The Panda's Thumb: Science journalism panel

Navigation

Disclaimer

Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Recent Trackbacks

Recommend this entry to a friend

Site Traffic

Science journalism panel

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on February 20, 2005 04:02 PM

We often complain about the awful state of science journalism. Turns out there's a panel discussion on the subject in Washington D.C. on Sunday, and the public is all invited. (On the panel, one of my favorite science writers, Reason's Ronald Bailey.)

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/835

Comment #17124

Posted by steve on February 20, 2005 05:43 PM (e) (s)

Is Ronald Bailey the guy who claims Global Warming is a myth?

Comment #17146

Posted by Danny on February 20, 2005 10:06 PM (e) (s)

One of my favorite science journalists, Chris Mooney (http://www.chriscmooney.com/…), will be attending it too. And he’s not a Global Warming myther. :p

Comment #17531

Posted by EmmaPeel on February 22, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

Chris Mooney says that John Marburger gave a forthright statement AGAINST ID!

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about “Intelligent Design” (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin’s theory of descent with modification. The White House’s chief scientist stated point blank, “Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.” And that’s not all — as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, “I don’t regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic.”

Good for him!

Comment #17663

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 23, 2005 10:28 AM (e) (s)

Marburger has held that opinion for some time — he said as much last year on NPR (Diane Rehm? Fresh Air?)

How much influence does he actually have over science policy in the Bush administration? What are the chances Sen. Santorum would pay any attention to him?