Camp House, Jenkins Creek fires have burned more than 58 square miles of forest — an area larger than the city of Minneapolis

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

Last month, Popular Science magazine disabled all online comments on its website. 


Citing a University of Wisconsin-Madison study on online comments and their impact on a reader's ability to process scientific fact, Suzanne LaBarre, the magazine's online content editor, said "comments can be bad for science."


"We are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide," 

. "The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter."


The Wisconsin study had 1,183 people read a fictitious blog post about a new technology called nanosilver. The post discussed the risks and benefits of it. Then the participants read the fake comments from other readers on the post. 

On The Daily Circuit, we look at the importance of discussion in science and how readers can interact with research in more civil ways.

Gallery

The future of physics after Higgs Boson

Richard Dawkins on Elvis Presley and other gods

Latest warming report draws a line not to cross

Physicist Jim Gates on decoding string theory, the cosmos

Last month, Popular Science magazine disabled all online comments on its website. What's the importance of community discussion in scientific research?

Are online comments 'bad for science'?

Go Deeper.

Like this?