Sometimes I have to question the motivations of certain areas of research, not so much in regard to why but the how.
For me a good example of this is the recent discussion about cloning Woolly Mammoths. The organisations promoting this effort aren't shy of using a bit of Hollywood to help raise a profile and funds, and I can see the possibility that even if this is successful it will lead to the public becoming disappointed and disenchanted with the outcome / science.
The reason being those promoting the effort are happy to allow an ambiguity to persist about Woolly Mammoths versus other Mammoths. Some of this is a Hollywood created problem, the Hollywood version is often a Woolly Mammoth depicted at the scale of some other Mammoth. btw., Apparently it's not even clear if all "Woolly Mammoth" variants actually had hair, and many versions that did have hair were not as big as a modern African Elephant, although the ancient Mammoths probably had bigger tusks than modern elephants.
I would have though researchers might make an effort to clarify this from the outset, but it seems not to be the case, whoever promotes this cloning effort seems happy to leave the discussion ambiguous enough that people associate Woolly Mammoths with other giant Mammoths. It's not a case of the scientists being foolishly definitive, they haven't made that mistake and they won't because they would be ripped apart by peers, it's just that they leave things understated, they leave it to human imagination.
Journalists / Bloggers are partly to blame, the modern variant of journalist isn't professional enough to ask the obvious unasked question, they just assume and write, a bit like me I suppose! :o
For me a good example of this is the recent discussion about cloning Woolly Mammoths. The organisations promoting this effort aren't shy of using a bit of Hollywood to help raise a profile and funds, and I can see the possibility that even if this is successful it will lead to the public becoming disappointed and disenchanted with the outcome / science.
The reason being those promoting the effort are happy to allow an ambiguity to persist about Woolly Mammoths versus other Mammoths. Some of this is a Hollywood created problem, the Hollywood version is often a Woolly Mammoth depicted at the scale of some other Mammoth. btw., Apparently it's not even clear if all "Woolly Mammoth" variants actually had hair, and many versions that did have hair were not as big as a modern African Elephant, although the ancient Mammoths probably had bigger tusks than modern elephants.
I would have though researchers might make an effort to clarify this from the outset, but it seems not to be the case, whoever promotes this cloning effort seems happy to leave the discussion ambiguous enough that people associate Woolly Mammoths with other giant Mammoths. It's not a case of the scientists being foolishly definitive, they haven't made that mistake and they won't because they would be ripped apart by peers, it's just that they leave things understated, they leave it to human imagination.
Journalists / Bloggers are partly to blame, the modern variant of journalist isn't professional enough to ask the obvious unasked question, they just assume and write, a bit like me I suppose! :o
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"