Re: [Phys-l] Flurry of LHC "End of the world" nonsense

[Steve Highland <shighlan@uslink.net>]

> I don't think the public's questions or concerns about the LHC startup are
> at all inappropriate or stupid. I think they're perfectly legitimate
> questions -- perhaps with obvious answers to a physics PhD, but not at all
> to your common man. If only the public paid this much attention to other
> scientific matters -- of the chemicals in our products and food, of the
> pesticides put on our crops, of the potential consequences of biotechnology,
> of the possible ramifications of nanotechnology, or in whom all that rocket
> fuel exhaust ends up. Our society would be better off for it.
>
> The public is paying for the LHC. They have a right to ask questions, even
> "dumb" questions. If physicists can't take a little bit of their time and
> explain the situation -- and perhaps spread some physics education at the
> same time -- then I don't see how they're worth spending billions of
> research dollars on.
>
> David


I completely agree that the public's questions are absolutely valid and
important and deserve thoughtful answers.  What upsets me is the media focus
on sensationalism that highlights fringe views and controversy (they try to
create and extend controversy irresponsibly) that doesn't get the public the
real story it deserves.  This is what leads to, "Are we all going to die in
October?" instead of the much better, "What is so important about this stuff
that we spend billions on the LHC?"

I admire science writers who work hard to explain to the uninitiated what is
really being done.  I miss people like Dietrick Thomsen from Science News a
few decades ago.  His work was brilliant.  I enjoy Robert Krulwich's unique
approach to science stories -- he's a great explainer and knows how to make
it fun.

We need many more people like that.

Steve Highland
Duluth MN