| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear PaleoNet Colleagues: Beginning in 1981, after my first encounters with the Alvarez asteroid team at the K-TEC II, and Snowbird I--and their attempts to silence opposition to their asteroid theory, and to convince the public that "everybody believes," and to prematurely shut down the K-T debate--the thought of a gigantic 10 km diameter flimflam hitting the world of science, and journalism, came to my mind. I compartmentalized that thought away from the actual science of the K-T, and felt content to let the asteroid and volcano theories develop, and see where K-T science went. Unfortunately, it went pathogenic. Now, it is time to break down the barrier between K-T science and politics and to intermingle the chemistry of each. My 30 December 1992 letter to Jerry Bishop, journalist at the Wall Street Journal, addressed how journalists use the First Amendment to promote or demote whatever they wish, with little, or no, control imposed upon them. Today, I exercise my First Amendment rights to ask this question: Has the Alvarez asteroid been blown into legitimacy via control of the news media by the impact community and its friends? This is a fair question, and one worthy of examination. The First Amendment sword has two edges. Cordially, Dewey McLean ----------------------------------------------------------------------- December 30, 1992 Mr. Jerry E. Bishop Wall Street Journal 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 Dear Mr. Bishop: I enjoyed your letter to Science (1992, v. 255, p. 10) on "Science and the Press," but disagree with your comment, "Bad science and false prophets can't long survive in the glare of publicity, even favorable publicity." As a principal in the dinosaur extinctions debate for the past decade (I originated the volcano side of the debate), I have watched elements of the press embed the Alvarez asteroid--that at times amounts to little more than a flimflam--into the public consciousness as virtual fact. In spite of the fact the asteroid's basic premises were demonstrably false, the media helped parlay it into a huge and expensive impact-based industry with expensive spin-offs, in which the public has had to pay for everything from "nuclear winter" to "Spacewatch." Unfortunately, most journalists know little about scientific data, and don't seem to care. Articles about rocks falling out of the sky and destroying worlds sells papers, or journals. The First Amendment provides wonderful opportunity to hustle the public with no accountability. Via effective use of the First Amendment by editors and journalists, bad science can not only survive--it can prosper. And the best part is that nobody gets hurt--except the public. I enclose my letter to Koshland, Science editor, showing how Science has promoted the Alvarez asteroid--and virtually censored the volcanist side of the debate--for a decade. Somehow, it seems wrong that the First Amendment would allow this to happen under the guise that freedom of the press--with no accountability--is a good thing. Sincerely yours, Dewey M. McLean Professor, and Director of Earth Systems and Biosphere Evolution Studies Copyright 1996 Dewey M. McLean *********************************************************************** Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559 Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, VA 24061 Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/ Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/ Creationism_vs_Evolution/index.html ***********************************************************************
Partial index: