IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v5y2015i1p66-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defending the Ivory Tower against the end of the world

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Wright

Abstract

Science was once pure, unadulterated, and a source of public entertainment. Entertainment is now driven by celebrity, and choice is everywhere. Yet, many scientists still believe decision-makers will find and use their research to make science-based decisions. However, this is simply not the case. Articles are written in an inaccessible style, and access is often restricted. Thus, the Media acts as a gatekeeper, limiting stories to subjects directly related to human health, brief, feel-good human interest pieces that often include misinterpretations, oversimplifications, or (worse still) fair and balanced 1-1 discussions. Conversely, misinformation produced by those with economic interests is freely available and easy to find and understand. Yet, many scientists still avoid engaging or correcting factual errors in media and policy as this is often seen as Advocacy: impurity in the Ivory Tower existence, despite already advocating for their work when submitting grant proposals and permit applications. Meanwhile, damage is being done. A now-retracted paper linking autism to vaccinations induced a public movement that persists, with real-world implications for outbreak risks. Likewise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC)’s reputation is being actively sabotaged by ‘grassroots’ organisations that are heavily, if not exclusively, funded by Big Oil, delaying appropriate policy action. Many lives are actually at stake. Science is under siege, but hiding inside the Ivory Tower is not the answer. Science budgets are falling with the use of science in management decisions. We must leave the Ivory Tower, or science will perish inside the walls to the detriment of the world around us. Copyright AESS 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Wright, 2015. "Defending the Ivory Tower against the end of the world," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(1), pages 66-69, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:66-69
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-015-0227-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-015-0227-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-015-0227-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. Parsons, 2013. "Editorial: So you want to be a Jedi? Advice for conservation researchers wanting to advocate for their findings," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 340-342, September.
    2. Xin Shuai & Alberto Pepe & Johan Bollen, 2012. "How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    2. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    3. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Ortega, José Luis, 2018. "The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 579-589.
    5. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    6. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    7. Saeideh Ebrahimy & Jafar Mehrad & Fatemeh Setareh & Massoud Hosseinchari, 2016. "Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1497-1510, December.
    8. Victoria Tur-Viñes & Jesús Segarra-Saavedra & Tatiana Hidalgo-Marí, 2018. "Use of Twitter in Spanish Communication Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-10, July.
    9. Xianwen Wang & Wenli Mao & Shenmeng Xu & Chunbo Zhang, 2014. "Usage history of scientific literature: Nature metrics and metrics of Nature publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1923-1933, March.
    10. Beibei Hu & Xianlei Dong & Chenwei Zhang & Timothy D. Bowman & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević & Chaoqun Ni & Erjia Yan & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2643-2656, December.
    11. Brito, Ana C.M. & Silva, Filipi N. & de Arruda, Henrique F. & Comin, Cesar H. & Amancio, Diego R. & Costa, Luciano da F., 2021. "Classification of abrupt changes along viewing profiles of scientific articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    12. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    13. Edward Christien Michael Parsons & John A. Cigliano, 2020. "Is the “academic conservation scientist” becoming an endangered species?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(4), pages 478-482, December.
    14. Juan C. Correa & Henry Laverde-Rojas & Julian Tejada & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos, 2022. "The Sci-Hub effect on papers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 99-126, January.
    15. C. A. Piña-García & J. Mario Siqueiros-García & E. Robles-Belmont & Gustavo Carreón & Carlos Gershenson & Julio Amador Díaz López, 2018. "From neuroscience to computer science: a topical approach on Twitter," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 187-208, January.
    16. Jurgita Raudeliūnienė & Vida Davidavičienė & Manuela Tvaronavičienė & Laimonas Jonuška, 2018. "Evaluation of Advertising Campaigns on Social Media Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Grover, Purva & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Janssen, Marijn, 2019. "Polarization and acculturation in US Election 2016 outcomes – Can twitter analytics predict changes in voting preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 438-460.
    18. Liwen Vaughan, 2016. "Uncovering information from social media hyperlinks: An investigation of twitter," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1105-1120, May.
    19. Liwen Vaughan & Juan Tang & Rongbin Yang, 2017. "Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1533-1545, June.
    20. Michael Taylor, 2023. "Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: five altmetric sources observed over a decade show evolving trends, by research age, attention source maturity and open access status," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2175-2200, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:5:y:2015:i:1:p:66-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.