Cafe RadLab

Full Version: Public Engagement
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A couple weeks ago a twitter user asked for references to information about nuclear with regards to public involvement. I noted that she was getting references for pro-nuclear advocates so I referenced multiple no nukes folks and sites. She produced her slide show today. It's heavily slanted in favor of nuclear. I asked her to remove the caferadlab slide and the reference to me/my twitter account. "Publications on public attitudes and public engagement about nuclear oct 2017" - she has said on twitter about the slideshow : "pls treat w/ caution, it’s just a list of links given to me. No literature search, & not comprehensive"

The original references slide:

I asked her about the apparent bias.

Her reply: "I just compiled the links that were given to me; no slant intended."

She explained that she simply used the suggestions for content provided by others. I responded:

"So, you're saying you didn't conduct any searches for content on your own, you relied solely upon suggestions? Bias inherent in methodology."

How silly. What happened to original research?

She informed me that: "I was asked 4 egs of published info on public attitudes & public engagement on nuclear energy & opted to ask Twitter. Not paid/commissioned" and that "Yep, definitely biased. I did a bit of online searching but not much. Also, my Twitter networks likely to be quite sciencey. 1/2" "Aim: to share the list of suggestions, to thank those who made suggestions & to aid transparency. Not intended to be a balanced view 2/2"
She informed me it was one of the delegates to The 5th Annual Japan-UK Nuclear Dialogue that asked her to compile the list. She didn't disclose their name but did say they work in the public sector in nuclear energy.