Miss Evolution

One week ago, Alyssa Campanella of California was crowned Miss USA.  The pageant is well known for its interviews in which each candidate is asked a serious of relevant political or social questions.  This year, one of these questions was whether evolution should be taught in schools.  While many of the young women stated that evolution should be taught in schools, very few of these women were in complete favor of evolution (shout out to Miss California and to Miss Vermont who called it a scientific fact).  The rest of the women were more like Miss Maine who stated that both evolution and faith (a.k.a. “both sides”) should be taught in schools, and students should be given the right to choose which idea they want to study.

            While it may be somewhat of a relief that the winner of the pageant believed in evolution and “the big bang theory,” I cannot help but be disturbed by the simple lack of scientific understanding of so many of these young Americans.  One of the more troubling responses came from Miss Kentucky who said it should not be taught in schools because, among other reasons, “scientists have their different theories.”  This is simply wrong.  Not teaching evolution is equivalent to not teaching gravity, after all both are theories.

The women mostly fell back into this usual “evolution is only a theory” argument, meaning that it is not worthy of full merit of consideration.  This belief ultimately comes from a misunderstanding of what science means by theory.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

"The Land Before Time 17" starring Jesus

These women—whether they truly misunderstand, or simply were trying not to upset an American population that misunderstands—did not have a grasp of this basic scientific concept.  Furthermore, they misunderstood evolution itself (likely because some of them have never been taught it in the first place).  Their answers seem to show that they “confused evolution of species with the origin of life.”  Evolution is a process by which species change.  It says nothing about whether or not God created life or the Earth or the Big Bang or anything.  The bottom line is that evolution exists and is not at all somebody’s “imagination” like Miss Washington says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where did this great miscommunication come from?  Why do all these women so openly shirk science in front of a national audience?  Is America really doing this poorly at educating its youth?

The most ardent naysayers will likely never accept evolution.  But if America as a whole was more open and accepting of science, perhaps such displays as this Miss USA Q&A debacle would be more upsetting to our nation’s populace.  As Nisbet writes in his article (“What’s Next for Science Communication?”) much of this problem comes from the way some scientists frame science and religion.  One prominent biologist, Richard Dawkins, argues that science and religion are incompatible.  If this viewpoint is taken, all religious people begin to see science as their enemy.  Instead of this approach, scientists must not view religion as the enemy, just as something entirely different, not as science’s rival in the power of explanation.

For most children, a museum trip is roughly
         the same as an elevator ride.  Buttons!!!

Four years ago, I worked as a volunteer at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History.  One aspect of my job involved using an electronic board to tell people about the many plants and animals that originated in ancient North and South America.  I soon found out that the majority of guests had no interest in my explanation, and had far more interest in pushing the many buttons on the electronic display to make all of the lights flash at the same time.  Does this mean that “real” museums are useless for teaching science and that virtual museums would be better?  No, I wouldn’t say that.  But we must realize that, for much of the population, science and museums represent a sort of interesting diversion, but not real truth.  Dinosaur bones are big and neat to look at, but most people neglect to understand the evolutionary implications that they should be grasping when observing these ancient behemoths.  Unfortunately, many people see science only in this sense of museum-like “wonder” because religion already occupies the position of primary world explainer in their minds.  If teachers wish to engage religious youths with the possibilities of science, they must show that there is room for the two to coexist.  Religion, in fact, could be the tool used to explain the laws of science (isn’t it possible God created evolution?).  Hopefully, in time, we will have fewer people that think belief in science is at all related to moral values (Miss Idaho) and more people that are self-proclaimed science-geeks like our new Miss USA.

Will New Technologies Really Increase the Quality of Journalism?

David Johnson has a strong belief in the potential of a future in which journalism of the people becomes as recognized and accepted as journalism of the “rich white guys” (as he may term it).  In our last class meeting, he expressed frustration in the traditional press’ willingness to bypass stories of greater importance (the many wars and struggles in the Middle East) for constant coverage of the Anthony Weiner debacle.  Although he may foresee an ideal journalistic-democratic society in which important news is covered by those best able to present this information, Johnson is also a realist.  He expressed plainly that people often don’t want to read the most important news stories because they just aren’t interesting.  Unfortunately, when the mainstream press faces this problem, they do not choose to increase the readability of significant information.  Instead, they increase the output of less worthwhile—but perhaps more flashy—content.

I really hope this isn't real.

This trend can be seen with a simple Google search.  The search “Anthony Weiner” on Google under the “News” subcategory returns 22,100 results.  Keep in mind this is a search for a man who no longer is currently a part of the government (after his resignation).  Meanwhile the news searches for Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty only returned 22,040 results combined.  All three of these people are viable candidates for the Republican nominee as the President of the United States.

There is clearly a problem when American journalists are more interested in political scandal than political relevance.  But is the answer to this really to increase the journalistic participation of the public through technology?  Will this increase the quality of our news?  Individual creation of news has been shown to have some promise.  In Iran and Egypt recent political uprisings have gained organizational support from social networking sites, causing some to call them “Twitter Revolutions.”  In Egypt (see below) millions filled the streets to protest Mubarak's government, many inspired by leaders sending messages to organize demonstrations.

My tweets calling for a lunch at Chipotle have never been met with such fervor.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/01/the-twitter-revolution-debate-the-egyptian-test-case/21296/

The above article points out that one simply cannot ignore the effects that online social networks had on these revolutions.  After all, would Mubarak have wanted to shut down the internet if the internet was having no impact on the political uprising?  Nevertheless, the possibilities for twitter's use as an organizational tool, do not necessarily foretell its use as a tool for good journalism.  This article goes on to mention that previous technologies have helped fuel rebellions.  A “texting rebellion” in  Manila and “Fax Revolution” in China did not fundamentally change the quality of journalism.

Perhaps this is an unfair comparison to make.  Texting and faxing may bring speed of transmission, but they are essentially two way messages.  Meanwhile tweets, blogs, and facebook messages do not reach just one receiver; they are immediately available to hundreds, thousands, or millions of news consumers.  And those consumers are out there.  The Pew Report, “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer” points out that on a typical day 61% of Americans get their news at least partially online.

See the report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News/Summary-of-Findings/Overview.aspx

 But, despite Johnson’s wishes, it seems as though most people are still only seeking information rather than creating it.  Although many more internet users contribute to news through links and comments, only 9 percent of internet users have “contributed their own article, opinion piece, picture, or video” in a form of participatory news-making.  I would argue that this means the era of a democratic  journalistic industry is still far away.

However, this does not mean that online social networks are not increasing the quality of news.  I would argue in fact that individual news creation is not even necessary to increase news quality.  Instead, sharing will become the vital component in holding professional journalists accountable for the quality of their material.  The same Pew report states that of the adults that get news online, 75% of them say they “get news forwarded to them through email or posts on social networking sites.”  People often no longer even need to seek out relevant news, it is being delivered to them by their friends on facebook and twitter feeds.  News that is unimportant or not of interest to the readers will not reach an audience, while relevant, quality articles will become more easily accessible as they are spread on social network sites.  In conclusion, the rise of facebook and twitter may not be creating new, better journalists, but they will most definitely be used to spread the work of better mainstream journalists while leaving the work of out-of-touch journalists to flounder in the online abyss.

Can Mobile Phones Alone Solve Development Problems?

In our first class, we discussed the impact that ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) can have on development.  It seems quite obvious that these technologies would be helpful, and sometimes necessary, for development.  For instance, in order for a farmer in a developing nation to know the best technique for raising his crops, he is going to need access to information.  In these modern times, this necessary information is most easily accessible via the internet.  Therefore—without access to the internet—farmers, educators, and health professionals may be utilizing out-dated or less efficient processes which may, in fact, hinder the development of their nations.

I figured out how to put an image in a blog.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ict/graphs/mobile.jpg

While internet use may still be limited in developing countries, mobile phone use is becoming much more prevalent.  As seen on this graph, almost one out of every two inhabitants in developing countries is a mobile telephone subscriber (I’m assuming here they mean adult inhabitants).  In general, cell phones themselves would not be a source of much additional knowledge.  A phone will still only give a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa access to his close contacts (people whose number he knows).  The internet is still necessary to give people far-reaching sources of information.

Yet, it seems that over time, cell phones are becoming more and more similar with computers.  Smart-phones with access to internet, although more expensive than your run-of-the-mill flip-phone, are becoming increasingly prevalent in developed countries.  As the older phones are phased out and smart-phones become the norm, being a cell-phone user may become synonymous with having portable internet access.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/cell-phones-mobile-devices-iphones-save-lives-poor/story?id=13805616

This recent article on the abc news website (link above) describes how cell phones are used for in the process called “mhealth” by which health information is accessible in developing countries (in regions such as Africa) via specially developed applications on mobile phones.  The article also mentions that 85 percent of the world is covered by “commercial wireless  signals.”  This offers much promise for the spread of internet and smart phones as a way of increasing access to information.

The success of programs like the mhealth ones mentioned in the article, allow for access to information without the building of costly telecenters and community access points that often would require a highly trained staff to service and run these stations.  Instead, if one in every two adults has a cell phone, and in the future these phones are primarily smart-phones, there will be no need for these communal internet access points.  Instead money (research) can focus on the development of useful phone applications (apps) that make it easier for people to access necessary information once they get their phones.  The ABC News article mentions EpiSurveyor, one such app that helps bring health information to Africa.

I believe that the development of apps is likely the best way to ensure efficient access to information even for those who have little technical training.  This would help to eliminate the needs for the many complex training modules that were discussed in class.