»communication«

In a discussion paper the European Union favours research to be published in open-access media if it was funded by the European taxpayer. Richard Wray writes in the Guardian (19.4.2006) that according to the paper "researchers who receive EU funding should be 'mandated' to place copies of articles published in subscription journals on web-based archives that can be accessed by everyone for free." The high subscription prices limit dissemination of scientific knowledge and therefore the scientific progress in general, the paper states.

During this week's ESOF conference (Euroscience Open Forum 2006) the European Science Writer's Award was handed to Christina Bernd of Süddeutsche Zeitung in Munich, Bas Kast of Der Tagesspiegel in Berlin, and Miklos Hargitai of Nepszabadsag in Hungary. The prize is granted by Euroscience Foundation (http://www.eurosciencestiftung.de - which seems to be a dead site because the most recent press release is dated by 2004).

Robin McKie points out in the Guardian (22.1.2006) that indeed chemical products for foods or medicine are better known (regarding effects and side-effects) than natural products. Well, that's a very general hypothesis. But the image of chemical is bad, while that of natural remedies (they are also chemicals!) is good. British chemists and toxicologists highlight growing fears about people's misconceptions about chemicals in everyday life in a paper called Making Sense of Chemical Stories.

Online-Journalismus

Chancen, Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Internet-Kommunikation

Ergebnisse der Kommunikations-Fachtagung des netzwerk recherche e.V. in Zusammenarbeit mit der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Wiesbaden 7./8. Mai 2005

PDF (1,4 MB)

Very interesting collection of articles and lectures about online communication. An excerpt from the contents:

Erik Möller
Mediale Gegenöffentlichkeiten
Wie Weblogs, Wikis und freie Software neue Medienwelten erschließen

Prof. Dr. Lorenz Lorenz-Meyer
Trendanalyse:
Wie werden sich die digitale Medienszene und der klassische Journalismus entwickeln?

Ole Reißmann
Was Weblogs sein können

Albrecht Ude
Echos aus dem Ameisenhaufen
Social Software und die Unterschiede zwischen journalistischer Produktion und Blogging

Wolfgang Lünenbürger-Reidenbach
Wie verändern Blogs und Blogger den Journalismus?
Was bedeutet das für PR?

[via netzwerk recherche]

Fred Pearce reports about ecological footprints and whether comparing such footprints on a national level is useful in global warming talks. In New Scientist (8.4.2006) he describes "the footprint is an estimate of the land used to sustain a population. Its main components are land directly built on; the fields, forests and mines employed at home and abroad to meet consumer needs; and the national amount of land needed to absorb pollutants like carbon dioxide." Generally, the footprint is used to compare the waste of resources, for instance, of industrialized countries in comparison to developing nations on a per capita basis. "This puts the superconsuming US at the top, with almost 10 hectares of land needed to supply each American. Australia is close behind, requiring almost 8 hectares per citizen. Western European states and Japan require between 5 and 6, China less than 2 and India around 1 hectare," writes Pearce. But if you put these figures in relation with the available resources of biosphere in these countries, the U.S., Canada and Australia perform quite better, and dense populated countries rise in the rankings. Well, it's a statistics trick on the grounds of a nationalist view. Now the heat is on how to interpret this point.

Tim Gnatek in the NY Times (29.3.2006) about the San Francisco science museum Exploratorium and its Web activities. Actually, the museum has got 600,000 visitors last year, the website counted 20 million. The website is at http://www.exploratorium.edu

As the Einstein Year comes to an end, the science historian Ernst Peter Fischer draws some lessons learned from the event in an editorial for Physik Journal, December issue. First the political level: Support by prominent politicians was undistinguished (if you take the science minister aside). Much talk about innovation and the importance of science, but no credible visions or programmes. 2nd the public level: Did anybody get a grasp of Einstein's achievements. I mean, the science, not the person. Ask the people in the streets. Fischer says, the average impact is near zero. "What do you understand from Einstein's science? Nothing," is the most probable answer of the public, including journalists. Fischer states that the scientists and the journalists really failed to communicate the science, its concepts and consequences.

But Fischer also mentions that the scientists themselves showed up narrow minded: There are lots of new historical insights on how Albert Einstein or Max Planck developed new ideas, how they discussed them and what makes it hard for them to believe the new findings: Generally scientist told that Einstein didn't get the Noble Prize for Relativity Theory but for a paper on the nature of light. "But nobody told the public that with the new finding Einstein just understood that light has got such strange properties that makes it hard or impossible to understand," writes Fischer.

Andy Rowell looks behind the scenes and explains in the Guardian (3.5.2006) why and how the British government turns towards nuclear energy. He unravels the PR campaigns by the nuclear industry to influence scientists and politicians and to make people think nuclear power is essential to tackle global warming.

When Christian Schwägerl strolls the streets he finds ever more products advertised as enhanced by nanotechnology. The goods range from cosmetics to car maintenance equipment. Obviously 'nano' is en vogue. But as companies watch out for new markets, also Greenpeace is doing so, argues Schwägerl in FAZ (6.6.2005). Nanotechnology may also see some drawbacks as, for instance, hazardous health effects from nano particles may not ruled out. And according to the German science ministry nanotech may be used almost everywhere in future products. Hence, some scientists are concerned that the buzzword turns into the opposite, comparable to a GMO-like meaning. On the other hand, Greenpeace and Cambridge University's nanotech branch launched the citizen's jury, dubbed NanoJury UK, to query lay people on their concerns and hopes regarding nanotechnology.

Stefan Niggemeier (Bildblog) fasst ein einem schönen Text für die FAZ am Sonntag mal zusammen, wie die klassischen Medien auf die neuen Kommunikationskanäle im Internet reagieren. Insbesondere, wie sie eben nicht oder falsch reagieren. So gibt's wohl immer noch reihenweise blogs (Süddeusche Zeitung), in dem Journalisten nur einmal im Monat einen Text absondern, und auf Kommentare noch nicht einmal reagieren.

Zitat Niggemeier: "Diese Blogs sollen Interaktivität suggerieren und demonstrieren das Gegenteil. Echte Interaktivität wäre aber auch ein wahrhaft revolutionäres Konzept. Der amerikanische Journalist und Vordenker Jeff Jarvis beschreibt es so: >Das Problem mit der Art, wie die Medien Interaktivität definieren, ist, daß es immer um kontrollierte Reaktionen auf die Tagesordnung des Mediums geht: Kommt und redet über unser Zeug. Sie wird gestaltet wie ein Museum für Kinder, mit Knöpfen, die man drücken kann und die einen beschäftigen sollen. Das ist die Botschaft, die alle Foren und Chats und Blogs vermitteln, die sich mit den Veröffentlichungen der Medien beschäftigen. Bei Interaktivität geht es um mehr als ums Reagieren. Es geht ums Gestalten. Es geht nicht um kontrollierte Autorität. Es geht um geteilte Autorität.<"

Wäre natürlich zu ergänzen, dass auch der Bildblog des Autors keine Interaktivität im Sinne von Kommentar und Diskussion bietet, also Quer zur Definition eines Weblogs steht.

Hier das Posting von Jeff Jarvis
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/interact/