DailyDirt: Is Mixing Science And Journalism A Bad Recipe?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Facts aren’t always as reliable as they seem — that’s been a consistent theme here. And we’re always interested in folks double-checking facts — especially if it leads to a better understanding of how things work. When the process of verifying experiments or stories is blocked, everyone loses out. The conversation to clarify knowledge should be allowed to evolve, and generally science is pretty good about verifying experiments. But when it fails, it’s usually a spectacular failure. Let’s hope that arsenic NMR or proper mass spectrometry measurements will prevail in determining whether life can survive without phosphorous around.

  • Rosie Redfield’s commentary critiquing the announcement of arsenic-based lifeforms has been widely published and discussed. Peer-review either isn’t what it used to be — or it’s never quite as good as people think it should be. url, url, url, url
  • Meanwhile, journalism may be slowly adapting to admitting mistakes with a “report an error” button. And perhaps science journals need to start doing this, too. url
  • The Medill school of journalism votes in favor of changing its name. Is journalism like a rose? url
  • What would happen if everyone had a chance to vote on what science projects were funded by the government? We might find out. url
  • Filed Under: ,

    Rate this comment as insightful
    Rate this comment as funny
    You have rated this comment as insightful
    You have rated this comment as funny
    Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
    You have flagged this comment
    The first word has already been claimed
    The last word has already been claimed
    Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

    Comments on “DailyDirt: Is Mixing Science And Journalism A Bad Recipe?”

    Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
    Darryl says:

    Since when do you peer review a discovery?

    at the present time, it is a discovery, discovery is not the time or stage for peer review.

    Peer review is when you write a paper, or conduct a study of your discovery, and the peer review, is a well, review of your work by your peers.

    what are they going to do to peer review your discovery?

    (say,,, “yep, looks like you find what you said”).

    Other scientists commenting about a discovery in the media is not peer review, it is just fair comment.

    You’re not really ‘up’ on these things are you Mike !!

    ltlw0lf (profile) says:

    Re: Re: Re: Since when do you peer review a discovery?

    That’s not a record – that’s standard operating procedure.

    And that isn’t even new…for those of us who remember Dorpus (may he live forever,) he was maintaining this standard operating procedure religiously 5 years ago or so (and for all we know, he may still be here.)

    Darryl is Dorpus for the new generation.

    skeptico says:

    “…generally science is pretty good about verifying experiments. But when it fails, it’s usually a spectacular failure.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. It’s not science what fails. Science is the best tool we have to evaluate theories. These can be confirmed/discarded as evidence amounts in favour/against. Science has a self-correcting built-in mechanism. Hence, science never fails. Theories do.

    “Peer-review either isn’t what it used to be — or it’s never quite as good as people think it should be.”

    I think you’re missing the point. There have always been different levels of quality when it comes to peer review. It can be a never ending process. The arsenic bacteria research being heavily criticised is absolute standard. These things happen all the time. It’s in the nature of the scientific method and it’s not a failure. It’s the self-correcting mechanism in action. The press likes sensationalistic headlines. Don’t fall for it.

    When it comes to science news it might be better to read the headlines and head for the source. Science journalism looks plagued by writers who never took a science class, who mislead and who need sensationalistic headlines to sell. There’s a very healthy science blogosphere out there. No need to waste time with the rest of the media.

    Sorry for possible language mistakes.

    A good place to start

    A bit of humour on a sad reality

    Dr. Brian Oblivion says:

    Science by press release has become a handy propaganda tool especially in the service of promoting the urgency of public health over individual self autonomy.

    In the area of tobacco control, apparently serious studies are used to generate press releases with a summary of headline generating conclusions. By the time the actual study is released and it is possible to validate or debunk the already publicized result, it’s too late to correct the damage done. Corrections don’t generally drive headlines.

    Tobacco control in the United States and the UK use this amoral propaganda technique with clear conscience, reasoning that tobacco use is too destructive to merit any real discussion of objective truth. The debate, they claim, is over.

    Public health campaigns in the works to denormalize alcohol use/abuse and food related disorders including the most visible, obesity, can be expected to follow the tobacco control model.

    While there may be some small value in study based reportage, the temptation to propagandize society for its own good and the willingness of the media to incorporate press release science into their own narratives only serve to misinform whether by accident or by intent.

    Science by press release as commonly used today should be discouraged and avoided at every turn. Propaganda should never be used to persuade the public no matter how important the issue is to any given group.

    Tobacco lies may be fine with those who agree with its ultimate removal from society, but the temptation to accept any morals based or flexible truth for convenience leads to more effective lies, such acceptance only serves to further muddy the waters and encourage special pleading. At least that’s what I have observed.

    I hope those who create, review and publish studies will resist the poisoning the well one press release at a time. Let the facts fall where they may, and let that, not ideology, drive the conclusion.

    Dr. Brian Oblivion

    Dr. Brian Oblivion says:

    Vote based funding for future studies? That’s a gag entry, right? Just as the results of a study are not determined by popular vote expressing what the results should have been.

    Vote based funds dispersal, assuming it could even produce the best possible result, would only encourage corruption of the voting process.

    It’s something to be considered and debated, and ultimately discarded. Some form of vote based rating system that tracks popularity but does not prioritize or allocate funds could still be a useful organizational tool however.

    But then, who asked me?

    Dr. Brian Obvlivion

    Add Your Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

    Comment Options:

    Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

    What's this?

    Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

    Follow Techdirt

    Techdirt Daily Newsletter

    Techdirt Deals
    Techdirt Insider Discord
    The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...