stephen (not that one) connor

Which is why it’s the responsibility of decent science journalists to actually read the primary papers referred to in the releases with a modicum of comprehension rather than taking the press releases as gospel. Wakefield’s Lancet paper was truly dreadful science with more holes in it than there’s space to point out here. This should have been evident to any journalist who knows the subject field … that is wasn’t implies that they either (a) didn’t care (in which case they should toddle off back to the celebrity gossip pages), (b) didn’t understand the scientific implications of the primary data (ditto above bracketed comment) or (c) intentionally sensationalised an issue that was obviously going to be high visibility to gain exposure (erm … yep … ditto the bracketed comment again).

Surely that’s all the more reason why science journalists should do their job properly and investigate the validity of a press release before either a) regurgitating it as fact, or b) altering it to mean something their readers will find titillating. But since they never will, I’ll just carry on getting my science news from the people at scienceblogs.com who do.

Ben’s column and this blog have been doing an excellent job for years of showing that this phenomenon is hardly a case of “occasional examples of poor reporting”. (So does the Daily Mail, on a daily basis.)

And by saying “They Started It!!!!” about the MMR scare, in reference to Andrew Wakefield, you’re admitting with remarkable frankness that the journalists concerned lacked the basic literacy and background to perceive that Wakefield (whose Lancet paper mentioned 12 WHOLE CHILDREN, and who, incidentally, stressed from the first he had NOT established a causal connection between the jabs and autism) had not published something of particular importance, and had instead published something that could prove to be dangerously alarmist.

I don’t think many people on this thread would disagree with you. I imagine the main difference is that most of them would think that was a problem journalists, or their employers, should do something about.

Drs Bell, Boynton and Goldacre (letter, 6 July) claim that “science journalists are often lazy and inaccurate”, citing MMR among the issues about which “the public have been misled by journalists”.

While there are occasional examples of poor reporting, I think the authors are guilty of extrapolating a few data about a small number of individuals to make an inaccurate inference about an entire profession. The MMR debacle was initiated by a researcher rather than by a journalist.

They might be surprised to discover just how many misleading media reports, for which they apparently hold journalists solely responsible, actually arise from exaggerated claims by researchers and their colleagues: a recent study found that just 42 per cent of press releases issued by US academic medical centres provided relevant caveats about the research they described, and 29 per cent exaggerated the importance of their findings.

Bob Ward

Policy and Communications Director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics

A brief note from Ben:

I’m sorry I missed this. Bob, I’m genuinely amazed to see you write this:

“They might be surprised to discover just how many misleading media reports, for which they apparently hold journalists solely responsible, actually arise from exaggerated claims by researchers and their colleagues: a recent study found that just 42 per cent of press releases issued by US academic medical centres provided relevant caveats about the research they described, and 29 per cent exaggerated the importance of their findings.”

I am not surprised to discover this. I’ve written about it. What’s more you know that I’ve written about it because you commented on the post where I write about it yourself.

Here is your comment:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/dodgy-academic-pr/#comment-26673

Could you explain this please?

Surely the point is that the hallmark of quality academic study, (and of an intelligent and inquiring mind full stop) is adherence to, among others, the following tenents:

1) The value of critical appraisal and discourse
2) The importance of seeking out sources of bias/error
3) The avoidance of simplistic over-generalisations

Science graduates do not have a monopoly on these characteristics, and nor do graduates over all. For every humanities graduate that takes the headline “Caffeine Cures Cancer says Scientists” as truth, there’s a science graduate (and a humanities graduate, and a non-graduate etc.) who takes “EU Bans Cucumbers”, “House Prices will continue to rise, says report” and “Iraq has WMD says Government source” as fact. These are all as damaging and dangerous as medical and scientific ignorance.

I don’t object to the stereotyping of humanities graduates on a personal level – this is a science blog after all -I do object on a broader level as it breaks the rules of rigorous, intelligent thinking and alienates valuable partners in the fight against ignorance.

And despite Connor’s Oxford certification in zoology, I also have no problem admitting that his writing, and a great deal of what is pointed out here as Bad Science, seems like a consequence of our society finding it easier to tolerate scientific illiteracy than other kinds.

Except it isn’t. The British media is dripping with music journalists who base their reviews of albums on what the band members wear, political reporters who are professionally addicted to party press releases, columnists that will mock anything that uses words with three syllables or more, and commentators who DO doubt the inspirational power of great art . . . and all in 11-year-old language with punctuation, grammar and malapropisms that make humanities graduates weep.

When you talk about the lack of a common language that would let scientific controversies get discussed in a properly argumentative way in the British media, I see your point, and it’s an extremely serious point, because being misled about such controversies can be hazardous to one’s health. But I have a hard time tolerating that being blamed on humanities graduates when the humanities themselves are seldom discussed in a properly argumentative way in non-specialist British media. Particularly when problematic science journalists (like the subject of this post) actually have a science background, not a humanities background.

Among other things, I blame:

1. The acceptance of vocational degrees in journalism, which let people enter the profession with no personalized understanding that specialist knowledge even exists
2. Overstretched editorial departments, which are accountable to shareholder representatives with received ideas about the lowest common denominator
3. Shareholder representatives with received ideas about the lowest common denominator
4. The BBC, which has decided it needs to compete with media groups run by shareholder representatives with received ideas about the lowest common denominator

The first one refers to an eensy-weensy and discrete class of humanities grad, and the last three (trust me – specialist knowledge) are far more down to accountants/MBAs than humanities grads. Of course, maths arguably being part of the humanities, maybe accountants ARE humanities grads. But surely you wouldn’t accuse the British media of being math-literate, so I guess it’s a moot point.

Again, I love Bad Science because scientific illiteracy in pop media poses a real physical threat to people’s well-being. But seriously – blame a humanities grad, and you’re blaming the victim of the over-arching problem. Paxman not understanding science and Jeannette Winterson believing in fairies notwithstanding. It’s really provoking, it’s clumsy, it’s alienating to natural allies in the war against the stupid, and it makes the people who do it look like their head is wedged up their bum.

I’ll get me coat.

As an opera-lover myself I know well the secret joy it often has to remain. It was my clumsy attempt to produce the most fatuous counter-argument I could think of.
My point is the media (I suppose I speak mainly of the broadcast media because I know it better) is to an extent dominated by humanities graduates, and if an argument arises especially in literature it’s on their turf – they know the context, the ground rules and the jargon. They don’t feel compelled to explain to the listener the difference between a novel and a biography. What I’m trying to get at is that in scientific controversies there is no commonality of language to talk through the different sides of an argument, so as a scientifically literate person finds he can’t engage at all.

You don’t like my example? Fair enough. I’ll try a more erudite person such as Jeremy Paxman (English, St Catherine’s, Cambridge). He cannot help himself on University Challenge. If someone manages to answer a physics question he congratulates them with the baffled amusement of an parent complimenting their 5-year-old’s latest picture. Whereas if someone trips up over their chronology of the C17 metaphysical poets you feel he would like to shoot them there and then for their own good.

Or Jeanette Winterson (English, St Catherine’s, Oxford). She is rational, skeptical and an avid New Scientist reader. By the lights of this blog she is one of the Good Guys(TM). She wrote a piece in defence of homeopathy which was calm, non-sensational, reasonable (http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/); but the physics was lamentable. My point is that with someone like Winterson who has a heightened sympathy towards a scientific outlook there are hardly any grounds for engagement in debate – the basic givens of say thermodynamics or molecular interactions which I feel are rooted in me from waaaay back are new territory here.
This feels like C P Snow’s two cultures. And one of these cultures is more represented in the media, and science reporting so often carries that air of detached, baffled amusement I described earlier.

To you and toomuchcoffeeman I’m sorry that it was intemperate. It wasn’t meant to be that way. It was intended as a metaphor for the spluttering rage that often propels my breakfast cereal to the radio some mornings. Last night on Any Questions, Will Self and others discussed the legacy of the Apollo moon landings, wearing the clothes of negativism which commentators wear for everything these days. They repeated the fallacy that it gave us PTFE, to reinforce the theme it had no other legacy. No-one doubts the inspirational power of great art; but however corrupt the motives for the Apollo mission were, how inspirational has it been to young scientifically-oriented youngsters like me?

I posted this yesterday & it hasn’t appeared. So sorry if it appears twice

As an opera-lover myself I know well the secret joy it often has to remain. It was my clumsy attempt to produce the most fatuous counter-argument I could think of.
My point is the media (I suppose I speak mainly of the broadcast media because I know it better) is to an extent dominated by humanities graduates, and if an argument arises especially in literature it’s on their turf – they know the context, the ground rules and the jargon. They don’t feel compelled to explain to the listener the difference between a novel and a biography. What I’m trying to get at is that in scientific controversies there is no commonality of language to talk through the different sides of an argument, so as a scientifically literate person finds he can’t engage at all.

You don’t like my example? Fair enough. I’ll try a more erudite person such as Jeremy Paxman (English, St Catherine’s, Cambridge). He cannot help himself on University Challenge. If someone manages to answer a physics question he congratulates them with the baffled amusement of an parent complimenting their 5-year-old’s latest picture. Whereas if someone trips up over their chronology of the C17 metaphysical poets you feel he would like to shoot them there and then for their own good.

Or Jeanette Winterson (English, St Catherine’s, Oxford). She is rational, skeptical and an avid New Scientist reader. By the lights of this blog she is one of the Good Guys(TM). She wrote a piece in defence of homeopathy which was calm, non-sensational, reasonable (http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/a-kind-of-magic/); but the physics was lamentable. My point is that with someone like Winterson who has a heightened sympathy towards a scientific outlook there are hardly any grounds for engagement in debate – the basic givens of say thermodynamics or molecular interactions which I feel are rooted in me from waaaay back are new territory here.
This feels like C P Snow’s two cultures. And one of these cultures is more represented in the media, and science reporting so often carries that air of detached, baffled amusement I described earlier.

To you and toomuchcoffeeman I’m sorry that it was intemperate. It wasn’t meant to be that way. It was intended as a metaphor for the spluttering rage that often propels my breakfast cereal to the radio some mornings. Last night on Any Questions, Will Self and others discussed the legacy of the Apollo moon landings, wearing the clothes of negativism which commentators wear for everything these days. They repeated the fallacy that it gave us PTFE, to reinforce the theme it had no other legacy. No-one in the media questions the inspirational power of great art; but however corrupt the motives for the Apollo mission were, how inspirational has it been to young scientifically-oriented youngsters like me?

Also, to say:
So when, say, Julia Stephenson (who may or may not be a graduate in something but go with me here) writes…

rather undermines the relevance of this apparent hack – who I’ve not heard of, so I’ll bow to others’ assessments – to any point about Dr G’s occasional elision of “humanities graduates” with “vague and smug-with-it meejah-types”.

Oh, and though I shouldn’t need to insert this qualifier, my own training isn’t in the humanities, though it’s debatable whether or not it’s a science. Just in case I come across as defending home turf etc.

The music grad in your example probably wouldn’t even shrug because they’d have been getting comments like that since announcing to the world they’d be studying music, particularly opera. You can’t even say you like opera in a moderately crowded room without hearing a series of explanations from apparently brilliantly observational people of all sorts of educational backgrounds who have never sat through an opera about how impossibly unrealistic operas are.

And using a sensationalistic media whore rich girl like Julia Stephenson as a representative example of a class is damn bad form, by the way. You’d think I was a twat if I started going on about how the Pioneer Fund was representative of how science students approached and judged the world, and you’d be right.