Ways to improve the TMRO:Science show



How about further explaining something from everyday life in simple science terms? Perhaps related to one of the news items? For example, this news segment is about how a computer chip can identify microbes living in your body. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/chip-can-quickly-identify-microbes-living-your-body Well, after reporting on the story, the segment could be “What is a computer chip and how does it work”? Most people have computers, cameras, phones that use that tech, but don’t think much about it.

Yeah, it’s a little bit “Professor Proton”. But might help answer the “why should the audience care” question.
Some of the most compelling things that a science show can report on are things that the audience can relate to. Or that affect them directly.

Also, do you think that recording “Science” needs to happen directly after “TMRO”? If you’re going to add more shows eventually, they’re going to need to operate pseudo-independently, right? If left to their own devices, they might develop their own “flavour”, so to speak. Or do you want Science to be modeled directly on TMRO and use that template?


I like this as a concept.


I somewhat agree… if said “expert” could be someone involved in a current news item.

I think 2 segments would work… news and interview with someone involved with one of the news items… or at the very least a person knowledgeable on one of the news items. This would give each show a theme.

If you can’t get a guest to interview then have an all news show where the presenters research their news items a bit more so they can give a longer … more detailed and technical… presentation and engage with chat questions. If time is needed to look something up that is ok if you let someone else do their presentation while you look up an answer.


My humble 2 cents is to keep some “news” at a point in the show. The reasoning being that many of us are not plugged into the science news cycle and might have missed something compelling. I also “get it” that the issues are so compelling and cannot fit into the limited time slot for the show to sparkle and shine.

Maybe after hours ? Just a thought.

I am sure you’ll work everything out eventually.


For me, science is a core of my being. However several things seem to be combining to give Science quite a negative regard in the eyes of the general public. I will try my best to form my thoughts into two examples:

Example #1 – The rush to “publish” in favor of truly doing solid science. I am lucky to be able to converse with friends who work at large laboratories, and national laboratories. The clear feeling they convey is that the “scientists” are quite (quite very) less focused on performing the experiment comprehensively, but are instead driven (by the “game” and by the metric against which they are measured) to publish the paper. Stories are heard where there is so much focus to publish, that colleague-suggestions to improve an aspect of the experiment or to corroboratively verify an aspect of the result is ignored (“I can’t do the experiment again because I need to get this paper out”). Of course, every now and then we all hear in the News of scientific results either being retracted, incorrect or even un-true. One perspective: Today, Science is all about publishing, not about discovering fundamental truth.

Example #2 – The absolutely terrible way that popular media conveys absolute falsehoods and twisted themes in favor of receiving the click. This is also key, because the popular media is a big factor in shaping the opinion of a large populous. Just today (and the impetus for me posting to TMRO) I saw this headline on Business Insider; “Japanese rovers just transmitted the first photos from an asteroid 3 light-years away”, published at the link: www.businessinsider.com/two-rovers-just-sent-photos-of-an-asteroid-3-light-years-away-2018-9 (and a quick News search shows me that other “News” sites have picked it up and ran it). The regular person might not “get it”. You and I surely do. Due to media forces (or increasingly incompetent journalism), the general population seems to be becoming dumbed-down about science themes, and can not tell the difference between fact and falsehood.

Wheww… very sorry for the too-long post. But these two example-dustballs have been bouncing around inside my head for a while, and it feels nice to shake them out into this forum.
Hey! And yes, this could be a possible topic for TMRO:Science; a roundtable discussion on the true state of Science, the metrics used, the negative outcomes, and ideas on how to improve.


And the prevalent use of sample sizes lower than 10… irks me to no end.


After 24 hours, Business Insider now seems to have updated the headline. Luckily I captured an image of the “3 Light Year” headline.


Completely agree with you on Example 1. Science (as it currently stands today in the Western world) is broken and I’d love to do a expert roundtable outlining why this even matters, the problems, and potential solutions.

I’m not sure how we fix Example 2. I’m hoping TMRO:Science is part of the solution for that.


I feel your pain. Where is the science editor?!