On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Michael Kenward wrote:
>
> Your observation that "they were not careful with their language" applies to
> the scientist and the press office.
>
Yes, but only the press office. The scientist was indeed accurate and very
careful with his language, no ambiguities there. Press officers and
science journalists should carefully 'translate' the scientific accutate
language for the general public. In this case they did not.
>
> A press office should not put out a release on a scientific story until it
> has been signed off by the scientist.
>
> If this process does not happen, then both parties are colluding in the
> release of potentially dodgy material, which, I think we already agreed, was
> what went out in this case.
No dodgy material to start with in this case. No collusion. The scientist
was clear about mass, massive, star birth, luminosity, etc. The press
officer just repeated this without translating for the public, where
massive has size implications. Naturally unaware of this, the scientist
would have approved the release (and perhaps he did) and by the time the
news reached the non-specialist journalists and broadcasters it was too
late. The star had become the largest star ever. That it what I tried to
say in the interview.
Thanks to all for your valuable comments and help.
regards
francisco
>
> MK
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francisco Diego
> Sent: 23 July 2010 23:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The most massive star ever detected is not a
> specially giant star
>
>
> No dodgy material at all. The scientist does the research and produces a
> scientific paper using the word 'massive'. The scientist does not
> necessarily speaks the popular language nor has the time to go to the
> public, hence the need for a press officer who knows about science and
> should speak the popular language. Press officer and science journalist
> have similar tasks and abilities.
>
> In this case they were not careful with their language and created a
> confusion between mass and size. They should have known that the largest
> stars so far are around 2000 times the diameter of the sun, which means
> around 50 times larger than this 'monster'. Some members of the public
> knew this. GCSE level, no need to read journals or to talk to the
> scientist for this.
>
> In any case, a great story for the public and a learning experience to
> some of us.
>
> regards
>
> francisco
>
> --------------------------------
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Michael Kenward wrote:
>
>> So, the science writers were working from dodgy material. Maybe not as
>> incompetent then as the first message suggested.
>>
>> Then again, writers should not rely solely on a press release. They should
>> also read the journal papers and talk to the people involved.
>>
>> But please do not jump to conclusions about the press officer behind this.
> A
>> good PR person will check the story with the people who did the research.
>>
>> MK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francisco Diego
>> Sent: 23 July 2010 12:18
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The most massive star ever detected is not a
>> specially giant star
>>
>>
>> Dear Laura,
>>
>> You are right and your views are extremely useful. The press release uses
>> different words and that becomes confusing. I just noticed the
>> (misleading) title:
>>
>> Stars Just Got Bigger . A 300 Solar Mass Star Uncovered
>>
>> I think the link between massive and amount of mass in solar masses, etc
>> is clearly stated. However would it have helped to add that massive in
>> this case did not mean large in size?
>>
>> I agree. The officer writing the press release was misleading in using
>> the term monsters.
>>
>> Millions of times more luminous, brighter, more powerful. A single star
>> sending out the light equivalent to millions of suns. I see no problem
>> there.
>>
>> Oh dear! you are right, the way it reads, implies that the sun loses mass
>> through winds, while it was referring to the massive star, which has lost
>> about a fifth of its mass this way (the sun, as a stsr, also has winds,
>> but negligible in this context).
>>
>> The release implies that the mass of a star is defined at its birth. What
>> was missing was a short explanation on how stars form and why they end up
>> with different masses. This would have put the discovery into context. Do
>> you agree?
>>
>> If there are any more comments, please let me know, as this will help in
>> the future.
>>
>> Many thanks again
>>
>> francisco
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Laura Goodall wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>
>> If I may be blunt, but this press release isn't the best that's
>> been written. I
>> am not an astrophysicist and the first paragraph of this press release is
>> confusing (and the first paragraph is sometimes the only paragraph people
>> read!). Things I noticed:
>>
>> 1) It doesn't directly tell me what 'massive' means in astrophysical
>> terms but
>> only hints at it and expects me to make the connection between "massive"
> and
>>
>> "weighing" - it could be interpreted as saying that the star is both big
>> (massive) and heavy.dense (weighing),
>>
>> 2) the word 'monsters' does indicate a size reference (as things tend to
> be
>> monsterously big, not monsterously heavy/dense).
>>
>> 3) I don't really understand the bit that says "millions of times more
>> luminous
>> than the Sun, losing weight through very powerful winds" - does that mean
>> that
>> the Sun is not as heavy/dense because it is always losing weight? How does
>> that
>> fit into the story?
>>
>>
>> I've copied the original text here for reference:
>> "Using a combination of instruments on ESO˙˙s Very Large Telescope,
>> astronomers
>> have discovered the most massive stars to date, one weighing at birth more
>> than
>> 300 times the mass of the Sun, or twice as much as the currently accepted
>> limit
>> of 150 solar masses. The existence of these monsters ˙˙ millions of times
>> more
>> luminous than the Sun, losing weight through very powerful winds ˙˙ may
>> provide
>> an answer to the question 'how massive can stars be?' "
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing if I am wrong on this...
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Francisco Diego <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Thu, 22 July, 2010 19:06:30
>> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The most massive star ever detected is not a
>> specially
>> giant star
>>
>> It is good that the story was given prominence and that the public
>> responded.
>>
>> However, the sources were clear about the relevance of mass in star
>> formation,
>> which determines whether the object would be a star or a planet, if a
> star,
>> it
>> would determine its luminosity and whether it will burn for a few million
>> years
>> or for hundreds of thousands of millions of years. The point here was that
>> star
>> formation at this previously unknown scale now needs further explanation,
>> like
>> the idea of stellar merging for example.
>>
>> The story appears here:
>>
>> http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=81650&CultureCode=en
>>
>>
>> Some media found more appealing to refer to size, saying the it was the
>> largest
>> star ever detected and this is misleading, confusing, distracting from the
>> main
>> point and, well, not true, so in this case, is was wrong to say so.
>>
>> Does understanding the difference between mass and size require a crash
>> course
>> in astrophysics?
>>
>> In any case, it was great that pure, fundamental science made the
> headlines
>> and
>> excited people's imagination.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> francisco
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Michael Kenward wrote:
>>
>>> And how does this "misleading" information affect the story? Does it mean
>>> that all those reports are wrong? Or just using different terminology
> from
>>> the specialists?
>>>
>>> When this happens, it can be because the original sources were themselves
>>> hard to interpret or poorly explained.
>>>
>>> Remember, reporters do not have time or space to include quick crash
>> courses
>>> in astrophysics.
>>>
>>> MK
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Michael Kenward OBE
>>> Science Writer & Stuff
>>> My other computer is a slide rule
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oli Usher
>>> Sent: 22 July 2010 15:01
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] The most massive star ever detected is not a
>>> specially giant star
>>>
>>> "Massive" is clearly a problematic word since it doesn't mean the same
>>> thing to specialists and non-specialists. But what's the alternative?
>>> Would "heavy" or something like that be better?
>>>
>>> Francisco Diego wrote:
>>>> This discovery has received a lot of media attention, but once again,
>>>> the information has been presented in a misleading way.
>>>>
>>>> I was on Sky News last night about R136b, the most massive and bright
>>>> star ever discovered, this time by the team led by Paul Crowther (ex
>>>> UCL). I said that the relevance of this star it its record mass,
>>>> around 300 solar masses, which makes it the brigthest star on record,
>>>> 10 million times more powerful than the sun. This discovery is
>>>> triggering new ideas about the formation of ultra massive stars, which
>>>> now will consider the possibility of smaller stars merging together,
>>>> as Paul Crowther proposes. During the interview, I tried to clarify
>>>> that R136b is not a specially large star, with a diameter only around
>>>> 40 times bigger than the sun's, while some red supergiant stars have
>>>> diameters around 2000 times bigger than the sun's. Here the media have
>>>> been misleading, confusing mass with diameter, even giving examples of
>>>> how long would a plane take to fly around the star, etc. Perhaps this
>>>> is a consequence of the way language is used (i.e. massive as 'big,
>>>> giant', but not as 'large mass, heavy'). Still a great story with wide
>>>> coverage and lot of public attention on a fundamental science topic.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> francisco
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
*
Dr Francisco Diego, FRAS
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
University College London (Observatory) *
553 Watford Way
London, NW7 2QS, UK
Senior Research Fellow * * *
The Mind of the Universe lectures
www.ucl.ac.uk/themindoftheuniverse *
*
email: [log in to unmask] *
(international) | (UK)
|
Fax: +44-20-8906-4161 | 020-8906-4161 *
Mobile: +44-7974-917878 | 07974-917878
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
