So I would rather have them make a big deal about the small things so as to prepare the masses IF and when the big news story comes, well that’s how I see it but then who am I?

I’m not sure what actually happened, but when I read that press release, the first thing I thought of was the Ida fiasco, and it occurred to me that NASA was trying to say the minimal possible that is correct and, together with the listing of authors, suggestive of what would be presented. Actually, the two or three science bloggers who knew what they were talking about called it pretty closely . So, I am guessing that they missed the mark because they were trying to avoid saying to much. Next time they have to say a little more.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to ask one of NASA’s top space scientists (JPL) about the press office at NASA and was told that they may not always be doing a great job.

BTW, a more widespread and timely distribution of the embargoed paper would have helped.

At the end of the day, as it were, the press release said nothing about aliens, so anyone who reported it as having to do with aliens is, technically, wrong. Since there is no way to avoid ALL mis-interpretation and mis-use, one is not really obligated to work too hard to do it.

That’s one position to take, and I don’t entirely disagree. But I also think we as science communicators are in a precarious position if we stick to “technically right,” and don’t make allowances for the imprecise nature of human interaction. No one is obligated to work hard to avoid misinterpretation, but I’m personally of the opinion that it should be among the top priorities.

I should also point out, I don’t think I’m in the “NASA hater” camp, but I only realized I was conflating the two different aspects of this story (not willfully!) when I started writing about it. It’s not hard to get sucked into that.

Yeah, but I’m thinking that this took no fewer than 11 memos and three committee meetings.

NASA must be cognizant of how they will be interpreted, and endeavor to make their message as clear as possible. They can’t stop people from running wild with the things they say, but they can improve their messaging strategies.

On one hand, yes, and thus the current challenge. We’ve done this here with abstracts as well. A few tiny differences would have accomplished that goal, like simply mentioning that it is about research on a common bacteria with a twist, or the version you suggested.

On the other hand, lots of people, including some of the bloggers who are now complaining, made fun of this press release and started talking about ET and such right away, though not seriously. A site like Gawker may be so inclined to go for the funny ET angle (or whatever) that there is nothing one can do.

At the end of the day, as it were, the press release said nothing about aliens, so anyone who reported it as having to do with aliens is, technically, wrong. Since there is no way to avoid ALL mis-interpretation and mis-use, one is not really obligated to work too hard to do it.

there are two different conversations here

Yes, absolutely, and many NASA haters are, in my view, willfully conflating the two.

And I think that the reaction of Gawker and other news outlets is NASA’s problem. If the goal is good communication of science to the public (and I think you and I agree that that’s at least one of the goals), NASA must be cognizant of how they will be interpreted, and endeavor to make their message as clear as possible. They can’t stop people from running wild with the things they say, but they can improve their messaging strategies.

It also occurs to me that there are two different conversations here: the hype generated before the press-conference (hope that we found aliens) vs the hype about the actual claims made at the press conference (a DNA backbone of As). As I said before, I can’t blame NASA for the latter. And I actually think the former is relatively minor on it’s own (though similar mistakes should be avoided if possible in the future). I think the combination of a let-down on the ET front, plus the seeming over-hype of the claims of the paper combined to blow the whole thing into a heated controversy.

There isn’t a clear set of guidelines for when press conferences are held. I’ve done press conferences for work that was local numerous times … archaeological work in Boston or in upstate New York on local news, though actually one of our Boston press conferences was covered nationally, but not for non-archaeology research that was probably much more important in the long run. As I suggested above, it is fairly normal to have press events at major conferences, and any perceived bar for how important something has to be isn’t really that important. The individual press releases, conferences, Q&A sessions, etc. are all in competition with each other.

Let me tell you something, though: If A is being substituted for P in long stretches of DNA backbone, and everyone (as Larry Moran has claimed) already knew about it, the the people writing the textbooks are ignoring a very interesting fact of biology. If, on the other hand, this is happening in Mono Lake cultivated bacteria and not previously seen, this is mondo important and interesting. If, on the third hand, it is just normal bacteria that were “evolved” in the lab to defy known biological rules, then THAT is pretty fucking interesting, IMHO. Evolution in the test tube from normal life to something unheard of? Holy crap!

If, on the other hand, it turns out to be contamination, then I will be the first to tear this research team a few new orifices. For my part, I was impressed, in part, because at the press conference they made the explicit claim that they had more results not yet published that would confirm what they were showing in their animation, which is complete replacement of A for P in the DNA backbone. I believe them until proven otherwise. If they were making that up, the’ll pay. If not, then that’s really cool!

Scientists from NASA will detail some of their recent findings at a press conference scheduled for ______. This research relates to the fact that life as we know it is mostly composed of the elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus. Although these six elements make up the bulk of living matter, it is theoretically possible that some other elements in the periodic table could serve the same functions. They will describe a bacterium isolated from Mono Lake, CA, which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. The data will show evidence for arsenic in molecules that normally contain phosphorous, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. Exchange of one of the major elements may have profound evolutionary and geochemical significance, so you should definitely not cut NASA’s budget. Cookies and coffee will be served.

It’s a bit boring, but that’s what they actually showed. “Science is interesting, and if you don’t agree you can fuck off.”
Also, why the press conference? I know plenty of people who have Nature and Science papers and never got a press conference. A lot of the anger on the blogosphere is probably due to NASA calling a press conference to present mediocre research. Something like “Next time these clowns hold a press conference, they better have ET standing next to them!”

I agree that it would have been good for NASA to clarify its pre-press announcement, but I doubt there’s a mechanism for that. Duct tape saved Apollo 13 but those days are gone.

Also, one could argue that Gawker.com and similar outlets seeing aliens where none were mentioned isn’t really NASA’s problem, and the people who are really upset about all this aren’t especially important. The bla-bla-blawgosphere did not really do a better job in their reaction to this than NASA did in its press conference.

A very important thing did happen here that has not been noted to my knowledge. If you watched the press conference you’d see that among the questions from the standard science press were very few of the kinds of questions that the science bloggers have asked. The reporters taking part in the press conference mostly didn’t do a very good job. Although science bloggers as a whole tend to act like babies when they don’t get what they want (lacking a sense of professional decorum, even willfully eschewing professional decorum and such things), the fact is that they can ask better questions should be a reason to bring them more often to the table.