Voorwerpen and more : Science in the public eye 2
Having been gently prodded by Nereid in the comments to my previous post on the topic, I want to say a lot more about scientific reporting. The reason for the delay in this post, by the way, is probably obvious but the screenshot below – which shows the front page of CNN.com yesterday afternoon says it all.
First off, it’s wonderful that we’re getting a new wave of interest in Galaxy Zoo, which is bringing with it a new flood of people eager to start classifying galaxies. The timing is great; we’re hopefully just a week or so away from the launch of Zoo 2 (don’t hold me to that) when there will be plenty more work to go around. However, I feel very, very uneasy about writing about the Voorwerp now; the paper which describes it has only been submitted to the journal, and it doesn’t yet have the stamp of peer review. For some projects, it makes sense to talk about results at this stage; if you have a beautiful picture of a spiral galaxy then you might as well release the picture and leave the details to the experts. But here at least part of the story lies in what we think the object is, and until that gets accepted by the journal we could all end up with lots of egg on our collective face. If I were our friendly (but thorough – as they should be) referee I’d be more than slightly annoyed that the authors of the paper were talking to the press.
So why are we talking to anyone? Because the steady drip feed of stories from journalists who had read our blog (or – better – who were active members of the zoo) was growing into a torrent, particularly in the Dutch media who recognised a fantastic story in Hanny’s discovery, and that rush of attention meant that if we were ever going to talk about this object we had to do it straight away, or risk losing the media’s attention.
So why did we blog the results as we went along? It’s something we’ve tried to do as we’ve gone through the process of converting clicks on the Galaxy Zoo website into science (current scorecard : 2 papers accepted, 2 under discussion with referees, 1 awaiting a response, many more on the way). The reasons for this are at least threefold. Firstly, I’m serious when I talk about the users of our website as our scientific collaborators. What they do makes the science possible, and it’s a matter of simple courtesy to tell them what we’re doing with it, and to recognise their contributions. Secondly, we were very, very excited about the Voorwerp, and to be honest have probably been talking excitedly about it to everyone we’ve come in contact with.
Thirdly, I strongly believe that something that the media are bad at is showing science in progress. If you read mainstream news coverage of science you’ll see a string of discoveries and eureka moments, but this isn’t how things are in reality. The reality of doing science day to day involves talking and arguing and thinking, and it’s in those arguments that the scientific method lurks. If you can’t defend your idea with data, whether talking to a journal’s referee, to your colleagues in the office down the corridor or even to yourself, then it doesn’t survive.
You wouldn’t get that impression from reading the press, or from the science education that schoolchildren receive. In both, there seems to lurk an assumption that science has a big book of facts which we’re slowly adding to by sitting quietly in ivory towers or in the bath and thinking before announcing The Truth to awestruck colleagues and Nobel prize committees.
Not only is this assumption wrong, but it’s dangerous too. The result of the public never seeing scientific disagreement and debate are horrific. Without any understanding of how to question a scientific statement, is it any surprise that the public are confused when scientist A says ‘Vaccines are safe’ and scientist B says ‘they may cause autism’, or when scientist C says ‘Global warming is man made’ and scientist D blames the Sun. Both are speaking with the Voice of Science (TM), but how to distinguish? To me it’s obvious – ask about their data sets, ask what other studies exist, ask what other explanations they considered and how they ruled them out and so on and so on. The public, confused by the sight of scientific disagreement, tends to throw up its arms and conclude that Science has nothing to say on the subject regardless of what the true weight of evidence is.
That’s why I’m a huge admirer of the way that at least my part of science has been moving – toward having data and papers freely available. Want to do your own project with the data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey? Here you go. Want to see the images that the Phoenix spacecraft took yesterday on Mars? Their gallery is updated as the images hit the ground, for anyone who cares to take a look.
Mentioning Phoenix, of course, is what opened this can of worms in the first place. There’s a good summary over at the planetary society of what happens if you think you’ve discovered perchlorate on Mars. Scientist Tom Pike weighs in on his blog, too. I don’t have much to add to that specifically, beyond pointing out that for all the references to ‘internet speculation’ the root of this story was a journalist for a print magazine doing good, old-fashioned journalism.
It’s a storm in a teacup which will soon be forgotten by all except those involved, and, no doubt, a bunch of conspiracy theorists who will see this as a leak from NASA’s otherwise excellent smokescreen which excludes all evidence of little green men from the public eye. I, though, am still angry that NASA and the Phoenix team – who were so open and hospitable to us when we filmed there a month or two ago – had to publicly insist they weren’t hiding anything.
If I had my way, it would be possible to have our arguments about what percholorate means for life on Mars, about what Hanny’s Voorwerp is and everything else right in the public eye. To do that, though, we need to help teach people how to argue with scientists and to argue like scientists. I truly believe that in releasing data fast NASA is helping achieve that, and that by blogging Galaxy Zoo’s journey we can too. Even if we end up talking about things before we’re sure about them.
on August 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
It is not for me to tell any of the staff of GZ how to act or what to do- I would be very much out of my depth. GZ is a tremendous success and will achieve much more of
that I am sure. A beautiful idea by very able scientists.
Is your blog a case of ‘shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted’ ? It is not as if
you can suddenly quieten down any media activity, so that the paper can be looked
at without any prior hype. As you yourself say, you could end up with a lot of egg on
your face.
Being ‘very, very uneasy’ about the meda furore just about hits the nail on the head.
The ‘old’ way of not releasing any info until a paper has been accepted sounds quite
a sensible way to proceed- it is not as if GZ needs publicity.
You do point out that “If I were our friendly (but thorough – as they should be) referee I’d be more than slightly annoyed” by press coverage and the like. What would an unfriendly referee think?
Although Hanny is having the time-of-her-life, I guess, at the mo’, is it really fair
on her? Should one of your main concerns have been protecting her from this onslaught, until at least the paper has been accepted. Imagine the comedown if it
suddenly appears you might be wrong.
The hype at the moment is almost as if a new film or album is about to be released,
whereas the reality is that you have put forward a paper for review in the hope it
maybe accepted. Science and publicity may well have been mixed- for whoose benefit?
Perhaps we are all responsible for this overplay- I gave a talk on it two weeks ago. It’s
just that GZ doesn’t need the coverage really, and anyway deosen’t really have the
numbers of staff to deal with any sudden swelling of members. People’s goodwill only
stretches so far.
So what am I saying? Does GZ need such publicity? Is our Hanny really being treated
as she might? Someone is making money and I guess it is not her. Fame, so I am told, can get really boring and annoying. It seems a bit slack and not-so-well thought out;
perhaps some more experience would have been useful…a more chilled approach to
what could be a tremendous discovery.
Very best regards, Richard.
on August 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Rick,
It is impossible to manage a story like that once it gets out. What one should do is use it the best one can and steer it towards ones objectives. From a GZ point of view it would have been far far better just a few weeks after GZ2.
I sent Hanny a couple of months ago some information on how to handle the media, and I hope it has helped her. I have been trained to handle that sort of thing (and have never had to use it), so I passed on some of the most useful material I had. The hype will pass, the story will fade, Hanny has her month of fame.
Hanny’s Voorwerp is both hers and all of ours, there is probably no right way to have handled it, but there are lots of ways that would have been far far worse.
We should just make the most of it, glory in the few days of fame then get back to real science.
Enjoy.
on August 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hiya Rick
I wasn’t trying to shut the stable door – just noting that it’s open. As you say, what we could have done was not release any information but – for the reasons I discuss in the post – I’d rather write about Galaxy Zoo science as it evolves. I don’t think that any of our users will be surprised if we’re occasionally wrong! I have been very careful to tell everyone I’ve spoken to that what they’re getting is our best guess which has not been peer reviewed. If we’re wrong, we’ll have learnt something and everyone watching will have a better idea of what ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ means in science.
Friendly as a description of the referee was a characterization of our interactions with him (or her) so far.
Please be assured that of course we – and the University press office – are looking after Hanny. The suggestion that we’d do anything she was unhappy with to get publicity is somewhere between worrying and insulting. If she hadn’t wanted any publicity, then we wouldn’t have identified her.
Galaxy Zoo is currently advertising for two full time staff, and has many many projects planned which we’d like as many people as possible to be involved in. We do therefore welcome anything that drives people to the site, and to learn more about astronomy and science. I know you’re frustrated by how long we’re taking to move to the next step – so are we – but we’re doing very well in making sure this situation doesn’t happen again.
Best wishes
Chris
on August 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Oh, and noone is making any money!
on August 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It is good to realise that Hanny is being taken care of- I hope she has tremendous fun. As
for any benefits from the publicity that people might gain, I KNOW that the people involved are good guys.
I think you are wrong when you say no-one is making money. The media is profit- driven and good stories make good copy that people pay for. CNN or the Economist is not suddenly going to donate money to GZ, although their viewers or readers will have seen/read a good article and may well buy the next instalment. Perhaps what you mean is that no-one at GZ is making any money.
All the best, Richard.
on August 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
One of the great things about arXiv preprints is that you can see the effects of the peer-review process for yourself, any time (well, you can if the draft submitted – v1 – and the paper accepted – v2 (or v3, or …) – are both on arXiv). In terms of making this part of how science is done more accessible and understandable, I say three cheers of arXiv!
And there’s more.
Occasionally you come across a preprint in arXiv that has not been published, despite it having been up there for a year or more; and there are preprints there that have never been submitted to a journal! I expect that those at the coalface in the sub-fields of these would almost immediately tell you why (assuming they took the time to read them) … they’re not up to scratch. And that also helps make the doing of science more accessible.
And there’s still even more!
These days it’s not too hard to find out what papers have been published on a particular object, or topic, just use ADS (courtesy of SAO/NASA) for example. In the bad old days you’d have to find a nearby university whose library subscribed to the journals in which the papers you were interested in were published (and maybe find a friendly librarian too); today you can get the paper delivered to your own PC! Sure, you may have to live with the draft submitted for publication (because the authors didn’t put the v2 up on arXiv for example), but that is far better than the alternative.
So in the case of the two papers submitted but not yet accepted, would it be possible to have both the submitted and accepted versions available (once you have received the ‘accepted’ notice)? (not sure if that’s a gentle prod though!)
I’d like to comment further, but that’s enough for now … except to say Hooray for GZ! Long Live Citizen Science!!
on August 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
As a child I was enthralled with space. I did my 3rd Grade project on Astronomy, and later in 5th and 6th grades, my mother took me to the planetarium nearby to observe Jupiter, Saturn and the moon. It was wonderful. As I grew older, I realized that math was not my strongest suit, and that my leanings were elsewhere.
Yet I’ve yearned for space, and have written stories of it–and now Galaxy Zoo lets me participate.
While Hanny’s Voorwerp is something that may “put egg on your faces”, and I’m sure causes no little trepidation, I’m glad that you’ve taken the risk. I’m glad to know that science is in many ways opening the doors to the average citizen.
We can get our hands involved in science…there’s no longer (as much) of a barrier between the average person and “the folks in white lab coats”, and the fact that we can be a part of science is wonderful.
on August 8th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
On a lighter note. I would like to add that I agree with Chris with regards to the way the information has been released. Whichever way this goes, it will stimulate discussion within the scientific community and elsewhere. It has allowed amatuers and enthusiasts alike to join in with the study of this facinating object .
I am sure that Hanny is enjoying her moment of fame and would suggest that many of us would like to be in her current position.
To conclude, I would like to mention the recent influx of new members to the project. Some, or most, of these people may never have discovered Galaxy Zoo were it not for the press coverage of an ‘amateur discovery’, and who knows, a few of these new members may go on to become the great scientists of the future. Tom.
on August 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Just a thought.
Even if the paper is not given the stamp of peer review I wonder if there really will be that much egg on our faces. Huge disappointment certainly especially for the authors but at the very least Hanny has discovered (on behalf of us all) an object which, it is safe to say, had us all very puzzled for a while. That in itself is newsworthy these days. If the Voorwerp turns out to be something ordinary my guess is the popular science coverage won’t follow up the story – it will be history and no great harm will have be done to GZ’s reputation.
Also if the story was gathering its own momentum then, as Chris says, a decision had to be made about “going public” and taking advantage of that interest. Difficult choice but as it is, the publicity generated has increased interest in the GZ project (surely a good thing), Hanny has done a sterling job on our behalf talking to the media and the original GZ citizen scientists must feel as if their contribution really counts.
I know this one does!
Jules
on August 9th, 2008 at 4:29 am
GZ is both a new way to do science and a repackage of the same old way. GZ is new in that we are giving many people the available data and asking for their best judgement based on that data and the very specific training they have been given. GZ is the same old way in that many people based on their training and data available give their best judgement and then those are examined to state the best current understanding. The speed and bandwidth of today’s communication has allowed this to happen. The Forum has become a place to discuss these judgements. As with any scientific discussions, they not only refine the judgements but also lead to learning and more discerning thought on the part of the participants. This information is used by Chris and others along with information gathered elsewhere to present to the established vetting process new theories and discoveries.
Those of us involved are happy to be a part of this process. The feedback that Chris provides to us directly impacts our satisfaction and encourages more participation on our part.
on August 9th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Hi Chris,
I see your points about the media, but consider other points-of-view for a moment.
The “public”, as represented by the various media functions, in general supply the support necessary to do science in some form (taxes, votes, grants, etc.), so are they not due some explaination as to what exciting science thing has just happened ?
Also consider children, who reportedly are not all that interested in science and mathematics these days. What must some of Hanny’s students think of their cool teacher and what a great teaching moment the Voorverp presents. So is it not a reasonable burden on those doing science to add some extra duty explaining what the latest excitement is all about ?
Well, just some thoughts.
Glad to hear GZ2 is near at hand.
Hopefully, I will be done with my re-roofing project shortly and can re-join in the fun.
Regards,
Bill
on August 9th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I like the fact we can all participate in the “What -the-heck-is-that-thing?” speculation. It’s great to bounce ideas (however “out there” they might be) around and be party to the experts ideas theories and hypotheses. Thinking out loud can be very illuminating. The press will always be with us and will never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Keep up the good work Chris.
on August 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Yeah, what Chris said. I spent some time musing to the CNN writer about the “new” world of public science. The interests of the scientists and f reporters push them in opposite directions, and the traditional balance is being reworked when there s a project which makes a point of playing out as much of its workings as possible right our there on the forum and blog. This means that an enterprising reporter can get lots of details at any time, and they like exclusives and scoops. On the other hand, the people organizing the research would like the story to go out when there are enough results to have a nice, well-argued package (as in “suitable for a research paper”). When that happens, the media appetite not to be second with the story means there is a gain in pubic education if it goes out to everybody at once (hence a formal press release). We were dealing with both modes here, and there may be something to be learned for other practitioners of public-based science.
on August 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
It is one of those ironies of modern science in the media that make the intent of your blog, Chris contrary to the message that the Voorwerp has sent to the world. On the one hand you speak of the disagreement and debate which constitutes real science. But the tacit message that has been delivered, whether unwittingly or not, is that the methodical, hard work done by an individual or group of individuals and the intelligent discussion and often heated debate that ensues from the results of that hard work, isn’t what really counts in the scientific community, but rather serendipity and just plain dumb luck is what really matters–which is what the Voorwerp, in point of fact, symbolizes.
Do you think that the recent influx of new members to Galaxy Zoo is due to the fact that all of these people have been some how magically inspired to do the difficult and many times tedious, thankless work required in properly classifying galaxies? Or is it more likely that the publicity of the Voorwerp has given the people who have recently joined Galaxy Zoo the misconceived impression that they too can get lucky, just like Hanny, and can become world famous over night? I’m sure you’re familiar with the medieval philosophical precept “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” otherwise known as Occam’s razor. Now, which do you think is the case?
Where the Voorwerp may have temporarily benefited Galaxy Zoo in terms of increased membership, in the long run, the questions that must be asked are, has quality been sacrificed for quantity and could this blunder be the beginning of the end for Galaxy Zoo.
on August 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Eric,
With all due respect, I think you are missing a great many parts of this social (sociological?) phenomenon.
There are tens of thousands, possibly millions, of people who did well in high school math and science, went on to get a good (Bachelors) degree that included math and physics (and, maybe, astronomy), but ended up earning their crust in jobs that used almost none of their education in these areas.
Too, there are millions who are entranced by the night sky, who click on one part or another of the Hubblesite, who have APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day) as their homepage in their browser, who … Their joy and delight at the scientific discoveries from any number of astronomy/cosmology/planetary science projects is immense; their interest in following alone and joining in is unarguable. For a vignette, ask how many people installed SETI@Home, or who today run Einstein@home, or any of the dozens of BOINC-based grid computing apps.
As someone in the GZ Forum wrote in an Italian blog, GZ is unique in that it allows this enormous pool of passion to be directed to actually *doing* some science, in a Web2.0 way. And this comes through, loud and clear, in the GZ Forum posts on why newbies joined GZ.
Discovering a Voorwerp is undoubtedly great; discovering – again – the innocent visual delights of the universe, courtesy of SDSS images, is its own reward.
(BTW, do you know what the average daily number of hits on just the main APOD webpage is (not counting all the mirror sites)? Shy of a million, but not by much.)
on August 15th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Point well taken, Nereid. And as I get to know some of the newer members, I see that I was wrong in my first comment and that they truly do have have a genuine interest and curiosity about the universe in which we live. It is very exciting to me to see such enthusiasm in such a diverse amalgamation of people. I’ve even noticed that we have some younger astronomers (i.e. teenagers) in our midst, which just thrills me to no end! You must forgive the cynicism of a middle-aged man who has seen more in his years on this planet than he would have liked. I stand corrected.
on August 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
[...] Hanny’s Voorwerp, that odd object discovered by Dutch school teacher Hanny van Arkel via the Galaxy Zoo project, has provoked press reaction all over the world. And Chris Lintott, a key player in the Galaxy Zoo’s ongoing survey of galaxies, notes the uneasiness he feels in discussing theories about the object before the paper that attempts to explain it has even gone through peer review. The speed with which the Internet allows science to be discussed can be disconcerting, as Lintott makes clear in the latest edition of the Space Carnival, conducted this week by David Chandler at his Next Generation site. [...]
on August 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Eric,
I will give some concrete value to the effect of the Voorwerp Press Release on the Merger progress. Over the last few days some 700 people signed up to the Merger Hunt, as a group they had the shortest attention span of any identifiable group joining the hunt. But, and its a big But, a few of them have done an awful lot of work. At least 50,000 clicks are attributable to this event, that is more than 1 click per image (or a Kevin Month in Chris’s terminology). We are still seeing 1,500 to 2,000 more clicks a day than before the Press Release. Those new people will undoubtedly go on the GZ2, GZ3 and beyond.
on October 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 am
[...] Chris Lintott’s Universe » Voorwerpen and more : Science in the public eye 2 [...]