The Shrine

http://www.badscience.net/?p=172

Essay on how science is presented in the media.

Kevin Warwick...oh, man.... Every time I hear him say that he's a cyborg, I want the Terminator to punch him in the face and say "Block that, cyborg motherfucker!"

Anyway, I blame bad science on the lack of good repeatable scientific research on every topic. There are simply too many topics to cover and not enough scientists. The scientific method states that results must be repeated and repeated again.

We tend not to do that. We "discover" something, and then move on to the next exciting topic. Or at least until somebody has enough grant money to try to confirm the findings. Even with the controversial subjects that demand attention from everybody, there's usually only two or three studies on the matter.

Where the fuck is the repeatability? This is something that was hammered into everybody's brain in middle school: REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT the experiment! Maybe I'm asking for too much, because it's like our knowledgebase is growing too fast, and there isn't enough grant money on the planet to try to prove everything within that knowledgebase.

But, this is science. It's supposed to be slow moving, and our sense of invention is going too fast for it to keep up.

SineSwiper wrote:Anyway, I blame bad science on the lack of good repeatable scientific research on every topic. There are simply too many topics to cover and not enough scientists. The scientific method states that results must be repeated and repeated again.

Did you read the essay? That's not what it was about. Further, we tend to have more scientists than positions for them. People in physical sciences have to do as many as three post-docs (two or three year positions after getting their PhD) before they're even considered for a tenure track position in a university. Funding, however, is a different issue.

Well, really, it's a cause and effect. A major part of the reason why we don't have enough confirmation studies is the public interest's and the media's lack of attention on them. Society just wants the new stuff. Me, I wouldn't mind hearing articles on whether they've confirmed that eggs are good for me, instead of every time some crackpot scientist proves it wrong and goes against the norm. (After all, I read/watch news for information, not entertainment value.)

And what good are scientists without the funding needed for experiments? If there aren't enough experiments for the scientists, then it creates the same problem.

Your questions very well may be answered in the literature.

This is one slippery area. There's tons of "good science" that later turns out to be bullshit, but is ingrained as gospel. Everyone remembers the food pyramid, "cholesterol will kill you" scare, and low fat crazes that were later "disproved" (but then of course you have to question the studies that "disprove" the earlier ones).

I think you're missing the point. One of the problems is that when science is reported, it's not presented for what it is: a single study among thousands, which comprise our scientific understanding. The article is not about "bad science," but rather bad science reporting.

By nature, mass media reporting is light in nature. There's NO WAY you could properly portray the science behind it. As such, there's no real reason to put any stock in what the media says either (heck, there's tons of "scientists" I wouldn't trust any further than I can throw them, particularly in the Psychology field).

If you take it for what it is, a small little experiment result, as opposed to considering it fact, I really don't see the harm in it. I just think too many people make far too many consequential decisions based on this bullshit scientific reporting

Kinda playing Devil's Advocate here, but sometimes reporting early finding is a good thing. For example, a recent study shows that Folic Acid even a year before getting pregnant reduces the risk of miscarriage. So, she's taking it right now. It could be disproven or not, but it doesn't hurt, either.

On the flip side, Lycopine was found to have beneficial effects against cancer, so all of the multi-vitamins started putting it in. Then, it was later found to not have the effects. (The first item was just a guess by linking the antioxidant in tomatoes with the studies that show it fairing better against cancer.) Maybe they would have had problems getting test subjects for the latter study, but I gather that companies wasted millions of dollars collectively on Lycopine, and putting it into all of their multi-vitamins.

Overall, there is a responsibility to the media to clarify every time that this is only an isolated study, and it may be proven false.

It's almost always an isolated study; that's the point of the essay.

Kupek wrote:It's almost always an isolated study; that's the point of the essay.

Yes, but is it isolated because nobody in the media reports the other findings, or because science truly isn't doing enough to repeat experiments?

Kupek wrote:I think you're missing the point. One of the problems is that when science is reported, it's not presented for what it is: a single study among thousands, which comprise our scientific understanding. The article is not about "bad science," but rather bad science reporting.

I see. But the article presumes the media rep actually understands what's going on themselves. I think half the time, the guy reporting has no idea what they're hearing. I've seen about a billion articles where a virus is report as a bacterium (or vice versa), the wrong math term is used to describe statistic, etc.

That said, "dumbing down" is generally a good thing...to a point. If you can explain something clearly to a layman, with zero loss of information, then that's a good thing IMO. Technically that's "dumbing down", but to me, that's just being a good teacher. It's unrealistic to explain any deeply technical concept to the Average Joe without "dumbing it down".

Ishamael wrote:I see. But the article presumes the media rep actually understands what's going on themselves.

I got the opposite impression, which is part of the problem.

Ishamael wrote:That said, "dumbing down" is generally a good thing...to a point. If you can explain something clearly to a layman, with zero loss of information, then that's a good thing IMO. Technically that's "dumbing down", but to me, that's just being a good teacher. It's unrealistic to explain any deeply technical concept to the Average Joe without "dumbing it down".

Okay, you didn't actually read it, did you? Because that's not what it's about at all.

Kupek wrote:

Ishamael wrote:I see. But the article presumes the media rep actually understands what's going on themselves.

I got the opposite impression, which is part of the problem.

So you're saying the article claims that the media reps know exactly what they're reporting on and are deliberately misleading the public?

While that's believable in a few cases, I've found that plain ineptitude is far more common than deliberate conspiracy (though the latter is far more interesting).

Kupek wrote:

Ishamael wrote:That said, "dumbing down" is generally a good thing...to a point. If you can explain something clearly to a layman, with zero loss of information, then that's a good thing IMO. Technically that's "dumbing down", but to me, that's just being a good teacher. It's unrealistic to explain any deeply technical concept to the Average Joe without "dumbing it down".

Okay, you didn't actually read it, did you? Because that's not what it's about at all.

OK, you caught me. I didn't read it...or at least not the whole thing. I figured it was another article about how the media doesn't really "get" science or distorts it.

So I went back, read it, and it turns out I was exactly right, so everything I mentioned still stands. If you can dumb something down without distorting the truth, that's a Good Thing.

No the article was not arguing for this or against it per se. It was just saying the media often gets it's facts wrong (news at 11 ). But the article's title is "Don't Dumb Me Down", implying the dumbing down is the problem. I'm saying, again, dumbing down complex science for the masses is good (if you know how to do it right). The problem is that it's often not done correctly.

Sine, I don't know why you're obsessed with the notion that science doesn't duplicate enough experiments. But that's not the thread topic. The problem I was alluding to is that studies are often reported on in isolation, not as a part of the literature. Part of this problem is that the reporters rarely understand the literature itself. New work, even it has been peer-reviewed for publication, is still the product of one group. It's a new result, but it's often not a well tested result. Eventually, it will be. But follow-up work is generally not reported in newspapers.

Ish, to me, the opposite of "the article presumes the media rep actually understands what's going on themselves" is "the media rep does not understand..." I don't know you went from that to deliberate misinformation.

Your point about being able to explain science to the layman is valid, it's just orthogonal to the point the article was making, and the one I was interested in discussing. I think part of the reason people don't get science is that when they read about it, it's presented wrong.

Kupek wrote:
Ish, to me, the opposite of "the article presumes the media rep actually understands what's going on themselves" is "the media rep does not understand..."I don't know you went from that to deliberate misinformation.

If you squint hard enough, those two quotes say the exact same thing. Presuming the reporter understands exactly what they're reporting and yet she still chooses to write a distorted article would mean that person is being misleading. It's a hypothetical. I was also careful (I thought) to say that I don't believe this is the case. I said plain ineptitude on the reporter's part is more likely than deliberate misinformation.

Kupek wrote: Your point about being able to explain science to the layman is valid, it's just orthogonal to the point the article was making, and the one I was interested in discussing. I think part of the reason people don't get science is that when they read about it, it's presented wrong.

I don't think that was the point of the article either. The main point I'd say is that reporters often get their facts wrong in an attempt to create an accessible story. The presentation is fine - but if you quote Professor Snorf as saying Drug Zivorb will cure all cancer when in fact he did NOT say that, then you have a fact gathering and understanding issue...which is different from a dumbed down presentation. It can be a dumbed down presentation and STILL be factually correct. This is something the article's author misses.

I think the quotes are opposites, but that's beside the point I want to make: the essay assumes ignorance, not malice.

The point the author was making was bigger than just getting their facts right, or interpreting statements correctly. Nor is it about a "dumbed down" presentation. It's about a wrong presentation. I think his most important observation is that science stories generally fall into three categories: scare story, wacky stories, and breakthrough stories (the lone inventor, David & Goliath one would be a subset of this). These stories are easier to write, because the relevance to the reader is a given. The problems, particularly with the breakthrough stories, isn't just getting one or two facts wrong, but that they're never presented as a part of an ongoing process. That's beyond dumbing it down, that's completely misrepresenting to the public how science works.

Kupek wrote:Sine, I don't know why you're obsessed with the notion that science doesn't duplicate enough experiments. But that's not the thread topic. The problem I was alluding to is that studies are often reported on in isolation, not as a part of the literature. Part of this problem is that the reporters rarely understand the literature itself. New work, even it has been peer-reviewed for publication, is still the product of one group. It's a new result, but it's often not a well tested result. Eventually, it will be. But follow-up work is generally not reported in newspapers.

Well, I dunno. Are they duplicating their experiments? Has a study been done on this? (And in turn, has that been duplicated, or is that just a classic definition of irony there?)

Yes, the media doesn't report every experiment and rarely reports follow-up studies, but I again ask the question: Are the tests truly being duplicated or not? Or do they just duplicate experiments that happens to catch the public interest, or contradicts previous results?

Is this an image problem or a real problem?