Comments on: Behind the curtains

By: Quick2kill

Quick2kill — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:30:07 +0000

I wrote you an overly long email on this, but want to comment briefly here also. I think comparing preprint servers to Facebook is misleading and silly. They are places for serious work and important to science. They are mostly used to submit work intended for publication, and while not usually peer reviewed before initial submission are still to be taken seriously. I agree that this was bad science reporting, but the article is spoiled by this spin as it gives the impression that pre-print servers are places where academics mess around and write stuff which is not their formal opinion. This is not the case in my experience.

By: willowtree

willowtree — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:14:56 +0000

I’m in two minds about this story.

On the positive side, I’m pleased that The Times have investigated further than just copying out a press release (an accusation often levelled against the press).

On the negative side, it’s a pity that The Times hasn’t distinguished between pre-press and peer-reviewed science. It’s also a pity that the author didn’t either take down the paper or update the paper on the pre-press site to match his change in opinions after peer-review.

By: Tom Whipple

Tom Whipple — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:46:08 +0000

Just a small point of pedantry, but a reasonably important one (especially if people are writing in letters). This wasn’t published in the Times, it was published in the Sunday Times. They are different papers, with different staff – for most of their life they were even owned by different people.

By: Jonas F

Jonas F — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:21:16 +0000

@Synchronium

In the ‘ideal world’, journalists accept their responsibility and never misrepresent studies whose results they’re not qualified to make scoops out of.

By: SteveGJ

SteveGJ — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:15:24 +0000

@Synchronium

My worry is people legislating for an ideal world rather than aspiring and working for it (well, in truth, I have a bit of a worry about the whole concept of an ideal world; I’ll maybe restrict my hopes to having a slightly better one, as I suspect the maths might reveal the path to utopia is peppered with singularities.

By: Synchronium

Synchronium — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:33:24 +0000

This is “ideal world” talk, really. Obviously nothing will be done, it would just be nice if there were a way that something could be done.

By: SteveGJ

SteveGJ — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:57:18 +0000

@Synchronium

“There should be laws about this sort of thing”

Please no – every time I read those nine words, on almost any subject, my heart sinks. It’s only surpassed by “something must be done”. Now I’m not against laws as such, but there is always a danger that the treatment is worse than the problem (libel law being a case in point). We are already in a position where the weight of laws and regulation is that nobody can keep up.

By: Synchronium

Synchronium — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:26:47 +0000

I think the problem is that science moves too slowly to be “interesting”. 3 years of research might give you some publishable data, but the impact isn’t likely to be massive. Science is a cumulative process, adding impact a little at a time.

There should be laws about this sort of thing, or at least ways scientists could officially stop their work being misrepresented.

By: SteveGJ

SteveGJ — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:14:37 +0000

There’s a simple explanation for this sort of science reporting. It’s that, for very many people, this sort of nuancing of theories is boring. (This always comes as a nasty realisation to people like me who do find it interesting, as it reminds me just how distant I am from many of my fellow citizens, as if the glazed looks in people’s eyes when I go down this route isn’t enough). However, the upshot of this is that to get any science story into what are meant to be even quite serious papers, it is felt necessary to sensationalise and exaggerate everything.

Even some of the popular science mags play this game – the New Scientist has been guilty for some time of sensationalist headlines about rather mundane or speculative articles (Darwin was wrong type headlines). Perhaps the really sad conclusion about this is that this is just an inescapable outcome from human nature in a reasonably free environment.

The time when this becomes a real issue is where this type of sensationalism directly affects public policy making. There’s not much chance of this article doing it (although I’m sure that somebody could bend this into something whereby global warming will shut down the Earth’s magnetic field and we’ll be zapped by cosmic rays).

There is also some form of wish among people for nice, binary explanations. It’s either X or Y but not both (like the nature vs nurture debate). The comments on the Times article are quite interesting in that respect. Full of things like “this can’t be true because the Sun has a magnetic field and everybody knows it doesn’t has oceans”.

By: smithers

smithers — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:16:46 +0000

Dr Ryskin’s situation seems analagous to when the media get their collective knickers in a twist when they get hold of a draft govt paper that differs in some respect from the formal policy that’s been announced.

It was a draft, there was discussion about it, bits were changed, and the formal policy was announced. Where’s the story?

By: barbelith

barbelith — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:18:45 +0000

Here’s something to slightly restore your faith in humanity. I am subscribed to a geomagnetism mailing list. Recently a researcher forwarded the following email, asking if anyone else wished to weigh in on it. I am removing all identifying information — primarily because the archives are not public, so it seems the polite thing to do. But with the specifics edited out, it (1) serves as a fine template for any science reporter wishing to do their job properly, and (2) demonstrates just how easy it is to do this kind of check, and thus just how slipshod Jonathan Leake (the Times reporter) was in his reporting this story.

—

From: xxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: : request for comment about geomagnetism study

Dear Dr. xxxxxxxxx,
I’m a reporter for and am writing about a new study by Gregory Ryskin in which he describes how ocean currents might be causing short term variations in Earth’s magnetic field. xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx both recommended I contact you for this story.

If you have time, could I get your thoughts on the study? I’ve attached a copy of the paper to this email. I’m wondering if you think what he’s proposing is plausible, and if so, is it even important?

I’d appreciate any thoughts you might have on this topic. I’m also free to chat by phone if you’d like. My deadline for this story is xxxxxxxxx.
Best,
xxxxxxx