Scientific reporting goes bunk

Sensationalism kills factual subtlety of science research

Shaun Killen and
Paula Mendonça
The Muse (Memorial University
of Newfoundland)

ST. JOHN’S (CUP) — “Long flights linked to blood clots.” “Drug residue tainting water, report warns.” “Pregnant women warned over antidepressants.”

These are recent Canadian headlines. They grab your attention with commanding, hard-hitting statements. But do these reports raise scientific awareness, or do they increase needless fear?

As science becomes important to more than just researchers, journalists are providing the link between scientists and the public. However, this often-tenuous relationship may distort people’s perception of scientific findings.

The demands of science and the media are often in direct conflict. Captivating journalism often boils down to definitive statements and straightforward conclusions. Conversely, scientific research involves subtleties, caution and debate. Scientists complain that the media generalizes and exaggerates, while journalists shy away when important advances appear dull or confusing.

Time is also an issue. Scientific progress is a lengthy pursuit — each new discovery adds to a working theory that is under continual revision. Scientists contend that the media presents isolated snapshots of this progression at its most attractive points. As well, old headlines are rarely revisited, even if they are later disproved.

As there is increasing public interest in science, the media is trying to attract this audience. In doing so, reporters often sensationalize findings to make stories more appealing. Usually, the most dramatic breakthroughs are chosen instead of findings based on the strongest science. In many ways, science becomes entertainment.

But journalists are not entirely to blame. Most scientists make little effort to directly communicate their work to the public — it is usually presented in specialized journals read only by their colleagues. These reports are full of obscure jargon that even other scientists have trouble deciphering. It is left to reporters to interpret the results for a wider audience. Unsurprisingly, important details can be missed and findings can be presented without context.

As a result of this failure to accurately communicate scientific findings, the public can become misled and deluded. There is confusion over the significance of scientific advances and there are also inflated perceptions of what science can do.

Consider the word “gene” as it is used by mainstream media. Almost every day we see headlines announcing that scientists have found the gene responsible for diabetes, osteoporosis, alcoholism and other ailments. In reality, the underlying cause for most of these conditions is far more complex than the presence of a single gene. But, these reports can lead to the overblown assumption that a cure may be right around the corner.

Another danger is that the media may follow certain debates too closely. For example, stories concerning high-profile research are written as the findings are unveiled but before all of the facts are available. Constant additions to the controversy can overwhelm the public and cause disinterest. The parade of news stories claiming that certain foods may or may not be linked to cancer is a perfect example. After a constant bombardment of these conflicting reports, people assume that scientists know nothing about the causes of cancer, or they simply become indifferent.

Researchers also have little trust in the media. Many scientists avoid sharing their work with journalists for fear that their findings may be misinterpreted. Unfortunately, this might mean that the media and the public will never be properly educated.

To avoid widening the gap between the media and the scientific community, closer collaboration is crucial. As a step in this direction, many research institutions and scientific journals convey press releases to reporters. An increasing number of scientists also hold press conferences so they can provide firsthand accounts of their findings.

The responsibility to convey accurate, relevant information is in the hands of both journalists and scientists.