Media+Response+2

3/23 This assignment is no longer necessary, but it counts as extra credit. See the announcements for details.

Respond to a website (such as any of the ones listed on our Media Response Candidates list) that makes some kind of claim associated with this class. Last time, you went through several specific steps before you got to your actual media response. This time, you’ll have more freedom in choosing what to respond to, but you’ll be expected to use the same kind of careful critical thinking in your analysis, and you'll be graded in keeping with the rubric you attached to your user page.


 * Step 1: What’s the Claim? **

Find a website dealing with a class subject where the author makes some kind of scientific claim, or cites an expert making such a claim. Cite the name and location of the website, and the name and credentials of the author and/or expert. In 100-250 words, summarize the position of the website.

** Step 2: What’s the Foundation? **
Using PubMed ( [] ), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), and any other resources available, evaluate the scientific foundation for these claims. In 400-500 words, describe the foundation for the claim: is there a peer-reviewed study that the author relies on? Is there a scientific consensus, or disagreement? Can you find any bias, pseudoscience, bad logic, or other problems with the claim or the experts?

** Step 3: Write a Media Response **
In 1000-1500 words, write your response to the media article, including all of the following, in some order:
 * 1) State clearly whether you agree or disagree, and why.
 * 2) Correct any scientific claims the website makes.
 * 3) Include answers to the following questions:
 * How well supported are the claims?
 * What does this level of support mean?
 * What have other scientists said about the claims?

For example, I might summarize Susan Greenfield’s claims that the internet is damaging our brains in 100-250 words, and then point out that--despite her impressive credentials--she’s done no research on the topic, and she’s virtually alone in her beliefs. Her claim that there is “rewiring” going on true but misleading--the brain is perpetually rewiring itself; why should this version be bad? Her claim that there is a link to autism is a clear case of correlation versus causation, as several other authors have pointed out. She's become infamous in the scientific community for wild--even paranoid--speculation...and despite all this, //there's a difference between being unfounded and being incorrect//. The autism claim is the only one we know for sure to be false, so far. If I support all of that in 1000-1500 words, that's a Media Response.

Submit your assignment here as “MR2” followed by your student number. For example, if my student number was 13866, I’d save the assignment as MR213866. To allow for peer grading, this assignment must be submitted as a wiki page.