight the immense power of our intellect and our creativity, and the opportunities they offer for shaping the future. [Read the rest.]

I’m attending because of a quirky role I played almost 20 years ago in laying the groundwork for this concept of humans as a geological force. A new paper from Steffen and three coauthors reviewing the conceptual and historic basis for the Anthropocene includes an appropriately amusing description of my role:

Biologist Eugene F. Stoermer wrote: ‘I began using the term “anthropocene” in the 1980s, but never formalized it until Paul [Crutzen] contacted me’. About this time other authors were exploring the concept of the Anthropocene, although not using the term. More curiously, a popular book about Global Warming, published in 1992 by Andrew C. Revkin, contained the following prophetic words: ‘Perhaps earth scientists of the future will name this new post-Holocene period for its causative element—for us. We are entering an age that might someday be referred to as, say, the Anthrocene [sic]. After all, it is a geological age of our own making’. Perhaps many readers ignored the minor linguistic difference and have read the new term as Anthro(po)cene!

If you’ve been tracking my work for a while, you’re aware of my focus on the extraordinary nature of this moment in both Earth and human history. As far as science can tell, there’s never, until now, been a point when a species became a planetary powerhouse and also became aware of that situation.

As I first wrote in 1992, cyanobacteria are credited with oxygenating the atmosphere some 2 billion years ago. That was clearly a more profound influence on a central component of the planetary system than humans raising the concentration of carbon dioxide 40 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. But, as far as we know, cyanobacteria (let alone any other life form from that period) were neither bemoaning nor celebrating that achievement.

It was easier to be in a teen-style resource binge before science began to delineate an edge to our petri dish.

We no longer have the luxury of ignorance.

We’re essentially in a race between our potency, our awareness of the expressed and potential ramifications of our actions and our growing awareness of the deeply embedded perceptual and behavioral traits that shape how we do, or don’t, address certain kinds of risks. (Explore “Boombustology” and “Disasters by Design” to be reminded how this habit is not restricted to environmental risks.)

This meeting in London is two-pronged. It is in part focused on deepening basic inquiry into stratigraphy and other branches of earth science and clarifying how this human era could qualify as a formal chapter in Earth’s physical biography. As Erle C. Ellis, an ecologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, put it in his talk, it’s unclear for the moment whether humanity’s impact will be long enough to represent an epoch, or will more resemble “an event.” Ellis’s presentation was a mesmerizing tour of the planet’s profoundly humanized ecosystems, which he said would be better described as “anthromes” than “biomes.”

Ellis said it was important to approach this reality not as a woeful situation, but an opportunity to foster a new appreciation of the lack of separation of people and their planet and a bright prospect for enriching that relationship. In this his views resonate powerfully with those of Rene Dubos, someone I’ll be writing about here again soon.

Through the talks by Ellis and others, it was clear that the scientific effort to define a new geological epoch, while important, paled beside the broader significance of this juncture in human history.

In my opening comments at the meeting, I stressed the need to expand the discussion from the physical and environmental sciences into disciplines ranging from sociology to history, philosophy to the arts.

I noted that while the “great acceleration” described by Steffen and others is already well under way, it’s entirely possible for humans to design their future, at least in a soft way, boosting odds that the geological record will have two phases — perhaps a “lesser” and “greater” Anthropocene, as someone in the audience for my recent talk with Brad Allenby at Arizona State University put it.

I also noted that the term “Anthropocene,” like phrases such as “global warming,” is sufficiently vague to guarantee it will be interpreted in profoundly different ways by people with different world views. (As I explained, this is as true for Nobel laureates in physics as it is for the rest of us.)

Some will see this period as a “shame on us” moment. Others will deride this effort as a hubristic overstatement of human powers. Some will argue for the importance of living smaller and leaving no scars. Others will revel in human dominion as a normal and natural part of our journey as a species.

A useful trait will be to get comfortable with that diversity.

Before the day is done I also plan on pushing Randy Olson’s notion of moving beyond the “nerd loop” and making sure this conversation spills across all disciplinary and cultural boundaries from the get-go.

There’s much more to explore of course, and I’ll post updates as time allows. You might track the meeting hash tag, #anthrop11, on Twitter.

Como a Linguagem Modela o Pensamento (Scientific American Brasil)

18/05/2011Uncategorizedciência, Línguas indígenas, Linguística, Psicologiarenzotaddei

Diferentes idiomas afetam de maneiras distintas a percepção do mundo

por Lera Boroditsky
Scientific American Brasil – edição 106 – Março 2011

Estou diante de uma menina de 5 anos em pormpuraaw, uma pequena comunidade aborígene na borda oeste do Cabo York, no norte da Austrália Quando peço para ela me mostrar o norte, ela aponta com precisão e sem hesitação. A bússola confirma que ela está certa. Mais tarde, de volta a uma sala de conferências na Stanford University, faço o mesmo pedido a um público de ilustres acadêmicos, ganhadores de medalhas de ciência e prêmios de gênios. Peço-lhes para fechar os olhos (para que não nos enganem) e apontem o norte. Muitos se recusam por não saberem a resposta. Aqueles que fazem questão de se demorar um pouco para refletir sobre o assunto, em seguida apontam em todas as direções possíveis. Venho repetindo esse exercício em Harvard e Princeton e em Moscou, Londres e Pequim, sempre com os mesmos resultados.

Uma criança de cinco anos de idade em uma cultura pode fazer algo com facilidade que cientistas eminentes de outras culturas lutam para conseguir. O que poderia explicar isso? Parece que a resposta surpreendente é a linguagem.

A noção de que diferentes idiomas possam transmitir diferentes habilidades cognitivas remonta a séculos. Desde 1930, essa associação foi indicada pelos linguistas americanos Edward Sapir e Benjamin Lee Whorf, que estudaram como as línguas variam, e propuseram maneiras pelas quais os falantes de idiomas distintos podem pensar de forma diferente. Na década de 70, muitos cientistas ficaram decepcionados com a hipótese de Sapir-Whorf, e ela foi praticamente abandonada. Mas agora, décadas depois, um sólido corpo de evidências empíricas demonstrando como os diferentes idiomas modelam o pensamento finalmente emergiu. As evidências derrubam o dogma de longa data sobre a universalidade e rendem visões fascinantes sobre as origens do conhecimento e a construção da realidade. Os resultados têm implicações relevantes para o direito, a política e a educação.

Ao redor do mundo, as pessoas se comunicam usando uma deslumbrante variedade de idiomas – mais ou menos 7 mil ao todo –, e cada um deles exige condições muito diferentes de seus falantes. Suponha, por exemplo, que eu queira dizer que vi a peça Tio Vânia na Rua 42. Em mian, língua falada em Papua, Nova Guiné, o verbo que usei revelaria se o evento acabou de acontecer, aconteceu ontem ou em passado remoto, enquanto na Indonésia, o verbo não denotaria sequer se o evento já aconteceu ou ainda está para acontecer. Em russo, o verbo revelaria o meu gênero. Em mandarim, eu teria de especificar se o tio do título é materno ou paterno e se ele está relacionado por laços de sangue ou de casamento, porque há vocábulos diferentes para todos esses tipos diferentes de tios e assim por diante (ele é irmão da mãe, como a tradução chinesa claramente expressa). E em pirarrã, língua falada no Amazonas, eu não poderia dizer “42”, porque não há palavras que expressem números exatos, apenas vocábulos para “poucos” e “muitos”.

Pesquisas em meu laboratório e em vários outros vêm descobrindo como a linguagem molda até mesmo as dimensões mais fundamentais da experiência humana: espaço, tempo, causalidade e relacionamentos com os outros.

Voltemos a Pormpuraaw. Ao contrário do inglês, o kuuk thaayorre, idioma falado em Pormpuraaw não usa termos relativos ao espaço como esquerda e direita. Em vez disso, os falantes de kuuk thaayorre conversam em termos de pontos cardeais absolutos (norte, sul, leste, oeste, e assim por diante). Claro que, em inglês também há termos designando os pontos cardeais, mas apenas em grandes escalas espaciais. Não diríamos, por exemplo: “Eles colocaram os garfos de sobremesa a sudeste dos garfos grandes.” Mas em kuuk thaayorre os pontos cardeais são usados em todas as escalas. Isso significa que acaba se dizendo coisas como “o copo está a sudeste do prato” ou “o menino em pé ao sul de Mary é meu irmão”. Em Pormpuraaw, deve-se estar permanentemente orientado, apenas para conseguir falar corretamente.

Além disso, o trabalho inovador realizado por Stephen C. Levinson, do Instituto Max Planck de Psicolinguística, em Nijmegen, na Holanda, e John B. Haviland, da University of California em San Diego, durante as duas últimas décadas têm demonstrado que falantes de idiomas que se valem de direções absolutas são especialmente bons em manter o registro de onde estão, mesmo em paisagens desconhecidas ou no interior de edifícios estranhos. Eles fazem isso melhor que quem vive nos mesmos ambientes, mas não falam essas línguas.

Pessoas que pensam de modo diferente sobre o espaço também são suscetíveis a pensar de forma diferente sobre o tempo. Por exemplo, minha colega Alice Gaby, da University of California em Berkeley e eu demos aos falantes de kuuk thaayorre conjuntos de fotos que mostravam progressões temporais: o envelhecimento de um homem, o crescimento de um crocodilo, uma banana sendo consumida. Em seguida, pedimos que organizassem as imagens embaralhadas no chão para indicar a sequência temporal correta.

Testamos cada pessoa duas vezes, cada vez elas olhavam para um ponto cardeal diferente. Os falantes de inglês que recebem esta tarefa vão organizar as cartas de modo que o passar do tempo seja da esquerda para a direita. Os de língua hebraica tenderão a colocar as cartas da direita para a esquerda. Isso mostra que a direção da escrita em uma linguagem influencia a forma como organizamos o tempo. Os kuuk thaayorre, porém, rotineiramente não organizam as cartas da esquerda para a direita ou da direita para a esquerda. Eles as arrumaram de leste para o oeste. Isto é, quando estavam sentados de frente para o sul, as cartas ficaram da esquerda para a direita. Quando encaravam o norte, as cartas ficaram da direita para a esquerda. Quando olhavam para o leste, as cartas vinham na direção do corpo, e assim por diante. Nunca dissemos a ninguém que direção eles estavam encarando – os thaayorre kuuk já sabiam disso e espontaneamente usaram essa orientação espacial para construir suas representações do tempo.

As representações do tempo variam de muitas outras maneiras pelo mundo. Por exemplo, os falantes de inglês consideram que o futuro fica “adiante” e o passado “para trás”. Em 2010, Lynden Miles da University of Aberdeen, na Escócia, e seus colegas descobriram que os falantes de inglês, inconscientemente, balançam seus corpos para a frente, ao pensar no futuro, e, para trás, ao considerar o passado. Mas em aimará, um idioma falado na cordilheira dos Andes, dizem que o passado está à frente e o futuro atrás. E a linguagem corporal dos falantes de aimará corresponde ao seu modo de falar: em 2006, Rafael Núñez, da University of Califórnia em San Diego e Eve Sweetser, da mesmo universidade, no campus de Berkeley, descobriram que os aimarás gesticulam na frente deles quando falam do passado, e atrás deles
quando discutem o futuro.

Lembrando “quem fez o quê?”
Os falantes de línguas diferentes também diferem na forma como descrevem os eventos e podem se lembrar bem de quem fez o quê. Todos os acontecimentos, mesmo os acidentes ocorridos em frações de segundos, são complexos e exigem que analisemos e interpretemos o que aconteceu. Tomemos, por exemplo, o caso do ex-vice- presidente Dick Cheney na caça de codornas, na qual, ele atirou em Harry Whittington, por acidente. Pode-se dizer que “Cheney atirou em Whittington” (em que Cheney é a causa direta), ou “Whittington foi baleado por Cheney” (distanciando Cheney do resultado), ou “Whittington levou um bom chumbinho” (deixando Cheney totalmente de fora). O próprio Cheney disse: “Resumindo, eu sou o cara que puxou o gatilho que disparou a bala que atingiu Harry”, interpondo uma longa cadeia de ações entre ele e o resultado. A fala do então presidente George Bush: “Ele ouviu um movimento de pássaro, virou-se, puxou o gatilho e viu seu amigo se ferir”, foi uma desculpa ainda mais magistral, transformando Cheney de agente a mera testemunha em menos de uma frase.

Minha aluna Caitlin M. Fausey e eu descobrimos que diferenças linguísticas influenciam o modo pelo qual as pessoas analisam o que aconteceu e exercem consequências na memória de testemunhas. Em nossos estudos, publicados em 2010, falantes de inglês, espanhol e japonês assistiram a vídeos de dois rapazes estourando balões, quebrando ovos e derramando bebidas intencionalmente, ou sem querer. Mais tarde, passamos aos participantes um teste de memória pelo qual tinham de dizer qual sujeito havia feito a ação, exatamente como numa fileira diante da polícia. Outro grupo de falantes de inglês, espanhol e japonês descreveu os mesmos acontecimentos. Quando olhamos para as informações da memória, encontramos exatamente as diferenças na memória de testemunhas oculares previstas pelos padrões de linguagem. Os falantes de todos os três idiomas descreveram as ações intencionais usando o agente, dizendo coisas como “Ele estourou o balão”, e todos os três grupos lembraram igualmente bem de quem fizera essas ações intencionais. Entretanto, quando passaram para os acidentais, surgiram diferenças interessantes. Os falantes de espanhol e japonês foram menos propensos a descrever os acidentes que os que falavam inglês. E, da mesma forma, lembraram- se menos do agente que os que falavam inglês. Isso não aconteceu por terem pior memória global – eles se lembraram dos agentes de eventos intencionais (para os quais seus idiomas naturalmente mencionariam os agentes), da mesma forma que fizeram os indivíduos de língua inglesa.

Não apenas as línguas influenciam o que lembramos, mas as estruturas dos idiomas podem facilitar ou dificultar o nosso aprendizado de coisas novas. Por exemplo, pelo fato de as palavras correspondentes a número em alguns idiomas revelarem a base decimal implícita mais claramente que em inglês (não há adolescentes problemáticos, com 11 ou 13 anos, em mandarim, por exemplo), as crianças que aprendem essas línguas são capazes de interiorizar mais rapidamente a base decimal. E, dependendo de quantas sílabas as palavras relativas a números têm, será mais fácil ou mais difícil memorizar um número de telefone ou fazer cálculo mental. A linguagem pode até afetar a rapidez com que as crianças descobrem se pertencem ao sexo masculino ou feminino.

O QUE MODELA O QUÊ?
Essas são apenas algumas das fascinantes descobertas das diferenças translinguísticas em cognição. Mas, como saber se as diferenças na linguagem criam diferenças em pensamento, ou se é o contrário? Parece que a resposta inclui os dois: a maneira como pensamos influencia a maneira de falar, mas a influência também age na direção contrária. Durante a década anterior, vimos uma infinidade de demonstrações engenhosas estabelecendo que a linguagem realmente desempenha papel causal na formação da cognição. Estudos demonstraram que ao mudar o modo de falar, mudamos a maneira de pensar. O ensino de novas denominações de cores, por exemplo, muda a capacidade de as pessoas as discriminarem. Pessoas bilíngues mudam o modo de enxergar o mundo dependendo do idioma que falam. Duas descobertas publicadas em 2010 demonstram que mesmo algo tão fundamental quanto de quem você gosta e não gosta depende do idioma em que é feita a pergunta.

Esses estudos, um de Oludamini Ogunnaike e seus colegas de Harvard e outro de Shai Danziger e seus colegas da Universidade Ben-Gurion de Negev, Israel, observaram bilíngues nos idiomas árabe e francês em Marrocos, espanhol e inglês nos Estados Unidos, e árabe e hebraico em Israel, em cada caso foram testadas as tendências implícitas dos participantes. Por exemplo, pediram às pessoass bilíngues em árabe e hebraico que apertassem rapidamente botões em resposta a palavras, mediante várias situações. Em uma delas, foram instruídos para, ao verem um nome hebreu como “Yair”, ou uma característica positiva como “bom” ou “forte”, pressionarem “M”; se vissem um nome árabe como “Ahmed” ou um aspecto negativo como “mesquinho” ou “fraco”, deveriam pressionar “X”. Em outra situação, a paridade foi revertida, de modo que os nomes judaicos e características negativas partilhavam um botão e nomes árabes e aspectos positivos correspondiam a um só botão. Os pesquisadores mediram a rapidez com que os indivíduos foram capazes de responder nas duas condições. Essa tarefa tem sido amplamente utilizada para medir tendências involuntárias ou automáticas – com que naturalidade coisas como características positivas e grupos étnicos parecem se corresponder na mente das pessoas.

Surpreendentemente, os pesquisadores verificaram grandes mudanças nessas tendências involuntárias automáticas em indivíduos bilíngues, dependendo do idioma em que foram testadas. Os bilíngues em árabe e hebraico mostraram atitudes implícitas mais positivas em relação aos judeus quando testados em hebraico que quando testados em árabe.

A linguagem também parece estar envolvida em muitos mais aspectos de nossa vida mental que os cientistas previamente supunham. As pessoas confiam na língua, mesmo quando fazem coisas simples como distinguir manchas de cor, contar pontos em uma tela ou se orientar em uma pequena sala: meus colegas e eu descobrimos que, ao limitar a capacidade de acesso às faculdades linguísticas fluentes de um indivíduo, dando-lhe uma tarefa verbal que exige competição, como repetir uma notícia, prejudica a capacidade de executá-la. Isso significa que as categorias e as distinções que existem em determinados idiomas interferem amplamente em nossa vida mental. O que os pesquisadores vêm chamando de “pensamento” esse tempo todo na verdade parece ser uma reunião de ambos: processos linguísticos e não linguísticos. Assim, pode não existir grande quantidade de pensamento humano adulto quando a linguagem não desempenha um papel significativo.

Uma característica marcante da inteligência humana é a sua adaptabilidade, a capacidade de inventar e reorganizar os conceitos do mundo de modo a se adequar às mudanças de metas e ambientes. Uma consequência dessa flexibilidade é a enorme diversidade de idiomas que surgiu ao redor do mundo. Cada um oferece o seu próprio conjunto de ferramentas cognitivas e engloba o conhecimento e a visão de mundo desenvolvidos ao longo de milhares de anos dentro de uma cultura. Cada um tem uma forma de perceber, classificar e fazer sentido no mundo, um guia inestimável desenvolvido e aperfeiçoado por nossos antepassados. A investigação sobre a forma como o idioma que falamos molda a nossa forma de pensar está ajudando os cientistas a desvendar o modo como criamos o conhecimento e construímos a realidade e como conseguimos ser tão inteligentes e sofisticados. E essa percepção ajuda- nos a compreender exatamente a essência daquilo que nos faz humanos.

Lera Boroditsky é professora-assistente de psicologia cognitiva da Stanford University e editora-chefe de Frontiers in Cultural Psychology. Seu laboratório faz experimentos em todo o mundo, concentrando-se em representações mentais e nos efeitos do idioma na cognição.

Índios serão atendidos por pajés em hospital do RS (OESP)

16/05/2011UncategorizedÍndios, ciência, medicinarenzotaddei

Por Elder Ogliari

Agência Estado – sex, 13 de mai de 2011

Os índios mbyá-guarani de São Miguel das Missões serão atendidos pelos médicos e também pelos pajés da tribo no Hospital São Miguel Arcanjo, principal casa de saúde do município do noroeste do Rio Grande do Sul.

O acordo entre a comunidade, representada pelo cacique Ariel Ortega, e o diretor da Associação Hospitalar São Miguel Arcanjo, Inácio Müller, foi assinado no fim de abril, a pedido do Ministério Público Federal.

Segundo a crença guarani, a medicina tradicional do homem branco não é suficiente para tratar todos os males, porque é mais voltada para o corpo do que para o espírito. O hospital destinou uma sala com banheiro privativo e espaço para três leitos, na qual é permitido o uso de cachimbo e eventuais manifestações sonoras do ritual, ao contrário do restante das dependências, onde se proíbe o fumo e se recomenda silêncio.

Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says (BBC)

25/03/2011Uncategorizedciência, Linguística, Religiãorenzotaddei

2 March 2011 Last updated at 07:31 GMT

By Jason PalmerScience and technology reporter, BBC News, Dallas

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

The team’s mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Their means of analysing the data invokes what is known as nonlinear dynamics – a mathematical approach that has been used to explain a wide range of physical phenomena in which a number of factors play a part.

One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, put forth a similar model in 2003 to put a numerical basis behind the decline of lesser-spoken world languages.

At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the “utility” of speaking one instead of another.

“The idea is pretty simple,” said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, and the University of Arizona.

“It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility.

“For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there’s some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not.”

Dr Wiener continued: “In a large number of modern secular democracies, there’s been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%.”

The team then applied their nonlinear dynamics model, adjusting parameters for the relative social and utilitarian merits of membership of the “non-religious” category.

They found, in a study published online, that those parameters were similar across all the countries studied, suggesting that similar behaviour drives the mathematics in all of them.

And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.

However, Dr Wiener told the conference that the team was working to update the model with a “network structure” more representative of the one at work in the world.

“Obviously we don’t really believe this is the network structure of a modern society, where each person is influenced equally by all the other people in society,” he said.

However, he told BBC News that he thought it was “a suggestive result”.

“It’s interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going.

“Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out.”

21 March 2011 Last updated at 03:59 GMT

Two-thirds of Britons not religious, suggests survey

By John McManusBBC News

Nearly two-thirds of people do not regard themselves as “religious”, a new survey carried out to coincide with the 2011 Census suggests.

The British Humanist Association (BHA), which commissioned the poll, said people often identified themselves as religious for cultural reasons.

The online poll asked 1,900 adults in England and Wales a question which is on this month’s census form.

The Office for National Statistics has defended the wording of the census.

While 61% of the poll’s respondents said they did belong to a religion, 65% of those surveyed answered “no” to the further question: “Are you religious?”

Two surveys were commissioned, one covering England and Wales, and the other for Scotland. The Scottish survey was commissioned by the Humanist Society of Scotland.

South of the border, 61% of respondents said they did have a religion.

But only 29% also said they were religious, while 65% said they were not.

This poll is further evidence… that the data produced by the census, used by local and national government as if it indicates religious belief and belonging, is in fact highly misleading”

Andrew CopsonBritish Humanist Association

Among respondents who identified themselves as Christian, fewer than half said they believed Jesus Christ was a real person who died, came back to life and was the son of God.

Another 27% said they did not believe that at all, while 25% were unsure.

In Scotland, 42% of respondents said they did not belong to a religion, yet in a further question “Are you religious?” 56% answered “no”.

The BHA has complained the wording of the optional census question about religion encourages people to wrongly identify themselves as believers.

In the last census in 2001, 72% of people were classed as Christians – a figure which is much higher than other surveys.

The BHA believes people might tick “yes” to the census question on religion for reasons of cultural identity.

The chief executive of the BHA, Andrew Copson, is running a national campaign encouraging non-religious people to state their unbelief clearly on their census forms.

He said: “This poll is further evidence for a key message of the Census Campaign – that the data produced by the census, used by local and national government as if it indicates religious belief and belonging, is in fact highly misleading.

Religious affiliation

The humanists say data which might indicate a greater amount of religious belief than actually exists, is being used to justify faith schools, and the continuing presence of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords.

The Office for National Statistics has defended the wording of the religion question.

A spokesman told the BBC: “The religion question measures the number of people who self-identify an affiliation with a religion, irrespective of the extent of their religious belief or practice.”

The think tank Theos, which undertakes research into religious matters, says attempting to measure cultural affiliation to religion – rather than actual, regular practice – is a good idea, as it shows the broad values society shares.

It also disputes the BHA’s assertion that the collected data is used for political purposes.

Brasileiros são mais europeus do que se imaginava (O Globo, JC)

18/02/2011Uncategorizedciência, Raça, Semiótica, Visualidaderenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4203, de 18 de Fevereiro de 2011.

As conclusões estão na pesquisa coordenada pelo geneticista Sérgio Danilo Pena, da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, e publicada na revista científica “PLoS”

Os brasileiros são bem mais europeus do que africanos. Esqueça todas as análises já feitas com base em conceitos como raça e cor da pele. O primeiro grande estudo a medir a ancestralidade da população do País a partir de sua genética revela uma participação europeia muito maior do que se imaginava preponderante em todo o território, inclusive nas regiões Norte e Nordeste. As conclusões estão na pesquisa coordenada pelo geneticista Sérgio Danilo Pena, da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, e publicada na revista científica “PLoS”.

O trabalho revelou que, em todas as regiões, a ancestralidade europeia é dominante, com percentuais que variam de 60,6% no Nordeste a 77,7% no Sul. Mesmo as pessoas que se denominam negras pelos critérios do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) apresentam, na verdade, uma alta ancestralidade branca. Para se ter uma ideia, na Bahia, os negros tem 53,9% de raízes europeias. Na análise dos especialistas envolvidos no trabalho, a “europeização” do Brasil se deu a partir do fim do século 19, com o fim do tráfico negreiro e da escravidão e o início do fluxo migratório de aproximadamente 6 milhões de trabalhadores europeus.

Para além do impacto histórico e antropológico que os resultados do novo estudo podem ter, Sérgio Pena ressalta ainda a sua importância do ponto de vista médico: os tratamentos podem ser mais homogêneos do que se imaginava.

Formada por três diferentes raízes ancestrais, indígena, europeia e africana, a população brasileira sempre se acreditou muito heterogênea. Mas o estudo conclui que, independentemente de eventuais classificações baseadas na cor da pele, os brasileiros são muito homogêneos do ponto de vista de sua ancestralidade.
(Roberta Jansen de O Globo)

[Para uma discussão mais sofisticada da questão, ver: Santos, Ricardo Ventura, Peter H. Fry, Simone Monteiro, Marcos Chor Maio, José Carlos Rodrigues, Luciana Bastos‐Rodrigues, and Sérgio D. J. Pena. Color, Race, and Genomic Ancestry in Brazil: Dialogues between Anthropology and Genetics. Current Anthropology Volume 50, Number 6, 2009, pp. 787‐819.]

Petrobras vira nome de dinossauro na Argentina (FSP, JC)

14/02/2011Uncategorizedciência, Marketing, Visualidaderenzotaddei

JC e-mail 4199, de 14 de Fevereiro de 2011

Titanossauro recém-descoberto no país se chamará “Petrobrasaurus”. Animais “patrocinados” estão ficando comuns, e mesmo pessoas podem pagar para colocar seu nome em espécies

Sinal dos tempos: hoje em dia até dinossauro tem “naming rights” – o termo que se usa quando uma empresa coloca o seu nome em um estádio de futebol ou em uma sala de cinema, por exemplo.

O caso de merchandising paleontológico mais recente é o de um titanossauro argentino herbívoro e quadrúpede com 85 milhões de anos de idade, 22 metros e até 35 toneladas que ganhou o nome da Petrobras, descoberto por pesquisadores de lá.

Casos parecidos aconteceram recentemente com outras empresas do ramo da Petrobras. O dino Futalognkosaurus dukei, de 2007, por exemplo, tem esse nome por causa da Duke Energy. O Panamericansaurus, de 2010, refere-se à Pan American Energy.

A homenagem dos hermanos não é, claro, só um gesto de camaradagem latino-americana: a Petrobras, que hoje tem vários poços pelo país, dá suporte logístico (como alojamento e alimentação) a paleontólogos do país que tentam encontrar fósseis perto das perfurações.

Segundo Leonardo Filippi, paleontólogo do Museo Municipal Argentino Urquiza e autor do artigo científico, não é bem, então, que a Petrobras tenha “comprado” o nome do bicho. Nas palavras dele, é um “reconhecimento da colaboração constante” da empresa brasileira.

Involuntariamente, os argentinos acabaram revivendo a crítica de que a Petrobras, supostamente gigante e lenta, seria um dinossauro. Ao menos não deram ao bicho o famigerado apelido de “Petrossauro”, mas sim o nome de Petrobrasaurus puestohernandezi – o segundo nome por causa de Puesto Hernández, na Patagônia, local onde o animal foi achado.

“De um tempo para cá, dar a empresas e instituições que financiam pesquisas os animais recém-descobertos tem se tornado muito comum. Nos EUA, é prática. A National Geographic, por exemplo, é bastante lembrada”, diz Mario Cozzuol, paleontólogo da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

Espécies grandes e chamativas como dinossauros, claro, são consideradas mais valiosas. Quem não é uma gigante do setor petrolífero, porém, pode se contentar em nomear espécies de menor destaque – e há um vasto mercado de nomenclatura científica se consolidando.

Uma ONG europeia chamada Biopat se especializou em intermediar a venda de nomes de espécies recém-descobertas. Qualquer um pode colocar o nome que quiser em um bicho ou planta, basta pagar. É caro: eternizar o seu nome em um beija-flor, por exemplo, chega a custar mais de R$ 20 mil.

O problema é que empresas e pessoas só querem mesmo nomear espécies carismáticas como beija-flores ou orquídeas – mesmo que o pessoal da Biopat faça um bom desconto, ninguém se interessa por uma coitada de uma baratinha, digamos.

O fato de ninguém querer dar nome para insetos é tão sério que a empresa achou estranho quando um cliente alemão quis pagar para isso. Entrou em contato com ele e descobriu que o nome que ele queria colocar no bicho era… bom, era o da sua sogra.

O caso da sogra-inseto chegou a ser assunto nas páginas da normalmente sisuda revista acadêmica Science em março de 2005, em um texto que desejava justamente chamar a atenção para a grave desigualdade que a preferência por bichos e plantas fofas estava criando.

Tinha-se receio que os milhares de dólares estimulando a descoberta de espécies bonitas acabassem minando a busca por espécies na ala desprezada que natureza -vamos lá, não é porque os bichos são feios que não tem o seu valor científico.

No Brasil, esse capitalismo todo ainda não chegou à nomeação de espécies.

Homenagens são mais comuns. Foi assim que o jornalista José Hamilton Ribeiro, por votação na internet, passou a nomear um antúrio-mirim, planta ornamental de nome científico Aceae anthurium hamiltoni, encontrada em uma reserva da Vale no Espírito Santo. (Folha de São Paulo)

Of course scientists can communicate (Nature)

08/02/2011Uncategorizedciência, comunicação científica, jornalismorenzotaddei

Tim Radford takes aim at the popular myth that researchers are hopeless at explaining their work to a general audience.

Tim Radford

Published online 26 January 2011 | Nature 469, 445 (2011) | doi:10.1038/469445a

There are several canards about scientists, but one is more pernicious simply because so many scientists themselves repeat it: scientists are not good communicators.

Once again, the allegation is to be the subject of discussions, this time at next month’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC. It can be found onNature ‘s website, heard in research councils, it is even occasionally propagated by the public-engagement community, and sometimes endorsed by journalists. In response, I can only say bosh, balderdash and Bronowski, and follow with other intemperate expletives such as Haldane, Hawking and Huxley, Eddington and E. O. Wilson, not to mention, as if in a state of terminal exasperation, Dawkins!

Between 1980 and 2005, I commissioned working scientists to write for The Guardian newspaper — from astronomers royal to impoverished doctoral students — and almost all of them delivered high-standard, well-focused newspaper prose and many of them went on to live by the pen. I also encountered distinguished scientists who had already become literary stars.

One was the astronomer Carl Sagan, who told me that his literary hero was Thomas Henry Huxley. Another was the industrial chemist, poet and writer Primo Levi, who when I tried to ask him about the Two Cultures debate — the apparent divide between the humanities and sciences — gently reminded me that Dante Alighieri (himself the subject of at least one paper in Nature), was a member of the Florentine guild of physicians and apothecaries. And a third was the Czech poet and dissident Miroslav Holub, who wrote his occasionalGuardian column in English, and asked that at the end of each I describe him as the author of Immunology of Nude Mice (1989). All three were better writers than most writers: two will still be famous as writers a century from now.

“Enthusiasm is infectious, but to command an audience of readers, scientists should exploit their other natural gifts.”

They were, of course, exceptions. We all inherit the gift of words; the gift for words, however, is unevenly distributed. Even so, there are reasons why scientists, in particular, should be and often are good communicators. One is that most scientists start with the engaging quality of enthusiasm — to get through a degree course, the PhD and all the research-council hoops, you would need it — and enthusiasm is derived from a Greek term that means divinely intoxicated. Enthusiasm is infectious, but to command an audience of readers, scientists should exploit their other natural gifts. One of these is training in clarity. Another is training in observation. And a third is knowledge.

Those who can think clearly can usually write clearly: thoughts have value only when expressed, and the more clearly they are expressed, the greater their potential value. Those whose business is to observe are aware of subtle differences that must be described, or the observations would be meaningless. And those who write must have something new or useful to say: if not, why say anything? A novelist who does not publish is not a novelist. A scientist who does not publish remains a scientist — at least for the duration of the research-council grant — but the science performed is of no apparent value until somebody else hears about it.

The problems for the scientist as a public communicator start with academic publishing: the language, form and conventions of the published scientific paper could almost have been devised to conceal information. Even in conversation, scientists start with a communication problem — words that are perfectly ordinary within science are simply never heard on a football terrace or in a tavern or bus queue. So to be effective communicators, scientists have to learn to stand back from their own work and see it as strangers might do.

It is not a difficult trick: even journalists have learned it. What is the most significant thing about your research? Is it that, at cosmological distances, type Ia supernovae in high redshift galaxies seem insufficiently lustrous? Or is it that you have just realized that you cannot account for 71% of the Universe; make that 96% if you throw in dark matter alongside this newly discovered dark energy? Which is more likely to make people attend? Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday were stars of the lecture halls. Many distinguished scientists — Richard Feynman, J. B. S. Haldane and Peter Medawar among them — knew how to hold a popular audience, and they weren’t afraid to address their peers with the same vividness and economy. In fact, their fame became inseparable from their gift for words. So the case for scientists as inherently bad communicators is a canard.

And while we have our ducks in a row, let me invoke the canard that scientists occasionally propagate about the media: that it does not appreciate scientific uncertainty. That one is especially irritating. It seems to say “I, as a scientist, wish to have it both ways. I want the privilege of knowing better than you, and the indulgence of being wrong without guilt, because science, don’t you see, is really about uncertainty.” To which the foolish answer might be “In which case, why should we listen?” But alas, people in any case listen selectively, even to the best communicators, which might be why so many Americans think Darwin’s theory of evolution is “only a theory”. Scientists are not the only people to blame for a problem in communication.

Tim Radford was science editor of The Guardian until 2005. e-mail: tim.radford@guardian.co.uk

Dr. Google e seus bilhões de pacientes (Ciência Hoje)

05/02/2011Uncategorizedciência, Cidadania, comunicação científica, Interatividade, Internet, medicinarenzotaddei

Uma análise mais cuidadosa da relação de doentes com a internet leva a crer que médicos e cientistas precisam aprender a lidar com a nova geração de enfermos.

Por: Thiago Camelo

Publicado em 02/02/2011 | Atualizado em 03/02/2011

Pintura do século 19 retrata visita de médico a casa do paciente. A profissão está longe, bem longe, de ser questionada. Mas muitas pessoas valem-se, atualmente, da pesquisa na internet para entender melhor algumas doenças. (Wikimedia Commons)

Regina Elizabeth Bisaglia, em mais uma consulta de rotina, indicava ao paciente a melhor maneira de cuidar da pressão. Ao mesmo tempo, observava a expressão introspectiva do homem a sua frente. A cardiologista não entendia ao certo a desconfiança em seu olhar, mas começava a presumir o motivo. Logo, entenderia o porquê.

Depois de uma explicação um pouco mais técnica, o senhor abriu um sorriso e o olhar tornou-se mais afável. A médica acabara de falar o que o paciente queria ouvir e, por isso, passava a ser merecedora de sua confiança.

“Entendi. O senhor andou consultando o doutor Google, certo?”, disse, de modo espirituoso, Bisaglia.

A médica atesta: muitas vezes os pacientes chegam ao consultório com o diagnóstico já pronto e buscam apenas uma confirmação. Ou mais: vão ao médico dispostos a testar e aprovar (ou não) o especialista.

“Não adianta os médicos reclamarem. Os pacientes vão à internet pesquisar e isso é um caminho sem volta. Informação errada existe em todos os meios, mas eu diria que muitas vezes é interessante que a pessoa procure se informar melhor”, diz a cardiologista, com mais de 30 anos de profissão.

“Há momentos em que o paciente não confia no que o médico diz ou se faz de desentendido. Nessas horas, é muito importante que ele perceba que existem mais pessoas falando a mesma coisa e passando pelo mesmo problema e que, portanto, é fundamental se cuidar. Nada melhor do que a conversa na rede para isso”, completa a médica.

Discussão antiga

Não é de hoje que a questão do ‘doutor Google’ e do ‘paciente expert‘ é debatida. Mas se antes a maioria dos argumentos pendia a favor dos médicos e contra a pesquisa dos leigos na área – sob o medo compreensível da automedicação ou dá má informação –, agora o viés da conversa caminha para um olhar mais relativista. Estudos sobre o assunto já propõem, inclusive, que os médicos tenham na sua formação uma espécie de aula especial para lidar com os pacientes internautas.

“Médicos e pesquisadores precisam estar cientes de que a informação está lá fora e que os pacientes estão tentando se educar da melhor forma possível”, diz, em conversa por e-mail, a neurocientista norte-americana Katie Moisse.

A cientista também é repórter da Scientific American e escreveu, na edição de fevereiro da revista, um artigo que fala justamente sobre a tríade médico-paciente-internet. No texto, Moisse conta a história do cirurgião vascular Paulo Zamboni, que no final de 2009 relatou um experimento que prometia ajudar os portadores de esclerose múltipla. A questão: Zamboni estava no início da pesquisa e não tinha, até o momento, feito testes rigorosos o suficiente para colocar sua técnica em prática.

Em outros tempos, diz Moisse, poucas pessoas teriam acesso ao estudo. Não foi, naturalmente, o que aconteceu com o cirurgião, que se viu pressionado por grupos de pacientes e seus familiares para disponibilizar, o quanto antes, o procedimento desenvolvido por ele.

Esse fenômeno também não é recente. O primeiro ‘motim’ de um grupo de doentes para que resultados de pesquisas fossem liberados e aplicados rapidamente é amplamente conhecido na literatura médica: na década de 1980, os infectados pelo vírus da Aids não se conformavam com a ideia de que, enquanto pacientes morriam aos milhares, poucos tinham acesso aos primeiros medicamentos (à altura, ainda em fase de teste).

Um verdadeiro grupo de ativistas, alguns com e outros sem a doença, formou-se e, se a relação entre médico e paciente mudou desde então, muito se deve a esses manifestantes.

Novo fenômeno

Hoje, a internet propicia a formação de grupos sobre não apenas uma, mas várias doenças: salas de discussão, fóruns e páginas sobre as mais diversas patologias. Um dos sites mais conhecidos é o Patients like me (Pacientes como eu, em português), uma rede social com quase 50 mil pessoas que reúne pacientes com os mais diversos problemas. O objetivo, como a maioria dos grupos, é o de trocar informação sobre doenças e, também, encontrar alento e apoio naqueles que partilham o mesmo sofrimento.

“A internet certamente faz do mundo um lugar menor. É uma oportunidade maravilhosa para as pessoas compartilharem ideias. Algumas redes de pacientes usam a internet para coletar dados e, até mesmo, publicá-los em periódicos revisados por pares”, conta Moisse.

Em alguns casos, os portais sobre doenças – sejam elas nada letais como a psoríase ou extremamente perigosas como a hepatite C – podem ajudar o paciente a se inteirar mais sobre a doença que, anteriormente, desconhecia.

“A informação disponível na internet pode trabalhar a favor da saúde, como o caso de uma pessoa que descobre que a sua timidez excessiva pode ser na verdade um quadro de transtorno de ansiedade, um transtorno psiquiátrico que tem tratamentos de eficácia comprovada”, diz o psiquiatra Rafael Freire.

É a mesma linha defendida pelo biólogo e neurocientista Daniel Cadilhe, responsável pela mediação entre o leitor-paciente e o portal do Laboratório Nacional de Células-tronco Embrionárias.

“No Orkut há uma comunidade com quase 26 mil membros sobre o assunto [células-tronco]. Chegam perguntas diariamente sobre possibilidades de tratamentos utilizando o que estudamos.

Tentamos responder da forma mais clara, realista e responsável possível, sempre passando a informação verdadeira ou indicando quem poderá ajudar a tirar a dúvida”, explica Cadilhe, absolutamente ciente do reboliço que causam as palavras ‘células-tronco embrionárias’.

A grande maioria dos especialistas, como era de se esperar, dá o mesmo conselho para o paciente na hora de pesquisar e se juntar a grupos na internet: seja responsável, busque as melhores referências e procure saber quem está dando a informação. E ainda: lembre-se de que nem sempre o que se deseja ler/ouvir é o diagnóstico correto.

Como diz, com certo humor, a cardiologista Regina Elizabeth Bisaglia, a primeira busca na internet pode ser a mais simplória: “A pesquisa mais importante na rede é o nome de um bom médico para se consultar”.

Thiago Camelo
Ciência Hoje On-line

FDA Wants Cigarette Packs to Include Images of Corpses, Diseased Lungs (ABC News)

11/11/2010Uncategorizedciência, Enquadramento, Políticas públicas, Sensacionalismorenzotaddei

Graphic Warnings on U.S. Cigarette Packs May Curb Smoking, Advocates Say

By LARA SALAHI, ABC News Medical Unit

Nov. 10, 2010

The modest one-liners of the dangers of smoking, now featured on cigarette packs, may soon turn into gory images and messages that will cover nearly half the pack.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled 36 jarring labels Wednesday aimed at escalating efforts to warn smokers of the fatal consequences of cigarette smoking. These labels represent the agency’s exercise of its new authority over tobacco products and the most significant change in cigarette warnings since companies were forced to add the mandatory Surgeon General’s warning in 1965.

Some of the proposed images include a man smoking from a tracheotomy hole, a cadaver labeled to show it died from lung disease, and a pained infant exposed to smoke.

For decades federal regulators and health experts have warned that cigarettes are deadly. But Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the ramped-up measures “a timely and much-needed shot in the arm.”

“The current warnings are more than 25 years old, go unnoticed on the side of cigarette packs and fail to effectively communicate the serious health risks of smoking,” said Myers.

Although smoking rates have declined overall since the 1960s, health officials noted that rates have leveled off in the last decade. About 21 percent of U.S. adults, and nearly 20 percent of high school students smoke cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The agency’s goal is to reduce the 443,000 deaths associated with tobacco use each year.

Previous studies suggest that graphic health warnings displayed in other countries worked better than text warnings to motivate smokers to quit, and nonsmokers not to start.

Images used on cigarette packs in countries like Canada are so disturbing that some smokers buy covers for their cigarette packs to block out the images.

“Having a coordinated policy, having these warnings, making them so visible, making them real is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the American Cancer Society, going to be a very positive step forward,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

Experts Say Fear Messages May Not Work for Long

But some experts wonder how long the proposed fear messages will work.

“The point of putting these pictures is the shock value, and research tells us shock value on its own rarely works,” said Timothy Edgar, associate professor and graduate program director of health communication at Emerson College in Boston, Mass.

Most Americans already know that smoking is dangerous — the message that the FDA is trying to convey, said Edgar. And while the campaign may dissuade some smokers at the start of the campaign, the communication tactic may not spur many to kick the habit for good, if at all.

“I think people are still going to have a hard time saying, yes that’s me on that label,” said Edgar. “There’s a physical addiction involved in this as well. It’s not an absolute choice for many who smoke.”

According to Joy Schmitz, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas medical school in Houston, the intended message will more likely reach younger adults, or those who may have just picked up the habit.

“It might give them pause for concern or contemplation as to their choice of smoking when they see the pretty dramatic scene on the packages,” said Schmitz.

But evidence suggests effective messages not only communicate the danger but also offer ways to help change behavior, said Edgar.

“There’s none of that here,” said Edgar, who suggested the campaign should also offer direct actions for people to take to quit smoking.

“Simply showing someone that there is a severe outcome or they’re personally responsible is not enough. They need to know there’s something they can do about it,” he said.

Schmitz agreed.

“It needs to be combined with the anti-smoking policies, restricting smoking in the environment, as well as promoting effective evidence-based smoking cessation treatments that are available,” she said.

The FDA will accept public comment on the proposed labels through January 2011, and will select nine to use by June 2011. The agency will then require all manufacturers to use the labels on all U.S. sold cigarettes by October 22, 2012.

Biosemiotics: Searching for meanings in a meadow (New Scientist)

01/10/2010Uncategorizedciência, discurso ambiental, Peirce, Semióticarenzotaddei

23 August 2010 by Liz Else

Are signs and meanings just as vital to living things as enzymes and tissues? Liz Else investigates a science in the making

In your own world, enwrapped in myriad others (Image: WestEnd61/Rex Features)

EVERY so often, something shows up on the New Scientist radar that we just can’t identify easily. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a brand new type of flying machine that we are going to have to study closely?

That was our reaction when we first heard about a small conference held in June at the philosophy department of the Portuguese Catholic University in Braga. There, a group of biologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, information technologists and other scholars from all over the world gathered to discuss some revolutionary ideas for developing the hitherto obscure field of biosemiotics.

Unlike most revolutionaries, it soon became clear that this group’s goal was not to overturn the established order. They don’t attack the current way of doing science- they see its value plainly- but they do believe that for biology to become a more fully explanatory science, it needs a more encompassing framework. This framework needs to be able to explain an under-studied aspect of all living organisms: the capacity to navigate their environments through the processing of signs.

Biology, of course, already concerns itself with information: cell signalling, the genetic code, pheromones and human language, for example. What biosemiotics aims to do is to weave these disparate strands into a single coherent theory of biological meaning.

At first glance, the group seems to have chosen an unfortunate and incomprehensible name for its activity- semiotics is the study of signs and symbols that is most commonly associated with linguistic philosophers such as Ferdinand de Saussure. “Biosemiotics”, then, might sound like the name of some arcane mix of biological science and linguistic philosophy. Luckily, though, the true message of biosemiotics is clear: we may do better to stop thinking about the biological world solely in terms of its physical and chemical properties, but see it also as a world made up of biological signs and “meanings”.

One of the nascent field’s leading lights, Donald Favareau of the National University of Singapore, provides a definition on the group’s website. “Biosemiotics is the study of the myriad forms of communications… observable both within and between living systems. It is thus the study of representation, meaning, sense, and the biological significance of sign processes- from intracellular signalling processes to animal display behaviour to human… artefacts such as language and abstract symbolic thought.”

To get a better sense of what this means, it is best to go back to the field’s roots. Biosemiotics traces its earliest influences to the independent efforts of an Estonian-born biologist in the early 20th century and an American philosopher of the 19th century, who wrote much of his work hidden in an attic to avoid his creditors.

Estonian-born Jakob von Uexküll was an animal physiologist whose 1934 book A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men: A picture book of invisible worlds – and later works – inspired Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, who then went on to win a Nobel prize in 1973 for their studies in animal behaviour, or ethology.

Von Uexküll wrote: “If we stand before a meadow covered with flowers, full of buzzing bees, fluttering butterflies, darting dragonflies, grasshoppers jumping over blades of grass, mice scurrying, and snails crawling about, we would be inclined to ask ourselves the unintended question: Does the meadow present the same view to the eyes of so many various animals as it does to ours?”

“Does the meadow present the same view to so many animals as it does to ours?”

He thought that a naive person would intuitively answer that it is the same meadow to every eye. Physical scientists, he thought, would see all the animals in the meadow as “mere mechanisms, steered here and there by physical and chemical agents, the meadow consists of a confusion of light waves and air vibrations… which operate the various objects in it”.

For von Uexküll, both views were wrong. Each creature in the meadow lived in “its own world filled with the perceptions which it alone knows”, and it was in accordance with that experiential world – and not the entirety of the whole, unseen but physically existing world – that the creature had to coordinate its actions to eat, flee, mate and sustain itself.

For some animals, that subjective perceptual universe, or Umwelt, as von Uexküll called it, writing in German, is narrow. He describes the umwelt of a tick which sits “motionless on the tip of a branch until a mammal passes below it. The smell of the butyric acid awakens it and it lets itself fall. It lands on the coat of its prey, through which it burrows to reach and pierce the warm skin… The pursuit of this simple meaning rule constitutes almost the whole of the tick’s life.” By reacting only to the single odorant of sweat, the tick reduces the countless characteristics of the world of host animals to a simple common denominator in its own world.

So von Uexküll’s meadow is alive with myriad perceptual worlds, with each one, for each species, evolving within, and functioning as, a different web of meaning. To understand why animals are organised the way they are, and why they act on the world as they do, he explained: “Meaning is the guiding star that biology must follow.”

Von Uexküll’s pioneering sensation-action “feedback-cycle” model for explaining the mechanics of biological meaning was revolutionary for its time. Indeed, it anticipated by many decades the science of cybernetics, which studies systems of control. But his model is now considered too mechanical and simplistic by most biosemioticians. To build what they hope might be a more scientifically fertile model, many of them base their understanding on the semiotic logic of the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce.

Peirce was born in 1839 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His father was a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Harvard University. Peirce junior was a brilliant but rebellious student, who suffered from both neuralgia and depression. Known today as the father of the philosophical school of pragmatism, as a student Peirce made the serious mistake of angering his chemistry professor, who went on to become president of Harvard. During a life-long feud, he ensured that Peirce never gained a permanent post at any university.

For the 55 years after he graduated, Peirce wrote scientific and philosophic dictionary and encyclopaedia entries to support himself and his ongoing studies, which included producing the world’s first photometric star catalogue at Harvard Astronomical Observatory and working as a geodesist for the US Coastal Service. It was a difficult life: he was often without heat and food, and was kept alive thanks to the kindness of his brother, neighbours and benefactors, including his closest friend and admirer, the psychologist William James.

Peirce’s work in logic, mathematics and philosophy ran to an astonishing 60,000 pages. Much of this has been discovered and re-examined only recently, giving rise to the vigorous field of Peircean studies. He saw logic as a formal doctrine of signs, and his theory of signs is important in modern biosemiotics.

Most of us naively conceive of a “sign” as standing for something concrete: a red traffic light for most of us simply means “stop”. In other words, the two things – a sign and its meaning – are directly connected in a sign relationship. Peirce, however, saw a sign as representing a relation between three things.

Take the everyday example given by Jesper Hoffmeyer, a biochemist at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and a leader in biosemiotics, in his book Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Suppose a child breaks out in a rash of red spots and is taken to the doctor by his mother. For the mother, the spots are a sign that her child is sick. The doctor knows they mean that the child has measles. As Peirce put it in its most general form: “a sign is something which stands to someone, for something, in some respect”. The red spots are not automatically something which is a sign of measles to anyone, but only to “someone”, in this case the doctor.

Piece saw all signs as involving a triadic relation: the sign “vehicle” (the red spots); the “object” to which the sign-bearer refers (measles); and the “interpretant”, the system that allows the realisation of the sign-object relation to take place (the doctor’s thinking) and that acts accordingly upon that relation.

He wanted to investigate and uncover the complex logic by which “in every scientific intelligence, one sign gives birth to another, and especially one thought brings forth another”. His insight was to see that even the simplest sign must be considered as a triadic relation, in which the sign vehicle, object and interpreting system all play ineliminable parts – an insight biosemioticians believe science would do well to explore more fully.

This realisation led Peirce away from devising linear chains of logic that relied on just two factors, to the construction of a “sign” logic that is an endlessly branching, multidimensional network. Although Peirce’s work is theoretical, there are clear parallels between von Uexküll’s model of the meadow, filled with different meanings, interpreted by the different biological systems of different creatures, and Peirce’s model of the sign as ultimately a kind of relation that living agents adopt towards things for the accomplishment of various ends and actions.

When Peirce wrote, he was thinking primarily of signs as relations that enable human thought to effectively understand the world. Accordingly, his logic has recently been applied in efforts to understand the origins of human language that reject the idea that language appeared either as a lucky accident that endowed humans with a universal grammar- as posited by the linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky – or as a by-product of an enlarged brain.

Instead, researchers such as Terrence Deacon, a biological anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, have used Peirce’s sign logic to explain how language may have arisen as an evolutionary consequence of pre-linguistic symbolic activity.

But biosemiotics applies the idea of signs and signalling much more widely than just the analysis of human language. Take these sentences from a recent “Perspectives” article in Science magazine: “Living cells are complex systems that are constantly making decisions in response to internal or external signals. Among the most notable carriers of information are… enzymes that receive inputs from cell surface or internal receptors and determine what actions should be taken in response…” (Science, vol 328, p 983).

The broadest scope

Words like “signals”, “information” and “inputs” litter the biology literature. But all of these usages are metaphorical. What biosemioticians really want is an analysis which goes further, says Charbel El-Hani, a biologist at the Federal University of Bahia in Brazil. “The importance of going beyond metaphor and really building a theory of information is underlined by the reiterated claim that biology is a science of information,” El-Hani told New Scientist.

“What biosemioticians really want is an analysis which goes beyond metaphor”

The scope envisioned for the new field is therefore truly broad: a viewpoint which connects everything from biomolecular networks sending signals that control cell behaviour to animal behaviour and human language. That is the agreed goal, but the scientists and philosophers involved each bring their own uniquely interdisciplinary perspective, and so do not always agree on the best way forward. It is safe to say that this new science is very much in ferment.

To get a feel for this, New Scientist asked a range of thinkers attending the Braga conference to explain how they saw the field. More than 20 responded. The wildly different roads they have travelled to reach biosemiotics, and the different areas to which they wanted to apply it, were evident in their responses.

Favareau came to biosemiotics as a result of “growing discontent with the inability of cognitive neuroscience to explain the reality of experiential ‘meaning’ at the same level that it was so successful in, and manifestly committed to, explaining the mechanics of the electrochemical transmission events by which such meanings are asserted (without explanation) to be produced”.

For Gerard Battail, an information theorist at Télécom ParisTech in France, it is the fact that mainstream biology, while loosely using a vocabulary borrowed from communication theory- “pathways”, “codes” and the like- “remains basically concerned with the flow of matter and energy into and between living entities, failing to recognise [that] the information flow is at least as important”.

Frederik Stjernfelt of Aarhus University in Denmark echoes El-Hani: “Notions such as ‘information’, ‘message’, ‘representation’, ‘code’, ‘signal’, ‘cue’, ‘communication’ and ‘sign’ crop up all over biology,” he says. He points out, however, that while the use of such terms is apparently unavoidable in explaining the workings of living systems, rarely, if ever, are such concepts explicitly defined as technical terms. His version of biosemiotics sees this as an explanatory blind spot that should be taken seriously.

“If not, the danger is that biology is trapped in a dualism where all organic communication, from cells to apes, are claimed to be describable as simple physiochemical causes only- while, on the other hand, full intentional meaning is a specifically human privilege. How could such a thing have developed phylogenetically, if not from simpler semiotic processes in biology?” asks Stjernfelt.

Kalevi Kull at the University of Tartu in Estonia stays closer to von Uexküll. “Biology has studied how organisms and living communities are built. But it is no less important to understand what such living systems know, in a broad sense; that is, what they remember (what agent-object sign relations are biologically preserved), what they recognise (what distinctions they are capable and not capable of), what signs they explore (how they communicate, make meanings and use signs) and so on. These questions are all about how different living systems perceive the world, how they model the world, what experience motivates what actions, based on those perceptions.”

These answers and many more are just a taste of how biosemiotics is shaping up. As Favareau explains, we must remember that it is still a “proto-science- closer to a very lively debate between scientists about what such a future science will have to explain about biological meaning, and how it will do so, than it is to a fully realised science with a common terminology and a settled methodology”.

The founders are open to new ideas. “If one truly recognises the need for something like biosemiotics, then one owes it to science to apply one’s best thought and effort to the task,” writes Favareau in the introduction to a recently released anthology Essential Readings in Biosemiotics (Springer, 2009).

Marcello Barbieri, a molecular biologist at the University of Ferrara in Italy, another key figure, echoes Favareau. He brings yet another perspective to the field – a “code model” that he has applied to the genetic code, splicing and other cellular codes. “Nothing is settled yet in biosemiotics,” he says. “Everything is on the move, and the exploration of the scientifically new continent of ‘meaning’ has just begun.” Watch this space.

“The exploration of the scientifically new continent of ‘meaning’ has just begun”

Bibliography

To learn more about biosemiotics and its history, download a free pdf of the first chapter of Donald Favareau’s Essential Readings in Biosemiotics at www.bit.ly/axHqMO, courtesy of Springer Science publishers and Donald Favarea.

"Selvagens" no museu (Pesquisa FAPESP)

01/10/2010UncategorizedÍndios, ciência, Memória, Museusrenzotaddei

Memória

“Selvagens” no museu

Há 128 anos, grupos de índios eram expostos na Exposição antropológica brasileira

Neldson Marcolin

Edição Impressa 175 – Setembro 2010

O dia 29 de julho de 1882 prometia ser diferente na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. O feriado e os fogos de artifício anunciavam o aniversário de 36 anos da princesa Isabel e convidavam para um evento raro na cidade. Naquele dia o Museu Nacional abriu a Exposição antropológica brasileira com a presença das principais personalidades da sociedade carioca e de toda a Corte. Além da princesa, o imperador dom Pedro II e a imperatriz Teresa Cristina visitaram a exposição, amplamente coberta pela imprensa. Também participaram da cerimônia de inauguração alguns índios Botocudo – de Goiás e do Espírito Santo – e Xerente – de Minas Gerais. A diferença é que os indígenas foram trazidos para serem expostos, e não para visitá-la.

Capa da revista com desenho de índia Botocudo

O evento de 1882 foi um dos acontecimentos científicos mais importantes do final do século XIX no Brasil. Mostras semelhantes às do Rio estavam em voga em outros países da América Latina, Europa e nos Estados Unidos. O desejo de popularizar a ciência, as polêmicas sobre a teoria da evolução proposta por Charles Darwin, o anseio de conhecer o passado do Brasil e o fascínio provocado pelos índios motivaram o diretor do Museu Nacional, Ladislau Netto, a organizar a exposição. As coleções foram dispostas em oito salas que ganharam nomes em homenagem a figuras da história e da ciência: Vaz de Caminha, Léry, Rodrigues Ferreira, Hartt, Lund, Martius, Gabriel Soares e Anchieta. Todos escreveram relatos que ajudavam a tornar conhecido o Brasil de períodos anteriores, desde a descoberta da nova terra no século XVI. As oito salas mostravam peças arqueológicas descobertas no país, como restos humanos fossilizados, conchas de sambaquis e objetos indígenas de etnias diferentes. Também foi editada a Revista da Exposição Anthropologica Brazileira, com artigos que tentavam dar um significado científico ao conjunto apresentado no museu.

© museu nacional

Objetos de rituais usados pelos índios Mahué

Os “selvagens”, como eram chamados, faziam parte da exposição em grupos vivos, compondo um cenário que simulava seu cotidiano. Os artigos da revista, dirigida por Mello Moraes Filho e escritos por especialistas brasileiros, sempre se referiam aos indígenas como representantes dos mais primitivos estágios da evolução humana em contraposição aos evoluídos homens brancos caucasianos. O evento era uma oportunidade para observá-los como se fossem fósseis vivos, na argumentação tão científica quanto possível para aquele período. As medidas dos índios, sua forma muscular, o formato do crânio, os hábitos sociais e morais foram analisados e comparados com mestiços e brancos. “Era uma antropologia física, completamente diferente da antropologia do século XX”, diz o biólogo Charbel Niño El-Hani, coordenador do Grupo de Pesquisa em História, Filosofia e Ensino de Ciências Biológicas da Universidade Federal da Bahia, que estudou o tema. “Havia um olhar sobre os indígenas diferente do que viria a ter Claude Lévi-Strauss várias décadas depois.”

Ilustração de índio Tembé

A ideia do índio como fóssil vivo era considerada útil para estudar o passado do homem no Brasil e não causava a mesma repulsa provocada hoje, avalia a historiadora Márcia Ferraz, do Centro Simão Mathias de Estudos de História da Ciência da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (Cesima/PUC-SP).“Aquela era a forma como se fazia ciência em todo o mundo, não só no Brasil”, explica Márcia. Os critérios científicos utilizados eram os da história natural, e não aqueles que as ciências sociais viriam a usar mais tarde.

A exposição ficou em cartaz durante três meses e foi considerada bem-sucedida por ter atraído mais de mil visitantes e causado alguma repercussão internacional. “Quem a visitou, no entanto, foi apenas a pequena elite do Rio daquele tempo, que era alfabetizada e interessada pelas novidades científicas”, conclui El-Hani.

Why trust a reporter? (The Scientist)

13/09/2010Uncategorizedciência, comunicação científica, Enquadramento, jornalismo, Mídiarenzotaddei

What science writers are looking for and why it behooves you to answer their calls.

By Edyta Zielinska

There was a time when the public saw newspaper reporters as heroic figures. In those days, “Men wore hats and pounded away on the typewriter with two fingers,” says neuroscientist Richard Ransohoff, whose father was a beat reporter at the Cincinnati Enquirer and Post and Times-Star through the early 1960s. His father “knew every cop in town,” recalls Ransohoff, who works today at the Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis. “I was enamored with that persona.”

Even with his fond memories of journalism’s glory days, as a clinical neurologist, Ransohoff understands the frustration common to many scientists when their work is covered by the media. The effect of news coverage is immediate. His patients will visit his office with clips in hand, full of hopes and questions. “I’ve had thousands of conversations with patients,” he says. “You have a disease for which the cause is unknown and the course is variable,” and you have to explain that even the most promising research is years away from being tested, much less proven as a treatment, he says.

The public understands that if they “go to their niece’s third grade recital and the kid plays chopsticks, and plays the hell out of it,” he says, “no one in the audience is fooled into thinking that the next stop is Carnegie Hall.” That same appreciation is missing in the public’s understanding of the scientific enterprise, he says. That there is a slim chance for big findings in basic research, trumpeted by news stories, to make it through the long vetting process of drug development and clinical trials is a concept that the public rarely grasps.

And basic researchers can get burned by media coverage, as well, such as when years of bench work are cast incorrectly by a reporter who makes a factual mistake or misinterprets complex findings.

But there are many reasons why scientists should speak to reporters, and why doing so can help their careers. “I don’t think scientists are hesitant to speak to the press. I just don’t think they’re good at it,” Ransohoff says. “But in fairness it is difficult to talk about cellular processes to people who [sometimes] don’t know their bodies are made out of cells.” Of course, most journalists who write primarily about science these days are well versed in basic biology, physics, or whatever field they cover—many are even former scientists themselves.

Here are tips from leading science reporters, producers and other communications experts on how researchers can get the most out of interactions with the press, and why taking a call from a reporter is worth your time.

Why you should make time for reporters

It’s your duty

“I don’t think it’s important [to talk to reporters], I think it’s essential,” says Brandeis University’s Gregory Petsko, who served as past president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. “The public puts us in the lab. They spend their money to allow us to do what we love to do.” Since taxpayers fund the majority of research, it’s scientists’ responsibility to communicate the science on which the money is spent, says Petsko.

It raises your profile with journal editors and funders

Editors of high-impact journals don’t just look for the best research, they also look for research they think will catch the eyes of editors at the New York Times. If they see that your lab publishes the kinds of studies that appear on the radar screens of science journalists, they may be more prone to look favorably on your next submission. The same is true of some granting agencies.

Your bosses will love it

“Our institutions love publicity,” says Ransohoff. “We get local credibility and a type of celebrity within our institution.” Having your research covered by media outlets can translate to recognition and validation within your department that may ultimately help you win departmental resources.

You may pick up grant-writing tips

Journalists have an eye for distilling the details—a skill that increasingly shorter grant applications place at a premium. “We’re in a completely new era of grant preparation and review,” says Ransohoff. With applications for National Institutes of Health grants recently trimmed from 25 pages to 12, researchers and reviewers must briefly emphasize a project’s significance and innovation—concepts that science writers routinely think about. Scientists will benefit from seeing how a seasoned journalist distills years of work and a long manuscript into a readable, 500-word article.

It gets the public excited about science

Robert Langer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology biomedical engineer, has more than 760 patents pending or awarded, and runs the largest academic biomedical engineering lab in the world. He is also something of a press darling for being approachable, despite the demands on his time. (He called this reporter within 20 minutes of receiving an email request.) “The future of our country and science depends on getting outstanding young people interested in science,” says Langer, and helping reporters publish stories that describe the achievements and possibilities of science is one way to do that.

It’s better you than someone else

If you care about how the science in your field will be described, the best thing to do is to respond to reporters’ calls, especially with hot-button topics like stem cells or climate change. “If no [expert scientists] talked, [reporters will] end up going to people who are less and less expert,” which can result in stories that are less accurate, says Ed Sykes, a press officer at the Science Media Centre, an organization that provides press support for the UK national media.

The Medium Matters

TV is different from print

When Vincent Liota, a senior series producer at NOVA scienceNOW, was working as a news cameraman for a local television station in Norfolk, Va. in 1985, he covered the hostage takeover of Flight 847. When the hostages were released, both TV and newspaper reporters swarmed around one hostage who was willing to speak. The man said that he had gotten off the plane, sat down and lit a cigarette. “He was telling this story and getting really emotional,” says Liota. At that moment, a newspaper reporter interrupted and asked “what brand of cigarettes were you smoking?” to the frustration of all of the television reporters who wanted the uninterrupted, first-hand account. Print reporters will often grill you for specific details and numbers that will help the reader visualize the story.

If it’s live, do pre-interview mental pushups

Most people who are interviewed on radio or TV usually experience a pre-interview, in which someone—either the on-air reporter or a producer—asks questions similar to those they’ll hear on-air, says Christopher Intagliata, one of the producers of Science Friday, a live public radio talk show hosted by Ira Flatow. Mooney, who’s been interviewed on radio about his work, says he usually spends 5 minutes before going on the air, thinking about what the audience is interested in, and how to explain those ideas in the clearest way. “If it’s live radio, you’ve only got one shot,” Mooney says.

For the news— no personality, no problem

Not everyone can be dynamic, funny, witty, engaging, dramatic,” says Petsko. But you do have to be clear, he adds. “Nothing is more important than that.” Personality is not as crucial to a news story as it is in a feature article or live interview. When Tom Clarke—who covers breaking science stories for Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom—hits the road for a story, he isn’t looking to find the perfect source. News reporters like Angier and Clarke will digest the science for their audience, using quotes or sound bites from scientists to give a story context. “It doesn’t matter what the scientist is like,” says Clarke. “We’ll find a way to get something we can use.”

Getting the most out of a press call

Understand what the journalist/outlet is looking for

You should always get a sense of the kind of story the reporter aims to write. It’s perfectly acceptable to ask a reporter about his or her intentions for an article. But keep in mind that the reporter may not always know, says Faye Flam, a science journalist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Sometimes I’m just fishing,” for an idea, she says. But asking the journalist for more information, or for a list of sample questions, can help you decide if you’d like to participate, and provide clues for how to prepare and “be more helpful,” says Flam. Another way to decide whether to participate is to try to imagine the headline that will appear with the story that you’re interviewing for, says Brad Phillips, president of Phillips Media Relations, and author of the blog mrmediatraining.com.

K.I.S.S.—Keep It Simple, Scientist

Sometimes, the simplest answer is the best one. “When you’re learning to drive a car, you want someone who’s going to answer your questions in a way that’s going to be fruitful to you,” says Liota. “When someone asks ‘how do you make the car go, you don’t want someone to say, ‘Well, there’s this thing called the carburetor… and that supplies gasoline into the manifold, where it is combusted. The valves adjust the fuel injected into the cylinder, and pistons compress it, and then they fire.’” While the information is all correct, viewers want a scientist who can simply say “you step on the gas and it goes.”

It’s okay to give personal details

While personal questions may seem like dangerous territory or off topic, they can be crucial to conveying the human face of science. “I want the audience to know that scientists aren’t bronzed figures that, with very little homework, come up with great pronouncements,” says Krulwich. If you’re uncomfortable with giving a particular personal detail, feel free to ask why the reporter thinks it’s important.

Be a go-to source

“My job is to get good people,” says Science Friday’s Intagliata. Come Friday’s deadline, “I want to know I have a failsafe solution,” he adds. If reporters can’t get the clarity they’re looking for, they simply search for another source. “One wonders why we turn to the same sources again and again,” says Angier. Some sources are simply good at drawing a caricature that captures the essence of an idea. “People who master that will get called again and again,” says Angier.

It’s all about significance

Reporters will want to know, “Is this something the rest of the public should care about?” adds Sykes. He says that scientists should come to the interviews “armed” with “the bottom line” and numbers that demonstrate the impact the science could have on humanity or on the field. “Journalists love the numbers, but they have to be in context.”

Prepare a plate of metaphors

Scientists should come to the interviews “armed” with “the bottom line” and numbers that demonstrate the impact the science could have on humanity or on the field.
—Ed Sykes

The goal of the science writer, says Angier, is to “bring the senses to bear—what it would look like, what it would feel like, smell like.” The shortest path to achieving this goal is the use of metaphors, and you can aid reporters in crafting these turns of phrase. For example, to describe RNA interference to a lay audience, Liota once constructed several layers of metaphor: Using animation, his team drew RNA as a recipe that a “monkish scribe” copies from the grand cookbook of DNA, which was kept locked in a tower (the nucleus). Those recipes were then chucked out of the nuclear “window” (a pore) and caught by a chef (a ribosome) floating in the cytoplasm, who would whip up proteins based on the instructions. While such extensive metaphors may seem excessive and loose, they give uninitiated readers a fighting chance to understand complex biological concepts.

Want coverage? Be available

Make yourself accessible to the press, and be sure not to book travel plans during the week before your new research is published. If a reporter can’t reach you or someone in your lab, they may choose not to cover the story.

Common press pitfalls, and how to avoid them

To avoid oversimplification, connect the dots

Good science reporters do their best not to tell an overly simplified story. That isn’t satisfying to anyone, says Angier. When using metaphors, make sure to think about and convey the limits of the metaphor. A journalist will try to convey the full complexity, but in the end, a story is “just a taste,” he notes. “It’s not the master class.” If you’re worried that a reporter won’t get all the most important parts of your science, prepare three main points you want to get across, making sure to convey how you came to those statements, and field-test them on a layperson to ensure that the message is clear.

To avoid errors, avoid jargon

When science writer Carl Zimmer teaches a course on science communication to budding researchers at Yale University, he often returns the assignment with loads of jargon words circled in red. “A scientist has spent years learning how to talk like a scientist,” he says, and often have a hard time distinguishing jargon from genuinely descriptive language. But every time a scientist uses a word that is meaningful only to that particular field, it increases the likelihood that the reporter will misunderstand the intended message when he sits down to write and translate that term for a general scientific or lay audience.

To avoid misquotes, take a pause

“The big issue is pausing properly,” says Petsko. When talking to a reporter, he always takes breaks to let the reporter “digest and see what kinds of questions come back at me.” Some reporters try to take down all of the words you say—especially unfamiliar scientific terms (so they can look them up later). The faster you talk, the more likely it is that they’ll miss something.

To avoid sensational stories, research the reporter

The majority of science reporters are quite conscientious about getting their stories right. “Most of us are trying to make an honest effort to get at the truth, and we’re genuinely interested in what [scientists] do,” says Flam. But general assignment reporters, who don’t usually cover science, may not be as adept at capturing scientific stories. It’s always a good idea to research reporters or outlets before you agree to speak with them to see whether you trust how—and if—they cover science. If a reporter calls first (without sending an email request), feel free to say that you’ll call back, and do a few Internet searches.

if it’s wrong, ask for a correction

Even the best science reporters do get it wrong sometimes. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with reporters or their editors to set the record straight. Most will be happy to oblige. But remember that many outlets have a policy only to correct factual errors, not omissions or changes in tone.

Definitions

Disclaimer: While the following represent widely held definitions in the field, not every reporter will interpret the rules in the same way. Your best bet is to either not say anything you don’t want to see in print or have an explicit conversation with the reporter about how your words will be used before the interview begins.

Off the record:

This is an agreement you make with a journalist before you say things that you do not want published. Here, nothing you say will be published or attributed to you. If you only want parts of the conversation to be “off the record,” make sure to tell the reporter when you’d like those parts to begin and end.

Not for attribution:

You can agree to speak to a reporter about a sensitive topic under the condition that your name will not be used. This information will be published, but attributed to an unnamed source. The reporter will then negotiate an attribution for your comments that demonstrates your expertise without revealing your identity.

Background:

When a reporter asks to speak “on background,” this indicates that your guidance and opinion are needed. Talk to the reporter ahead of time if you don’t want what you say used in the story.

Outside comment:

This is the journalist’s method for peer review. Reporters invite researchers who were not involved in the issue or study at hand to weigh in on the science and its potential impact on the field.

Take home message:

This is the most important point about the science or issue at hand, stripped of the details. A succinct sentence in summary usually suffices.

News story:

More timely, more focused, and written on a tighter deadline than features, news stories generally highlight one finding or event. In general, reporters have much less time to grasp the content of the science and fact check—so you may have only one chance to be understood.

Feature article:

These longer pieces posit a particular concept—a thesis—and support that concept with quotes and anecdotes from a much larger number of sources than a news story.

Profile:

These stories tell the science of a single person (and more rarely a place) through the recollections of people who have worked with, mentored, or inspired that scientist.

Fact checking:

Reporters will ask to read back (or email) the facts stated in the article to make sure they are accurately portrayed. This is not, however, an opportunity to change quotes, or the focus of a story.

The rules of engagement

You’re always on the record

“It is the responsibility of the scientists to know what the rules are.” —Natalie Angier, New York Times science columnist

If scientists choose to speak to a reporter, everything they say can be published, and it’s the journalist’s prerogative to choose which portions of the interview to include in a story. The law of free speech gives reporters the right to publish what they hear. This concept could be unfamiliar to many scientists, says David Mooney, a bioengineer at Harvard University. “Scientists routinely talk to each other off the record to kind of exchange ideas in a very informal way, where there’s no sense that these ideas will ever become public,” he says. “It’s an integral part of the scientific process.” Printable information can even include data divulged in conference presentations, but each meeting typically has a unique confidentiality policy, if members of the press will be present. This can vary widely, so it’s best to know the ground rules for the conference at which you’re presenting.

No, seriously—you’re on the record

It’s possible to ensure that some portion of an interview is off the record (see definitions), but scientists have to go about this a specific way. Simply saying, “it’s off the record,” isn’t enough, says Carolyn Foley, a lawyer who specializes in media and communications law at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in New York. “You need to get the reporter’s agreement,” preferably in writing, but verbal agreements are okay. You must first say you want to speak off the record and obtain the reporter’s agreement, before sharing sensitive information. “It is the responsibility of the scientists to know what the rules are,” says New York Times science columnist Natalie Angier. You can’t talk to a reporter and then “suddenly negate the whole conversation,” by saying that it was off the record. The reporter is still allowed to use that information. Don’t “talk to a reporter like you’re talking to a friend,” says Foley. “Even if you have a good rapport with them, the journalist is free to use the information.”

Don’t hype or overstate

Every journalist’s primary objective is to entice the reader to care and to continue reading. Part of that equation with science stories is spelling out the major finding and implication of the research—either for the general public or for a general scientific audience. Take extra care when talking about the relevance of a finding. Be aware that, to the reporter, these may be the most important two sentences you say, so take care to include all of the relevant caveats. According to MIT’s Langer, “it’s natural to get excited about your science,” but it’s important to be conservative about your predictions for the human implications. “You don’t want to give false hope,” he says.

It’s your science, but it’s their story

You can try to guide reporters to the parts of your science that are most important, you can emphasize your main points, but in the end, “once I walk away with these notes, that’s my work product and it’s my job to come up with an account of this conversation,” says Robert Krulwich, cohost of Radiolab, a public radio show about science and philosophy. Some outlets allow scientists to read a draft of the piece to check for errors, while others have strict policies that prevent a reporter from showing any part of the draft. Except in the most extenuating circumstances, these policies are typically non-negotiable.

Have a comment? E-mail us at mail@the-scientist.com

Read more: Why Trust A Reporter? – The Scientist

A arte do (des)encontro

23/06/2010Uncategorizedciência, comunicação científica, jornalismorenzotaddei

Parceria entre cientistas e jornalistas em prol da cultura científica ainda está distante

Mariluce Moura, de Madri e Brasília
Pesquisa FAPESP, Edição Impressa 172 – Junho 2010

Ainda que jornalistas sejam na origem generalistas por definição, hoje estão se acumulando as evidências de que os profissionais do jornalismo científico em toda parte – e não apenas nos países de tradição anglo-saxônica – investem mais e mais na estratégia do aperfeiçoamento contínuo para exercer seu ofício com o necessário rigor, espírito crítico e, claro, um grau de conhecimento indispensável do campo que é objeto de suas narrativas. Nessa busca valem tanto os caminhos tradicionais da pós-graduação que permitem refletir e investigar com apoio teórico e mais profundamente sua própria prática quanto as oficinas e workshops de caráter mais pragmático que se propõem, por exemplo, a ampliar em curto prazo a competência dos jornalistas no manejo das bases de dados de produção científica, na separação do joio e do trigo – diga-se, ciência e pseudociência – dentro da vastidão da web e nas vias de articulação possíveis e eficazes entre redes sociais e jornalismo, entre outros temas. E é possível que essa tendência se expanda, com novos apoios institucionais, a julgar por uma das principais recomendações do seminário “A cultura e a ciência narradas pelos jornalistas: desafios e oportunidades”, realizado de 20 a 22 de abril passado, em Madri: dar alta prioridade à formação e ao aperfeiçoamento contínuo dos jornalistas voltados para a ciência e a cultura, ampliando-se os mecanismos de bolsas e outras formas de financiamento para tanto nos países ibero-americanos.

Depois de dois dias e meio de debates intensos levados a cabo por quase meia centena de jornalistas, professores, pesquisadores e produtores culturais da Espanha e de vários países da América Latina – o Brasil entre eles –, essa recomendação, assim como a de procurar as conexões entre cultura, ciência e tecnologia no jornalismo, a de se adaptar o trabalho jornalístico aos novos formatos que a internet oferece e a de formar uma ampla rede de cooperação de jornalistas de ciência e de cultura na web, tinha o respaldo das instituições por trás do seminário. Eram elas a Organização dos Estados Ibero-americanos para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura (OEI), por quem falou seu secretário-geral, Alvaro Marchesi, e a Fundação Novo Jornalismo Ibero-americano (FNPI), representada por seu diretor-geral, Jaime Abello, com o apoio da Agência Espanhola de Cooperação para o Desenvolvimento (Aecid), da Agência Efe e Escola de Jornalismo UAM-El País.

Vale dizer que essas recomendações consensuais foram construídas a despeito de toda a diferença entre as experiências de jornalismo científico e cultural apresentadas e mesmo das divergências conceituais profundas que se explicitaram. Assim, se para alguns jornalistas a internet e a democratização da produção de conteúdos via web representam uma ameaça à própria existência de sua profissão, para outros, como o diretor adjunto do respeitado jornal espanhol El País, Gumersindo Lafuente, constituem um belo desafio à quase reinvenção do jornalista. “Nossa narrativa foi sempre conectada com a realidade e hoje a realidade está nas ruas e está na rede. Como jornalistas, temos que contar o que se passa também na rede”, disse ele. Observou que não estamos mais em tempo de esperar que as pessoas vão em busca dos meios de comunicação, e sim em tempo “de irmos com nossas histórias aos lugares em que se está falando dos temas que tratamos na internet”. Lafuente destacou que mais que nunca é fundamental o papel do jornalista independente, capaz de filtrar o que tem valor e de contrastar a informação no mar fervilhante da internet. E ainda apostou que, como num ambiente darwiniano, “as plataformas da internet que tenham qualidade, sejam blogs ou twitters, se converterão em marcas, enquanto os meios que já são marcas só vão sobreviver se conservarem sua qualidade”.

Divergências também se levantaram em torno da propriedade ou impropriedade de um caráter mais literário nas narrativas do jornalismo científico. Se para María Ángeles Erazo, diretora do Centro de Estudos sobre Ciência, Tecnologia, Sociedade e Inovação de Otovalo, no Equador, e Liliana Chávez, jornalista da revista mexicana Día Siete, é necessário hoje experimentar novos gêneros para contar de forma atraente e mais literária fatos do campo da ciência, a jornalista Milagros Pérez Oliva, professora da Escola de Jornalismo UAM-El País e ombudsman de El País, vê nessas tentativas “um perigo para o jornalismo e seus profissionais, além de uma contaminação narrativa”, uma vez que “a linguagem jornalística é objetiva”.

A propósito, Milagros, ao participar no dia anterior da mesa-redonda sobre “divulgação do conhecimento científico e as indústrias da ciência” (que incluiu a apresentação sobre a experiência de Pesquisa FAPESP), observara que “a notícia científica tem um grande valor quando bem elaborada, porque gera opinião e conhecimento, mas é a mais arriscada quando malfeita e tendenciosa porque pode provocar danos sociais pelos quais vamos todos pagar”. Em sua visão as portas do jornalismo estão cada dia mais abertas para a pseudociência, o que exige, em especial na informação digital, contenção e comprovação.

No meio das discussões pairava alguma coisa da fala do professor José Manuel Sánchez Ron, catedrático de história da ciência na Universidade Autônoma de Madri, na conferência inaugural do encontro. “Cultura e ciência são parte da vida intelectual, mas entre elas existe uma mútua incompreensão, hostilidade e antipatia.” Os meios de comunicação, além de informar, em sua visão, devem educar ao tratar da ciência – com o que dificilmente algum jornalista concordará em termos estritos. “O jornalista, além de crítico e rigoroso no desempenho de sua função, não deve renunciar à imaginação e à boa escrita, para fazer da ciência precisamente algo interessante e oportuno”, disse ele. E ainda: “É importante escrever bem, com graça e originalidade quando se fala de ciência”.

Silêncio e ruídos – Se no front dos jornalistas e dos cursos de comunicação há visível preocupação com a qualidade do jornalismo científico, há indícios de que dentro do sistema nacional de ciência e tecnologia a ideia de parceria com os meios de comunicação para difundir a cultura científica na sociedade, que parecia vicejar no começo da década, experimenta hoje retrocesso. Assim, na IV Conferência Nacional de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, realizada de 26 a 28 de maio em Brasília (ver reportagem na página 26), evento em que se procurou ressaltar ao máximo as parcerias entre a comunidade científica, o Estado, os empresários e os chamados setores sociais, para o desenvolvimento de uma verdadeira sociedade do conhecimento no país, o papel da mídia foi ignorado, mesmo quando se falava em popularização da ciência. Entre todos os debates, reservaram-se apenas 15 minutos à fala de um jornalista, aliás, uma jornalista, a presidente da Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Científico (ABJC), Cilene Victor, dentro da sessão “Construção da cultura científica”. Vale lembrar que na II Conferência Nacional, em 2001, sob o comando do ministro Ronaldo Sardenberg e organização do professor Cylon Gonçalves, foram várias as mesas que debateram a questão da comunicação pública da ciência com mediação do jornalismo.

Dessa forma, parece voltar à cena, de certa maneira, uma velha visão meramente instrumental do jornalismo ante a ciência, o primeiro submetido à segunda, em vez de uma visão mais contemporânea de parceria para a difusão social do conhecimento.

* A jornalista viajou a convite da Organização dos Estados Ibero-americanos (OEI).

Anthropology and Climate Science Controversies

04/06/2010clima, Incerteza, mídia, meteorologia, mudança climática, poder, previsãoAntropologia, ciência, Clima, Economia, Incerteza, Meteorologia, Mudanças climáticas, Opinião pública, Previsãorenzotaddei

Brad Walters (Mount Allison U.)
Anthropology News (American Association of Anthropology), vol. 51(5):36-37 (May 2010)

Enormous research effort has been invested in the study of climate change. Many scientists reveled in the acclaim that followed last-year’s awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This year, some of these same scientists have faced an onslaught of criticism as a result of a few mistakes found in published reports of the IPCC and leaked emails from an eminent, UK-based science group that revealed an all-too-human side of the scientific endeavor (so-called “climate-gate”).

The editors of the pre-eminent science journal Nature commented that these supposedly explosive revelations would be laughable were it not for their policy consequences. Like many, they recognize that the real scandal has little to do with climate change science, but everything to do with its political ramifications.

The scientific consensus on climate change is rock solid on the most critical issues: greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are now warming the earth’s climate at a rate that is extremely rapid by historical and recent geological standards and this poses increasingly serious risks our well being (Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2010, “U.S. scientists and economists’ call for swift and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,” http://www.ucsusa.org). The evidence for this general conclusion is so broad, diverse and compelling that virtually no reputable scientist doubts it.

Yet, large swaths of the American public and many opinion leaders continue to doubt the reality of climate change. A major reason for this is that the controversies over the credibility of climate science are to a large degree intentionally contrived by people and organizations with vested interests in the economic status-quo and fear of government regulation, particularly members of the oil, gas and coal industries. What we are witnessing today, according to authors James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore (Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming) and George Monbiot (Heat), is a similar but much more ambitious replay of the tobacco industries’ campaign in the 1980s and 1990s to sew doubt about the scientific consensus on the health risks of smoking. These climate deniers understand what many social scientists do: where there is uncertainty in the minds of the electorate, the political cost of inaction falls while the cost of decisive action rises.

These climate controversies raise intriguing questions for anthropologists who may have interests in issues of public knowledge formation, risk perception, and the application of expert and non-expert knowledge in policy making. But, what motivated me to write this column is a different question: do many anthropologists also not trust the credibility of the scientific “experts” on the matter of climate change?

I came to this question as a result of recent exchanges on the Environmental Anthropology (E-Anth) List-serve that revealed a far less solid consensus on the matter than is found within the mainstream climate science community, which is dominated by natural scientists. Specifically, postings by some list members revealed a surprising lack of trust in the credibility of scientific bodies like the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences. Even more troubling was their referencing of scientifically un-credible sources—climate skeptics’ blogs, for example—as the basis for their opinions on the status of climate science.

Anthropologists are not alone in having within their ranks credentialed scientists who espouse views on climate change that are totally unsupportable in any reasonable scientific sense. But is it possible that anthropologists are particularly vulnerable to this kind of anti-scientific way of thinking about the issue? Has the disciplines’ deep emersion in subjects like the social construction of knowledge produced social scientists with so little trust and respect for the work of natural scientists that they won’t (or can’t!) distinguish between peer-reviewed research and politically-motivated blog postings?

There is a point reached—and we are now well passed it in climate science—where theoretical arguments and empirical evidence are so overwhelmingly compelling that positions contrary to the scientific consensus are simply untenable. Perhaps it is time for the AAA to step-up as a body and officially state their position on this most critical of issues.

Uma (in)certa antropologia

An (un)certain anthropology