Lot's Wife Edition 4 2016

SCIENCE
Because most of these
journalists don’t
come from science
backgrounds, they
rely on the word
of these scientists
without actually
understanding it.
Misrepresentation of serious research as “pop-science” even has
the reputation of ruining careers. Still, it is essential to report
on science and its impacts. Good science journalism has proven
capable of filling some of the most widely read magazines on
the planet.
There is more to bad reporting than it simply being false.
Even if science has a reputation for being a bit scary and hard
to understand, journalists have an obligation to check their
facts.
In the increasingly demanding news cycle, a lack of scrutiny
on the part of the media puts the democratic power of journalism
at risk. Being told a lie about something as serious as your
health or environmental issues is worse than never being told
anything in the first place. As any science student would know,
it takes a trained eye to know what is solid research and what
is not.
But the real danger to science as a profession is when the
reported facts are almost true. Misleading coverage of research
that is well conducted, peer-reviewed, and repeated with
supportive results can end up with good scientists losing a
hard-earned reputation. Perhaps the worst part is that these
cases of journalistic inaccuracy often cluster around big topics
like cancer, heart disease or climate change, global issues that
end up being misunderstood by millions because of a poorly
worded headline.
Part of the problem is the complexity of the research.
Because most of these journalists don’t come from science
backgrounds, they rely on the word of these scientists without
actually understanding it. And if the teams doing the research
can’t coordinate a simple enough summary, they risk leaving
the journalist to cut out the parts they don’t understand.
But good science journalism is out there.
New Scientist, Cosmos, and National Geographic are always
filled with interesting and accurate depictions of modern science.
And then there’s The Conversation, where award winning
journalists give brilliant names in science the opportunity to
share their story first hand through interviews as opposed
to press-releases. But the problem remains that these quality
publications mainly attract academics and other scientists;
people who are equipped with the knowledge to interpret the
original work.
Science journalism can’t always be written by those completing
the research. While it may be more factual to have
these articles written by the scientists conducting the experiments,
a fresh set of eyes ensures that someone with virtually
no understanding can still wrap their head around it. Though
most people wouldn’t, there are those few who seek to further
themselves by muddying the waters with fiction. The world of
science is under the same fiscal pressures as the news industry,
and privatised research has been known to skew press releases
for financial gain.
So it seems that there is more than just one problem with
science writing. The journalists writing it need the guts and the
training to try and understand something they don’t have a degree
in, and the researchers behind the findings need the tools
to explain the intricacies of their experiments to us common
folk.
While there are some resources availble once you’re in the
field, it seems nonsensical not to have this issue addressed earlier
considering it’s near inevitability. At some point, whether
to a journalist or a company or a consumer, these ideas need to
be communicated simply and effectively. And until science and
journalism students are being taught these skills as a necessity,
it is up to the brave few to dedicate their time and efforts to a
cause often overlooked.
38 | Lot’s Wife