If you thought an eye-wearable device called Google Glass was dead, think again. The new team at Google Glass wants to “redesign the product from scratch and not release it until it is complete:, according to a New York Times report. Glass is now overseen by Ivy Ross, a jewellery designer who runs Google&’s smart-eyewear division, and Tony Fadell, a former Apple product executive. “Early Glass efforts have broken ground and allowed us to learn what&’s important to consumers and enterprises alike,” Fadell said. “I am excited to be working with Ivy to provide direction and support as she leads the team and we work together to integrate those learnings into future products.”

The report quoted an adviser to Fadell as saying, “There will be no public experimentation. Tony is a product guy and he&’s not going to release something until it&’s perfect.”

Google Glass was unveiled as a prototype in 2012 and was distributed to a select group of people as part of the Explorer programme who paid $1,500 to be early adopters. On 19 January, Google quietly suspended selling Google Glass to consumers while continuing to support Glass as an enterprise product.

Debunking junk

At a time when half of America believes in at least one of six medical conspiracies — according to a May 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association study — and celebrities with no medical background are giving advice to the public, there is a clear divide between scientific fact and general knowledge. Recently, one celebrity who does come from a medical background has come under fire: in connection with his claims regarding a weight-loss supplement, physician Mehmet Oz (“Dr Oz”) was in June last year questioned by a Senate subcommittee and the research behind his statements on the compound was retracted in October.

Some of the blame can be put on scientists who like to think their research speaks for itself, that the peer-review process is efficient and relatively fair, and that the results published are therefore straightforward and easily understood. The well-intentioned fervour behind finding the next new cancer drug or a cure for chronic illness can easily turn a statistically significant published result into a sensationalist media piece, however.

Scientists need to be communicators. They must speak for research when necessary, call out media that misrepresents their results and publicly reprimand those who are trying to make a quick buck by passing off shoddy or falsified research.

Certain websites have done a wonderful job of publicly identifying these transgressions, but they are not enough. Scientists have to condemn offenders and extol the virtues of good science to the public and to one another. Only then will the discourse turn from distrust and blame to understanding, partnership and respect.

Edward marks is a Phd student at the University of Delaware and his focus is on nanomedicines for cardiovascular disorders