Science and Hollywood

Carolyn Porco examines how science and scientists are portrayed in the film industry (video by Josh Timonen for RichardDawkins.net):

English libel battle rages on

"For years, London has had the reputation of being the place to go to court if one wants to divorce, and fleece a partner while doing so. Less publicly, however, it has equally become a place to sue, or threaten to sue, scientists and those writing about scientists" writes Mark Hennessy in The Irish Times. Commented upon recently by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian, the worrying trend of scientists being sued by practitioners of pseudoscientific medicine and medical companies alike has gained increased media attention since the case of Simon Singh began over 18 months ago, and has drawn in individuals far beyond the borders of the city in question. Síle Lane, a native of Co. Cork who studied stem cell research at UCC, has joined the fray by heading the Keep Libel Out Of Science campaign on behalf of Sense About Science, a London-based lobby group backed by prominent scientists like Dr. Dawkins and other intellectuals, such as Stephen Fry. Set up in 2002, the group's intention is to combat what it calls "an anti-science" atmosphere in the UK, and it has received increased media attention since Singh's case began as well as support from, amongst others, the Liberal Democrats, who have, according to Mark Hennessy's article, "overwhelmingly backed reform", a move Lane calls "a great step forward" in challenging the "chilling, stultifying effect" of English libel laws. With libel cases in the UK costing four times as much as in Ireland, which is in turn ten times dearer than the next most expensive European country, Italy, scientists cannot afford to speak out for fear of legal action, the net result being that, as Sense About Science puts it, "a country that...once led the world in technological advances [is] now falling behind". Scientific, and, by proxy, societal advancement is dependent by its very nature on critical thinking, open questioning and debate, skepticism and the ability to voice concerns, hypotheses, misgivings and opinions without fear of oppression. One can only hope that as media attention continues to focus on the outrages in progress, such as the Singh case, real progress will be made in ensuring they can never be repeated.

Dawkins' Bulldogs

Following Richard Dawkins' appearance on last Friday's episode of The Late Late Show, a segment one could hardly call an "interview", given the complete lack of structure, pertinent questions and a bizarrely hostile attitude on the part of host Ryan Tubridy, I cynically expected to see the Irish blogosphere light up in support of that chinless wonder and his petty attempts to ambush his guest. Imagine my delight then in perusing boards.ie yesterday evening to find that quite the opposite had occurred and a healthy dose of outrage had been stirred up on behalf of Dr. Dawkins and his mistreatment at the hands of RTÉ. Some choice comments:

- "That'll teach me to stay in watching the Late Late Show on a Friday... Cringeworthy"

- "Creationism rules in Irish Society!"

- "What a useless interview. 90% of it was about his LAST book, for the sole purpose of stirring some ****!"

- "His attitude was condescending, but do you blame him? Tubridy questioned him about a topic that doesn't relate to his new book, he spent 90% of the interview talking about that topic; Dawkins was there to promote and talk about his new book, not his book of three years ago. If I were Richard, I'd have been annoyed too, and I'm sure that annoyance would have evinced itself as condescension"

- "Firstly, he did nothing but talk about the topic of "The God Delusion" and not [Dawkins'] new book. Secondly, he had done zero research, had clearly never read a word written by the man and as far as I could tell, all he knew was that 'some english bloke who didn't believe in God' was coming on the show. His questions were inept and lacking any substance. His posture was defensive and dismissive. He had a constant smirk on his face and not once did he attempt to actually dig deep into any of the questions instead asking retarded questions like 'have you thought about your funeral' and asking him to speculate what humans will look like millions of years from now. His linguistic repertoire was laughable forcing phrases into the chaps mouth like 'easter bunny' later using the term to mock the man's argument.
Then to top it off, he decided to ask for a show of hands of those who believe in God as if his pathetic audience of 100 people were some sort of credible source on theological matters... Oh look 95% of Irish retards say they believe in God ergo God exists!"

- "Aside from the whole "Irish people are very gullible" debate, it's Tubridy's interviewing technique that completely lacks any kind of finesse"

- "Dawkins was perfectly respectful. The priest was perfectly respectful. Tubridy hijacked the interview to try and kick up a storm (thankfully his plan failed miserably). The interview was not supposed to be about the God Delusion. The interview was supposed to be about Evolution and the book "The Greatest Show on Earth". It was an absolute joke"

- "Tubridy was unbelievably childish in his questioning and came across as deluded as the audience. What should have been an engaging debate on evolution, Darwin, religion and the beauty of the natural world turned into a village hall kerfuffle about the easter bunny"

- ""So whats the Vatican?? Toy Town?" Well if that's not a defensive believer talking I don't know what is. I really thought Tubridy was a bright, intelligent guy who would love the opportunity to have someone like Richard Dawkins on the show. Looks like he's just another ratings whore who knows how to play into the hands of his largely middle-aged Catholic television audience"

Lovely to see that the infidels of Ireland are speaking out on behalf of Dr. Dawkins and quite right too, but it's such a pity that we couldn't have been better represented in that studio audience. Come back soon Richard, we don't all hate you!