Introductory

Last week, I had the chance to attend the Science Writing in an Age of Denial conference at the University of Wisconsin. Mostly for writers, it also included an assortment of scholars both in scientific disciplines and peripheral fields such as history of science and science communications. As the title of the event implies, much of the conference was about the public and organized denial of scientific evidence, most notably evolution and climate change. These were two areas in which I felt reasonably comfortable, so it was the other subjects that faced denial - such as cancer screenings and the denial about their (lack of) effectiveness, which were most interesting to me. While the title of the conference related to the denial of science, an appropriate subtitle could have been "and the science of denial," specifically the psychology and even neuroscience behind denial and the strategies one could use when trying to address the deniers (or even undecided people, in the context of denial).

The conference was fascinating, not only because of the keynote presentations, but because of the dynamics between conference goers. There were both outspoken "new" media personalities as well as old school, reserved, establishment journalists. There were a few crackpots who came out of the woodwork to monopolize Q and A sessions with rambling "questions" that were little more than vehicles for their exaggerated views on science and society. There were some very accomplished writers as well as people like me who, though active in conversations, mostly just sat back and observed.

Some discussions could verge on depressing; we must constantly face a very well organized and well funded opposition, barriers that the human brain can throw up in the face of reason, and challenges in organizing our own thoughts in light of these obstacles. But it was heartening to see that some very smart people were willing to at least confront this problem head on.

I definitely was able to get a lot of fodder for this blog over the two days. The experience also boosted my confidence in my decision to make a career out of science writing. I've tried to distill what I got out of the conference in order to post it here, rather than incessantly tweet with my face in my laptop, like many of the other attendees, putting the gem quotes in context rather than leave them stranded out in the sea of chatter about Metta World Peace and whatever else people tweet about. (This was revealing, as all these new media platforms seem to be increasingly important to science writers. Maybe it's just that the other journalists and their editors old and don't really understand how to use them, but the effectiveness of twitter at the conference was limited at best).