MSL (off-topic) Telecon Discussion [moved], Delivery of News and Science Options

[Ondaweb]

ADMIN NOTE: The following posts have been moved from the 'Drive to Glenelg' thread.
PLEASE READ THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION.


So what percent of the 170 or so people who were on the line until the very end of the teleconference do we reckon were UMSF?

And I agree about too much petrology. And a bit too much caution. Ultimately, it seems the way Jake was described as forming is highly likely the way it formed. Extensive qualifications mostly clouded the picture.

[Bill Harris]

WAY too much petrology for one telecon!

There can never be too much petrology at any time, sir.

--Bill

[djellison]

This is WAY too much petrology for one telecon!

Are you asking for less information?

[Ondaweb]

My complaint is that too little data is presented at the press conference. They seem in a rush to say everything as quickly as possible. Take the ChemCam results as an example. This was the first time they were presented to the press. It takes awhile to understand them. That three dimensional cube is not intuitively obvious to the casual observer, especially the first time you've ever seen one. So a little more time explaining it would help as would have showing us a comparison cube where there was less distinction between the various targets (smaller grain sizes?) and/or there weren't "outliers" present(which, as I understand it, would be the case when individual minerals could not be identified). This would enable us to see the differences and understand better what we were seeing and being told.

Similarly with the APX results. Would it be a problem to show Jake compared to the standard, and then another graph showing Jake compared to a typical or average of the MER results? Then we could see with our own eyes what they are talking about.

Now I know the press doesn't like data but they will understand better if it is well presented and then maybe they won't ask the same question three times.

Further, I have long believed that if a scientist gets public money to conduct research, s/he ought to be required to write a paper explaining his/her results in terms an educated layman can understand (e.g., similar to a Scientific American article.) I think this would help combat scientific illiteracy. And what better time than when there is a lot of public interest as is the case now?

[Phil Stooke]

I can assure you - the science team don't have time to do what you're asking, especially right now in the middle of rover commissioning. What you are asking for is more properly the role of the more serious science journalists.

Yes, it needs to be done. No, not in press conferences, but in serious blogs and in publications like Science News, or editorial parts of Science and Nature.

Phil

[serpens]

Similarly with the APX results. Would it be a problem to show Jake compared to the standard, and then another graph showing Jake compared to a typical or average of the MER results?

What standard? Jake is an erratic (in the sense that it came from elsewhere - no glacial connotations). This implies a piece of ejecta that could have come from anywhere and without the formational context this makes an explanation somewhat difficult, other than to compare with similar compositions on Earth. Comparing Jake with MER sulphate sandstone or suevite wouldn't achieve very much would it? I actually thought they did pretty good.

[Deimos]

My complaint is that too little data is presented at the press conference. They seem in a rush to say everything as quickly as possible.

Press conferences are not for data, they are for news. There already is a well defined and proper path for the release of data and detailed information. PDS releases will give you everything. Peer reviewed papers will give you a more digested version of everything. Science should be done with peer review as an integral step--not by press conference. That doesn't mean results shouldn't be presented, but you should not demand the press conference be the tool to do things that other tools are so well suited to--patience...

Further, I have long believed that if a scientist gets public money to conduct research, s/he ought to be required to write a paper explaining his/her results in terms an educated layman can understand (e.g., similar to a Scientific American article.)

If you do not like science, require that every practicing scientist be a science journalist. Or vice versa. Everyone who is conducting research as part of this mission is essentially required to present (or help do so) the results in publication. Sure, those will be technical (but I would hope that more and more would be open access). But textbook authors, science journalists, and other popular science writers will read those, and further digest the best of the information. You will be able to find mission results in places like Sci Am. I assure you, you do not want to see 400+ Sci Am articles on each narrow facet--and neither does Sci Am or any equivalent. But those who are so inclined do blog, write articles, and write books--patience...

And--what do you know--the mission scientists also present the results in terms educated lay people can understand in press conferences, to supplement the data and technical publications. There are places you could legitimately complain about lack of availability of data or lack of publicly understandable publication of results. NASA's Mars missions are not among those places. Patience: we have more and better access to this mission than to virtually any other scientific endeavor. That seems like a good thing, not a topic of complaint.

[nprev]

Thank you VERY much, Deimos, for that extremely lucid post.

I would advise all to refer to that post and carefully consider any future criticisms of not only MSL but all planetary mission team outreach/explanatory efforts before posting said criticism.

[Astro0]

ADMIN mode: The Admin team discussed this matter and concluded that it was off-topic to the main discussion, and that it raised an issue that we have highlighted before about undue criticism of mission teams. UMSF is not the place for it.

In this instance, complaining (sorry, there's no other word for it) about the way that information was being delivered in a teleconference.

As was noted in Deimos' reply, "Press conferences are not for data, they are for news".

One of the reasons that UMSF was established, was so that like-minded people could come together and share images and some informed insights into the science missions that we enjoy following. What has made UMSF such an interesting place to be is our collective talents in interpreting the data and coming up with ideas and sources of information to explain it and then share that here with others.

We all know that science journalism and even at times dedicated science outreach, isn't always delivered at the level that we - the science-savvy enthusiast - might like. More often than not it's delivered for the masses by an under-informed, non-science savvy media.

For those of us that really like to get into the nitty-gritty of the information (and there are lots of people like that on this Forum), then there are plenty of alternate sources of information available. At times, it might not be immediately at hand and as was noted in this discussion, sometimes "patience" is the best answer.

In the circumstances where there is information that is not immediately digestible because of its complexity, then it is up to those interested in that detail to become better educated about it. That's the nature of 'the educated layman'.

The Admin team wanted to take this opportunity to once again highlight this issue and reinforce the foundations that have made UMSF a well-respected place for the discussion of unmanned space missions.

Topic closed.