Source http://tinyurl.com/7j8szks

The NY Times‘s John M. Broder brings readers today a compelling portrait of the angst and frustration that thicken the air in Washington DC – via multiple interviews with lobbyists and the people they lobbied to get the White House to duck a fight with the likes of the US Chamber of Commerce. The issue was a new set of smog rules that would reduce how much ozone the feds will tolerate before starting to demand major changes in how industry operates. The piece gives everybody a fair shake. While most NYTimes readers will be shaking their heads in sympathy with the crestfallen EPA boss who got told to back off by the President, one also finds persuasive the business leaders who warned that abruptly tougher smog rules would run a lot of people out of business. That’s not good politics with an election looming.

For Dems, it’s a choice. Risk thousands of premature deaths and illnesses if the airborne dreck is left as it is but at least keep a basically sympathetic Barack Obama in the Oval Office. Or raise chances for a GOP love fest with industry bosses at the White House as existing regulations and red tape get hit with a machete. It’s painted pretty clearly here how hard ball politics works while driving good-hearted people nuts.

Related News:

• Baltimore Sun (blog) Tim Wheeler: MD lawmaker questions EPA air-quality science ; Includes a weird sentence about two Republican critics of smog rules – they ask “why EPA calculates the same economic benefit for every premature death prevent, noting that most of those who die from inhaling suit are elderly.”
• The Tennessean – Elizabeth Bewley: Alexander back EPA smog regulation ;

   - Charlie Petit

First, because it’s the best story in this group, here’s what it all means before getting to the straight news. At NatureNews (which some day I’ll have to investigate which probably means Google-around to see how far it circulates and if it’s syndicated or other such, like a real news agency – see UPDATE* below)) David Cyranoski analyzes China’s “bold” space strategy. The so-called heavenly kiss of two orbiters, with one of them just today successfully landed back in China, is just one of a “string of high profile space successes.” This is prelude to a genuine space science program, not just a display of technological and potentially military prowess. One reads this all to mean that intellectual curiosity, a hallmark of great powers and the civilizations behind them, is starting to infuse a maturing China’s leadership and the policies it values. Cyranoski reports that previously disorganized dabbles in space science are mostly going under one roof with a clear mission, and to these eyes that means to get out there and learn things that can go into journals and impress members of overseas academies of science. In addition to well-publicized ambitions to build a manned orbital lab, an X-ray observatory, a solar-observing satellite, and expanded collaboration with international space science efforts are all on the agenda, says here.

from BBC

In the meantime, several news agencies bring word of the orbital linkup’s successful conclusion:

• BBC – Jonathan Amos: China’s unmanned Shenzhou 8 capsule returns to Earth ;
• Xinhua – Wang Guanqun: China’s central authorities congratulate success of first space docking mission ; Plus Special Report with galleries of pics.
• Reuters – Sui-Lee Wee: China Spacecraft returns to Earth after docking test ;
• Space.com – Clara Moskowitz: Chinese Space Capsule Lands After Successful Docking Test Flight ;
• The Hindu – Ananth Krishnan: Space mission a success: China ; India, another budding space power, follows China’s progress keenly.
• Register (UK) Brid-Aine Parnell: China spacecraft masters the art of docking ;
• Houston Chronicle (op-ed) Rep. Peter Olson: China’s space program poses potential threat to United States ; Right. Yet another sign that China’s space program is getting respect already.
• Xinhua/Dragon Space: China space prowess benefits world ; another op-ed, a different view.
• Forbes (blog) Alex Knapp: Chinese Docking Mission A Success: Shenzhou-8 Returned To Earth ;

*UPDATE – Nature chief magazine editor Tim Appenzeller reports: I wish we knew exactly who our readers are, since it’s free and doesn’t require registration. But there are lots of them (about 1.2 million unique visitors a month). It’s syndicated to Scientific American, which is our sister publication; their site posts a large fraction of what we do, so it gets lots more eyeballs there.

- Charlie Petit

If you too never heard of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, it has been around since 1975, created under Article 8, Title 9, of the state public authorities law, when the agency was formed via “reconstitution” of a forerunner whose name suggests it seriously needed update: the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority.

Its first purpose was to reduce the state’s petroleum consumption. Its portfolio is now considerably broader. Yesterday it released a giant report on what the Empire State can expect from the weather  and rising sea level (relative – the state’s shore is getting closer to the planet’s core, says here, compounding the ocean’s volumetric expansion) and it is not a pretty picture. Links to all that in Grist below.

Bigger storms including snowier winters no matter what global warming may evoke in the mind, a chance that sea water will be making regular full-flood visits to the platforms in the subways of NYCity, and so on. Oddly, the agency itself has no press release on this at its own site this morning; its most recent announcement trumpets a grant to a company for a study of Electric Trailer Infrastructure, whatever that is. It does post the report. But two of the subcontracting organizations whose professors and such did the real work – Columbia University’s Earth Institute and Cornell University – University of New York – boosted the news.

Stories:

• Buffalo News – Tom Precious: As global warming alters ecology, economy will change, report says ; Odd choice in hed, to say “alters ecology” as though this is mainly about coyotes, maple trees, and pond algae out beyond city limits. More people will sit up if it’s about snow days, blackouts from fallen trees, homelessness due to flood, and heat waves that go on and on. Story itself gets into all that.
• NYTimes – Leslie Kaufman: From Shore to Forest, Projecting Effects of Climate Change ; Some of the little things she (and a few other reporters) highlight. Such as that, if projections are correct, not a single variety of apple now grown iin NY will remain a viable crop.
• AP – Mary Esch: New York state must prepare for climate change now ;
• Guardian (UK) Suzanne Goldenberg: Major storms could submerge New York City in next decade ; Hmm, seems like just plain flood is better than submerge. It’ll only submerge it to the top of the basement steps – first floor, tops. Either way, the commute will be really slow.

Related News Analysis from the US Congress:

• Huff Post Green – Bill Chameides (Duke U. dean of enviro school): A Changing Climate About Climate Change in DC? ; Dems get three scientists to run a “briefing” on climate change, so-labeled because the GOP won’t let them call it a hearing. Nobody shows up from Congress except the two liberals who organized it. And Chameides, a panelist, has some choice words about co-panelist and semi-sceptic iconoclast physicist Rich Muller of UC Berkeley, whose highly publicized confirmation that global warming is real was delivered with, to many colleagues according to this reading, insufferable self-importance.

Tomorrow, more related news, one presumes, as IPCC tries to sort out how reliably it can forecast and assign responsibility for extreme weather events.

Grist for the Mill: Cornell University Press Release ; Columbia University Press Release ; NYSERDA ClimAID report page ; full pdf ;

- Charlie Petit

I just skimmed through, at the urging of USA Today‘s Dan Vergano (hat tip to him), a long analysis of how UK and US media handled nanotechnology and its potential environmental and health hazards, based on a look at stories in popular, general interest news outlets from 2000 to 2009.  It is in the current issue of the journal Risk Analysis, by longtime and respected science journalism dissector Sharon Friedman at Lehigh University and a colleague there, Brenda P. Egolf. The conclusion, broadly speaking, is that in both countries coverage has been sparse on the risk side of the nano-revolution, with most stories more boosterish. They also complain that the news stories were discrete – that is, focussed on separate news developments, not overall themes. Hmm. That’s news for you. But more important is its observation that should something go seriously wrong and be blamed on nanotechnology, a public caught unaware that it has been at risk the whole time will not be forgiving.

It has, Vergano noticed, a melancholy fact toward the very end, in a footnote, to a remark that the UK media are more likely to report deeply on nanotech perils than are US outlets. The reason is a sidelong indicator of the changes that have overwhelmed US media in that period. It is worth sharing that footnote in its entirety:

⁵Almost all of the U.S. science writers who wrote the nanotechnology

articles in this study were no longer with their newspapers or

wire services in 2009.

‘Nuff said. The entire article, again, I did not read with great care. It does merit a closer look by anyone wanting to see how media looks when given the once-over by thorough academic minds.

- Charlie Petit

NASA and its Russian equivalent, Roscosmos, once rivals of roughly comparable skill, achievement, and valor, have long since gone down separate paths. But each still carries historic weight, harbors grand ambitions, and faces high hurdles if it is to achieve them. By happenstance, more or less, the world’s two major wire services are carrying separate and sympathetic looks at their situations – and don’t give partisans of either a whole lot to applaud.

• AP – Seth Borenstein: Wanted: Astronauts; Missing: US rockets to fly them ; And recent hirees, one learns, are still enthusiastic to start their space faring careers. Even if it is on a Russian Soyuz or, in a few years, maybe a man-rated Dragon space capsule from private company SpaceX.
• Reuters – Alissa de Carbonnel: Analysis: Botched Mars mission shows Russian industry troubles ; You think NASA has problems? One presumes, of course, that even at its low ebb, the Russians have gotten the Soyuz launchers and spacecraft honed to a high operational polish. That image up there was filed by Reuters, but could have easily illustrated the AP story.

- Charlie Petit

Ah, a counter-example. A recent post here took issue with what looked like one-sided reporting at both the NYTimes and Washington Post on government subsidies and sweetheart loans to clean energy. Both had their facts straight, listing examples of money wasted after government decides to interfere with the unfettered market to tilt industry toward behaviors that seem more socially useful. Both stories were exlcusively on efforts that have failed, or smell fishy, and provided nothing on the larger context of overall success or failure of such tactics. The question is not whether there are losers, but whether the batting average is high enough to make the tactic an overall winner. Sure, Solyndra could have used better vetting before getting that loan. It doesn’t mean they’re all lemons.

So now along comes Time Magazine and staffer Bryan Walsh with this head: Does the US Spend Too Much on Green Energy – or Not Enough? This one – apparently a blog that thus and presumably won’t be in the print issue – may lean overtly to the “not enough” option. But  it comes closer than did the earlier noted stories to balanced reporting, giving readers a broader perspective for judging individual outcomes. Walsh explicitly names the NYT and Washington Post articles as a reason he wrote one of his own. Walsh is clearly plugging continuation of government intervention on the side of green energy. By the end of the piece, he has shifted to first person. A more dispassionate voice would be better. But he does put things in perspective, such as when he declares, “It’s not as if the private sector necessarly has a better track record then the government when it comes (to) energy investments.” He also jumps on conservative politics in the US, which seems oblivious to waste in government spending for one industry – the one that arms the Pentagon – as vital to jobs and to national interests, while brooking no federal button-pushing in such sectors as energy and transportation.

As I agree with Walsh’s arguments, I won’t get too exercised. But it would be better if the magazine’s more influential print edition soon runs a solid and authoritative news analysis – and there are plenty of sources to provide solid data – of the balance of benefit and loss when government bends the market to make life better for us and our descendants.

- Charlie Petit

When is a story so interesting but so outlandish that it’s not a story? At Time Magazine Michael D. Lemonick wrote up a case in point, under the hed Is There a City on Pluto? Before You Answer, Consider: We’ve Never Looked. Two Scientist Want to Change That.

He expressed puzzlement the other day that nobody else did it. It turns out that a few did, but not many.  After all, the two most iconic universities in the Ivy League issued press releases. Still, not so many takers. Perhaps it’s because it looks stupid on the face of it. One has to dig deep to find its reason. One also has to find wacky science news, arcane or not, entertaining. Maybe you do. I’m in. For one thing, the Harvard half of the author list is a man I’ve interviewed a few times and has certified intellectual horsepower. Lemonick goes wa-a-a-ay beyond the press releases, getting a back story narrative to show how the minds of curious scientists work and the reasons why they may decide to collaborate. Sometimes it’s just one of those things – pure happenstance. In the course of reading his account of this loopy proposal, readers who don’t ordinarily ponder such things will pick up info, useful in casual conversation and perhaps best after a libation or two to surprise one’s companions with a topic they’d not expect to arise. Lemonick even got up the pluck to tackle the inverse square law of illumination, and how it works differently for self-lit objects in non-circular orbits than it does for those reflecting their sun’s or star’s photons.

Here are some of the other outlets, and not all specialty and narrow focus operations, where reporters or editors saw the light too. Several of them hit the web around Nov. 4.

Other stories:

• Boston Globe – Jaime Lutz : Bright lights, big city – and possibly aliens ;
• New Scientist – Lisa Grossman: Alien bright lights, big city could reveal ET ;
• Register (UK) Lewis Page : Alien city lights could be detected across interstellar space ; So say “top boffins in the US,” it says here.
• Astrobiology Magazine – Charles Q. Choi: Looking for the Bright City Lights of ET Life ; Nice job with back story and a few sci fi examples of city-lit exo-planets, and Choi relays an endorsement of this low-cost space observation program from some other astrophysicists after they read the paper.
• UniverseToday – Scott Anderson: Looking for the City Lights of Alien Civilization:
• Irish Times – Dick Ahlstrom: Light from alien cities could signal intelligent life out there ;
• FoxNews – Jesse Emspak: City Lights Could Reveal ET, Researchers Say ;

Grist for the Mill: Harvard U/Ctr for Astrophysics Press Release ; Princeton U. Press Release ; Astro-ph preprint Detection Technique for Artificially-Illuminated Objects in the Outer Solar System and Beyond ;

- Charlie Petit

What looks like a prehistoric bronze casting, perhaps a belt or harness buckle, somehow wound up in the hands of Eskimo peoples living in Alaska 1000 years ago. It may have been ancient even back then. What a delightful little puzzle, redolent of ancient migrations and perhaps trade routes or lost ships or something buried in the mist of unknowable history. The AP‘s Dan Joling has the story., Joling contacted the researchers for more info on news that appears to have gotten its initial boost from a University of Colorado press release. A scrap of leather attached to the implement was dated by radiocarbon analysis to about 600 AD, but the beachside dwelling was last used a few hundred to 1000 years later. That’s old leather. And maybe the casting, some say, is much older than the leather. Such metallurgy did not exist in Alaska until modern times. Perhaps the casting was carried from Asia by the ancestors of today’s Eskimo peoples in Alaska (kin to the Inupiat peoples of Canada)? There will be learned guesses but nobody, one suspects, will ever really know.

Other stories:

• Alaska Dispatch – Doug O’Harra: In Alaska, archeologists unearth ancient bronze buckle from Asia ; A lot of press release rewrite, plus a useful roundup on other goods from Asian that have been found in Alaska and neighboring Yukon. One is an old Chinese coin, described in a recent Yukon News story by John Thompson and to which O’Harra’s story carries a link.

Grist for the Mill: Univ. Colorado at Boulder Press Release ;

- Charlie Petit

Congress has scuttled a Department of Agriculture proposal meant to improve school lunches and reduce childhood obesity.

I’m grateful to the New York Times for letting me know that. It was covered elsewhere, but I hadn’t seen it until the Times story popped up in my RSS feeds.

Reporter Ron Nixon nicely lays out the political skirmishing over the proposal. Again, glad to know who’s saying what, and to know that the proposal was opposed by such as ConAgra, Coca Cola, and makers of frozen pizza, whose fealty lies with their shareholders, not schoolchildren.

But the critical question went unanswered. This matters only if the proposal would have, indeed, reduced childhood obesity. If its likely result was that kids who wanted pizza would wind up tossing their force-fed carrots and cauliflower in the trash, it would not have succeeded.

Nixon’s story quotes only advocates for and against the proposal. It doesn’t quote anyone who might have scientific evidence about how the proposal was developed, what it might do for the serious problem of childhood obesity, and whether it would have worked.

We hear from the National Potato Council and the American Frozen Food Institute, neither of which does scientific research. We heard from the Agriculture Department, but only with a political comment–that it was sorry special interests had blocked a program aimed at improving the health of schoolchildren.

Where is the scientific evidence for or against the proposal?

I thought Nixon was going to save himself at the end of the story, when he reported that “nutrition experts,” plural, said Congress was wrong to block the program. Ah, I thought. Finally. Here comes the scientific underpinning for the program.

But, no. Nixon quotes an activist from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. And only one expert, despite the use of “experts” in the setup to the quote.

Here is who wasn’t quoted in the story and should have been: The Agriculture Department scientists who developed the program and who could have explained the rationale and the likelihood of success. They have a vested interest, too, but at least it isn’t to Wall Street. And they might be expected to present data, not simply defend their political stance.

Academic nutritionists were not quoted. The quickest clip search would have found, for example, Marion Nestle of New York University, a regular, go-to source for the Times, and a scientist who actually knows something about nutrition.

Here are the questions Nixon’s story didn’t answer:

What is the evidence the program would have had a substantial impact on childhood obesity?

Which foods were included in the program, and which were excluded?

How many students would have been reached by the program?

Has any research been done on how to encourage students to actually eat foods that they might not ordinarily choose over frozen pizza?

I can anticipate one possible response from Nixon: This was just a quick political story on a Washington development, not an exhaustive examination of the issue.

Fair enough. But I return to what I said at the outset. If the program was ill conceived, or poorly executed, the political story would have been different. Not: Congress bowed to special interests. But: Congress killed a program that deserved to be killed.

Political jousting is fun; I sometimes succumb to cable TV shouting matches when I can wrest the remote away from my children. But it’s no substitute for reporting the facts.

- Paul Raeburn

The AP‘s Michael Biesecker did some good digging to come up with horrible details on the treatment of mentally ill prisoners in North Carolina. But did the story undersell the reporting? In other words, was Biesecker’s story as strong as it possibly could have been, or did he stumble?

Here’s the lede, in a version of the story that appeared on www.newsobserver.com:

RALEIGH — An internal review of conditions inside North Carolina’s Central Prison found that inmates with serious mental illnesses were neglected by staff and locked away in fetid cells.

Had I not been tipped that this was a good story, I’m afraid I would have stopped reading right there. I assume that a lot of prisoners are neglected by staff and locked away, whether they have serious mental illnesses or not. There’s nothing new in this, is there?

But read on. An internal review of prison conditions, obtained by the AP (by Biesecker, presumably) through the Freedom of Information Act, revealed this:

• Inmates inside the Raleigh prison were left isolated for weeks of “therapeutic seclusion,” sometimes without clothing or a mattress, in cells described as roach-infested and with human waste puddled on the floor.
• Others were strapped to their bunks in an improper manner that allowed them to bang their heads against the concrete wall.
• Chronic understaffing led to situations where the sick went untreated and suicidal inmates sometimes went unmonitored.

That is gripping, and while it might not be unprecedented, it tells me that this is a story worth paying attention to. For one thing, I learn that this was confidential information that Biesecker pried out of the cold hands of government bureaucrats. And the details force me to read on–exactly what a story like this should do.

I can envision a lede that would have included some of that graphic detail, along with the disclosure that these were findings the government did not want to release, which, to my mind, always makes a story more interesting.

Biesecker does the same sort of thing with the response from CEO of North Carolina’s prisons. He begins with this, a tepid paraphrase:

Jennie Lancaster, chief operating officer for the N.C. Department of Correction, said the agency is working to improve conditions, provide remedial staff training and fill long-vacant positions.

Then he gives us the good stuff that he should have given us first:

“This is a difficult population, and it presents safety challenges, it presents behavior challenges,” Lancaster said. “When you’ve got an offender who you clean his cell and then two hours later he’s taken feces and he’s smeared it all over the cell again, and you’ve got someone down in another cell and they’re acting out … if you’re limited in your staff, it’s not the ideal thing, but you have to prioritize what you’re doing.”

Again, the gripping detail hides beneath lackluster paraphrase. Lancaster is saying something like, yes, conditions are bad, but that’s the best we can do. That’s far more damming, and interesting, than “we’re working to improve conditions.”

He then lets Lancaster slightly off the hook by allowing her to trumpet the new prison that will open soon, as if that will solve the problems. Prisoners can be mistreated in new prisons as well as in old ones, and I wish Biesecker had asked Lancaster about that.

Then he gets into a longer list of some of the devastating findings that came from the documents. It’s good stuff, but, again, too low in the story. Tell that first, and let Lancaster promote her new prison below it.

This is a good story, and it’s the kind of reporting that can, sometimes, end these kinds of horrible practices. I’m focusing on the shortcomings because this could have been a great story.

Biesecker did a good job, and I hope he and the AP do more of this. As an AP alum, I suggest that the AP’s editors do the thing they can do so well when they take time to work on a reporter’s copy, and help Biesecker make his next investigative piece into a triumph.

 - Paul Raeburn

New Jersey, led by its governor Chris Christie, earlier this year announced it is pulling out of the once vaunted, ten state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast and mid-Atlantic US. Doubters figured the cap and trade plan would be a bureaucratic mess and only cost consumers money – not to mention be an intrusion by government into matters best left to market factors and thus hinder economic growth and general efficiency. Even some sympathetic to deliberate gaming of the market for societal benefit, as through cap and trade programs, wondered if it could work in a restricted, regional context.

This week an organization called The Analysis Group, which specializes in “economic, financial, and business strategy consulting” to law firms, business, government, etc., released a report that says the thing has saved its region’s consumers money, cut the costs of doing business, and generated 16,000 jobs. Never having heard of this outfit before, one is not sure it has any particular partisan stripe. Its technical advisory group does not, to be sure, appear to have anybody from the Competitive Enterprise Institute or Cato Institute (one member is from the California Air Resources Board, another from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, etc.). It has offices all over the country and claims it has 500 professionals working for it. Dunno if that’s full time staff, but it’s a load. It has the appearance of being a sober and professional, reasonably mainstream operation. Its summary line for the report: RGGI in just three years has added $1.6 billion to the region’s economy. Power sales fell, a sign of greater efficiency (and perhaps the recession), and utility income inevitably dropped off a bit – but  still exceeded costs.

Wow and boy howdy. The report’s links are in Grist below. It’s fairly hefty – 50 pages and a 78-page appendix chock full of charts and other convincing-looking explanatory decor.

Not much media reaction so far, but some. The report is being delivered today at a meeting of utility regulatory officers in St. Louis, and the December Electricity Journal is publishing it. The news is important to people who make important decisions. News outlets should look into its methods and its figures to see if they add up. If the answer is yes, it’ll be a good story. If it is no, and one can make the case convincingly that these anlaysts muffed the job, that is a scandal and an even bigger story.

Stories, Including prominent blogs:

• NJBIZ: As N.J. leaves RGGI ,study says program added $1.6B to region’s economy ;
  
• Worcester Business Journal – Brandon Butler: Report Finds RGGI Has Been A Success ;
  
• Climate Progress – Stephen Lacey: Regional Greenhouse Gas Intitiative Adds 16,000 Jobs and $1.6 Billion in Value to Northeast Economies, Study Finds ;
• Boston Herald/State House News Service – Matt Murphy: Report: Greenhouse gas pact contributes $500M to Mass. economy ;
• NYTimes/Green Blog – Matthew L. Wald: Carbon Trading Initiative a Success, Study Says ;
• Baltimore Sun – Timothy B. Wheeler: Regional climate compacts created jobs, study says . Maryland, other Northeastern states gained from carbon auctions ;

*UPDATE:

• Baltimore Sun editorial: Cap-and-economic-growth ; Bullish hurrah for the report and for RGGI. It’s a sensible first remark. Still, the paper and other news outlets ought to assign reporters to call around among economists, maybe sharpen a few pencils and fire up a few spreadsheets at their own desks, to check the figures and the fundamental merits of the report. It does seem good. One hopes, not too good to be true.

Grist for the Mill: Analysis Group report announcement ; Press Release, Report, Appendix.

- Charlie Petit

In May and June, an EHEC epidemic started in Germany. According to the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin it was the worldwide most severe EHEC outbreak ever. About 3800 patients were diagnosed with the E.coli-variant bacteria EHEC O104:H4 and developed an enterogastritis or a hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS), causing 53 deaths in Germany. The disease also spread over European countries and Northern America, too, mostly via tourists, adding 137 cases (2 deaths, one of them in the US).

As soon as the Robert Koch Institute got knowledge of the outbreak, it started an investigation. The source seemed to be salads, but whether the germ came from cucumbers or tomatoes or other ingredients was not clear, first. Later, through comparisons of recipes of restaurants in Hamburg and their healthy and infected visitors, sprouts were found to be the source – and these sprouts were bred on an organic farm in Northern Germany from seeds from Egypt. The health authorities closed the farm, but so far, they were not successful to detect the pathogenic EHEC strain on the remaining sprouts (using smear samples). So it is still not entirely clear, who is responsible for the outbreak.

Now the Focus (a weekly magazine) had a small report about the possible cause. The article quotes the hygienic expert Martin Exner from the University of Bonn, that the EHEC bacteria, that were stuck to the seeds from Egypt, were in a state of “sleep”, kind of. They were reactivated due to the hygienic conditions at the organic farm, where the restrooms are “near” the water reservoir for the plants. Well, this does not make sense to you or seem to explain anything? Some information seems to be missing here, but that didn’t worry the news agency dapd to pick up this report, which means to reprint it almost identically. And again, Hamburger Abendblatt, Welt, BZ and RP-Online picked it up, with not much editing or efforts to fill the obvious gaps.

Looks like, a radio reporter has to show, how to report about a hypothesis, because that’s what Exner’s statement is. Martin Winkelheide (Deutschlandfunk) actually visited the meeting in Munich, where Exner gave a talk, and made a report with Exner’s quotes. The piece describes the hypothetical scenario in such a way, that readers/listeners can actually understand, what Exner meant: First, some workers ingested some of the seeds with the “sleeping” EHEC bacteria. Second, the bacteria got reactivated in the digestive tract. Third, the workers either used the restrooms in an unhygienic way or some of the revived bacteria found their way from the restrooms to the nearby water reservoir for the seeds. That no EHEC bacteria were detected on the sprouts via smear samples might be due to the possibility, that they fall “asleep” as soon as they do not enjoy the comfortable environment of the digestive tract anymore, according to Exner in the Deutschlandfunk piece. Most important: The articles says explicitly, that this is just a hypothesis, not proven by any scientific standards! (The Allgemeine Zeitung chose to almost copy paste on the Deutschlandfunk report, by the way). The Deutschlandfunk piece would have been perfect, if it included a second, independent voice, who weighs the plausibility of the hypothesis – the Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung and the Umweltbundesamt, e.g., which are the official authorities dealing with food and water related diseases. That’s what the Süddeutsche Zeitung did, months ago (in June)! In his article, Markus C. Schulte von Drach asked the Umweltbundesamt about a quote from Exner about the possibility of a distribution of EHEC via drinking water (which was printed by the Spiegel) and got angry responses like “arbitrary panicmongering”.

Addendum: Apparently, neither the Focus in its original announcement, nor dapd or other “copypasters” actually talked to the expert Exner in person – according to Exner himself (the tracker asked him), who is “aghast” about how he was quoted. He said, that in his talk at the scientific meeting in Munich, he explicitly made clear, that he described nothing more than a hypothesis, which had to be further investigated. The Ärztezeitung took a few more hours time and talked to Exner, and got it right in their report, that this is just a hypothesis.

More about the EHEC epidemic and the way, the German media reported about this outbreak, and what (science) journalists could (and should) learn for reporting about the next epidemic: An interview (in German) with Susanne Glasmacher (Public Relations @ Robert-Koch-Institute).

ALSO:

Should Science rule?

Evidence based medicine? A must! Evidence based management? Would surely improve a lot! Evidence based politics? Sounds great, but I’m not entirely sure after reading the great Tagesspiegel article.

Stone Age Brindled Horses

It’s a nice piece of science to prove via genetics, that stone age artists in the french caves drew brindled horses in a realistic way from naturally existing horses. It’s a good idea to report about this, RP Online. But German scientists lead the whole research effort, so why not talking to them, at least briefly, to get some unique information and convince the reader, that it might be actually worth reading your newspaper/website? A wasted opportunity for reader retention, again.

The forgotten victims of Fukushima

Not much reporting about Fukushima in Germany, anymore. And if so, it is about what’s going on with the nuclear reactors. But Sven Stockrahm (ZEIT), had a piece about the forgotten victims of the Tsunami…

Sascha Karberg