Hopes 1080 film will arouse curiosity

Sadly as the film makers say, the science has been lost or rather does not exist re 1080 use. We are the only country still to use it in the manner we do on the grounds that we have no mammals - well that is not true as we have two species of endemic bats, many deer species introduced plus tahr,chamois, goats and pigs ,all manner of farm animals, not to mention humans. How much more clever we must be than the countries who have banned its use or do we just not care? There has not been one long term population study to show benefit to any native species, we accept it kills some of everything and carry on. It is not emotive to question the aerial use of any poison but commonsense - do we have to follow spraying of Auckland for the painted apple moth control where we were told no one was affected; the use of 245T where science said it was just fine and now it is accepted as a problem, certainly it seriously effected pregnancy in in a number of cattle herds, agent orange is only a defoliant but is now recognised as a killer and something which has changed the gene structure of children of men exposed? DDT, persisting in the soil for many thousands of years, was once used with the backing of science to remove grass grub & porina in New Zealand.
We have made many mistakes, have no science to say anything good is achieved by aerial use of 1080, much actual & anecdotal evidence to suggest it kills everything and then carries on doing so in a secondary way for months after its use. There is nothing to suggest that demands for our country to stop using any sort of aerial poison is anything else than commonsense..
We do not have any forum other than that generated in the media as none of the users are prepared discuss any concerns, other than to tell us it is biodegradeable into salt and vinegar - there is no science to back that either and we are expected to accept this. The breakdown of this man-made (not natural) poison is quite clear, seldom finds the conditions in our bush suitable to its breakdown and one of the products formed when it is able to break down is a fluoro hydrocarbon - green house gas. How clever is that?

I hope this film includes a segment of the innocent lifestyle owners who are caught up in the middle of a battle between DOC, the AHB, Regional Councils and their rights to not have 1080 dropped all over their boundaries and their beloved pets.

Film making involves telling a story. Why bother trying to present something scientific if no one will be interested in it because it is just a bunch of dry facts being thrown at them? The art of making a documentary involves presenting scientific facts while telling a story. I believe that the point of the course is to teach students how to effectively communicate scientific facts while telling a story and engaging the viewer at the same time. I disagree with "communication isn't about showing both sides of the story" and "science is one sided". Effective communication takes in all sides, you can't just show what you perceive to be the scientific facts and leave out everything else. Science is supposed to be impartial so how can it be one sided? It simply provides evidence that may be beneficial to either side. In order to make a decision about the subject, the viewer needs to be equipped with both the scientific facts and the human/emotional element. In this type of situation the choice cannot be made by science alone. Presenting the emotional element doesn't necessarily prevent the film maker from communicating the science effectively. As we have not seen the film we cannot judge whether or not the science has been communicated well in this instance. I also disagree with "science communication is not about a debate but to get the correct information out". There are always debates in science where different scientists have proven different theories that seem to contradict each other. Yet both can provide the scientific facts to back themselves up. In order for someone to make up their own mind they need to have both sets of evidence presented to them and pitted against each other so they can decide which evidence outweighs the other. As for getting "the correct information out" who is to decide what information is correct and what is not? If a film provides all the information and allows the viewer decide to which is correct, is that not letting them make an informed choice? Rather than presenting what one person decides is correct to convince them to make their choice? Good science is about debate as well as communication. There will always be many pieces of conflicting evidence or scientific facts. Assuming that presenting the science removes the need for debate is a very simplistic way of looking at things.

I find the paragraph about balance interesting coming from students of a science communication course. "Mr Holmes said while many films had been made on 1080, they were mostly one-sided, so their aim was to make a "balanced" account of the issue by presenting both sides of the argument alongside the science." As they say, they present both sides of the debate along side the science. But the key point is not the politicisation of the issue or the various points of view but the facts, which are the science. And while the students do mention this, "It's a very emotive subject and some facts get lost in the argument", it does not seem from the article as if this is what they have achieved. Sure giving the balance adds to the drama and emotion but it detracts from the aim of what they are trying to achieve. The point of their course is to teach them to communicate the science. I appreciate the need to have a "hook" upon which to attach the science and to have a narrative that brings the viewer along. But science is not about balance, it is a one-sided process that involves the facts. Personally I do not have all the information to make a decision on this situation, although I do have my opinions, and if the intent of this film is to communicate the science and to hence give the information that is needed to make a decision then giving the rhetoric of either side (or both sides for that matter) is not going to help that process along. The goal of science communication should not be to start debates but to provide the public access to the information that settles the debate. The communication is not, as Mr Ting seems to think, about getting the two sides of the debate to talk together but to get the correct information out to where it can be accessed by all, removing the need for a debate.