Science Communication

A few weeks ago, our medical director, Chuck Dinerstein, sat down to discuss ACSH with Great.com on their podcast “Great Talks With.” Great.com is a Swedish company funded by online gambling and dedicated to talking “with organizations and experts dedicated to doing good in the world.” Dr. Dinerstein discusses our role in separating science fact from science fiction in a media environment where trustworthy commentary is difficult to find.
The globalization of regulation, our friend the fungus, communicating science, and the search for a less sugary sugar.
A whopping 62% of Americans are afraid to share some of their political views because somebody might be offended. As we all know now, if you offend somebody, you can lose your job and have your life destroyed. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent environmentalist who believes that climate alarmism is misguided, is feeling the fury of the mob.
Science communicators are routinely harassed and threatened, not just by the Twitter mob but sometimes by allegedly reputable professors, journalists, and even other science communicators.
Dutch journalist Jannes van Roermund sent an embarrassing, unprofessional, and accusatory email to epidemiologist and ACSH advisor Geoffrey Kabat. Dr. Kabat's response is pure gold.
Humans are natural-born storytellers. But with science, connecting the dots is storytelling, too, and that causes plenty of confusion. Also, the Malthusians report dwindling food and rising population. Can seaweed be an answer? Finally, a story connecting these dots: the Cold War, supermarkets, market distortions, Walmart and Amazon.
Years after his TV show, Bill Nye experienced a resurgence in popularity. But instead of the old, nerdy-but-lovable Bill Nye, we got Bill Nye 2.0, a somewhat cantankerous scold who clearly knows less about science than he leads on.
Scientific journals discriminate against industry scientists, unless, that is, they happen to work for the environmental or organic industries. Those scientists don't have to follow the same rules governing the disclosure of conflicts of interest that everybody else does.
The only honest people are journalists. Such self-serving naïveté appears to be the creed at the website Undark. It's an outlet that claims, apparently with a straight face, to be interested only in "true journalistic coverage of the sciences."
Why hire a PhD or a person with a bachelor's degree in science? Instead, it's cheaper and easier to hire a social media intern who's spent the last few years copying and pasting press releases about scary toxins and miracle vegetables.
What's the secret to a young girl wowing the internet with her knowledge of neurotransmitters and synapses? It's how she communicates the message. 
Only about 17% of Americans are "active science news consumers." At least most Americans seem to understand that the mainstream media is a terrible place to get science news.