BAD SCIENCE ON ABC NEWS

I give them an "A++" for the effort of putting science out there to the 
public but a "F" for science education and an "F" for missing a golden 
opportunity to accurately inform the public about the conjunction of science 
and the humanities, and an "F" for under-whelming intellectual presentation.
The overall grade is an "F."

I am referring to the recent eight-part series "BRAVE NEW WORLD" by ABC's 
NIGHTLINE staff - hosted by Ted Koppel (Thursdays 10:00-11:00 p.m., ET, that 
began July 29th). 

From ABC's website:
- "The series explores how the fabric of our world is changing in fundamental 
ways. Artists, scholars and performers come together, in a series unlike 
anything seen before, to explore what lies ahead for humanity."

- "Ted Koppel stands in front of the Brave New World set, an airy, 
abstract-looking design created by Nightline director Eric Siegel and set 
designer Bruce Rodgers. Hung from garden-variety scaffolding are beautiful 
mesh prints and huge screens onto which are projected film clips of dance, 
babies crawling, and other strangely compelling scenes. At the heart of the 
set are powerful, state-of-the art projectors from Texas Instruments that 
keep the images bright and crisp despite competition from the set lighting."

- "Why are humans hooked on speed? Can machines think for us? What does 
"family" mean now? And what's wrong with cloning, anyway?" 

- "SUPPOSE WE FIND LIFE in our solar system and it's not a scary alien, but 
instead a little microbe in a rock? Is it still a big deal? Well, yes. Neil 
Tyson of New York's American Museum of Natural History explains. Plus: They 
Might Be Giants sing about human cold germs on the moon. Thursday, Sept. 2, 
10-11 p.m. ET." 

- "Robert Krulwich-"Who knows, maybe 4 billion years ago, when there was 
still water on Mars...life began there...and then, bounced here." Robert, the 
correspondent for Brave New World, also contributes to Nightline and World 
News Tonight."

- "Neil De Grasse Tyson-"It's entirely possible that life may have formed 
elsewhere and jumped planets." Neil is the Director of New York's Hayden 
Planetarium…

- They Might Be Giants-John Linnell and John Flansburgh got started 18 years 
ago with Dial-a-Song, which offered songs over an answering machine. Michael 
Daly tests the toughest bacteria for space travel. "Put it in a boulder, and 
I think we could perhaps conceive of a 2- to 5-million-year survival." 
Michael is 
director of the bioremediation program at the Uniformed Services University 
in Bethesda, Maryland."

- "Stephen J. Gould-"Maybe DNA is the only way to make a structure we call 
living. But maybe there are undreamed-of other ways." Stephen is a professor 
of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University. (SMS note - Gould is also the 
new president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science).  

- "…Jason Jordon of Ballet Tech helps to demonstrate the history of the 
earth."

Now my comments:

First I need to say I did not see all the programs aired. I only saw the 
first one and the most recent one this past Thursday about the existence of 
other forms of life in the universe. 

My reaction is, the programs were under-whelming and a good way to kill an 
hour when there was nothing better on the tube. I figure the ratings were 
pretty low, so I wasn't too motivated to write this posting right away as 
"nobody" watched them anyway-which raises the question: "If you discuss bad 
science when 
nobody is listening, what difference can it possibly make?"

Well, I for one I take umbrage at the national broadcast of a collage of 
superscientists conjecturing about a mixture of science and nonsense 
questions put to them by TV news celebrities. It is a shameful example of 
news media people pandering to big name scientists to make a story. But there 
was no story presented. There was no hard news. There was no bottom line. "So 
what? And Who cares?" The basic questions of news reporting were violated by 
the series.  There were only conjectures, lay premises, presented and 
commented upon. The conjecture about life on other planets and microbial 
space travelers who might have landed on Earth to explain the varieties of 
life here is fantasy not science and certainly not news. So why did the hard 
news team of Nightline present it? The conjecture is a pretty good basis for 
science fiction to be sure. Commentator Krulwich highlighted a discussion of 
"The Blob" in the movie of the same name as an art form that represents the 
kind of micro organism which if landed here from parts unknown out there 
would make a good building block for diverse varieties of life here. 

As I listened, I thought "how really sad it is to waste a golden opportunity 
of national broadcasting on such dribble." Who in the world of sound mind 
would watch this stuff?  Then it occurred to me… My God! There is a rational 
explanation!

Could the commentary, the entire series, be a contrived plot by the program 
producers to editorially discredit creationism by giving weight to 
conjectural alternatives?  Well, I give them another A++ if that was the 
ulterior motive, but since the show stunk to high heaven and no one watched, 
they still get an "F" for execution. Besides, who appointed the news media to 
be the advocates of a particular side the science versus belief in God 
dispute? Is the rationale TV prime time editorial balance to offset the likes 
of "Heaven Knows Best" about angels on earth -- one of the highest rated 
programs on television?
 
I for one would have greatly enjoyed and appreciated an eight-part news 
series during peak evening broadcasting that was NOVA like in execution, 
presentation, and content. And there could have been room within each program 
to interweave the cultural implications and controversies that arise.  Such a 
series could 
have truly added weight to the importance of the public understanding of 
science and to the conjunction of science and culture. 

While the series did have an occasional scientific gem, the story line and 
the moderator's presentation obfuscated the intellectual importance and 
instead diverted the viewer's attention to the lowest common denominator.  

At the outset of the series Ted Koppel said that the programs were an 
experiment conjoining different approaches for a prime time broadcasting. I 
am upset because the effort turned out poorly and because it was a golden 
opportunity lost. Next time Ted please contact STSers for commentary or 
consulting. But I 
suspect the ABC network will be adverse to consider a next time very soon 
given the successes of Dawson's Creek, Ally McGraw, and NYPD Blue in prime 
time. 

Best wishes to all for the new semester,
Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D.
Science and Health Policy Research
Box 381, Ardmore, PA, 19003
[log in to unmask]