To wiki or not wiki

That is the question, or at least a question. Running in the circle of graduate students and university professors, I hear a lot about how bad wikepedia is and how little value it has as a resource. However, I recently got to hear some rather die hard music fans discuss wikipedia and they had a much different opinion of the site. In general, they were impressed with the depth of information available on the site, how fast errors get corrected and how potentially inaccurate information get the, "citation needed," tag to raise a red flag for viewers of the page.

So, why the discrepancy between the two points of view? I suppose you cold write it off as the difference between some ivory tower intellectual snobs on one hand and a bunch of uncritical fanboys on the other. I do not think it is that simple. The academics are looking for by lines and some form of accountability for the content they view online. The music fans are interested in finding out more about their favorite bands and getting a more complete picture of the people in those bands. The different goals lead to much different views of the value of wikipedia.

When all else fails, look to motive. The academics are looking to pad their CV and to secure positions in academia. Contributing to or using wikipedia is not going to help them in their quest. On the other side, looking to fanboys for motive is missing the point. Look to the bands they are following, they have a motive to get their image and music out there as much as possible. A wealth of online content could help them in that endeavor.

The mixed motive behind commercially oriented wikis like wookieepedia and other large wikis hosted by wikia.com may indeed be inadequate. There is a serious component that is just that there are people out there who love to discuss their hobbies. Be it marvel comics, recipes, genealogy or that massive time waster world of warcraft, some people just love to carry on about the things that occupy their spare time.

The idea behind wikis has been put to some good use to create collaborative history projects and school related wikis for various purposes. Also, some wikis have been set up for groups that are not great in number or media access, such as a neopagan wiki or a traditional witchcraft one. So with all this wiki rambling, is there any kind of conclusion I can draw from this? I would say that wikis can be used as a learning tool, a way for virtual communities to come together and for commercial properties to promote themselves. For a more serious version of wikipedia, check out citizendium. Personally, I think that wikis are good sources for information that you are curious about, but it really doesn't matter if the answer is right.

Q&A with Dr. Kirsten Sanford of This Week In Science

Dr. Sanford is the founder and co-host of the This Week In Science radio program, among other things. To find out more about the scope of her work, . . . you are just going to have to read to the end of the blog entry.

Here, we'll treat this question like it's the first day of a graduate seminar. Could you introduce yourself to the group and talk a bit about your educational background and research interests?

I hold a B.S. in Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology and a Ph.D. in Molecular, Cellular and Integrative Physiology from U.C. Davis, and am a specialist in learning and memory. I originally thought that I wanted to work for Greenpeace and save the whales, but I realized that was more interested in birds. I got a job as an undergraduate working in a lab that dealt with avian learning and memory, and I was hooked. From there I decided to go to grad school and follow my dreams of looking at bird brains, but along the way I realized that I enjoy teaching science more than being in the lab. So, I finished my PhD on bird spatial memory abilities, not with the intention of continuing in academia, but instead of finding new and different ways of talking to the public about science.

Talk about This Week In Science and how you came to be involved in the show.

I am the founder of This Week in Science, a weekly radio show broadcast from U.C. Davis and avidly followed by thousands of fans worldwide via rss feed. TWIS evolved naturally from late night beer-fueled conversations between myself and my friend (and co-founder) Ted Dunning. We used to stay up late at night discussing recent scientific discoveries, and one night I said, "Hey! I know the program director at the campus radio station. Maybe we can do this on the radio." And, the show was born.

What do you hope the impact of TWIS is?

I hope TWIS reaches people who at some point in their lives decided that they "hate science," or that science is "too hard" for them, and gets them to reconsider. I want TWIS to get people excited about science, and tear down the perception that science is only for "scientists." I once received an email from a listener who had quit school for whatever reason. He said that TWIS convinced him to go back to school and get a science degree. That is the best impact I could ever hope for.

This Week In Science actually goes out over the radio waves. Any thoughts about how science and technology are treated in the, "traditional media?"

Technology gets much better treatment than science by the traditional media. Science news if it is found in the traditional media consists of health and medical coverage and news relating to the strange or spectacular. Then, the average coverage consists of a regurgitated press release. Traditional media's lack of support for science is resulting in poorer and poorer coverage. There was a time when all major newspapers had a science section with fantastic writers covering interesting topics, but those days are over.

In addition to podcasting and providing a streaming version of TWIS, you are a blogger, vlogger even. What role do you see, "New Media," playing in facilitating scientific literacy in society in general?

Science is lacking in the traditional media. To get science reporting you have to go to specialized science publications. Newspapers are closing their science sections. CNN dissolved its science department. The future of science media is in new media. I've almost given up on the traditional distributors.
Unfortunately, new media doesn't allow a "mainstreaming" of science information. The information is fragmented, which will make it harder for people to access. Those who want science will find it, but it won't be generally available unless something is done to change the path we are on.

How do you think that increased scientific literacy can improve the functioning of a democracy?

I think that an informed populous is better able to make the decisions necessary for a democracy to function. Along with scientific literacy come critical thinking skills, which are essential for individuals to evaluate the information that surrounds them. If people continue to vote without thinking critically about the issues before them, we will not truly live in a democracy.
Who do you vote for? Why? Do you vote yes or no on a stem cell funding issue? What about water and agricultural regulations? How do you assess the possible options without some amount of knowledge and insight?
I vote for the people I think best represent the interests of the people. Predominantly, that means I vote Democrat, but I am somewhere between a Libertarian and a Progressive. I think the people are best served by a government that functions to protect them from harm. I voted yes on the stem cell funding issue. Water and agriculture regulations depend on the regulation. Fresh water is a scarce commodity, especially in California, and needs to be preserved for both people and agriculture. It is an issue of need, not desire.
I assess the possible options by doing some research. I try to find out who is for and against an option, and why. I talk to people. I read literature. I educate myself as fully as possible, and knowing that I can never fully understand an issue I am not immersed in, I use my best judgment.

Do you think that advancements in science and technology can impair, in any way, the functioning of a democracy?

I think that advancements in science and tech so far have benefited the functioning of our democracy. Never before have the youth been so involved in government as now in this age of the internet. Basic science led to the development of technology that now allows ever greater sharing of information. With that sharing of information, people are more able to understand the issues facing the government, and to be involved in helping to make decisions in an informed way. That is a real democracy.
The only way that advancing science and technology will impair the democracy is if the people allow the government to use that technology in such a way as to block the will of the people or stifle the people. But, then it will no longer be a democracy.

In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." If you were given an opportunity to talk to him about science, technology and education, what would you say?

I would talk to him about the importance of educating not only the children about science, but also interesting adults in science. If adults find science interesting and seek out science-based events or activities, this interest will be passed on to the children. Children learn from the adult role models around them. When a mother helping her daughter with her math homework (or, insert science for math) says to her daughter, "Oh, I never liked math... math's hard," it instills similar feelings in the child. We need to create a positive environment for science, math, and knowledge in general. When excitement builds around learning, it will only help our nation excel.

On your blog, you declare yourself a Tae Kwon Do black belt. Do you find yourself facing the, "so, you think you can kick my butt," question a lot?

Every once in a while I find myself facing that question. I never have to prove anything because I have bodyguards. Although, I did once kick someone on top of the head just for fun.

Finally, anything important I missed? Any shameless self promos you need to get out there?

In 2005, I was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science Mass Media Science & Engineering. Following the fellowship, I worked as a television news producer at WNBC in New York City with noted health and science reporter Dr. Max Gomez. In late 2007 and early 2008, I expanded my communications work into online video, starring in both On Networks successful series Food Science and Revision3's variety show PopSiren. I also appear regularly on Revision3's Systm, and hosted MacBreak during the PixelCorp's coverage of the 2008 and 2009 MacWorld conference. I am launching my newest online video venture, Science Word, in March, 2009. Additionally, I host Potential Energy, a podcast about alternative energy concerns and solutions, and am a regular guest on both This Week in Media and This Week in Tech. I contribute weekly to Skepticblog.org and to my own blog, KirstenSanford.com, and am looking to launch a new scientific media venture with noted technology pundit, Leo Laporte. These new media efforts initiated my entry into television in 2008. Pending purchase of the pilot, I am slated to co-host a new, skeptical reality TV show called The Skeptologists. I am also reporter-at-large for the Science Channel and a contributor to their recently launched show, Brink, and have appeared on CBS's The Doctors.

I'd like to thank Dr. Sanford for taking the time to chime in with her insights. For those of you out there who are disappointed at the lack of clickable links in the blog entry so far:

This Week In Science

Potential Energy

This Week In Media

This Week In Tech

Skepticblog

KirstenSanford.com

The Skeptologists

Q&A with Derek Colanduno of skepticality.com

Derek Colanduno is one of the hosts of the skepticality podcast. You can find out more about him and the podcast at the skepticality website.

Here, we'll treat this first question like it's the first day of a graduate seminar. Could you introduce yourself to the group and talk a bit about your educational background and research interests?

My education in college was a degree in Computer Science, but it didn't start that way. At first I was a Pre-Med student, then realized that, even though it interested me greatly, I knew I wouldn't have the rigor to follow through with the work that I wanted to do, time, amount of school, etc... I wanted to be a surgeon. When I talked to other surgeons at the time, I realized that I wouldn't make it in the end, so I switched to Computer Science, which was VERY easy for me, my father pushed computers on me since I was around 7 years old, and I learned how to program before there was even a 'real' home computer.

Tell us a bit about skepticality and how you became involved with the podcast.

Podcasting was just me wanting to do what I always wanted to do. Back in college I worked for old-school over the air radio doing engineering and also on-air DJ work. I worked as the engineer for National Sports Radio Network, (which I think was bought by ESPN), and also one of the last privately held Rock stations left, which was an Alternative Rock Station doing late night on-air stuff now and then as a fill-in. Swoopy would come to the studio back then and we'd like to toss on music WE liked, since it was the middle of the night and the boss types were all long asleep. So, when we heard about Podcasting, we had that moment of, "HEY we can do the show we ALWAYS wanted to do!" And since we had tons of Audio/Video equipment already, it was easy to start doing it.

What impact do you hope skepticality will have.

At first when we started our show, we were shocked at how many groups there were out there. We knew about the JREF, and CFI (CSICOP), but had no idea just how many other groups there really were. So, I don't know how much of a hand we had in 'growing' it, as much as giving people who were content that no one else was giving them. So it gave people who thought like us an alternative to what seems to be the mainstream of talk radio, or big media. Something that would speak to people who have always wanted to hear about the information/issues they identify with. That and the world needs more critical thinking in terms of history and science. And that was a big goal of our show when we started. Hope that continues to be the case.

Skepticality is the podcast of Skeptic magazine. Would you care to comment on how critical thinking and scientific literacy are being presented on both, "Traditional Media," and "New Media?"

I think the Skeptical message, when it gets out to the 'Traditional Media', is very much the same as the message on New Media. The big difference is that media is changing quite a bit these days, so things like Podcasts, Blogs, and Online Video are where the younger eyes and minds are going currently. So, hopefully, the Skeptical outlook won't be seen as 'fringe' come 5+ years from now.

How do you think that increased scientific literacy can improve the functioning of a democracy?

Definitely, if you look back at the beginnings of Democracy, it started with some of the first, great, minds of science and philosophy. Learning to think critically, which is what science does, leads you to embrace the power of ideas such as democracy and how laws and countries are run at their roots.

Do you think that advancements in science and technology can impair a democracy?

The only way I can currently see that to be the case, would be when bad people USE the advancements in science and technology in ways to hamper democracy. Such as, blocking access to specific information out on the internet, or controlling messages via censorship. Which, has happened in countries that are not democracies at all. But, I don't see how just the advancement of science and technology would do that on its own.

The word skeptic is a loaded term to some people. How do you define the term and what does it mean to you?

I think if you grab an issue of Skeptic Magazine and turn to the front cover, there is a great definition right there. " Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse "skeptic" with "cynic" and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas: no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are "skeptical," we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: "All I know is that I know nothing." But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendants. In other words, to be human is to think."

In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." If you were given an opportunity to talk to him about science, technology and education, what would you say?

I'd probably have to mention some issues such as internet neutrality, and somehow making it almost impossible to have more push into schools by people who are anti-evolution or anti-science. Not sure what my exact words would be though! :)

Finally, anything important I missed? Any shameless self promos you'd like to get out there?

I think you covered the main points about me. I hope some of your readers will come and check out our show at www.skepticality.com. And also, hope to see some of them at the big Skeptic Track events at North Americas Largest Culture Convention, Dragon*Con!

I would like to thank Derek for taking the time to thoughtfully answer some questions for this blog. While I have not made the trek out to Georgia for Dragon Con, I hear it is quite the event. The fact that the skeptic track of events is just one of more than thirty event tracks at the event give some idea of the scale of the convention. Mr. Colanduno's optimistic view on the future of new media and the gradual rate of change and influence is interesting. To twist an old cliche, "The hand that makes the podcast is the hand that shapes the world." Who knows, it could work out that way.

Q&A with Stephen Barrett M.D. of Quackwatch

Today's Q&A is with Stephen Barrett who runs the quackwatch.org website among many others. Now on the the questions:

We'll treat this first question like it's the first day of a graduate seminar. Could you introduce yourself and talk a bit about your educational background and research interests?

(from quackwatch.org)Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and received the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education.
An expert in medical communications, Dr. Barrett operates 23 Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter); is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His 50 books include The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America and seven editions of the college textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions. One book he edited, Vitamins and Minerals: Help or Harm?, by Charles Marshall, Ph.D., won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public and became a special publication of Consumer Reports Books. His other classics include Dubious Cancer Treatment, published by the Florida Division of the American Cancer Society; Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds, published by Consumer Reports Books; The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods, published by Prometheus Books; and Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, ABC Prime Time, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 radio and television talk show interviews.

Dr. Barrett's Curriculum Vitae can be viewed online at quackwatch

Talk a bit about quackwatch, your 22 other web sites, and why you decided to start them all.

(also from quackwatch.org)I have never been seriously victimized in any way and am a very upbeat person. I grew up in a family atmosphere that placed great value on education, science, and fair play. My interest in quackery began by accident and was not related to any strong feeling on the subject. During the mid-1960s, I read two books that irritated me greatly. One was about the government's struggle to clean up the patent medicine fraud that was rampant during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The other described how chiropractors had achieved legal recognition even though the theory behind their work was nonsense. When I voiced my concern to my local medical society president, he suggested that I organize a committee focused on quackery. Further discussion led us to form a group that was broad-based rather than composed just of medical doctors. The more we looked at, the more deeply I became concerned.
During the mid-1970s, I began writing about what I found and gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor. As I did so, I gradually reduced my psychiatric work until 1993, when I retired so I could spend more time writing about my findings. The original committee, renamed Quackwatch in 1997, has evolved into an informal network of individuals who provide help when asked.

What do you hope the effect of quachwatch and your other sites will be?

We focus on information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. Our activities help people avoid being quacked, save them money, and provide a way to call illegal activities to the attention of law-enforcement agencies.

What role do you think that, "New Media," can play in spreading sound medical information?

They offer a wealth of reliable information free of charge. However, searching with Google is perilous. It is far better to use reliable sites from a trustworthy list. Our Internet Health Pilot site (http://www.ihealthpilot.org) is gateway to trustworthy sites.


As a follow up, is, "New Media," living up to it's potential?

Yes, I believe that people are generally better of as a result.

How do you think that increased scientific literacy can improve the way people utilize the medical resources available in an advanced industrial society?

It should help people make better judgments about who is trustworthy.

How would you respond to the accusation that the medical field is too technical for the average lay person to be able to make sound medical decisions regarding their own health?

Most people need expert guidance, not only because information is highly technical, but also because many sources are not reliable.

In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." If you were given an opportunity to talk to him about science, technology and education, what would you say?

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is wasting scarce research dollars and promoting quackery in many ways. If Mr. Obama had the power to do so, I would ask him to abolish it.

Finally, anything important I missed? Any promos you would like to get out there?

The best source of health information is Consumer Reports on Health newsletter.

I would like to thank Dr. Barrett for helping out with my blog. His answers help shed light on the nature of nature of health care in the United States today. The field is certainly technical enough that an expert's advice is indispensable but there are many disingenuous people out there looking to do little more then separate the desperate and naive from their money. The ability to discern legitimate medical information from pseudoscience is essential and the, "fill in the bubble sheet," style of high stakes testing pushed on educators by No Child Left Behind is not a tool for developing critical thinking. Public schools who produce students with little critical thinking ability and even less ability to critically judge sources of information are only going to make things more difficult for Dr. Barrett and his colleagues who try to get sound information to the public.
The significant number of web sties that Dr. Barrett runs was mentioned in the Q&A, here they all are:
http://www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery)
http://www.allergywatch.org (under construction)
http://www.acuwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.autism-watch.org (guide to autism)
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.casewatch.org (legal archive)
http://www.chelationwatch.org (chelation therapy)
http://www.chirobase.org (guide to chiropractic)
http://www.credentialwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care)
http://www.devicewatch.org (under construction)
http://www.dietscam.org (under construction)
http://www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy)
http://www.ihealthpilot.org (guide to reliable information)
http://www.infomercialwatch.org (guide to infomercials)
http://www.mentalhealthwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing)
http://www.naturowatch.org (naturopathy)
http://www.nccamwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies)
http://www.pharmwatch.org (under construction)
http://www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud)
http://www.chsourcebook.com (consumer health sourcebook)
Now I don't think that Dr. Barrett is a cyber-squatter who is looking to sell off some of these sites for a profit. Rather, this shows the nature of the concerns in this area. It would be almost impossible for one person to be an expert in all these areas, so the expert and their role is here to stay. What is more realistic is more realistic is for a person to be a critical thinker and to be able to evaluate sources of information. Hopefully, sources like quackwatch can make getting sound information easier.

Q&A with Harriet Hall M.D. of skepdoc.info

Today's Q&A is with Harriet Hall M.D., you can find out more about her at her website skepdoc.info.

Now on to the questions and answers:

I'll treat this first question like it's the first day of a graduate seminar. Could you introduce yourself and talk a bit about your educational background and research interests?

My name is Harriet Hall. I’m a retired family physician and also a retired Air Force colonel. I graduated from the University of Washington School of Medicine, did an internship at David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base in California, spent 6 years in Spain assigned as a General Medical Officer, did an Air Force family practice residency at Eglin Air Force Base, and held various assignments as a flight surgeon, family physician and in combination patient care/management positions such as Chief of Clinic Services. Women were in the minority in medicine, the military, the flight surgeon job, and in aviation (I was an instrument-rated private pilot with my own plane). In all these areas I ran into prejudice and had a lot of frustrating and funny experiences which I wrote about in the book I recently published, “Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon.” After retiring, I got interested in alternative medicine and quackery and started investigating and writing about it. I became an editor of The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and a contributing editor to Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazine, an advisor to the Quackwatch website, and a founding member of the Science-Based Medicine blog. My website is www.skepdoc.info.

Talk a bit about your work with quackwatch and the science based medicine blog.

I got started with Quackwatch by participating in its Healthfraud discussion list, where I still contribute regularly and where I have learned a great deal about the health nonsense being marketed around the world. Dr. Barrett asked for a volunteer to look into dubious genetic testing, and I ended up co-authoring an article with him and went on from there. (I had co-authored two articles with him before I ever met him – thanks to the wonders of the Internet). The Science-Based Medicine blog began in January 2008 when Steven Novella invited me and 3 other MDs to collaborate. I write an article there every Tuesday. We try to comment on controversial subjects in medicine, new studies, bogus claims, etc. and we promote the concept of true science-based medicine as opposed to the common conception of “evidence-based” medicine.

What role do you think that, "New Media," can play in spreading sound medical information?

I think it plays a wonderful role. PubMed and reliable resources like the NIH and American Cancer Society websites abound. Wikipedia explains scientific concepts and covers topics not available elsewhere. Quackwatch has been invaluable. We SBM bloggers got frustrated waiting for articles to be published in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and elsewhere, and the blog allows us to respond to issues in a timely fashion and to provide a resource where readers can get “the other side of the story.”

As a follow up, is, "New Media," living up to it's potential?

It’s hard to say, but I’ve seen some encouraging signs. I’ve written skeptical articles about Dr. Daniel Amen and Dr. Nicholas Perricone, and when you google for their names, my articles come up in the first few hits, so consumers researching them will find my critiques. My articles on the blog have been cited or copied on websites as far afield as Malaysia and I’ve gotten fan mail and inquiries from places like Estonia, Sweden, Turkey, Colombia. What is perhaps most encouraging is that people are writing to ask me questions. Sometimes I can direct them to reliable sources. Sometimes there is no reliable information and I can help by producing some reliable information and publicizing it via the Healthfraud discussion list, the blog, the magazines I write for, and the “Swift” newsletter of the James Randi Educational Foundation. For example, I recently wrote a small piece in Swift critiquing the Genewize company at the request of a reader..

How do you think that increased scientific literacy can improve the way people utilize the medical resources available in an advanced industrial society?

The answer to that question is pretty obvious: If the public understands science, they will be able to choose rationally. If they are gullible, they will waste money and risk their health. Consumers don’t understand that under the DSHEA, FDA consumer protection no longer covers medicines marketed as diet supplements. We are wasting taxpayers’ money on nonsense: the NCCAM is paying for research on highly improbable and even previously disproven treatments; the Air Force is teaching battlefield acupuncture. Insurance companies and Medicare are reimbursing for treatments that are not scientifically valid.

How would you respond to the accusation that the medical field is too technical for the average lay person to be able to make sound medical decisions regarding their own health?

The medical field is technical, but patients HAVE to make decisions about their health. They can learn to navigate the media, to recognize the signs of unreliable websites, to look for both sides to every story. On our blog we are trying to provide readers with some of the tools they need to think critically about medical issues and claims.

In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that he would, "restore science to its rightful place.” If you were given an opportunity to talk to him about science, technology and education, what would you say?

I’d ask him to require his medical advisors to read our blog. I’d beg him to de-fund the NCCAM and to repeal DSHEA. I’d point out that even some renowned scientists lack critical thinking skills and fail to truly understand the scientific method. I’d stress the vital importance of critical thinking in every sphere.

I'd like to thank Dr. Hall for taking the time to answer some questions for this blog. I think the medical field is an area that brings into focus the role of the expert in modern society along with the challenges of being an informed citizen of an increasingly specialized world. Personally, I'm still trying to get my mind around the concept of battlefield acupuncture. To give some footnotes for those who may not be up to speed on government alphabet soup:

NCCAM - the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
DSHEA - the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994

Darwin day +7

Well, it's been a week since the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, so I imagine everyone has recovered from their celebrations. Locally, the University of Utah and the Utah Museum of Natural History each had a number of events to mark the occasion. The local PBS station broadcast a two hour NOVA documentary called, "Intelligent Design on Trial." Earlier in the year, the BBC radio 4 program In Our Time had a four part series on the life and work of Darwin. The cool thing about all these things is that they all stimulated thought about evolution and the place of science in society. The down side is that most of this stuff is preaching to the converted. If anybody out there has any good ideas on how to get the commercial media to give more time and attention to science matters, shout them from the roof tops.

To avoid ending on a down note, I'll draw everybody's attention to an article in Tuesday's New York Times that grabbed my attention. It seems that the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology has decided to not hold it's 2011 meeting in New Orleans due to a Louisiana law that opens science classroom to creationism. The amusing thing about the story is the city they decided to move the meeting to . . . Salt Lake City. Take that Mardi Gras town. Salt Lake City, more friendly to science than New Orleans, could be a new city motto.

University of the People

Okay, this is a little far afield from what I want this blog to focus on, but it's an interesting concept in any case. The name of the university alone is great.

Coming April 2009, the University of the People, an online institution that will run on a tuition free model. The idea is to bring the possibility of higher education to those who have been economically or geographically prevented from seeking higher education. Their plan is to use collaborative and open-source e-learning while embracing peer-to-peer teaching under a peer-to-peer pedagogical model. (If that wasn't enough jargon for you, you have a serious problem.) The idea here is to increase the democratization of education by giving better opportunities for upward mobility to those who have limited life chances. Nothing like poverty and geographic isolation to hem a person in. The university will be staffed by volunteers, university faculty, librarians, educators and others. Yes, they will be looking to become accredited as soon as the waiting process has been met.

Shai Reshef is the founder of the University of the People. He has previously worked in online higher education and is the current chairman of the board for cramster.com, an online study community. He was interviewed on APM's Future Tense this week and the University of the People was the subject of a recent article in the New York Times.

And now, my two cents worth on the topic:

It seems that the University of the People might find more success dealing with geographical impairments to higher education than economic ones. It is conceivable that a person who is in a rural area might have the technological resources at their disposal to be successful at an online university. It is more difficult to see how somebody from an impoverished background would be able to overcome the digital divide to utilize this resource. This is not to say I don't think this is a worthwhile effort. I hope the project is a success and they are able to reach out to the thousands of students they hope to serve. What may turn out to the this project's strength may also be where the challenges arise. By relying on volunteers and peer-to-peer cooperation, the university is placing a lot of faith in people's good will. If the volunteer faculty and staff are diligent and the student body both supportive and collaborative, then the school may very well be successful. If the volunteers get busy with other obligations and the students are self absorbed, the whole thing could grind to a halt. I hope the former turns out to be the case and educators in other venues can see how the peer-to-peer pedagogical model has worked and, perhaps, think of ways to use it elsewhere.

There is something to be said about the lingering effects of the colonial era in the fact that this university will carry out all it's classes in English. But that's a rant for another day.