The Web is a powerful tool. Like all powerful tools it can be used for good, for not-so-good, and for downright bad purposes. Examples of the last surface every so often, such as false biographical information planted in Wikipedia (1) and destruction of a reputation and job by a Web-based campaign of exaggerated accusations (2). In the social system of the Web, things can rapidly get out of hand. Unlike the small-town gossip mill of yore, the Web affords little opportunity to judge a source of information. Science on the Web probably has less really bad content, but there is plenty of not-so-good to go around, some of which might have unfortunate consequences.
It is important that students-and the rest of us-be able to distinguish among the good, the not-so-good, and the bad on the Web. To make such distinctions requires thinking critically about what is viewed. Therefore we should take every opportunity to help students develop the skills needed to assess the accuracy, validity, and ethics of the torrent of information that inundates them every day. As I mentioned last month, one way to enhance such skills is to encourage students to think critically about what they see on the Web. Here are some suggestions along these lines.
An article in this issue, “Magnetized Water: Science or Fraud?”, describes student laboratory studies that determine whether water can be softened by applying magnets to the outside of copper pipes (3). (A Google search for “magnet water soften” yields about 369,000 hits. Most sites on the first Google page claim that magnets soften water and then offer to sell you a kit to install in your home.) This article provides an excellent way for students to learn how to apply scientific investigation to an issue they might be wondering about as a result of their forages through the Web.
Did you know that there is a different form of water, HHO? A Google search for HHO yields about 5,860,000 hits (a search for H2O yielded about 32,800,000). Some of the Web sites describe oxyhydrogen mixtures used in welding, where HHO describes the ratio, 2 H2 to 1 O2, of the gases fed to the torch. Most of the hits are less benign, leading to sites such as “Run Your Car on Water” (4), which make exaggerated claims that fuel economy can be increased by adding to the engine a water electrolyzer powered by the battery/alternator and piping the hydrogen-oxygen mixture to the engine’s air intake. These sites raise a lot of questions. Students could be asked to apply the first two laws of thermodynamics to using the battery (which is charged by the engine) to generate the fuel to run the engine. More advanced questions also arise: Could the hydrogen-oxygen mixture enhance octane; would that matter? Why do so many people who have installed electrolyzers say that their fuel economy improves; can so much empirical observation be wrong? Could the hydrogen-oxygen mixture catalyze combustion of fuel? Is it ethical to set up a Web site that purports to debunk claims of running a car on water, but in fact directs users to the “top three” sites that advocate for (and sell) electrolyzers? How many of the Web sites and testimonials supporting HHO for cars are created by the people selling electrolyzers?
This is not intended as a rant against the Web, which is a very useful tool and certainly provides far more benefit than cost to society and to science. I located references 1 and 2 on the Web in only a few minutes using Google searches and both references are available with a single mouse click to online readers. It’s not just the Web that provides incomplete or misleading information. Even a staid newspaper of record, the New York Times, can miss important points in its reporting. For example, students could be directed to a story about the introduction of a hydrogen-powered automobile (5) and asked what important information is not reported. (The headline is “Latest Honda Runs on Hydrogen, Not Petroleum” but nowhere in the story is there any mention of where the hydrogen will come from; right now, it comes from petroleum!)
These are only some of the many possible examples where material on the Web (or in newspapers, a medium many teachers already use effectively) can help students develop scientific skepticism, curiosity, and empiricism. As a means of collecting ideas from the community of JCE readers, I invite you to go to the ChemEd DL wiki, log in, and enter your ideas or expand on the ideas others have provided (6). Ideas need not be fully developed or as carefully defined as they would be in a published paper. The wiki provides a means by which all of us can help to develop each others’ ideas into more fully fledged instructional scenarios. Please join others in the community and contribute.
Literature Cited
1. Siegenthaler, John USA Today, Nov 29, 2005; http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm (accessed Aug 2008).
2. Sorkin, Andrew Ross New York Times, Aug 5, 2008, p C1; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/business/05sorkin.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Sorkin%20Andrew%20Ross&st=cse&oref=slogin (accessed Aug 2008).
3. Lahuerta Zamora, L.; Anton-Fos, G. M.; Aleman Lopez, P. A.; Martin Algarra, R. V. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1416. See http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Oct/abs1416.html . (Accessed Sep 2008)
4. http://runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=webdirect2 (accessed Aug 2008).
5. Fackler, Martin New York Times, Jun 17, 2008, p C1. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Fackler%20June%2017%202008&st=cse&oref=slogin. (Accessed Sep 2008
6. http://wiki.chemeddl.org/index.php/Communities:Journal_of_Chemical_Education (accessed Aug 2008).
* You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.