Comments on: Science So What? So disappointing

By: BIS and Science: So What’s definition of “rigorous and credible” research « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:20:16 +0000

[...] that it is “rigorous and credible”. We have previously criticised Science: So What? on this blog: we have tried to be constructive, as we were hoping to see real improvements. However, with [...]

By: jonhw

jonhw — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:47:11 +0000

Thanks Steph – appreciate the response, and hope that we will see the site and the campaign improve further.

By: Steph (BIS)

Steph (BIS) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:39:16 +0000

Thanks for the comments Jon, which I genuinely appreciate.

We’re listening to the issues you, Andrew and others have raised and are working with the team delivering the campaign to see what we can do to respond to the criticisms. As you say, there’s a great opportunity here, and we certainly don’t want to miss it either.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:58:48 +0000

Thanks – I should have made explicit that accessibility is one area where things have been improving. Depressing that – on a government project – they are still getting even some basic aspects of accessibility wrong, though.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:31:41 +0000

On accessibility, they have been making strides: the last revamp of ScienceSoWhat included a commitment to text alternatives to audio content. This has mostly been in the form of transcripts rather than subtitles on videos to this point, but it is something.