4 ms·

She's a scientist with an extensive body of publications in this domain; same with Christine Payne and Sowmya Purushothaman, the other two "scientists voicing c

She's a scientist with an extensive body of publications in this domain; same with Christine Payne and Sowmya Purushothaman, the other two "scientists voicing concern." I agree that the article would have benefited from more diversity of perspective but it's unfair to characterize these contributors as "advocates pushing their agenda," and it's both inaccurate and disrespectful to use scare quotes when calling them scientists and to imply (if that was your intention) that they do not participate in "real" science. As well, it isn't clear to me why one would read the title "Scientists voice concern about nanoparticles" and expect to read about about a particular research result rather than a survey of the current state of understanding.

ajross 7y ago
> She's a scientist with an extensive body of publications in this domain In the context of that quote, as made explicit by attribution, she's an activist pushing a policy choice. That's not an indictment of her expertise, but it needs to be called out. She doesn't get to both advocate for a position in the text and stand in for "scientists"[1] in an appeal to authority argument in the headline. [1] These are, obviously, not "scare quotes"[2]. The word literally appears in the headline and I'm discussing the fact that it does! [2] Those aren't either. You wrote the words and I'm repeating them with the quotes to indicate that I'm discussing the phrases used in your "argument"[3] [3] Those are.
- sterkekoffie 7y ago
  It would seem, by your logic, that it is actually impossible for scientists to voice concern about anything, because once they do so, they can no longer be called scientists, only advocates. If that's the case, then I simply disagree with your logic. If it isn't, and you see some egregious bias-having somewhere in the scientists' statements or qualifications, feel free to point it out. If you can do so without the overt hostility, even better.
  - ajross 7y ago
    You're still misunderstanding. It's not a criticism of the people quoted, it's a criticism of the journalism that presented the ideas as consensus worries when they're actually pretty niche concerns without a lot of good basis. You can advocate for anything you want, and we can post a link to a screed by the hilariously named "Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology"[1] and we can discuss that here if you like. But for the Guardian to do that is just editorializing. [1] Still not scare quotes
    - sterkekoffie 7y ago
      Perhaps I need to be more clear myself. I do not think that you're criticizing the contributors, but I also do not think that you're criticizing the article. I think you're (inadvertently) criticizing an entire vein of science writing where the director of a Duke research lab can say there is room for concern and not get written off as an agenda-pusher in the comments.

ajross 7y ago

> She's a scientist with an extensive body of publications in this domain In the context of that quote, as made explicit by attribution, she's an activist pushing a policy choice. That's not an indictment of her expertise, but it needs to be called out. She doesn't get to both advocate for a position in the text and stand in for "scientists"[1] in an appeal to authority argument in the headline. [1] These are, obviously, not "scare quotes"[2]. The word literally appears in the headline and I'm discussing the fact that it does! [2] Those aren't either. You wrote the words and I'm repeating them with the quotes to indicate that I'm discussing the phrases used in your "argument"[3] [3] Those are.

sterkekoffie 7y ago
It would seem, by your logic, that it is actually impossible for scientists to voice concern about anything, because once they do so, they can no longer be called scientists, only advocates. If that's the case, then I simply disagree with your logic. If it isn't, and you see some egregious bias-having somewhere in the scientists' statements or qualifications, feel free to point it out. If you can do so without the overt hostility, even better.
- ajross 7y ago
  You're still misunderstanding. It's not a criticism of the people quoted, it's a criticism of the journalism that presented the ideas as consensus worries when they're actually pretty niche concerns without a lot of good basis. You can advocate for anything you want, and we can post a link to a screed by the hilariously named "Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology"[1] and we can discuss that here if you like. But for the Guardian to do that is just editorializing. [1] Still not scare quotes
  - sterkekoffie 7y ago
    Perhaps I need to be more clear myself. I do not think that you're criticizing the contributors, but I also do not think that you're criticizing the article. I think you're (inadvertently) criticizing an entire vein of science writing where the director of a Duke research lab can say there is room for concern and not get written off as an agenda-pusher in the comments.