Stay up-to-date via RSS!

Clearly I’ve been feeling a little sensitive lately on the subject of, er, “science.” Er, “science” is defined as the stuff put forth by various ideologues and media hacks that contains science-y sounding words in an attempt by them to impress whatever hair they’ve gotten up their ass at that particular moment into other people’s brains.

So when I stumbled across this article yesterday, my interest was definitely piqued–it begins thusly:

The job of science reporters is to take complicated subjects and translate them for readers who are not scientifically sophisticated. Critics say that the news media oversimplify and aren’t skeptical enough of financing by special interests.

Somebody else has noticed this problematic trend! I am thrilled. Seriously. The main difference between the article author’s take on the situation and mine is that she seems to feel that said oversimplification and credulity are more accidental than not. I think that some of it goes beyond oversimplification into outright agenda-oriented slanting and that the credulity is, at the minimum, blindly wilful. Or maybe I just don’t want to believe that so many people could really be THAT stupid…she does have some great advice for those who are screwing up science for public consumption out of well-meaning ignorance, though.

-Look for the evidence. News organizations should give weight to scientific evidence, whether it is about global warming or what the medical establishment says about Lyme disease.

Post science reporter David Brown, who is also a physician, talked about this in a recent speech at the University of Iowa. It will be published next year. “In science, there is a natural tension between evidence and opinion, and evidence always wins. What authority figures have to say about anything in science is ultimately irrelevant.

That’s just beautiful. (sniff!)

-Look for context. Are the results preliminary? Does the research conflict with or confirm earlier work? Has it been published in a reputable science journal or been presented at a science meeting?

Put more plainly: No matter how beautifully some crackpot shit dovetails with your personal preconceptions, you don’t get to jump upon it like a starving tiger shrieking to the world that you’ve found “scientific proof of–!” unless it meets the above criteria.

-Look beyond the lead paragraph and headline. Remember that antioxidants were touted to prevent all sorts of disease; research proved that not to be true. One recent Page 1 story, by veteran Post science reporter Rob Stein, attracted comment and criticism. Stein wrote that a study produced “powerful evidence” that a blood test designed to monitor inflammation could identify “seemingly healthy people who are at increased risk for a heart attack or stroke” and that a widely used statin drug offered “potent protection against the nation’s leading killers.” The story quoted the study’s author and other prominent experts as calling the findings a “breakthrough,” a “blockbuster” and “absolutely paradigm-shifting.”

The Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR) — which has a stake in the issue because AIDS drugs can raise “bad” cholesterol levels — said stories about the study reflected “shoddy boosterism for the pharmaceutical industry rather than a careful and balanced analysis.”

and

-”Marcia Angell, a physician and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine who is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, said journalists can write “overly dramatic” stories for “gullible” readers. “Everyone has an interest in hyping news of medical research — the researcher, the institution, reporters. Readers should be very skeptical of new findings. Newspapers are in the business of telling you the news, which needs to be startling or counterintuitive or flies in the face of what we knew. By definition these stories are less likely to be accurate.”

Don J. Melnick, professor of conservation biology at Columbia University, said that if a story “doesn’t sound newsworthy or front page-worthy, it will be buried or not printed at all. That tends to promote people hyping the research. They have to convince their editors to put it in the paper.”

In other words: “Buyer beware.”

In related news, via PZ at Pharyngula:

CNN, the Cable News Network, announced yesterday that it will cut its entire science, technology, and environment news staff, including Miles O’Brien, its chief technology and environment correspondent, as well as six executive producers. Mediabistro’s TVNewser broke the story.

“We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” said CNN spokesperson Barbara Levin. “Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is being offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is produced by the Anderson Cooper 360 program, there is no need for a separate unit.”

I’m a little startled by the assertion here that environmental science news is the overwhelming bulk of all science reporting out there and once you’ve got some dude covering that, you don’t really NEED anybody else to cover any other science-y topic, b’Gad!

No, I will not immediately assume that the pooled IQ of the general editorial structure is twenty points lower than that of the previous science, technology and environmental news staff, nor make any snarky remarks of any other description. I will just regard it as yet another sign of the coming apocalypse, like when I found out that Ann Coulter was going to pointlessly destroy another crop of innocent young trees by putting out yet another book.*

*The suggested titles in the linked article are awesome and now that the super-secret book title has been revealed, surprisingly on target. Or perhaps not surprisingly.