What counts as "science by press conference"?

In May 2007, the Mars rover Spirit discovered silica-rich soils that suggest the possibility of microbial life on Mars. That finding has been widely publicized (see examples below). But, it has NOT been peer-reviewed, in the formal, publication sense. (Or so I'm told by colleagues who should know.) So, does it count as that evil "science by press conference"?

I personally heard about these findings in November 2007, while listening to a graduate student defend her research interests. It happens, of course, that I'm at the institution that leads the rover missions. But since I'm not a specialist, I didn't know that I was hearing "unpublished" results, and had the occasion arisen, I could have circulated the results more widely.

Then, a few weeks later, the mission PI (who is very experienced at dealing with the media) spoke about the results at a well-attended scientific meeting, the American Geophysical Union, where the media are often present. His comments were widely reported:

The BBC story
The Mars Society story

It's also true that NASA issued a press release about his talk, as did Cornell (and these press releases were widely posted on news sites around the web). But, given the frequent press coverage of AGU meetings, that's probably immaterial.

Many of the stories that appeared were written by well-known science writers. For example, a New York Times article by Kenneth Chang was reprinted widely (here, in the Portland Oregonian).

So, given all the warnings against science by press conference, how does this happen? Or does it mean (as Hilgartner 1990 suggests) that the charge of "science by press conference" is only used when someone wants to criticize another scientist, while "acceptable" popularizations are labeled as such?

Blogs about Blogging about Blogs

North Carolina Science Blogging Conference in BlogTogether

OK, so I'm new to blogging, and not very good at it. But today I discovered that the first ever "science blogging conference" happened last January. I've just started going through the list of talks, attendees, etc. Looks like fun, and like something that we need to think about in the science communication world.

Frames in media coverage of science

Matt Nisbet, a former Cornell student (now teaching at American Univ.), published an essay in SCIENCE this week about the images of science.

Read it at http://encompass.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/checkIP.cgi?access=gateway_standard%26url=http://dx.doi.org/DOI:10.1126/science.1142030

(if this link doesn't work, go to Cornell Library, go to the magazine SCIENCE, go to 6 April 2007 issue, look for Nisbet's name)

Then, read his blog to see how people have been responding to the piece:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/dont_be_a_dodo_bloggers_weigh.php

Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity - New York Times

Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity - New York Times

The story begins: " Charles Roselli set out to discover what makes some sheep gay. Then the news media and the blogosphere got hold of the story."

Here's a great example...of something. The story itself is about science journalism, but of course it's also about the science itself. And it's about how scientific information flows. Notice especially the interaction between information in a scientific journal, information in a press release about the article in the scientific journal, and then the more public discussions that happen as a result.

Want to be a science journalist?

For those interested in what it's like to be a science journalist, two resources:

A blog interview with Carl Zimmer, a well-known science journalist who writes books, magazine articles, and features for the New York Times.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/11/8440/49578>

Some resources collected by the National Association of Science Writers
<http://www.nasw.org/resource/beginning/>

You might also want to read Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson, and Robin Marantz Henig, eds. A Field Guide to Science Writing: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, available through Amazon and elsewhere.

News media and uncertainty

The Nov-Dec 2006 outbreak of e.coli poisoning associated with Taco Bell provides a good example of the challenges of providing good public health information in a time of uncertainty. Although early tests suggested that green onions were the cause of the outbreak, later testing exonerated the onions. A NYTimes article explictly discussed how media coverage of an outbreak changes the flow of information, which is both good (leading to quick action) and potentially confusing (because of the uncertainty).
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/nyregion/13coli.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>