I ran into a very interesting article on Reddit. It was talking about the gross negligence of both reporters and scientists who are writing about the harmful effects of GMO (genetically modified organism) foods. The scientists gave the reporters access to the study before it was published, as long as the reporters didn’t talk to anyone about it.
So, these reporters were given one story, the story this body of scientists wanted to get into the media, and they weren’t allowed to double check with anyone who might disagree.
This is not good science. The whole point of sharing results is so people find potential mistakes. Some of the most spectacular experiments turn out to be one hit wonders.
All these machinations of the scientists who published the GMO story were simple: they wanted to control the public narrative. With a general public that finds wading into matters scientific akin to wandering into a quagmire, getting in the first word is more important than getting the facts straight.
Look at the anti-vaccine movement. No science, all emotion. It preys upon the insecurity of parents, their terror that something they’re doing to help their child might actually harm them. The man was run out of England, the paper redacted, ulterior motives exposed, but still, people persist in the belief that MMR vaccines are linked to autism. No research supports this, the causes of autism are slowly being discovered, and the world is experiencing outbreaks of measles.
Another good example is the climate change narrative which is being driven by partisan politics. In the US, a larger percentage of Republicans do not believe in climate change. That’s because our scientific conversation about the topic was hijacked by people unconcerned with scientists. Thanks kids! Let’s hope all these scientists are just flipping out about nothing.
Of course, that leads into what popped into my head reading about GMO foods and their press problems—nuclear power needs to hire a better publicist. It’s actually a good option in an era of clean power, something which certainly deserves research dollars. Instead of building cleaner, newer, more efficient facilities, we have old ones. Why? Because nuclear power is scary. I’m not going to try and downplay the disasters that have happened, but many things we do have risks associated with them, such as offshore oil drilling. Wind and solar are great options for clean energy, as are modern nuclear power plants. Still, fear dominates the narrative; classic Homer Simpson fumbling obscures the science.
Hopefully, there will come a time when we put the facts first and our feelings second. I dream of a time where children are educated to dissect news articles, to question the results, to look to see if papers about science include links. Can you imagine if the general public was armed with a basic understanding of the psychology of media? The effect it would have on the scientific discourses of this country would be amazing. We’d be talking about science, and not our feelings or political convictions.
Antoinette M-- 
Watching the political race the last several months has convinced me a large number of people have reverted to near-imbecility. I blame it on something in the water. No, wait! Has to be the GMOs. ;/
It’s painful. I live in PA, so we’ve had a flood of stupid ads showing cute children, tugging at our heart strings. There’s just way too much emotion involved in political discourse anymore.
“Too much emotion” isn’t the only problem.
I heard that on NPR this past weekend – and combined with the fact that most science-based organizations, in their rush to be first, are often not providing the negatives or all the facts when they call in the journo’s to do a story.
I want to blame the journo’s – so many have taken to just reporting snippets and not doing the work to make complex issues understood – trying to “break” stories instead of actually providing facts. I want to blame the scientists who are not submitting to credible journals with rigorous testing and proofing done before a study is released..
But, sadly, I think the onus lies with us – the readers and passers-on of information without looking at the facts, digging and searching – and waiting to see what information isn’t available with the first shout of “wolf”.
I can honestly say, having worked in a lab, scientists probably aren’t the best people for the job of conveying information to the public. It’s a rare individual that can translate some complex concept into something a layman can grasp. Really, education on these matters (critical thinking) needs to be taught in schools, starting at a young age.
Yeah, no negative results in journals is a huge problem, you’re right about that. Thank god the scientists study anything that will hold still, including other scientists. Some of the more interesting things I’ve read about are meta-studies analyzing results.
I’ve had experience with both – most of my university professors were also scientists, many in research.And many of them weren’t great interpersonally, but very good at passing information and making it understood. Although, if people are coming in with no exposure or experience – I wouldn’t expect a scientist to explain the basic concepts if their goal or mandate is to create press.
I think that the ‘single minded corporate focus’ is the bigger issue. A good scientist, a successful one, understands the import of a multi-phase review of data and conclusions. Corporations want results. Tangible and demonstrative ones.
And journalists should be familiar with and capable of researching and checking for the necessary bits.- even if it’s just the submissions for true critical scientific evaluation.
I’m with you on the meta-studies, but what everyone missed with this is that the first blast of information is what people always remember. The first blast was from a poorly conducted study. So whether or not, with a long term blind the information would be different isn’t the point. The common knowledge fact created by the first release will be far more difficult to correct and overcome. I need only to cite the recurrance of the non-issue of the birth certificate of the President to show that point.
They’re now shaping public policy because they got to press first, you’re right about that.
I think part of the problem with explaining science to people is they’re almost afraid of it. You think about how much science shapes our lives, and how little people understand it, it’s bizarre. It’s how you end up with journalists who don’t know quite how to handle it.
Of course, the other part of the problem with explaining science to people is translating the jargon. Every new job I had, there was an entirely new set of jargon to go with it.