I thought it was a truck going by, but that's what I always think when the little earthquakes strike. It took me a moment to realize what it might be. It was near the end of the work day for me, but my laptop was still on, so I logged on to the U.S. Geological Survey site to find out that it was a magnitude 3.3 earthquake near Oakland, CA yesterday. I was far enough away that I barely felt it.
I reported it on the USGS "Did You Feel It?" page, adding my data to everyone else's, not just because I've been studying statistics lately but because it's exciting to make even a small contribution to science. I showed a printout of responses to my children later and they were interested, too; one of them had felt the earthquake, the other had not.
The USGS site shows math and science in action, data gathered and maps produced for the public good. It's much more interesting to see concepts applied than to, say, memorize the times table. Science that you can feel, hear, and touch is fun to learn, and Americans definitely need to learn more science (perhaps starting with Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her misguided comments on HPV vaccination).
I wanted to thank the USGS for making science fun and relevant yesterday. Did I feel it? Yes - surprise and excitement and a twinge of worry as the earthquake passed through and I looked up its magnitude online. Did my kids feel it? Yes - surprise and excitement as they realized that science had just rattled their world a little.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Friday, October 1, 2010
Stories Sell Science
In an article in New Scientist this week, epidemiologist Ian Roberts explains how published case reports of miraculous recoveries contributed to the increased off-label use of a blood-clotting drug to stop traumatic bleeding. Based on these case reports, the drug became adopted internationally in civilian trauma rooms and was used to treat battlefield injuries.
"A compelling medical story can burn itself onto a doctor's memory," wrote Roberts. "Stories weave a simple yarn of causation between events, imposing order and banishing uncertainty."
But when Novo Nordisk analyzed this off-label use of its hemophilia drug NovoSeven in a now-halted clinical trial, they found that the use of the drug did not affect the survival rate of the patients who received it. The drug's use might contribute to future life-threatening blood clotting problems in the patients as well, Roberts wrote.
"The moral of this particular medical story is clear," wrote Roberts. "In the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials we should remain sceptical about drug efficacy. Medical stories may be compelling, but they do not always give us the full picture."
Stories sell, though, and it's human nature to absorb information more easily through dramatic stories than through, say, an enormous Excel spreadsheet or a jargon-laden medical study.
International aid organizations have known this for quite a while. In their donor literature, instead of just listing depressing statistics about the effects of a famine, natural disaster, or civil war, for example, aid groups such as Mercy Corps also tell the stories of a few people who were affected by the event. They have found that they can get more donations by focusing on a few compelling stories of how they helped stricken individuals. Organization such as Berkeley's Center for Digital Storytelling are also being used to inform people about larger social problems through individual stories of people affected by these problems.
Health care providers (and their patients) are clearly swayed by the power of storytelling as well, as the Roberts article makes clear. But maybe it's time to turn this model around and use stories to promote good science. Scientists, steeped in the details of their research, are often accused of not explaining their ideas in a clear and compelling way. Then they wonder why the public doesn't "get" science, or underfunds scientific research.
Data can be compelling, fascinating, and instructive, but people listen to - and remember - stories. Scientists, and those who work with them to promote their work, need to think about and talk to people who might benefit from the work they do. These personal stories can help explain science to the public, and motivate scientists in their own research as well.
"A compelling medical story can burn itself onto a doctor's memory," wrote Roberts. "Stories weave a simple yarn of causation between events, imposing order and banishing uncertainty."
But when Novo Nordisk analyzed this off-label use of its hemophilia drug NovoSeven in a now-halted clinical trial, they found that the use of the drug did not affect the survival rate of the patients who received it. The drug's use might contribute to future life-threatening blood clotting problems in the patients as well, Roberts wrote.
"The moral of this particular medical story is clear," wrote Roberts. "In the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials we should remain sceptical about drug efficacy. Medical stories may be compelling, but they do not always give us the full picture."
Stories sell, though, and it's human nature to absorb information more easily through dramatic stories than through, say, an enormous Excel spreadsheet or a jargon-laden medical study.
International aid organizations have known this for quite a while. In their donor literature, instead of just listing depressing statistics about the effects of a famine, natural disaster, or civil war, for example, aid groups such as Mercy Corps also tell the stories of a few people who were affected by the event. They have found that they can get more donations by focusing on a few compelling stories of how they helped stricken individuals. Organization such as Berkeley's Center for Digital Storytelling are also being used to inform people about larger social problems through individual stories of people affected by these problems.
Health care providers (and their patients) are clearly swayed by the power of storytelling as well, as the Roberts article makes clear. But maybe it's time to turn this model around and use stories to promote good science. Scientists, steeped in the details of their research, are often accused of not explaining their ideas in a clear and compelling way. Then they wonder why the public doesn't "get" science, or underfunds scientific research.
Data can be compelling, fascinating, and instructive, but people listen to - and remember - stories. Scientists, and those who work with them to promote their work, need to think about and talk to people who might benefit from the work they do. These personal stories can help explain science to the public, and motivate scientists in their own research as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
