Should the Huffington Post Have a Science Section? Vote Here!

Arguably the best New Yorker cover of all time was Saul Steinberg's "view of the world from 9th avenue" (March 29, 1976), which showed the richly detailed streets of Manhattan in the foreground, a highly simplified USA stretching into the distance, and "China," "Japan," and "Russia" as amorphous islands dotting the Pacific Ocean.

I am reminded of this cover every time I visit the Huffington Post and see the words "Politics," "Media," "Business," "Entertainment," and "Living" on the top banner. These comprise the Huffington Post's view of the world. Where, I would like to know, is "Science?"

Take my last blog, which was on the scientific study of religion. It appeared in the "Living" section, where it was listed along with other blogs such as "Pregnancy, orgasms, and lying about your age," "Top 10 ways to celebrate international women's day," and "Spring break wisdom." Within days it was gone, to be replaced by the likes of "The art of global warming," "Working with children on the streets," and "4 ways to get excited for Easter."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking these other blogs or questioning the influence of the Huffington Post. When my fellow scientist and HuffPost blogger Dan Agin got me started, he said that HuffPost blogs get picked up by hundreds of other websites, and he was right. I know that my blogs are being read worldwide and I'm grateful for the forum. Glancing at the blogger's index, I see that numerous other scientists are making use of the same opportunity. But the Huffington Post can do better. It can make science part of the foreground, rather than an amorphous island in the distance, by creating a "Science" section.

After all, the New York Times has its highly successful Tuesday science section. Major internet news outlets such as CNN have a science section. What self-respecting intellectual can deny that understanding and improving the human condition will depend in large part on scientific knowledge?

The only argument against creating a "Science" section, as far as I can see, is that it would be B-O-R-I-N-G. Sure we should know about science, and we should also eat our vegetables and exercise daily, but that's not what causes people to visit websites. I think that this argument fails for two reasons. First, it only works for media outlets driven purely by entertainment, such as People magazine. Media outlets that strive for the intellectual high ground have an obligation to report substance. Second, who says that science must be boring? Done right, science journalism can be riveting, especially when it is used to understand and improve the human condition, as it increasingly is in my own field of evolutionary biology.

I also think that if many scientists can be persuaded to blog for the Huffington Post, then something new and magnificent might emerge--a forum for scientists to engage in the actual scientific process, in full view of the general public. When the scientific process works as it is supposed to, it is more accountable than almost any other social process. If there is one thing lacking in popular culture today, it is accountability. The idea of putting the scientific process on display on the virtual pages of the Huffington Post makes me positively giddy with excitement.

So, even though they haven't asked me, I propose that the Huffington Post should create a "Science" section. The best way to attract Arianna's attention is with a groundswell of popular support. If you agree with my proposition, then please vote by posting a brief comment on this blog and encouraging your science-minded friends to do the same. Who knows? Perhaps our collective voice will put us onto the "Most popular on HuffPost" box on the front page. Or, perhaps the response to my modest proposal will be so anemic that "Science" will remain an amorphous island in the distance.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

I think it should. We sure could use it. But I hesitate to think of what it would be lke based on the reception that those of us who have liberal politics but are unconvinced that the IPCC supported approach to Global Warming is the correct one. Really, a sane debate between respected and respectable scientists would be a great thing. I have a feeling Freeman Dyson would love to explain why the models he actually helped to create are now being used to accuse him of being a corporate tool. That said, I do think that a lot of people who want to see the world do something to help the global environment are a little dismayed at how little they actually know or how the models as they are being presented are so simplified as to be misleading when regurgitated by politically directed approaches to solving problems.

[moderationsmuse]

And here's my comment -- the art version -- with pictures.
Beat that atheists.
http://moderationmusesaboutscience.blogspot.com/

[moderationsmuse]

PS. I can barely add and subtract, but doesn't Trakhtman's solution have cosmological implications? I mean if the universe is finite?

Muse

[moderationsmuse]

I posted a comment on this yesterday, but it failed to appear. I voted "yes" to science, too, but reading through some of the comments today (didn't have time to browse them yesterday), I say "good luck."

A couple problems: first of all your readership isn't really interested in science despite their professions to the contrary. "Science" at this forum equals politics (like everything else). Therefore it must be "global warming." "Global warming" is not a scientific concept, it's a political idea - i.e., that humans are causing the climat to change and threatening life on the planet. Should climate change turn out to have natural causes, would any of your Huff readers be interested in knowing? People who write sentences like the one I just wrote are called "deniers." Doesn't that sound a little like Galileo's plight? Only now the roles are reversed.
I mention climate change because it's the most visible of various political issues that parades as science in contemporary life. The very fact that global warming is to be "accepted" without asking questions demonstrates to what extent it has ceased being science -- which is all about questions. And when Madonna is trotted out to help the cause -- Madonna, that very distinquished scientist who helps Gore. Well, whatever.

[moderationsmuse]

Also I notice that several of your commenters have given notice that "intelligent design" or anything that smacks of "religion" must be ruled out -- but aren't you one of the ones who keeps harping on religion? I have yet to see YOUR blog really deal with SCIENCE. I happen to be a Christian, as some here are aware. I happen also to have a keen layperson's interest in science. A year ago I had a chance to hear Jim Gates give a public talk on Superstring theory, which was my first introduction to this fascinating topic. And I've been reading various books about it since -- the most approachable of which was "Our Cosmic Habitat" by Martin J. Rees.
Cosmic theories in particular almost require a certain religio-philosophical input if only because they bang into various inconsistencies not compatible with scientific method -- as for instance the notion of a "multi-verse," something that is intrisically un-verifiable. Stephen Hawking has some interesting comments to make on this problem at the conclusion of "A Brief History of Time."

[moderationsmuse]

Darwinian evolution is another hot button that is supposed to be untouchable by the science as advocacy crowd. Consequently the ways that Darwin's "big picture" has failed (so far) to find confirmation in physical data is also taboo. And this in itself would be a marvellous subject for science writing -- the lacunae of "Darwinian" theory to date and what all this means. Whether Darwin is ultimately demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong" obscures the extent to which Darwin was doing a kind of biological inquiry that is no longer commonplace today: i.e., he was looking at the big picture, trying to find a grand "unifying" theory of the development of life. Even the whole matter of defining what "life" is -- is a rich and problematic area to cover in a public discourse.
But are your readers interested? Not Huff readers generally, but YOUR readers in particular who, if you've taken the trouble to notice, are really obsessed with religion.

[moderationsmuse]

I am a Christian, but one of my chief criticisms of the Huff Po Atheists is "ils ne parlent que du bon Dieu." God is the ONLY thing they seem to want to talk about!
Well, recently Israeli Avraham Trakhtman, a Russian Jewish immigrant solved the Road Coloring problem. The problem posits that given a finite number of roads, one should be able to draw a map, coded in various colors, that leads to a certain destination regardless of the point of origin. Trakhtman's solution took 8 pages to write. Trakhtman is 63.
This is science news. It appeared in lots of media outlets. If it appeared at Huff, I didn't notice. Do you think Huff readers are interested?
Is there a political angle? Or is there some way you can use this to bash the religious? Or Republicans? Because those are the things that Huff readers care about.

[Orac]

Here's a very good reason why the Huffington Post should not have a science section:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/a_science_section_for_the_huffington_pos.php

Clean up the antivaccination pseudoscience from the likes of David Kirby, Deirdre Imus, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., not to mention the New Age dreck about "quantum consciousness" from Deepak Chopra first. Then think about a science section.

[Dap]

Orac, Thanks for the link, that science blogs site was a find, I found an interesting New Journal in Neuroethics it was regarding things I've been speaking to for quite sometime now, it's encouraging to see it is a field of study seprate from bioethics in general. Agape.

[Blackrose]

Add a section for Science. For sure. Many news items of the day ranging from something as sensational as a popular actor's drug overdose death to climate politics tie to science. Why NOT take it from the science end first every so often? others have mentioned scienceblogs.com which is demonstrating each and every day that there is a big audience hungry for science blogging. one might even note that the more "political" and "topical hot button" the blog, the more commentary results. a win for HuffPo to add this dimension.

[jvarga]

So, David, aside from posting comments on this entry, do you have any other suggestions for how we could make our desire known to the powers that be?

[thicky]

A science section is a great idea. In addition to science blogs, a section for science news that included synopses for science articles imprisoned behind pay walls would be a fantastic addition to Huffpo.

[stevesrant]

David - I don't think your post lasted 24 hours in the Living section - half of which belongs in Entertainment anyway - so yeah Science would be great, but I don't think HuffPo will bite. Now, another Personality section...

[Merlin7]

Not if apologists for religion are going to dominate it. We have too much superstition in our culture already without more folks with science degrees lending their stamp of approval.

[danieldf]

YES: HuffPo should *definitely* have a Science section. The popularization of science is one of the "hot topics" of our current, and needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. :-)

[PaxChristi]

What is needed on HuffPo is a Theology section, with Biblical and Intelligent design studies.

[HeevenSteven]

It's encouraging that you're grouping intelligent design with theology not science.

[Wilburrr]

Would that include Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

[JoDeeVa]

I would love and welcome a "Science" forum. Given the issues being debated and what is at stake relevant to societal impact, jurisprudence, politics and our government, isn't this what HuffPost is all about, eh? However, as others have noted, religiosity brings out a dedicated group of commenters, stalking every post containing (anti-creative) intelligent discourse. But..B-O-R-I-N-G? Never!!
Thank-you, Dr. Wilson for your books, contributions here and efforts on this front.

[HeevenSteven]

YES!! Now that it's grown to 6 sections WHO forgot the science tab?! every other news mag has one.

[Merlin7]

Not if apologists for religion such as yourself are going to dominate it. We have too much superstition in our culture already without more folks with science degrees lending their stamp of approval.

[Bella DePaulo - Huffpost Blogger]

See Bella DePaulo's Profile

I'm a social scientist and HuffPost blogger and often write about social science issues -- especially media misrepresentations of studies relevant to marital status. I like the idea of a science section (especially if it includes social science). The one downside is that often, I'm already torn about the best section for my posts (since we are asked to choose just one). --Bella DePaulo

[jeskiley]

Science is very special, however, I propose an EDUCATION section, where we can have a broad variety of experts in their chosen fields educating us and involving us in the dialogue.

[ExRepublican]

"Should the Huffington Post Have a Science Section?"

Absolutely. It's a must. And I THINK it would be popular.

"The only argument against creating a "Science" section, as far as I can see, is that it would be B-O-R-I-N-G."

Wrong. Not the case. In fact, just the opposite. Just do it.

[StinkyPete]

Yes - and a politics section as well!!!

[paragrafH]

Yes! We need to counter 7 years of blackout!

[avicenna]

Instead of "living" - there should be two sections dedicated to: 1) "society and culture" and 2) "health and science".
Conflict of interest statement: I am a scientist (endocrinology and immunology).

[Jude2004]

Of course Huffington Post should have a separate science section. I read about 60 science blogs from scienceblogs.com. My favorite is Asymptotia (asymptotia.com). I also read Time magazine's science blogger. I love science blogs.