| Guardian science blogs: We aim to entertain, enrage and inform Alok Jha introduces the new Guardian science blogs network, and our science blogging festivalIt's nearly the end of summer holidays, and there are plans afoot in the blogosphere.You would not know it from general media coverage but, on the web, science is alive with remarkable debate. According to the Pew Research Centre, science accounts for 10% of all stories on blogs but only 1% of the stories in mainstream media coveage. (The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism looked at a year's news coverage starting from January 2009.)On the web, thousands of scientists, journalists, hobbyists and numerous other interested folk write about and create lively discussions around palaeontology, astronomy, viruses and other bugs, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, evolutionary biology, extraterrestrial life or bad science. For regular swimmers in this fast-flowing river of words, it can be a rewarding (and sometimes maddening) experience. For the uninitiated, it can be overwhelming.The Guardian's science blogs network is an attempt to bring some of the expertise and these discussions to our readers. Our four bloggers will bring you their untrammeled thoughts on the the latest in evolution and ecology, politics and campaigns, skepticism (with a dollop of righteous anger) and particle physics (I'll let them make their own introductions).Our fifth blog will hopefully become a window onto just some of the discussions going on elsewhere. It will also host the Guardian's first ever science blog festival - a celebration of the best writing on the web. Every day, a new blogger will take the reins and we hope it will give you a glimpse of the gems out there. If you're a newbie, we hope the blog festival will give you dozens of new places to start reading about science. And if you're a seasoned blog follower, we hope you'll find something entertaining or enraging.We start tomorrow with the supremely thoughtful Mo Costandi of Neurophilosophy. You can also look forward to posts from Ed Yong, Brian Switek, Jenny Rohn, Deborah Blum, Dorothy Bishop and Vaughan Bell among many others.In his Hugh Cudlipp lecture in January, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger discussed the changing relationship between writers (amateur and professional) and readers.We are edging away from the binary sterility of the debate between mainstream media and new forms which were supposed to replace us. We feel as if we are edging towards a new world in which we bring important things to the table – editing; reporting; areas of expertise; access; a title, or brand, that people trust; ethical professional standards and an extremely large community of readers. The members of that community could not hope to aspire to anything like that audience or reach on their own; they bring us a rich diversity, specialist expertise and on the ground reporting that we couldn't possibly hope to achieve without including them in what we do.There is a mutualised interest here. We are reaching towards the idea of a mutualised news organisation.We're starting our own path towards mutualisation with some baby steps. We will probably make lots of mistakes (and we know you'll point them out). Where we end up will depend as much on you as it does on us.BloggingDigital mediaAlok Jhaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
'Gadget Guy' offers business insight The ABC's technology correspondent, Peter Blasina, will be in Broken Hill today to help celebrate Small Business Month. abc.net.au |
Fuel Economy for Heavy Trucks Anticipation of the federal government's first-ever rules on fuel economy for heavy trucks is stimulating some new thinking about technology and about saving money. feeds.nytimes.com |
Space double: Astronaut twins to join up in orbit By MARCIA DUNN 2010-10-10T03:35:47ZCAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- The stars may have finally aligned for the world's only space sibling team.... hosted.ap.org |
Where are the women in the 'population control' debate? Stabilisation of the global population to allow for truly sustainable development cannot be done by ignoring or impoverishing women. Guest post by '@naomimc'.Charles Coven wrote recently in the Sunday Times of the green dividend to the child benefit cut. Put simply, less benefits will result in fewer children and therefore less consumption and while this is not the aim of the cuts it is unintentionally "greening" the benefits system. While there has been much written about the disproportionate impact on women of benefits cuts, particularly child benefit, the 'population control' debate is remarkably devoid of women. You know, the ones that are having the babies.The green movement is often, wrongfully, accused of misanthropy. "They care more about trees than people", screech the professional oppositionists. But the obsession with population control by a minority of greens opens them up to very legitimate accusations of authoritarianism, 'classism' (i.e. it's the poor we want to stop having babies) and gender-blindness. It is a paradigm dominated by elite men which spectacularly misses the point and ignores the evidence that actually protecting sexual and reproductive rights and empowering women to control their own fertility results in lower birth rates and importantly, lower death rates.No one who works in maternal and reproductive health talks of 'population control'. For historical and contemporary reasons it is associated with eugenics, China's one-child policy, forced sterilisation and forced abortion. These morally abhorrent examples might be dismissed as extremes but they are simply the results of a way of thinking about reproduction which is coercive and rejects individual rights as fundamental to public policy.Respecting, protecting and fulfilling women's sexual and reproductive rights, such as the right to sexual health education, access to contraception and safe and legal abortion, as well as gender equality which enables women to refuse sex and insist on contraception, is what drives down birth rates. An approach that is focused on reducing maternal mortality and morbidity seeks to enable women to decide on the number and spacing of their pregnancies and when they can do that – lo and behold – they have fewer of them.This is a long-established approach in international public health policy. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994 was a significant milestone in population and development and produced a Programme of Action that had reproductive rights at its core. It didn't all start in 1994 but built on the international population conferences dating back to the 1970s.The Programme of Action addresses issues relating to population, the environment and consumption patterns but states categorically that: "...advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programmes."So why are population control advocates so silent on women's rights?Charles Coven cites the Big Men of the environmental movement including Sir David Attenborough, Jonathon Porritt, James Lovelock and The Prince of Wales, as proponents of population decline in the UK. He doesn't mention those who work in international healthcare such Dr Gill Greer, head of International Planned Parenthood International, who in a speech to the UN General Assembly earlier this year said:"When the poorest and most marginalised people are able to access comprehensive family planning services, the impact on their families' lives is even more noticeable. The health benefits are also compelling, particularly in high fertility countries, where investment in family planning can reduce hunger and prevent nearly a third of all maternal and ten percent of child deaths. When children's deaths decrease their parents are likely to choose to have fewer children –if they have the means to do so. Furthermore, meeting the unmet need for voluntary family planning will help to enable many of the world's poorest people and communities to be more resilient as climate change further erodes scarce resources."Nor is there mention of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia who launched Africa's Women's Health Commission, which calls for healthcare to be based on equity and human rights.Climate change is undeniably the biggest threat we have to deal with as a global population. Indeed, the impacts of climate change are, and will continue to be, most greatly felt by the world's poor, the majority of whom are women. But the urgency of the situation must not result in authoritarian solutions or debates. Regardless of the moral argument, we lack an evidence base that shows that economic penalties or the marginalisation of women's rights will restrict population growth, in fact quite the opposite. Population control is the wrong framing of this debate and only serves to further disenfranchise women, socially and economically. Cutting child benefit may or may not reduce the numbers of births in the UK, but it will impact on women's economic status. Give women greater control over their fertility and on a population level they will choose to have fewer pregnancies. By refusing to analyse the impacts of population control measures on the poor and on women, those environmentalists who advocate population control and financial penalties for those with children, open themselves up to accusations of a callous disregard for the lives of women. Our end goal is the same – a stabilisation of the global population to allow for truly sustainable development. This cannot be done by ignoring or impoverishing women.This is a guest post by @naomimc, who can be found on Twitter here. Martin Robbinsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |