I been there since 1985.

Sure has changed in 25 years.

The Arch was fun to go up in.

The museum was awesome too.

http://www.ecsite-conference.net/european-parliament-event

But yes, let’s discuss it again in London in 2009! It still is very important. Not just for climate reporting, but for science journalism in general.

Quite probably there are more, but about these I am sure.

In the past four years I have interviewed Josephson, Wilczek and Lauterbur, and I still want to write an article on why they partly (Wilczek) or completely (Josephson) changed direction after the Nobel Prize.

Crick definitely contributed to the study of the mind and the brain, as he really went deep into neuroscience. I think Edelman as well. Josephson became very weird, not to say crazy.

Kahneman´s talk, about which Frank writes, made the impression of somebody who just read a “Psychology book for kids”, that he picked up from one of his grandchildren. The Dutch psychologist Ap Dijksterhuis (1968) has just published a book about the functioning of the unconscious part of the brain (Het slimme onbewuste), which goes far deeper, and is far more interesting than what Kahneman presented. I think the book is going to be translated into English as well.

Never believe a Nobel Prize winner just because he or she has won a Nobel Prize.

The most recent issue of “Good” (the tech issue)is informative of this as well.

But to the issue of science blogs saving science journalism, that begs the question: is science journalism in need of saving? It does seem that journalism in general will present studies (peer-reviewed or NOT) if the appeal to their readership, so in that regard, the question becomes: how to get relevant science topics into the hands of relevant journalists and thus into the hands of an eager audience. That’s what it boils down to in my view.

Now, here’s where I go for the self-promotion. We tackle things like this, albeit at times more broadly, quite often on the , but it’s really Daylife itself that may indeed be “saving science journalism” more than just science blogs.

Enough of the self-promotion, elsewhere, Live Science appears to be that nifty hybrid blog/mainstream media venue that promotes science findings and events in a compelling manner. And there are others out there too. Science journalism is alive and well, there’s just so much of it out there, it gets spread thin. It’s the seeking of it that’s difficult, which makes things like the TED, Daylife, Live Science, and Science blogs excellent venues in that they do much of the compiling, so the the readers don’t have to!