| Faith in science is not enough – people deserve proof | Alom Shaha Education must be at the heart of science communication, or else we are simply asking people to 'believe'I am an evangelist. But instead of spreading the gospel or any other religious message, I spend my time trying to share the knowledge of what I believe to be humanity's greatest cultural achievement: science. There is a more mundane term for what I do – "science communication". It's a horrible term, smacking of exactly the kind of thing that turns some people off science. It covers a wide range of activities – from science film-making to working for medical-research charities to going into schools and throwing liquid nitrogen around in a desperate attempt to convince teenagers that "science is fun". Funnily enough, it's not used to describe those who teach science, even though science teachers arguably do more "science communication" than anyone else.The UK's best known science communicator is probably Professor Brian Cox. He's doing a great job of making science seem cool and sexy to the public and, in my opinion, deserves the accolade of modern-day Carl Sagan for his contribution to the cultural status of science. I've known Brian for years and worked with him before his celebrity status went supernova. I would love to say "I told you so" to all the TV commissioning editors who rejected my suggestions to use him as a presenter. I suspect Brian finds it as ironic as I do that TV companies now regularly put out adverts looking for "the next Brian Cox".As much as I love Brian's work, I don't think we need any more like him at the moment. Instead, we need more really good science teachers, and here's why: I don't want to see science become something that people "believe" is important and cool and sexy without understanding why. I don't want people to mindlessly buy into the geek scene in the same way that they might have bought into the alternative lifestyle scene, had they encountered it first in the right circumstances. But that's what I've seen happening – people attending the lectures, events and festivals organised by "science communicators" and going home convinced that science is the "right" way to look at the world, without really understanding why science is special. I've encountered people who are desperate to hang out with the science in-crowd (yes, there really is such a crowd), and even "science communicators" who struggle to explain what it is they think is special or important about science. When I ask them why they want to be science communicators they invariably talk about wanting to share their love of science with the world. Perhaps this is not so different from people who want to share their love of Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna.It seems to me that many of these people are looking for an identity, something to believe in, and they've "found" science in much the same way that others find religion or spirituality. Some of these science groupies are scarily reminiscent of the kids who were in the Christian Union at school.As a child, it would frustrate me that my friends would bang on about how great Islam was and how the Qur'an was this amazing book with the Truth in it – when they had little idea what the Qur'an really said or what the details of the Islamic faith were. Recently, I've been feeling a disconcertingly similar sense of frustration when talking to people who are part of the "sceptic" movement, or the geek scene.Sure, science by its very nature requires us to take things on faith – we cannot individually verify every scientific statement ever made, heck, few of us know how to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way round, but without ensuring that education is at the heart of science communication, we are simply asking people to "believe" in science. If we can't do better than that, than we're no better than the religious leaders that so many self-proclaimed geeks are contemptuous of.I have encountered priests who seemed simply to want to increase the numbers of their flocks, and I've met others who genuinely want to pass on their understanding of god. There is a parallel with science communicators – there are ones who think that getting people to believe "science is fun / important" is what matters and there are others who want people to understand why this is so. It's a subtle but important distinction – the latter is more difficult to do and my feeling is that the best place to do it is in the classroom.My friend Jonathan Sanderson, a science communicator I admire hugely, has pointed out that it looks like I am advocating a return to the "empty vessel" model of communication. I'm not sure he's wrong, but I'd happily concede that, particularly with adult audiences, we need a range of approaches, from saying "this is how the greenhouse effect works" to "take a look at this, you might find it interesting". But Jonathan agrees with me that, "most science communicators would have a dramatically larger impact over their lifetimes if they quit the scene and took teaching jobs". I'm not disparaging the good work that many science communicators do, but some of the most talented, creative people I know work in this peculiar field and I just wish more of them would aspire to become teachers instead of dreaming of becoming the next Brian Cox.Science policyScienceReligionAlom Shahaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
For the Coda, a Preface in Washington The Coda is supposed to go nearly four miles on a kilowatt-hour; at the average electric generating station in the United States, that would mean emitting about 0.375 pounds of carbon dioxide a mile. feeds.nytimes.com |
Hyperactive children may suffer from genetic disorder, says study Report claims ADHD could be more of a neurodevelopmental condition than a behavioural problemParents of hyperactive children should not be blamed for failing to bring up their offspring properly, according to scientists who today publish evidence that the condition is genetic.Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) find it hard to concentrate and can be wild and uncontrollable both at home and at school. Controversy has raged around the drug most widely used to calm such children, Ritalin, which is of the amphetamine family. In the US, such drugs became popular among families who wanted their lively (non-ADHD) boys to do better in class, while in the UK they were tagged chemical coshes. Meanwhile, parents have often tacitly been blamed for lack of discipline or giving their children a sugar and additive-laden diet.But today the furore around ADHD moves into a different space. Researchers, funded not by drug companies but by the Wellcome Trust and other bodies, are publishing the results of a study which for the first time identifies genetic changes in children diagnosed with ADHD.And the particular DNA markers they found are in the same area of the brain as genetic variants linked to autism and schizophrenia. That means, say the authors of the paper in the Lancet, that ADHD would be better classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder than a behavioural problem."We hope that these findings will help overcome the stigma associated with ADHD," said Professor Anita Thapar from the MRC Centre in Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics at Cardiff University, one of the authors."Too often, people dismiss ADHD as being down to bad parenting or poor diet. As a clinician, it was clear to me that this was unlikely to be the case. Now we can say with confidence that ADHD is a genetic disease and that the brains of children with this condition develop differently to those of other children."One in 50 children is affected by ADHD, and while it used to be thought that they grow out of it, many continue to have problems in adult life.A genetic link has been suggested for some time, but not proven. Past investigations have shown that ADHD is more likely in a child who has a parent that suffers from the disorder, and that if one twin has ADHD, the other twin has a 75% chance of also having it.But the study has found the first direct evidence by analysing DNA samples from 366 children diagnosed with ADHD, aged five to 17, and 1,047 children without the condition. They found the children with ADHD were more likely to have certain small segments of DNA either duplicated or missing than the other children. Although this finding was limited to 16% of all the children with ADHD, they say it is highly likely the rest have other genetic variants that have not yet been identified.The researchers point out that they have not found a single gene that is responsible for the condition, and environmental circumstances will also be part of the picture – although as yet they do not know what those are. "ADHD is a very complex disorder which will have a number of different causes. A number of different genetic factors will be involved along with other, non-genetic factors," said Dr Kate Langley, another of the authors.The findings will not be used for diagnosing ADHD, they add, but they result in new treatments. The stimulant drugs most commonly used to control the symptoms have been around since the 1950s.ADHD support groups warmly welcomed the findings, which they said would make life easier for families."This is indeed extremely welcome news of clear evidence to confirm that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is indeed a brain development disorder with closer links to autism than was previously thought," said Simon Hensby of Adders, an online information organisation."I hope this will be a welcome relief to the many families who have to face criticism and ridicule on a daily basis, when trying to explain the behaviour of their ADHD child. I hope also that many adults with ADHD will feel much better knowing that their condition wasn't something to do with their upbringing or diet."Extremely low self esteem is probably the biggest common factor in those diagnosed with ADHD, both children and adults. Now we can point to proof that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Let us hope that this leads to a better understanding and treatment for children and adult sufferers alike."Sheena Crankson, who has been diagnosed with ADHD herself and whose 13-year-old son Jesse has the condition, said that people blamed her all the time. "So many parents will have been told it's them, for years, in spite of the fact that your child is struggling and their self-esteem is going down and down and your self-esteem is too," she said.Crankson, who lives in New Maldon, Greater London, once took her son to an NHS sleep and behaviour clinic, even though, she said, "we should have been upstairs talking to the psychiatrist about ADHD". The nurse she saw "said I think most of it is your fault". Crankson added: "I felt worse by the time they'd finished than when I went in."She is trying to get her son, who also has other problems, a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder because, she said, ADHD is not taken seriously enough.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorderChildrenHealthNeuroscienceSarah Boseleyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Telescope site to be protected from radio interference The communications regulator is preparing to introduce legislation banning the use of certain radio frequencies in an area of Western Australia earmarked for a major astronomy project. abc.net.au |
The International Space Station: a giant science laboratory The experiments that can only be conducted in spaceThe International Space Station arose when the US, Russia and other countries merged plans for independent space projects in 1993. The Russian Zarya (Star) module was the first to be lofted into orbit in November 1998.The station was designed as an orbiting science laboratory and researchers have already carried out more than 400 experiments on board.Science on the space station follows broad themes, including human research, biology, physics and materials science, technology, earth and space research and education.Humans are affected by weightlessness and cosmic radiation in space, so many projects look at bone and muscle wastage, heart function, the behaviour of genes, and how the nervous and immune systems react to life in orbit.The outside of the European Columbus module is used to expose organisms to the harsh environment of space. Experiments with lichen have found they survive well, despite the vacuum and constant bombardment of cosmic rays and UV light from the sun. Other experiments are investigating how plants and other organisms use gravity to decide which direction to lay down roots.The space station is a major base for Earth observation. Cameras on board monitor crop growth, atmospheric greenhouse gases and lightning strikes.In February next year, the space shuttle is set to deliver a piece of equipment called the alpha magnetic spectrometer. The giant drum-shaped device will survey the skies to answer questions such as: where do cosmic rays come from? Are there far away galaxies made of antimatter? And what is dark matter made of?International space stationSpaceNasaEuropean Space AgencySpace technologyIan Sampleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |