tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/science-journalism-7561/articlesScience journalism – The Conversation2022-11-24T20:39:31Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1944082022-11-24T20:39:31Z2022-11-24T20:39:31ZJournalists reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic relied on research that had yet to be peer reviewed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496833/original/file-20221122-24-oaiosp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6720%2C4476&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Journalists covering scientific research during the COVID-19 pandemic increased their reliance on preprints.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A story on <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-lack-of-confidence-thats-holding-back-women-in-stem-155216">gender inequity in scientific research industries</a>. A deep dive into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-well-your-immune-system-works-can-depend-on-the-time-of-day-161930">daily rhythms of the immune system</a>. A look at <a href="https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210603/Study-compares-Pfizer-and-Moderna-mRNA-vaccine-elicited-response-to-SARS-CoV-2-variants.aspx">vaccine effectiveness</a> for COVID-19 variants. These are a few examples of news stories based on <em>preprints</em> — research studies that haven’t been formally vetted by the scientific community. </p>
<p>Journalists have <a href="https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/what-should-press-officers-advise-on-preprints-during-a-pandemic/">historically been discouraged</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05789-4">from reporting on preprints</a> because of fears that the findings could be exaggerated, inaccurate or flat-out wrong. But our new research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have changed things by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277769">pushing preprint-based journalism into the mainstream</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/preprints-how-draft-academic-papers-have-become-essential-in-the-fight-against-covid-158811">Preprints: how draft academic papers have become essential in the fight against COVID</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While this new normal offers important benefits for journalists and their audiences, it also comes with risks and challenges that deserve our attention. </p>
<h2>Peer review and the pandemic</h2>
<p>Traditionally, studies must be read and critiqued by at least two independent experts before they can be published in a scientific journal — a process known as “<a href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/peer-review-research-journalists/">peer review</a>.” </p>
<p>This isn’t the case with preprints, which are posted online almost immediately, without formal review. This immediacy has made preprints a valuable resource for scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959">tackling the COVID-19 pandemic</a>.</p>
<p>The lack of formal review makes preprints a faster way to communicate science, albeit a potentially riskier approach. While <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/peer-reviewed-scientific-journals-dont-really-do-their-job/">peer review isn’t perfect</a>, it can help scientists identify errors in data or more clearly communicate their findings. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1372904891128160256"}"></div></p>
<p>Studies suggest that <a href="https://morepress.unizd.hr/journals/index.php/pubmet/article/view/3941">most preprints</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/35276">stand up well</a> to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000309">the scrutiny of peer review</a>. Still, in some cases, <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/two-studies-examine-preprints/">findings can change in important ways between the time a study is posted as a preprint and the time it is published in a peer-reviewed journal</a>, which can be on average <a href="https://blog.dhimmel.com/plos-and-publishing-delays/">more than 100 days</a>.</p>
<h2>A ‘paradigm shift’ in science journalism</h2>
<p>As researchers of<a href="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/science-communication/"> journalism and science communication,</a> we’ve been keeping a close eye on media coverage of preprints since the onset of the pandemic. In one study, we found <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892">that a wide range of media outlets reported on COVID-19 preprints</a>, including major outlets like <em>The New York Times</em> and <em>The Guardian</em>. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of these outlets failed to mention that these studies were preprints, leaving audiences unaware that the science they were reading hadn’t been peer reviewed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-rush-for-coronavirus-information-unreviewed-scientific-papers-are-being-publicized-152912">In the rush for coronavirus information, unreviewed scientific papers are being publicized</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We dug deeper into how and why journalists use preprints. Through in-depth interviews, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277769">asked health and science journalists about the strategies</a> they used to find, verify and communicate about preprints and whether they planned to report on them after COVID-19.</p>
<p>Our peer-reviewed, published study found that preprints have become an <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/learning-series/global-science-journalism-report-2021-2/">important information source</a> for many journalists, and one that some plan to keep using post-pandemic. Journalists reported actively seeking out these unreviewed studies by visiting <a href="https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers">online servers</a> (websites where scientists post preprints) or by monitoring social media. </p>
<p>Although a few journalists were unsure if they would continue using preprints, others said these studies had created “a complete paradigm shift” in science journalism.</p>
<h2>A careful equation</h2>
<p>Journalists told us that they valued preprints because they were more timely than peer reviewed studies, which are often published <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00576-2">months after scientists conduct the research</a>. As one freelancer we interviewed put it: “When people are dying, you gotta get things going a little bit.” </p>
<p>Journalists also appreciated that preprints are <a href="https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qaef-638">free to access and use</a>, while many <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375">peer-reviewed journal articles are not</a>. </p>
<p>Journalists balanced these benefits against the potential risks for their audiences. Many expressed a high level of skepticism about unreviewed studies, voicing concerns about the potential to spread misinformation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a row of people seated and holding notebooks and pens" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497066/original/file-20221123-2455-5bmk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Journalists access preprints for a variety of reasons, including tight deadlines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Unsplash/The Climate Reality Project)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some journalists provided examples of issues that had become “extremely muddied” by preprints, such as whether to <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-its-safe-for-kids-to-go-back-to-school-137064">keep schools open during the pandemic</a>. </p>
<p>Many journalists said they felt it was important to label preprints as “preprints” in their stories or mention that the research had not been peer reviewed. At the same time, they admitted that their audience probably wouldn’t understand what the words “preprint” or “peer review” mean. </p>
<p>In addition, verifying preprints appeared to be a real challenge for journalists, even for those with advanced science education. Many told us that they leaned heavily on interviews with experts to vet findings, with some journalists organizing what they described as their “own peer review.” </p>
<p>Other journalists simply relied on their intuition or “gut” instinct, especially when deadlines loomed or when experts were unavailable. </p>
<h2>Supporting journalists to communicate science</h2>
<p>Recently, media organizations have started <a href="https://www.theopennotebook.com/2020/06/01/problems-with-preprints-covering-rough-draft-manuscripts-responsibly/">publishing resources</a> and <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/health/how-media-cover-preprint-studies/">tip sheets</a> for <a href="https://www.researchsquare.com/blog/preprints-in-media">reporting on preprints</a>. While these resources are an important first step, our findings suggest that more needs to be done, especially if preprint-based journalism is indeed here to stay. </p>
<p>Whether it’s through providing specialized training, updating journalism school curricula or revising existing professional guidelines, we need to support journalists in verifying and communicating about preprints effectively and ethically. The quality of our news depends on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194408/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Fleerackers received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to conduct this research. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren A Maggio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Preprints are often free to use, making them more accessible for journalists to report on. However, as they have yet to undergo peer review, science journalists take a gamble on their accuracy.Alice Fleerackers, PhD Student, Interdisciplinary Studies, Simon Fraser UniversityLauren A Maggio, Professor, Uniformed Services University of the Health SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1505842021-04-14T12:38:36Z2021-04-14T12:38:36ZCOVID-19 public health messages have been all over the place – but researchers know how to do better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394900/original/file-20210413-15-1nwtuq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C64%2C4648%2C3496&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Public service announcements, news articles and social media posts are all part of the coronavirus messaging landscape.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-by-a-cdc-billboard-encouraging-people-to-wear-a-news-photo/1264183293">Noam Galai via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Persuading people to get a COVID-19 vaccine remains a challenge even as <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations">more than a 120 million people in the U.S.</a> have received at least one dose.</p>
<p>Public health officials have struggled to find persuasive and accessible approaches throughout the pandemic, from explaining where COVID-19 originated to <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/who-comments-breed-confusion-over-asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-67626">how the virus spreads among individuals</a>, along with steps to prevent its transmission, its inequitable impacts on people’s lives, and now relevant risks and benefits information about vaccines.</p>
<p>COVID-19 is not just a medical issue. It is also a social justice, economic and political issue. That makes it hard to figure out how best to share information about it, especially since messages come from a range of communicators – including elected officials, journalists, scientists, physicians and community leaders – and are delivered to diverse audiences.</p>
<p>And the science itself has been uncertain and evolving. New information can change what’s known <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-science-of-this-pandemic-is-moving-at-dangerous-speeds/">almost daily</a>, making clear, accurate communication a “<a href="https://slate.com/technology/2020/04/covid19-misinformation-science-communication.html">moving target</a>.”</p>
<p>As researchers <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=r7G9f0wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">focused on</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NKj9jw4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">the science of</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BSaDBDQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">science communication</a>, we can suggest <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/527120-the-missing-link-of-bidens-covid-strategy-social-scientists">several communication strategies</a>, based on <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25881/encouraging-adoption-of-protective-behaviors-to-mitigate-the-spread-of-covid-19">a July 2020 report</a> from the National Academies for Science, Engineering and Medicine, that encourage protective behaviors related to COVID-19.</p>
<h2>Clear and open, even about uncertainty</h2>
<p>Decades of research in risk communication show that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/81597/download">people’s perception of their own risk</a> is key to motivating them to take preventive measures. For that to work, public health messages must be clear, consistent and transparent. </p>
<p>One way to ensure that, especially for issues that have high uncertainty, like the pandemic, is for science and health messages to include context that connects the news to people’s concerns and prior experiences. What does risk or uncertainty about how the virus is transferred mean for the audience? How can they act on that information in their own lives? The “so what” of the message has to feel relevant. One approach, for example, is to emphasize how adoption of preventive behaviors – such as mask-wearing and hand-washing – leads to local businesses reopening and faster economic recovery. </p>
<p>Ensuring consistency in messaging, even for a rapidly changing issue, also means considering context – the bigger-picture processes shaping the issue. In other words, where do both the information and the uncertainty come from? What do scientists, policymakers and health care workers know or not know at this point? Then, most crucially, what are people doing to address that uncertainty and what can audiences still do to act in the face of it?</p>
<h2>Tap into a crowd mentality</h2>
<p>At various points during the pandemic, public health officials needed to persuade people to change aspects of their daily lives. To do this effectively, it helps to remember that people change their behavior and beliefs to better match what they perceive other people are doing – especially those they most identify with. It’s human nature to want to go along with <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/social-norms-4849">social norms</a>.</p>
<p>Health messages should avoid putting a spotlight on “bad” behaviors, since that can actually <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5">exacerbate the problem</a>. Disproportionate attention paid to vaccine hesitancy or people refusing to wear masks, for example, gives the impression that these <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/27/more-americans-say-they-are-regularly-wearing-masks-in-stores-and-other-businesses/">behaviors are more common</a> than they actually are. Rather, attention to “good” behaviors, such as small business successfully implementing social distancing practices, can be more effective.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="masked older man holds up his vaccination card" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/394901/original/file-20210413-21-1gybymu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The now-ubiquitous post-vaccine selfie can have unintended consequences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/VirusOutbreakCalifornia/b8ae1e0c55344cbdadab45dbfb65af8f/photo?boardId=d7f2514f50804466b15dfb81ed00d9cd&st=boards&mediaType=audio,photo,video,graphic&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=37&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But even well-intended efforts to promote social norms, such as vaccination selfies, may provoke <a href="https://theconversation.com/posting-covid-19-vaccine-selfies-on-social-media-can-cause-anger-frustration-153504">significant backlash</a>, including jealousy, anger and feelings of injustice.</p>
<p>One way to avoid unintended backlash is to consider, before sharing, who is likely to see this message beyond the intended audiences. Are those who might see the message able to act on this information? If people can’t sign up for their own vaccination yet, a photo of a happy newly vaccinated person may make them feel angry and trigger negative feelings about systemic unfairness and resentment toward those who do have access.</p>
<h2>Balancing the good news with the bad</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276">fear of a threat can motivate action</a>. But a fear-based message often leads to people feeling helpless unless it’s paired with clear actions they can take to mitigate the threat.</p>
<p>Alternatively, <a href="https://covid19vaccinescommunicationprinciples.org/the-principles/emotions/">hope is a powerful motivator</a>, much more so and more consistently than fear or anger in many cases. Fortunately, for science communication in particular, surveys find that the majority of Americans <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-elicits-hope-in-americans-its-positive-brand-doesnt-need-to-be-partisan-124980">remain hopeful about the promise of science</a> to improve people’s lives.</p>
<p>Communicating hope can happen implicitly, through <a href="https://www.solutionsjournalism.org/">highlighting what does work</a> and the benefits of actions. For example, clients following mask-wearing policies permitted many small businesses like hair salons to remain safely open.</p>
<p>What tends to be more common, especially in news coverage, is an emphasis on the negative – both in the current situation and in hypothetical futures and risks that could come if people don’t change course. You can see this focus in the coverage of gatherings that violate health regulations, like crowded beaches during spring break. </p>
<p>The weight of constant bad news reduces how equipped individuals feel to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506">deal with a problem or avoid a risk</a>. And this negative tendency can paint an unrealistic picture of an issue that has both wins and losses to report.</p>
<p>Without a fuller picture of the good news – what does work and what people are doing right – it becomes very difficult to envision how the world could look any different, or what anyone can do to move forward to a better place.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150584/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nothing to disclose.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominique Brossard and Todd Newman do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>During the pandemic, clear and reliable health communication can literally be a life-and-death issue. Researchers who focus on the science of science communication highlight strategies that work.Todd Newman, Assistant Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonDominique Brossard, Professor and Chair of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonEmily Howell, Postdoctoral Fellow in Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1537082021-03-15T12:56:48Z2021-03-15T12:56:48Z6 tips to help you detect fake science news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389103/original/file-20210311-20-90hym5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=781%2C889%2C4508%2C3098&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If what you're reading seems too good to be true, it just might be.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/dhCGbPx8wpk">Mark Hang Fung So/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I’m a professor of chemistry, have a Ph.D. and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=RpiSPiwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">conduct my own scientific research</a>, yet when consuming media, even I frequently need to ask myself: “Is this science or is it fiction?”</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons a science story might not be sound. Quacks and charlatans take advantage of the complexity of science, some content providers can’t tell bad science from good and some politicians peddle fake science to support their positions.</p>
<p>If the science sounds too good to be true or too wacky to be real, or very conveniently supports a contentious cause, then you might want to check its veracity.</p>
<p>Here are six tips to help you detect fake science.</p>
<h2>Tip 1: Seek the peer review seal of approval</h2>
<p>Scientists rely on journal papers to share their scientific results. They let the world see what research has been done, and how.</p>
<p>Once researchers are confident of their results, they write up a manuscript and send it to a journal. Editors forward the submitted manuscripts to at least two external referees who have expertise in the topic. These reviewers can suggest the manuscript be rejected, published as is, or sent back to the scientists for more experiments. That process is called “peer review.”</p>
<p>Research published in <a href="https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16">peer-reviewed journals</a> has undergone rigorous quality control by experts. Each year, about <a href="https://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf">2,800 peer-reviewed journals</a> publish roughly 1.8 million scientific papers. The body of scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and updating, but you can trust that the science these journals describe is sound. Retraction policies help correct the record if mistakes are discovered post-publication.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="man in white coat in lab at laptop" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389321/original/file-20210312-15-1iumcql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Peer-reviewed’ means other scientific experts have checked the study over for any problems before publication.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/scientist-using-computer-in-laboratory-royalty-free-image/1194829395">ljubaphoto/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Peer review takes months. To get the word out faster, scientists sometimes post research papers on what’s called a preprint server. These often have “RXiv” – pronounced “archive” – in their name: MedRXiv, BioRXiv and so on. These articles have not been peer-reviewed and so are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892">not validated by other scientists</a>. Preprints provide an opportunity for other scientists to evaluate and use the research as building blocks in their own work sooner.</p>
<p>How long has this work been on the preprint server? If it’s been months and it hasn’t yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature, be very skeptical. Are the scientists who submitted the preprint from a reputable institution? During the COVID-19 crisis, with researchers scrambling to understand a dangerous new virus and rushing to develop lifesaving treatments, preprint servers have been littered with immature and unproven science. <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/a-lot-of-covid-19-papers-havent-been-peer-reviewed-reader-beware/">Fastidious research standards have been sacrificed for speed</a>.</p>
<p>A last warning: Be on the alert for research published in what are called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y">predatory journals</a>. They don’t peer-review manuscripts, and they charge authors a fee to publish. Papers from any of the <a href="https://guides.library.yale.edu/c.php?g=296124&p=1973764">thousands of known predatory journals</a> should be treated with strong skepticism.</p>
<h2>Tip 2: Look for your own blind spots</h2>
<p>Beware of biases in your own thinking that might predispose you to fall for a particular piece of fake science news.</p>
<p>People give their own memories and experiences more credence than they deserve, making it hard to accept new ideas and theories. Psychologists call this quirk the availability bias. It’s a useful built-in shortcut when you need to make quick decisions and don’t have time to critically analyze lots of data, but it messes with your fact-checking skills.</p>
<p>In the fight for attention, sensational statements beat out unexciting, but more probable, facts. The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of vivid occurrences is called the salience bias. It leads people to mistakenly believe overhyped findings and trust confident politicians in place of cautious scientists.</p>
<p>A confirmation bias can be at work as well. People tend to give credence to news that fits their existing beliefs. This tendency helps climate change denialists and anti-vaccine advocates believe in their causes in spite of the scientific consensus against them.</p>
<p>Purveyors of fake news know the weaknesses of human minds and try to take advantage of these natural biases. <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-overcome-cognitive-bias-and-use-it-to-your-advantage_b_5900fff3e4b00acb75f1844f">Training can help you</a> <a href="https://hbr.org/2015/05/outsmart-your-own-biases">recognize and overcome</a> your own cognitive biases.</p>
<h2>Tip 3: Correlation is not causation</h2>
<p>Just because you can see a relationship between two things doesn’t necessarily mean that one causes the other.</p>
<p>Even if surveys find that people who live longer drink more red wine, it doesn’t mean a daily glug will extend your life span. It could just be that red-wine drinkers are wealthier and have better health care, for instance. Look out for this error in nutrition news.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="gloved hand holds a mouse" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389322/original/file-20210312-20-1s3fgpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What works well in rodents might not work at all in you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/face-of-tiny-white-mouse-peeps-out-royalty-free-image/157440932">sidsnapper/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tip 4: Who were the study’s subjects?</h2>
<p>If a study used human subjects, check to see whether it was placebo-controlled. That means some participants are randomly assigned to get the treatment – like a new vaccine – and others get a fake version that they believe is real, the placebo. That way researchers can tell whether any effect they see is from the drug being tested. </p>
<p>The best trials are also double blind: To remove any bias or preconceived ideas, neither the researchers nor the volunteers know who is getting the active medication or the placebo.</p>
<p>The size of the trial is important too. When more patients are enrolled, researchers can identify safety issues and beneficial effects sooner, and any differences between subgroups are more obvious. Clinical trials can have thousands of subjects, but some scientific studies involving people are much smaller; they should address how they’ve achieved the statistical confidence they claim to have.</p>
<p>Check that any health research was actually done on people. Just because a certain drug works <a href="https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice">in rats or mice</a> does not mean it will work for you.</p>
<h2>Tip 5: Science doesn’t need ‘sides’</h2>
<p>Although a political debate requires two opposing sides, a scientific consensus does not. When the media interpret objectivity to mean equal time, it undermines science. </p>
<h2>Tip 6: Clear, honest reporting might not be the goal</h2>
<p>To get their audience’s attention, morning shows and talk shows need something exciting and new; accuracy may be less of a priority. Many science journalists are doing their best to accurately cover new research and discoveries, but plenty of science media are better classified as entertaining rather than educational. <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7346">Dr. Oz</a>, Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew should not be your go-to medical sources. </p>
<p>Beware of medical products and procedures that sound too good to be true. Be skeptical of testimonials. Think about the key players’ motivations and who stands to make a buck.</p>
<p>If you’re still suspicious of something in the media, make sure the news being reported reflects what the research actually found by <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper">reading the journal article itself</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153708/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Zimmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whenever you hear about a new bit of science news, these suggestions will help you assess whether it’s more fact or fiction.Marc Zimmer, Professor of Chemistry, Connecticut CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1554812021-03-12T06:33:31Z2021-03-12T06:33:31ZBehind a lot of flashy headlines may lie questionable scientific claims - what should people be aware of when reading the news?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388443/original/file-20210309-19-1o23lcw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/_Zua2hyvTBk">(Unsplash/Roman Kraft)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Traditional and social media play an important role in disseminating scientific breakthroughs to the public. However, we as an audience, must be cautious in how we consume information from these publicly available sources.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://theconversation.com/pseudoscience-is-taking-over-social-media-and-putting-us-all-at-risk-121062">claims of harmful effects of vaccines</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-climate-researchers-and-our-work-was-turned-into-fake-news-89999">studies on the extent of climate change</a>, we have learned that behind some news headlines or articles lie either questionable, oversold, or misinterpreted research findings.</p>
<p>So what should readers be aware of when reading news that contain scientific claims?</p>
<h2>A lot of studies don’t hold up to replication</h2>
<p>The first thing that readers should understand before coming to a conclusion when reading research findings in the news, is acknowledging that there is a well-known ‘<a href="https://www.nature.com/news/metascience-could-rescue-the-replication-crisis-1.16275">replication crisis</a>’ in academic research.</p>
<p>This means that a lot of studies that you read in the news fail to produce similar outcomes when other scientists try to confirm them.</p>
<p>For instance, Nature revealed that <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/1.19970">more than 70%</a> of researchers have failed to reproduce another scientist’s findings, and more than 40% have even failed to reproduce their own findings. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388482/original/file-20210309-15-oi700w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">According to a survey by Nature, more than 70% of studies have failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/magnifying-glass-pen-over-graph-on-169007078?src=ZXM3US3bRC1l_2YUkqKtLQ-1-37">(Shutterstock/Portrait Image Asia)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a">a 2012 study</a> reported that only 11% of the 53 new cancer treatments they identified in the previous decade could be replicated, while another that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecoj.12461">examined 159 empirical economics studies</a> showed that 80% of these papers had exaggerated their findings.</p>
<p>Factors that may lead to these non-reproducible results include honest human-error mistakes, poor sampling, “cherrypicking” scientific findings, and in rare cases data manipulation.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-survey-found-questionable-research-practices-by-ecologists-and-biologists-heres-what-that-means-94421">survey from the University of Melbourne</a>, Australia, that involved 800 ecologists and biologists, found that 64% of them had at least once failed to report results from their study because they were not “statistically significant” - meaning they did not show results that the scientists hoped for.</p>
<h2>The media often feeds on our need for hope</h2>
<p>Although the vast majority of scientific research are reputable and reliable, there is the potential for error, fraud, or overstatement of findings.</p>
<p>However, at times, the media can overlooks these flaws - intentionally or otherwise - particularly when it comes to medical research that offer hopes of curing diseases and illnesses.</p>
<p>Let’s recall a breaking news story in 2009 about an Italian researcher, <a href="https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-14-6">Paolo Zamboni</a>, who claimed to cure his wife’s Multiple Sclerosis (MS) by “unblocking” the veins in her neck. He challenged the mainstream belief about MS as a disorder of the immune system, and instead, theorised it as a vascular disease - one that could be cured by clearing blood vessels.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388481/original/file-20210309-23-6gzav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=756&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paolo Zamboni, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Ferrarra, Italy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paolo_Zamboni_image.jpg">(Wikimedia Commons)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the media, however, the most appealing part of this research may have been a man’s quest to save his beloved wife. This romance-fuelled medical triumph - which is a popular story for health reports - appeared to restore the hope of many patients around the world.</p>
<p>Sadly, however, Zamboni’s research had a very small sample size and the design of the experiment had some defects. What attracted much attention was the hype of his romantic story rather than what was supposed to be a medical breakthrough.</p>
<p>Since then, other researchers’ attempt to replicate his findings <a href="https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-14-6">were not successful</a> and <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/multiple-sclerosis-liberation-therapy-clinical-trial-1.4014494">many incidents</a> of patients’ complications and relapses of the disorder were reported. </p>
<p>Zamboni’s case, however, was just a small story in the bigger picture of how the media can misinterpret or overstate research. It is common for promising health interventions, initially promoted in the media, to not be replicated and failing to result in actual clinical practice.</p>
<p>A 2003 study published in the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12731504/">American Journal of Medicine</a> looked at 101 articles published in six major science journals that offered novel therapeutic promises. However, among them only five were licensed for clinical use 20 years later and only one had been proven to have a significant health impact.</p>
<h2>There are potential incentives to misreport findings</h2>
<p>Around the world, researchers’ job targets, income, bonus, and promotion can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/unis-want-research-shared-widely-so-why-dont-they-properly-back-academics-to-do-it-151375">tied to their publications</a>.</p>
<p>On the other hand, many high-impact scientific journals - and consequently the media - can seem more attracted to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804907006946?casa_token=HiWmQv07WUkAAAAA:8eUfR_wVLu-aBh4OMsISiy16cAO4xupVvmg8s_ag-s7cIryLsKWF2i3-AtcHAnwzgppRYeWsl9qJCw">‘significant’ or positive results</a>, even though non-‘significant’ results and unsuccessful replications can make substantial contributions to scientific knowledge.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388483/original/file-20210309-19-18d8oo3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers’ job targets, income, bonus, and promotion are often tied to their publications.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-old-dirty-school-blackboard-stains-1060705337?src=H_2XPJ_5Q3o7mSADUVReww-1-49">(Shutterstock/Denys Kurbatov)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers from the University of California Davis in the US <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123321/#:%7E:text=US%20researchers%20have%20claimed%20that,other%20statistical%20tests%20were%20used">reviewed 359 studies</a> published in leading medical journals in the 1990s, and stated that most of the studies were “reported in a potentially misleading way, with statistics designed to make the results more positive than if other statistical tests were used”.</p>
<p>Many faculty staff have also heard anecdotal accounts of researchers and PhD students re-framing their data or findings to support their initial hypotheses or vice versa. They may even delete, add alter their data to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0149206314527133">make their work more publishable</a> and appealing for media coverage. </p>
<p>Every now and then the scientific community catches manipulated studies and journals would then <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/">retract them</a> from publication.</p>
<h2>We should read the news with a critical eye</h2>
<p>Every research study has the potential to improve our understanding of the world we live in.</p>
<p>However, we should be careful of overstated findings, studies that have yet to be replicated, or research that has not been published in credible peer-reviewed sources.</p>
<p>It will take more effort, but readers should be cautious of single studies, and instead seek to look at what the broader scientific community says about the topic.</p>
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the dangers of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300569">misinformation</a> and how it can <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext">spread faster</a> than any natural airborne virus. If the findings we read seem too good to be true, they probably are!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saeed Pahlevansharif has received several research grants for unrelated projects. There is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hassam Waheed has received several research grants for unrelated projects. There is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelly-Ann Allen has received several research grants for unrelated projects. There is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Navaz Naghavi has received several research grants for unrelated projects. There is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Gamble receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Behind a lot of news headlines often lie either questionable, oversold or misinterpreted research findings. So what should readers be aware of when reading news that contain scientific claims?Saeed Pahlevansharif, Associate Professor, Taylor's UniversityHassam Waheed, Taylor's UniversityKelly-Ann Allen, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Monash UniversityNavaz Naghavi, Lecturer, Taylor's UniversityNicholas Gamble, Lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1201362019-07-15T20:29:56Z2019-07-15T20:29:56ZThe counter-intuitive solution to getting people to care about climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283580/original/file-20190710-44472-wtxu1n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=76%2C58%2C2896%2C1962&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Zero-emissions energy is part of the solution to climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/9444506505">U.S. Department of Energy/flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a May episode of <em>Last Week Tonight With John Oliver</em>, Bill Nye the Science Guy took a <a href="https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1128028533241073665?s=20">blowtorch to a miniature globe</a>. It was an effort to startle Americans out of their complacency over climate change. </p>
<p>Whether on late-night TV or the nightly news, alarm is a recurring feature of climate change stories. Climate news is full of references to worsening wildfires, melting glaciers and rising seas. </p>
<p>However, this emphasis on doom and gloom can leave citizens feeling helpless and hopeless that they can make a difference. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JDcro7dPqpA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Green New Deal,’ Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). The segment with Bill Nye begins at 18:20.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“Threatening messages can capture the public’s attention and create a sense of urgency, leading to a heightened level of concern,” <a href="https://climateaccess.org/resource/tip-sheet-balancing-hope-and-threat">according to</a> Climate Access, a non-profit research group. “But worry by itself is not an effective motivator for action, as it more often leads to resignation and hopelessness.”</p>
<h1>Rethinking climate coverage</h1>
<p>One approach that can better engage news audiences is a style of reporting known as solutions journalism. </p>
<p>Solutions journalism is reporting on ways that people and governments meaningfully respond to difficult problems. It is an alternative to just reporting on the problem itself.</p>
<p>Solutions stories are not fluffy, good news stories. Instead, they are hard news stories meant to highlight <a href="https://learninglab.solutionsjournalism.org/en/courses/basic-toolkit/introduction/how-do-i-know-its-solutions-journalism">what has worked</a> based on tangible proof. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-journalists-can-rebut-trumps-fake-news-claims-110307">How journalists can rebut Trump's 'fake news' claims</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The approach <a href="https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/what-we-know-and-dont-about-the-impact-of-solutions-journalism-61ae0c4a0890">has been shown</a> to increase interest in a subject, and to elevate the public’s sense of self-efficacy. </p>
<h2>More facts ≠ more concern</h2>
<p>No subject is arguably more timely for a solutions-oriented approach right now than climate change. The evidence could not be more clear. The planet has heated up steadily since the Industrial Revolution. <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp">Most of that warming</a> has happened over the past four decades. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283583/original/file-20190710-44437-6rg6br.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Earth’s average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980. Yellows, oranges and reds show regions that are warmer than the baseline.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite all the evidence, mustering the political will to take climate change more seriously is a persistent problem. Why is that? </p>
<p>There are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.11">many reasons</a> why politicians and the public have difficulty engaging with climate change. For example, climate change can feel distant, and there is often little immediate gratification for dealing with it. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, academics, governments and journalists have long assumed that citizens would take action <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327141609_Engaging_climate_communication_Audiences_frames_values_and_norms">if only they had more facts about climate change</a>. </p>
<p>However, there is growing evidence that more facts do not translate into more concern. In a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2193133">widely cited study</a>, Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale Law School, and his colleagues found that people who had more knowledge about the science of climate change were not necessarily more concerned about it. Instead, lack of concern had much more to do with people’s personal beliefs and values. </p>
<h2>Effective climate communication</h2>
<p>Effective climate change communication challenges the idea that more facts produce more concern. Instead, effective climate change communication considers that tapping into <a href="https://beccconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/marshall_presentation2018.pdf">people’s values</a> is a far more effective strategy for engagement. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-conservatives-are-blind-to-climate-change-91549">Why some conservatives are blind to climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Good climate communicators ask the question: what is it about people’s experiences and circumstances that make them unlikely to engage with the climate crisis right now? </p>
<p>Effective climate communication also begins with the premise that climate audiences are <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327141609_Engaging_climate_communication_Audiences_frames_values_and_norms">not simply a monolithic whole</a>, equally interested or disinterested in the climate crisis. Good climate communication calibrates messages of hope or alarm <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Global_Warmings_Six_Americas_book_chapter_2014.pdf">depending on who</a> the messages are being communicated to. </p>
<h2>Engaging by example</h2>
<p>Solutions-oriented journalism on climate change provides examples of how <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327141609_Engaging_climate_communication_Audiences_frames_values_and_norms">ordinary people are making a difference</a>. It illustrates how those changes are having a tangible, beneficial improvement on their lives. </p>
<p>For instance, climate stories can reflect locally sourced food and its health impacts, or the cost savings on gas from buying an electric vehicle. </p>
<p>This style is markedly different from the conventional doom-and-gloom approach to climate reporting, which builds on the standard of <a href="https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/152638001316881395?utm_source=Medium&utm_campaign=ftaf04202018">individual action</a>. Instead, a solutions-oriented approach to climate news underscores the importance of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327141702_Contesting_conflict_Efficacy_advocacy_and_alternative_media_in_British_Columbia">collective action</a> and political mobilization. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/283584/original/file-20190710-44437-yeko9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Students protest the Belgian government’s climate policies in Brussels in February 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate as crisis</h2>
<p>There is also an important role in environmental communication for what Steve Schwarze, a University of Montana communication studies professor, refers to as “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630600938609">environmental melodrama</a>.” </p>
<p>Highly dramatic accounts of personal or political struggle are typically associated with the oversimplification of complex problems. But melodrama can also produce “productive forms of polarization,” according to Schwarze. For example, melodrama can galvanize a group of citizens around a common cause, or it can be deployed to point out who the villains in the story are. </p>
<p>It’s becoming increasingly clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to climate change communication is not sufficient for engaging news audiences.</p>
<p>Instead, effectively engaging the public on climate change requires a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/04/climate-fear-or-hope-change-debate">careful calibration of messages</a> framed around solutions, the urgency of the climate crisis and individuals’ reasons for engaging or not engaging with the subject in the first place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120136/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kamyar Razavi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Good communication about climate change requires much more than just alarming messages about all the scary impacts of a warming planet.Kamyar Razavi, Television news producer & PhD candidate, Simon Fraser UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1183292019-06-05T03:30:11Z2019-06-05T03:30:11ZThe gene therapy revolution is here. Medicine is scrambling to keep pace<p><em>This article is an edited extract from Elizabeth Finkel’s address <a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speakers/dr-elizabeth-finkel/">Gene therapy: cure but at what cost?</a> to the National Press Club June 5 2019.</em></p>
<p><em>We’re publishing it as part of our occasional series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/zoom-out-51632">Zoom Out</a>, where authors explore key ideas in science and technology in the broader context of society and humanity.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Gene therapy – for so long something that belonged to the future – has just hit the streets. </p>
<p>A couple of weeks back, you might have picked up a headline alerting us to the most expensive drug in history – a one off gene therapy cure for spinal muscular atrophy. Novartis have priced the drug <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-25/worlds-most-expensive-drug-spinal-muscular-dystrophy/11149788">Zolgensma</a> at A$3 million (US$2.1 million).</p>
<p>Traditionally a parent of a baby with spinal muscular atrophy was told: take your baby home and love her or him. Have no false hope, the baby will die paralysed and unable to eat or talk by the age of two. </p>
<p>What’s the narrative going to be now? There is a cure but it costs A$3 million. </p>
<p>I think we are in for some poignant dilemmas. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/boyer-lectures-gene-therapy-is-still-in-its-infancy-but-the-future-looks-promising-104558">Boyer Lectures: gene therapy is still in its infancy but the future looks promising</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Heads up’ from a mother</h2>
<p>The person who gave me a recent “heads up” on the gene therapy revolution was not a scientist. She is the mother of two sick children.</p>
<p>I met Megan Donnell last August 29th at a Melbourne startup conference called “<a href="https://www.bluechilli.com/blog/be-above-all-human/">Above All Human</a>”. </p>
<p>Megan Donnell is a person who strikes you with her vibrancy and charisma.
What you can’t immediately see is her life’s greatest tragedy and her life’s greatest mission.</p>
<p>Both of her children suffer from the rare genetic illness <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4664539/">Sanfilippo syndrome</a>. They lack a gene for breaking down heparin sulphate, a sugar that holds proteins in place in the matrix between cells. The high levels of the sugar poison the organs, particularly the brain. In the normal course of the disease, the children die in their teens, paralysed, unable to talk or eat. </p>
<p>When Megan Donnell’s kids were diagnosed at the ages of four and two, she was told “do not have false hope”. <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/march/1551445200/elizabeth-finkel/chasing-miracle-gene-therapy">She didn’t listen</a>. </p>
<p>The one time IT business manager started the <a href="https://www.sanfilippo.org.au/">Sanfilippo Childrens’ Foundation</a>, raised a million dollars and invested in a start-up based in Ohio that was trialling gene therapy to treat the disease. Part of the deal was that the company would conduct trials in Australia as well as in the US and Spain. So far 14 children have been treated worldwide. </p>
<h2>I’d missed a revolution</h2>
<p>Megan Donnell’s story stunned me.</p>
<p>I’d written two books about coming medical revolutions: one on stem cells, the other on genomics. But when a medical revolution actually arrived, I’d missed it.
It was all the more remarkable because for six years I’d been the editor of a popular science magazine – <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/">Cosmos</a>. </p>
<p>We scanned the media releases for hot papers each week but gene therapy never came up on our radar.</p>
<p>Probably because we’d been dazzled by <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR</a> – the powerful technique that can edit the DNA of everything from mosquitoes to man. But CRISPR has barely entered clinical trials. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">What is CRISPR gene editing, and how does it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meanwhile there are already five gene therapy products on the market. And with 750 working their way through the pipeline, the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) predicts that <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613576/gene-therapy-may-have-its-first-blockbuster/">by 2025 between 10-20 gene therapy treatments</a> will be added to the market each year. </p>
<p>Some of the gene therapies are having incredible effects. </p>
<p>The star example is the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-25/worlds-most-expensive-drug-spinal-muscular-dystrophy/11149788">Novartis treatment</a> for spinal muscular atrophy. Untreated babies die paralysed by the age of two. But those treated with Zolgensma have now reached the age of four and some are walking and dancing. </p>
<p>In 2017, the FDA approved <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-novel-gene-therapy-treat-patients-rare-form-inherited-vision-loss">Luxturna</a>, now marketed by Roche. This gene therapy can restore sight to children suffering from a form of retinal blindness that begins months after birth. </p>
<p>For the first time I can recall, medical researchers are using a four letter word for some diseases: cure.</p>
<p>These treatments appear to have fixed the underlying conditions. Especially when they are given early. Indeed spinal muscular atrophy treatment is being offered to babies a few month old – before their motor neurons have started to wither.</p>
<h2>30 years in the making</h2>
<p>These gene therapy treatments have been over thirty years in the making.
And the saga of their journey to the clinic, I suspect, reveals some common plot lines.</p>
<p>The potential of gene therapy, was obvious as soon Marshall Nirenberg cracked the genetic code back in the 1960s. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/JJ/p-nid/24">New York Times opined</a>: “The science of biology has reached a new frontier”, leading to “a revolution far greater in its potential significance than the atomic or hydrogen bomb.”</p>
<p>In a 1967 editorial for Science, <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/157/3789/633.full.pdf">Nirenberg wrote</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This knowledge will greatly influence man’s future, for man then will have the power to shape his own biological destiny.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But if the end goal was obvious, the pitfalls were not. </p>
<p>What made the dream of gene therapy possible was viruses. They’ve evolved to invade our cells and sneak their DNA in next to our own, so they can be propagated by our cellular machinery.</p>
<p>Throughout the 1980s, genetic engineers learned to splice human DNA into the viruses. </p>
<p>Like tiny space ships, they carried the human DNA as part of their payload. </p>
<p>By 1990, researchers attempted the first gene therapy trial in a human. It was to treat two children with a dysfunctional immune system, a disease known as severe combined immunodeficiency (<a href="https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=severe-combined-immunodeficiency-scid-90-P01706">SCID</a>). </p>
<p>The results were hardly miraculous but they were promising. Researchers raced to bring more potent viruses to the clinic. </p>
<h2>Children have died</h2>
<p>In 1999, 18 year old <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81135/">Jesse Gelsinger paid the price</a>.</p>
<p>He had volunteered to try gene therapy for his inherited condition: ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. It meant he couldn’t break down ammonia, a waste product of dietary protein. But his condition was largely under control through medication and watching his diet.</p>
<p>Four days after his treatment at the University of Pennsylvania, Jesse was dead – a result of a massive immune reaction to the trillions of adenovirus particles introduced into his body. These are the same viruses that cause the common cold. </p>
<p>Tragedy struck again in 2003. This one involved so-called “bubble boys”. </p>
<p>They too carried an immune deficiency, X-SCID, which saw them confined to sterile bubble; a common cold can be fatal. This time round the gene therapy appeared far more effective. But within a few years of treatment, five of 20 boys <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807175438.htm">developed leukaemia</a>. The virus (gamma retrovirus) had activated a cancer-causing gene. </p>
<p>The two tragedies set the field back. Many researchers found it very hard to get funding. </p>
<p>But the huge clinical potential kept others going. </p>
<p>The key was to keep re-engineering the viral vectors. </p>
<p>It was a project that reminds me of the evolution of powered flight. From the biplanes that the Wright brothers flew in 1903 to the epic Apollo 11 flight in 1963, took 60 years.</p>
<p>The virus engineers have been a lot faster.</p>
<h2>Use engineered viruses</h2>
<p>Ten years after the disaster of the leukaemia-causing viruses, researchers had re-engineered so-called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/lentiviruses">lenti viruses</a> not to activate cancer genes. They had also found other viruses that did not provoke catastrophic immune responses. </p>
<p>Instead of the adenovirus, they discovered its mild-mannered partner – known as adeno associated virus (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5548848/">AAV</a>). There’s a whole zoo of these AAVs and some species are particularly good at targeting specific organs.</p>
<p>It is this new generation of vectors that are responsible for the results we are witnessing now. The AAV 9 vector for instance can <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5802612/">cross into the brain</a>, and that’s the one used to treat spinal muscular atrophy.</p>
<p>Turning the table on viruses, and hacking into their code: this is the bit that particularly fascinates me in telling the story of gene therapy. </p>
<p>But another intriguing aspect is that, contrary to long held wisdom, we are seeing big pharma galloping in to treat rare diseases.</p>
<p>In the US, the spinal muscular atrophy market is probably around 400 babies per year. Luxturna might treat 2,000 cases of blindness a year. </p>
<p>It’s not the sort of market size that would bring joy to investors. But clearly the companies think it’s worth their while. </p>
<p>For one thing, the FDA has provided incentives for rare, so-called “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-information-consumers/orphan-products-hope-people-rare-diseases">orphan diseases</a>” – fast-tracking their passage thought the tangled regulatory maze.</p>
<p>And there is a convincing business case. If gene therapy is a one shot cure then it really may end up saving health systems money. </p>
<p>That justifies, they say, some of the most extraordinary prices for a drug you’ve ever heard of. </p>
<p>Of course, all this relies on the treatments being one time cures.</p>
<p>And though the patients seem to be cured, whether or not the treatments last a lifetime remains to be seen. </p>
<h2>The situation in Australia</h2>
<p>Historically, this country has been a world leader when it comes to bargaining down exorbitantly priced cures. </p>
<p>In 2013 when the drugs for curing Hepatitis C first came out, the price was around <a href="https://theconversation.com/weekly-dose-sofosbuvir-whats-the-price-of-a-hepatitis-c-cure-63208">A$100,000 for a 12 week course</a>. But in Australia, <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-leads-the-world-in-hepatitis-c-treatment-whats-behind-its-success-81760">all 230,000 of those living with Hepatitis C will be treated</a> for the lowest price in the world. Prices are <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/hepatitis-c/treatment-costs#1">much higher</a> in the US. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-leads-the-world-in-hepatitis-c-treatment-whats-behind-its-success-81760">Australia leads the world in hepatitis C treatment – what's behind its success?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-dore-190651">Greg Dore</a> at the Kirby Institute of NSW participated in Australia’s Hepatitis C pricing discussions, and believes our model will work for the new gene therapy drugs – notwithstanding their eye-popping price tags – and the fact that the patient populations for these rare genetic diseases will be tiny. </p>
<p>However, the real reason companies are getting into gene therapy is not just to treat rare disease. It’s because they realise this technology will be a game changer for medicine.</p>
<p>They have already entered the field of cancer with a gene therapy approved for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia – CAR-T cells. Health Minister Greg Hunt <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-25/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-treatment-funding/10935308">announced this year</a> the government will pay the cost (around A$500,000 per treatment). </p>
<p>But after cancer, what then? </p>
<p>If you have a vector than can take a gene to the brain and cure spinal muscular atrophy, what else could you cure. Alzheimer’s disease, strokes?</p>
<p>Australian researchers are jostling to be part of the gene therapy revolution.</p>
<p>Paediatrician Ian Alexander <a href="https://www.cmri.org.au/Research/Research-Units/Translational-Vectorology/Our-People">together with virologist Leszek Lisowksi</a> are engineering the next generation of vectors in their labs at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney. They are designing them to home efficiently to specific organs and produce therapeutic levels of proteins. </p>
<p>Curiously it turns out that a major bottleneck is scaling up the production of these exquisitely engineered viruses. Who’d have thought there’d be a problem churning out the most abundant organism on the planet? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-drugs-get-from-the-point-of-discovery-to-the-pharmacy-shelf-78915">Explainer: how do drugs get from the point of discovery to the pharmacy shelf?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Researcher <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180802102344.htm">David Parsons in Adelaide</a> is refining methods to deliver vectors across the viscous mucus of children with cystic fibrosis. </p>
<p>Scientist John Rasko in Sydney is a pioneer when it comes to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/doctors-find-cure-for-thalassaemia/9674634">treating patients with gene therapy</a>, having been a part of international trials treating patients with beta thalassemia.</p>
<p>Medical researcher Elizabeth Rakoczy in Perth is developing a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-06/florey-medal-winner-professor-rakoczy-speaks/9232318">treatment for macular degeneration</a>.</p>
<p>And Alan Trounson, who spent six years at the helm of the world biggest stem cell institute, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, is <a href="https://cartherics.com/">advancing a technology</a> to develop off the shelf, universally compatible, CAR-T cells, to attack ovarian cancer. </p>
<p>One thing is for sure: medicine is set for a major disruption from the arrival of gene therapy.</p>
<p>As we enter an era, where once incurable diseases become curable; be prepared for some challenging debates about how to pay for gene therapy and the value of a human life. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was amended to correct the spelling of John Rasko’s name.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Finkel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As we enter an era where once incurable diseases become curable, be prepared for some challenging debates about how to pay for gene therapy and the value of a human life.Elizabeth Finkel, Vice-Chancellor's Fellow, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1169872019-05-27T19:44:29Z2019-05-27T19:44:29ZMisreporting the science of lab-made organs is unethical, even dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276525/original/file-20190527-40038-9nnn0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You'll be waiting a while for functional 3D-printed human organs. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blur-image-patients-hospital-waiting-see-1142067620?src=uzFlIBHcOL_oVrddBMpR5g-1-15">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I work in the field of bioprinting, where the aim is to build biological tissues by printing living cells into 3D structures.</p>
<p>Last month I found my Facebook news feed plastered with an amazing story about “the first 3D printed heart using a patient’s own cells”. A <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/health-science/researchers-create-3-d-printed-heart-using-patients-cells/2019/04/17/e832e463-a81e-44f5-a5e8-7db9fc9c6f94_video.html">video</a> showed a beautiful, healthy-looking heart apparently materialising inside a vat of pinkish liquid.</p>
<p>Big news. According to an <a href="https://wiley.altmetric.com/details/59043129">impact tracking algorithm</a>, the story has been picked up by 145 news outlets, tweeted 2,390 times to 3.8 million followers (as of May 27, 2019). Articles on Facebook have at least 13,000 shares, and videos about the story have been viewed well over 3 million times.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of these media reports don’t match up well with the original science.</p>
<p>Over-reporting of medical science is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12414">unethical</a>, and occasionally dangerous. It’s a problem all of us who work in the creation and telling of science can act to fix. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/titanium-is-the-perfect-metal-to-make-replacement-human-body-parts-115361">Titanium is the perfect metal to make replacement human body parts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How they printed a ‘heart’</h2>
<p>In the original printed “heart” <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.201900344">scientific paper</a>, Israeli scientists describe how they built on their own <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adma.201803895">earlier work</a> on bio-inks (printable materials and cells) to create 3D structures in the laboratory. The main focus was to print a square “patch” of heart cells and blood-vessels using a “personalised” bio-ink; one where all of the cells and materials came from a particular patient. This is important because bio-inks typically contain some synthetic or animal-derived materials.</p>
<p>As a final flourish the team also printed the cells into a thumbnail-sized, heart shape. The text of the original paper clearly states the printed heart-shaped structure is not a real heart, and lacks most of the features required to make a heart work. But, along with those striking visuals, this is the aspect of the work that helped the paper become such a media hit. </p>
<p>This might sound like the envious griping of a rival scientist. However, I’m not criticising the science. This is impressive work – the cardiac patches may indeed turn out be an important development in the field. </p>
<p>I’m more worried about media reports giving the impression that our field of research is far more advanced than it is. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0NmWOHuy-o8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Your heart is a really complicated organ.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When medical research is overplayed</h2>
<p>Sensationalism is <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591">rife in science journalism</a>. And the 3D bioprinting field is interesting in particular, as it is currently fuelled by a “perfect storm” of hype: it builds on the wider buzz around 3D printing, is deceptively easy to understand, and blends ideas of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6xBFZbrTc">science fiction</a> with potential impact in real health outcomes. </p>
<p>There are other recent examples of sensationalised reporting in the bioprinting field. </p>
<p>For example, Wake Forest University had to issue a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110310061956/http://www.wfubmc.edu/Research/WFIRM/Media-Reports-on-Kidney-Printing-Inaccurate.htm">clarification notice</a> following reports its scientist Anthony Atala had <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/features/organs-on-demand-38787">“printed” a human kidney live on stage</a></p>
<p>In December 2015, news articles announced that a 14-year old boy had become the first human patient to be implanted with a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/3d-printed-nose_n_5685835ee4b06fa68882578b">“3D printed nose”</a>. In reality, 3D printing was only used to make a template to help the surgeon piece together pieces of <a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/12/prweb13120518.htm">donor cartilage into the correct shape</a>.</p>
<p>We’re left with the impression that 3D bioprinting is a mature, clinically available technology, when currently it is not. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/edible-seaweed-can-be-used-to-grow-blood-vessels-in-the-body-112618">Edible seaweed can be used to grow blood vessels in the body</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What’s the harm in a bit of hype?</h2>
<p>There are numerous <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12414">ethical downsides</a> linked with over-enthusiastic portrayals of bioprinting in the media. </p>
<p>The problem is, mass media is one of the most important <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020215">sources of health and medical information for the general public</a>, especially prospective patients. </p>
<p>Positive portrayals of a novel technology in the media can <a href="https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/20866017">affect patient consent to undergo treatment</a> and can even prompt prospective participants <a href="https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2002.04.084">to request enrolment in clinical trials</a>.</p>
<p>I’ve seen this myself. Whenever <a href="https://www.biofab3d.org/">our own</a> research is reported, particularly on television, the next morning I get phonecalls from people who want to sign up for a particular treatment. On TV the message is rarely communicated that we are still at an experimental stage, with human trials still years away.</p>
<p>In the worst case, the buzz around new technology can provide an opportunity for unscrupulous charlatans, such as the cosmetic surgeon who reportedly sold an unapproved stem-cell technology in Beverley Hills. One patient ended up with <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stem-cell-cosmetics/">fragments of bone in her eyelid</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20671-man-receives-worlds-first-synthetic-windpipe/">Media reports</a> of infamous thoracic surgeon Paolo Macchiarini’s implantation of a “<a href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/cancer-patient-receives-a-man-made-windpipe/">synthetic trachea</a>” arguably provided him a platform to accelerate his <a href="http://ki.se/sites/default/files/karolinska_institutet_and_the_macchiarini_case_summary_in_english_and_swedish.pdf">research program</a>. Seven of the nine patients who received one of his synthetic trachea transplants have <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37311038">since died</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whose-hearts-livers-and-lungs-are-transplanted-in-china-origins-must-be-clear-in-human-organ-research-108077">Whose hearts, livers and lungs are transplanted in China? Origins must be clear in human organ research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An anatomy of hype</h2>
<p>Fed by enthusiastic reporting, technologies tend to follow a pattern called the Gartner <a href="https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle">Hype Cycle</a>: first buoyed to an unsustainable “peak of inflated expectations” before falling to the “trough of disillusionment”. </p>
<p>The phenomenon can bring benefits to many players in the industry of science. So how can we fix the situation? </p>
<p>The exaggerated claims around particular stories tend to build upon one another in a snowball effect. This means all of those involved in creating and sharing the stories of science can step up: scientists, journals, universities and journalists. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106">Science journalism is in Australia’s interest, but needs support to thrive</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Salesmanship has become an indispensable skill for modern scientists – really, every grant application is a sales pitch. Indeed academic science as a whole seems to be tending toward ever more bluster. </p>
<p>In published papers the use of positive terms such as “innovative,” “unprecedented” and “groundbreaking” have <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6467">increased by thousands of percent over the past four decades</a>. Scientists need to be wary of this trend and keep themselves in check when speaking to the media – especially in cases where their words will be taken very seriously by prospective patients and patient advocacy groups.</p>
<p>Journals and article reviewers can take responsibility for ensuring they publish top quality science, and also that the language in an article is accurate and not overblown. This includes the article title, which is sometimes the only part of an article journalists and general readers can see. </p>
<p>Language choices are also vital in materials coming out of university press offices. </p>
<p>Some reporters take press releases at face value, regurgitating lines or paragraphs verbatim. Non-specialist science reporters may not understand a field in enough detail to question this interpretation, or they don’t invest time in placing a new announcement in a broader context. Asking other experts for their views on a new piece of research is vital in science reporting. </p>
<h2>A risky symbiosis</h2>
<p>A symbiosis has evolved between scientists and the media: scientists need the media to bolster their record of exposure and “impact” on the next grant application. The media needs scientists for those shareable (and all too rare) positive, feelgood stories. </p>
<p>There is a stark mismatch between the elements required of a modern news story (novelty, impact), and the reality of medical research (slow, meticulous, often incremental). This can result in a <a href="https://access.portico.org/stable?au=phwwtrq8rt">distorted depiction of medical research</a>. </p>
<p>When these pressures push the story too far, they can end up spinning a fairytale. And with medical research in particular, fairytales can be dangerous.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cathal D. O'Connell is Centre Manager of BioFab3D, a 3D bioprinting lab based at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne. He is a member of the Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine International Society, the Australian Society for Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering and the International Society for Biofabrication.</span></em></p>There is a stark mismatch between the elements required of a modern news story – unique, high impact – and the reality of medical research being slow, meticulous and progressing one step at a time.Cathal D. O'Connell, VC Postdoctoral Fellow, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1112442019-02-26T22:35:13Z2019-02-26T22:35:13ZWhy we see hope for the future of science journalism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259847/original/file-20190219-43252-1uap9mk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Our decision-making and conduct is influenced by what we read, see or hear.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Eat blueberries for the antioxidants. Exercise daily at a moderate intensity for optimal heart health. Get the vaccine to prevent the disease.</p>
<p>Our decision-making and conduct is influenced by what we read, see or hear. And many parts of our lives, from the food we eat to our quality of sleep, can in some way be linked back to scientific research. </p>
<p>The media — aiming to inform or engage — can end up peppering readers with sensationalism, hype or inaccurate science stories that shape our day-to-day lives and how we perceive the value of science. But this could be avoided if science journalists update the way they report stories. </p>
<p>And if readers understand what accurate, balanced science journalism should look like, they’ll able to distinguish the good stories from the not-so-good ones, and make informed choices.</p>
<p>The future of science journalism is both <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2017.00024">exciting and perilous</a>. Those wanting to enter the field can follow tradition such as <a href="http://www.csjp.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Seckoetal_JourPrac2013-2.pdf">transmitting information through a single platform</a> or reshape how science stories are told. It’s a choice we can no longer ignore.</p>
<p>Last summer, graduate students from around the world took part in <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/journalism/programs/journalism-studies.html">Projected Futures</a>, an intensive summer school that seeks to rethink how science is communicated with society. We came up with some key ways to create better science stories — and boost interest and trust in science.</p>
<h2>How do we humanize unfinished science?</h2>
<p>Science is not a sterile and infallible creation of computers and gleaming, strange machines. It’s a human pursuit packed with curiosity, frustration, ambiguity and excitement. It’s seldom a series of dramatic eureka moments. It’s a slow challenging grind that’s collaborative and competitive.</p>
<p>Here’s an old story: Scientists find a new cure for cancer and it’s been hiding in coffee this whole time. Relish that morning latte! This focus on show-stopping, paradigm-shifting breakthroughs makes it easy to miss the bigger picture. Tomorrow <a href="https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.047142">another research article may detail the cancer-promoting effects</a> of the morning pick-me-up.</p>
<p>These <a href="https://theconversation.com/essays-on-health-reporting-medical-news-is-too-important-to-mess-up-68920">dots are too often left unconnected</a>, leaving readers with false hopes, apprehension and confusion about the scientific process.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/257899/original/file-20190208-174890-b1jgv1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">During the Projected Futures summer school at Concordia University, students rethink how science is communicated with society.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daren Zomerman</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers may feel agitated and irritated or, with luck, exhilaration with an ever-changing body of knowledge. For this reason, a story about science remains unfinished. </p>
<p>Journalism needs to embrace the limitations, ambiguity and caveats of its subject, and pull people to the forefront. It should capture the collaborative efforts of researchers, combined with critical takes on available evidence. This means straying away from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-genius-solitary-scientist-is-dangerous-87835">myth of the lone genius</a> and seeking information from more than a lead author.</p>
<p>Graduate students and post-docs often know an experiment’s most intimate details. Spotlighting trainees captures their strong contributions and the collaborative nature of science. Bonus: They tend to be more accessible, a plus for journalists.</p>
<h2>Who’s in our community?</h2>
<p>Science journalism should be delivered by journalists who are trained in science and scientists who are trained in journalism. This will enrich the public’s understanding of science from multiple perspectives and prevent blowing findings out of proportion and <a href="http://healthfeedback.org/who-repeated-unsupported-claim-complete-cure-for-cancer-misleading-millions-on-social-media-jerusalem-post/">misleading claims from going viral</a>.</p>
<p>But diversity in science journalism should not be limited to one’s professional or academic background — the inclusion of under-represented or marginalized individuals is essential.</p>
<p>The few surveys that do report science journalist demographics have <a href="https://www.theopennotebook.com/2014/09/23/diversity-in-science-writing-a-survey/">abysmal response rates</a>, making it difficult to have an informed conversation on how to advance diversity in the profession. A <a href="http://j-source.ca/article/updated-columnist-diversity-survey-shows-representation-has-not-improved-since-2014/">2016 J-Source survey</a> of 125 Canadian columnists found that demographics skewed largely towards white, male and middle-aged heterosexual individuals. Similarly, when it comes to interviewees, a <a href="https://informedopinions.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Gender-of-sources-in-Canadian-media-.pdf">2016 analysis of major Canadian media</a> revealed that male sources represented 71 per cent of all quotes and outnumbered women in every professional category.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-we-can-turn-the-tide-for-women-in-science-104477">How we can turn the tide for women in science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Fortunately, new platforms are broadening access to the public sphere. The Canadian group <a href="https://informedopinions.org/">Informed Opinions</a> and the global organization <a href="https://500womenscientists.org/request-a-scientist/">500 Women Scientists</a> advocate for an increase in the number of diverse sources in science journalism. But science journalists need to actively use such resources and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/i-spent-two-years-trying-to-fix-the-gender-imbalance-in-my-stories/552404/.">address any underlying biases in their reporting</a>.</p>
<h2>Can we be more international?</h2>
<p>Diversification of science-related content will benefit public understanding of science on both local and global levels. While top-tier institutes often conduct more costly studies, less well-known research centres <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/">could benefit from the publicity</a>.</p>
<p>Although it’s not the media’s role to promote institutions or individuals, in the interest of a balanced outlook, we should also cover smaller, credible public institutions that are not typically promoted by granting agencies or public relations teams. This added exposure could translate to more funding opportunities for people who <a href="https://tcf.org/content/book/bridging-the-higher-education-divide/?agreed=1">don’t have access</a> to prestigious institutions and help combat inequality. </p>
<p>Western media has a tendency to focus on European and North American <a href="http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=7281">academic sources</a>. A <a href="https://www.akfc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Report-Sept-27-ENG-Online.pdf">2017 study</a> of Canadian media coverage of the developing world focused largely on conflicts and disasters. <a href="https://consiliumeducation.com/itm/2017/06/07/international-or-postcolonial/">More focus on international research</a> could promote interest in cultural exchange and increase public understanding of the global nature of science research.</p>
<h2>A more collaborative future</h2>
<p>New forms of storytelling — from Instagram stories to podcasts to <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/reuters-artificial-intelligence-journalism-newsroom-ai-lynx-insight">artificial intelligence-based tools</a> — are trickling into journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-scientist-with-a-fascinating-story-some-tips-on-how-to-make-it-soar-74704">A scientist with a fascinating story? Some tips on how to make it soar</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Between the complex subjects we cover and the emergence of new digital platforms we need to master, the old idea of science journalists working alone will change. </p>
<p>Science journalists, <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106">who are often freelancers</a>, rarely have the resources or time to optimize a story across platforms. But a network of communicators, each bearing a different expertise, skill sets and tools, can transform stories into collaborations.</p>
<p>Our stories should also be adapted to be more accessible. For example, a print story could be read and recorded as an audio story, which publications such as <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/">The New Yorker</a>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/">Wired</a> and <a href="https://www.hakaimagazine.com/">Hakai Magazine</a> have done.</p>
<p>Like the researchers they cover, the work of science reporters is packed with curiosity, frustration, ambiguity and excitement. It’s an ever-changing grind — but by working together and exercising creativity, good stories that matter will be told.</p>
<p><em>Projected Futures 3 runs from Aug. 5-9, 2019. <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/journalism/programs/journalism-studies.html">Join in</a> to add your projections for the future of science journalism.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cristina Sanza works for Concordia University. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brittney Borowiec receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Secko works for Concordia University. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Farah Qaiser has previously received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather MacGregor has received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fernanda de Araujo Ferreira, Michael Bramadat-Willcock, and Pouria Nazemi do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Science is a part of everyday life. Science journalists can do more to connect science to the public.Cristina Sanza, Concordia Science Journalism Project Team Manager, Concordia UniversityBrittney G. Borowiec, PhD Candidate in Biology, McMaster UniversityDavid Secko, Professor of Journalism, Concordia UniversityFarah Qaiser, Graduate Student, University of TorontoFernanda de Araujo Ferreira, PhD Student, Harvard UniversityHeather MacGregor, PhD Candidate in Cancer Immunology, University of TorontoMichael Bramadat-Willcock, M.A. Candidate, Digital Innovations in Journalism Studies, Concordia UniversityPouria Nazemi, Freelance science journalist, Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1057072018-11-01T10:49:34Z2018-11-01T10:49:34ZNumbers in the news? Make sure you don’t fall for these 3 statistical tricks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243330/original/file-20181031-122177-1g4ryme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=565%2C195%2C3812%2C2802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If it seems too good to be true, maybe it is.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/asian-indian-business-people-holding-coffee-335519321">szefei/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/como-entender-las-cifras-en-las-noticias-tres-trucos-estadisticos-106206">Leer en español</a></em>.</p>
<p>“Handy bit of research finds sexuality can be determined by the lengths of people’s fingers” was <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/7512067/finger-length-sexuality-simon-cowell-norton/">one recent headline</a> based on a peer-reviewed study by well-respected researchers at the University of Essex <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1262-z">published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior</a>, the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0004-0002_Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior">leading scholarly publication</a> in the area of human sexuality. </p>
<p>And, to <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UtiewDkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">my stats-savvy eye</a>, it is a bunch of hogwash. </p>
<p>Just when it seems that news consumers may be wising up – remembering to ask if science is “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414">peer-reviewed</a>,” the sample size is big enough or who funded the work – along comes a suckerpunch of a story. In this instance, the fast one comes in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.292.6522.746">form of confidence intervals</a>, a statistical topic that no lay person should really ever have to wade through to understand a news article.</p>
<p>But, unfortunately for any number-haters out there, if you don’t want to be fooled by breathless, overhyped or otherwise worthless research, we have to talk about a few statistical principles that could still trip you up, even when all the “legitimate research” boxes are ticked.</p>
<h2>What’s my real risk?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243017/original/file-20181030-76416-1d7g8gn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yum?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaige/9989706193">Leo/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the most depressing headlines I ever read was “<a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet/eightyear-study-finds-heavy-french-fry-eaters-have-double-the-chance-of-death/news-story/1a557be079d7947380c90924dc2f0d15">Eight-year study finds heavy French fry eaters have ‘double’ the chance of death</a>.” “Ugh,” I said out loud, sipping my glass of red wine with a big ole basket of perfectly golden fries in front of me. Really?</p>
<p>Well, yes, it’s true according to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.154872">peer-reviewed study published</a> in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Eating french fries does double your risk of death. But, how many french fries, and moreover, what was my original risk of death? </p>
<p>The study says that if you eat fried potatoes three times per week or more, you will double your risk of death. So let’s take an average person in this study: a 60-year-old man. What is his risk of death, regardless of how many french fries he eats? One percent. That means that if you line up 100 60-year-old men, at least one of them will die in the next year simply because he is a 60-year-old man.</p>
<p>Now, if all 100 of those men eat fried potatoes at least three times per week for their whole lives, yes, their risk of death doubles. But what is 1 percent doubled? Two percent. So instead of one of those 100 men dying over the course of the year, two of them will. And they get to eat fried potatoes three times a week or more for their entire lives – sounds like a risk I’m willing to take.</p>
<p>This is a statistical concept called <a href="https://understandinguncertainty.org">relative risk</a>. If the chance of getting some disease is 1 in a billion, even if you quadruple your risk of coming down with it, your risk is still only 4 in a billion. It ain’t gonna happen.</p>
<p>So next time you see an increase or decrease in risk, the first question you should ask is “an increase or decrease in risk from what original risk.”</p>
<p>Plus, like me, could those men have been enjoying a glass of wine or pint of beer with their fried potatoes? Could something else have actually been the culprit? </p>
<h2>Eating cheese before bed equals die by tangled bedsheets?</h2>
<p>Baby boxes have become a <a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/national/what-baby-box-and-why-are-some-states-giving-them-new-parents/5Hh8Zk1AvhQd6p6IcNhXQI/">trendy state-sponsored gift</a> to new parents, meant to provide newborns with a safe place to sleep. The initiative grew from a Finnish effort started in the late 1930s to reduce sleep-related death in infants. The cardboard box includes a few essentials: some diapers, baby wipes, a onesie, breast pads and so on. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/243021/original/file-20181030-76402-7atk0g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Contents of a Finnish ‘maternity package’ before a newborn baby moves in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/roxeteer/2037806537">Visa Kopu/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finland’s infant mortality rate decreased at a rapid rate with the introduction of these baby boxes, and the country now has one of the <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?locations=FI">lowest infant mortality rates in the world</a>. So it makes sense to suppose that these baby boxes caused the infant mortality rate to go down.</p>
<p>But guess what also changed? <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39366596">Prenatal care</a>. In order to qualify for the baby box, a woman was required to visit health clinics starting during the first four months of her pregnancy.</p>
<p>In 1944, 31 percent of Finnish mothers received prenatal education. In 1945, it had jumped to 86 percent. The baby box was not responsible for the change in infant mortality rates; rather, it was education and early health checks.</p>
<p>This is a classic case of <a href="http://senseaboutscienceusa.org/causation-vs-correlation/">correlation not being the same as causation</a>. The introduction of baby boxes and the decrease in infant mortality rates are related but one didn’t cause the other.</p>
<p>However, that little fact hasn’t stopped baby box companies from popping up left, right and center, selling things like the “Baby Box Bundle: Finland Original” for a mere US$449.99. And <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/us_states_embrace_baby_boxes">U.S. states use tax dollars</a> to hand a version out to new mothers.</p>
<p>So the next time you see a link or association – like how eating cheese is linked to dying by <a href="http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=7">becoming entangled in your bedsheets</a> – you should ask “What else could be causing that to happen?”</p>
<h2>When margin of error is bigger than the effect</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm">Recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> show national unemployment dropping from 3.9 percent in August to 3.7 percent in September. When compiling these figures, the bureau obviously doesn’t go around asking every person whether they have a job or not. It asks a small sample of the population and then generalizes the unemployment rate in that group to the entire United States.</p>
<p>This means the official level of unemployment at any given time is an estimate – a good guess, but still a guess. This “plus or minus error” is defined by something statisticians call a <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/confidence-intervals-one-sample">confidence interval</a>. </p>
<p>What the data actually says is that it appears the number of unemployed people nationwide <a href="https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpssigsuma.pdf">decreased by 270,000</a> – but with a margin of error, as defined by the confidence interval, of plus or minus 263,000. It’s easier to announce a single number like 270,000. But sampling always comes with a margin of error and it’s more accurate to think of that single estimate as a range. In this case, statisticians believe the real number of unemployed people went down by somewhere between just 7,000 on the low end and 533,000 on the high end.</p>
<p>This is the same issue that happened with the finger length defining sexuality study - the plus or minus error associated with these estimates can simply negate any certainty in the results. </p>
<p>The most obvious example of confidence intervals making our lives confusing is in polling. Pollsters take a sample of the population, ask who that sample is going to vote for, and then infer from that what the entire population is going to do on Election Day. When the races are close, the plus or minus error associated with their polls of the sample negate any real knowledge of who is going to win, making the races “too close to call.”</p>
<p>So the next time you see a number being stated about an entire population where it would have been impossible to ask every single person or test every single subject, you should ask about the plus or minus error.</p>
<p>Will knowing these three aspects of statistical misleads mean that you never get fooled? Nope. But they sure will help.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105707/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liberty Vittert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Shrewd media consumers think about these three statistical pitfalls that can be the difference between a world-changing announcement and misleading hype.Liberty Vittert, Visiting Assistant Professor in Statistics, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/831382017-09-06T00:55:22Z2017-09-06T00:55:22ZAMP Foundation’s zipline challenge supports science at The Conversation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184626/original/file-20170905-9760-u688ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You can sponsor someone to ride the zipline and support science journalism at The Conversation.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>To help raise money for The Conversation we have offered readers the opportunity to contribute $5000 each to ride a zipline between two of Sydney’s tallest buildings. </p>
<p>The Conversation is a non-profit organisation that relies on philanthropy. One of our most innovative supporters, the <a href="http://amp.goodcompany.org">AMP Foundation,</a> recently offered us the chance to use their breathtaking zipline to test the mettle of a few hardy souls while raising funds to better cover science and technology.</p>
<p>How could we say no? In a media world infected with misinformation and fake news, it has never been more important for scientists to talk directly to the public. But the opportunities to do this are shrinking – between 2005 and 2017 specialist science journalists in Australia dropped from 35 to fewer than five.</p>
<p>We take science seriously at The Conversation and we work hard to report it accurately. Our work demonstrates <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106">the strong link between high levels of public interest in science</a> and investment in research. According to The Conversatinon’s Science Editor, Sarah Keenihan:</p>
<p>“<em>When science is reported poorly or inaccurately, the consequences can be long lasting, and even dangerous: take vaccination and climate change as two key examples. It’s vital that tax-payer funded science and technology research is presented in a balanced but interesting way for all Australians to read and apply in their own lives.</em>”</p>
<p>The zipline challenge helps us continue our work of providing accurate reporting of science, and we thank the friends, colleagues and supporters who have agreed to take the zipline plunge in service of this mission.</p>
<h2><strong>Here are our fearless Zippers</strong></h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184633/original/file-20170905-28074-1cgjwb4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The cast of The Conversation’s Fearless Zippers.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Please support our zipline volunteers, and the science coverage at The Conversation, by making a donation – the link in each name will take you to their fundraising profile (if there’s no link for the person you’d like to support, we’ll be adding it soon).</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://amp.goodcompany.org/au/fundraising/The-AMP-Foundation-Big-Zipper/Adeles-Big-Zip-What-you-do-for-good-Conversation">Adele Storch</a>, doctor working in youth mental health in Melbourne </p></li>
<li><p>David Moffat, Chairman of Ventia Services, Foundation Director
of Giant Steps Foundation</p></li>
<li><p>Joseph Skrzynski, Deputy Chair of The Conversation Media Group, Chair of The Sky Foundation and director of Philanthropy Australia and Human Rights Watch Global Board.</p></li>
<li><p>Lindy Shelmerdine, Myer Family Philanthropy</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://amp.goodcompany.org/au/fundraising/The-AMP-Foundation-Big-Zipper/Lets-have-a-Conversation-about-science">Jocelyn Wright</a>, medical journalist based in Sydney (<a href="http://twitter.com/WrightJocelyn">@WrightJocelyn</a>)</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://amp.goodcompany.org/au/fundraising/The-AMP-Foundation-Big-Zipper/Is-Rhiannon-Really-Jumping-off-a-Building-for-Scie">Rhiannon Shepherd</a>, Community Operations at Uber.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://amp.goodcompany.org/au/fundraising/The-AMP-Foundation-Big-Zipper/Jumping-Off-A-Building-to-Start-a-Conversation">Kasia Stelmach</a>, community captain, co-working leader and actress (<a href="http://twitter.com/thisiskasia">@thisiskasia</a>)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Keep an eye out on Twitter and Facebook. We’ll be sharing the stories of our Zippers over the next two months.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83138/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In a media world infected with misinformation and fake news, it has never been more important for scientists to talk directly to the public.Misha Ketchell, Editor, The ConversationMolly Glassey, Digital Editor, The ConversationMarta Skrabacz, Executive Team Assistant, The Conversation Media GroupLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/817992017-08-16T23:06:48Z2017-08-16T23:06:48ZAn inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182130/original/file-20170815-27845-90sduq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Still from An Inconvenient Truth (2006)</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Handout)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Al Gore has a follow-up to his blockbuster documentary film, <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em>. However, <a href="https://inconvenientsequel.tumblr.com/"><em>An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power</em></a> was greeted with far less fanfare than the original. </p>
<p>This is not surprising given how the first movie dominated the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm">international box office</a> and became one of the most successful documentaries of all time. The film ultimately helped Al Gore win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in promoting action against climate change. </p>
<p>In addition to the many accolades it received, the movie undeniably raised the public awareness of climate change. <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387">According to a prominent climate scientist</a>, the movie “had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.” </p>
<p>However, 11 years after its release, there is also evidence that it might have had an unintended consequence: serving as a catalyst in the polarization of American public opinion on climate change. </p>
<p>We have studied in detail how the media covered the issue of climate change since the 1980s and how it may have played a role in polarizing the American public. The commonly observed pattern is that <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo11644533.html">public opinion tends to follow</a>, rather than lead, debate among political elites. This is of particular importance for our work.</p>
<h2>Opinions dictated by political parties</h2>
<p>Voters, particularly in America, tend to harbour strong positive <em>and</em> negative attachments to political parties. These form critical components of their social identities. When uncertain about novel political issues, like climate change, they look for signals from political elites for guidance. These signals are, more often than not, carried to them by the mass media. </p>
<p>In our research, we examined the political signals that were present in the coverage of climate change in major, high circulation daily newspapers, like the <em>New York Times</em>, <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and <em>USA Today</em>, as well network television channels <em>ABC</em>, <em>CBS</em> and <em>NBC</em>, and cable news channel <em>Fox News</em>. </p>
<p>What we found is a nuanced story that sheds considerable light on why the public polarized on climate change. First, politicians became increasingly common in coverage, politicizing the issue as it grew in importance. As a result, the public has been exposed to a growing number of messages about climate change from party elites. </p>
<p>Second, Democratic messages have been more common in news coverage, and, unsurprisingly, consistent in a pro-climate direction. Meanwhile, Republican messages have been fewer in number, and, until the Obama presidency, ambiguous in direction. Contrary to conventional wisdom, only a small fraction of Republican messages on climate change explicitly denied the scientific consensus on climate change. </p>
<p>When one side’s messages are clear and the other side’s are muddled, as was the case here, it’s <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x/abstract">plausible</a> that Republican voters took their cues from Democrats. This should not be surprising. In an age of <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf">affective polarization</a> where Republicans and Democrats each increasingly dislike the other, it makes sense that Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this January 2007 file photo, former Vice President Al Gore acknowledges spectators in Japan in front of a poster of his documentary film</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An Inconvenient Truth</h2>
<p>So, what about the role of Al Gore and <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> in this process? Al Gore was featured prominently in the news media coverage of climate change. This was particularly true when climate change was salient and Americans were significantly polarizing on the issue. </p>
<p>For example, Al Gore was featured in 48 per cent of climate change stories on <em>Fox News</em> in 2006 and in 57 per cent in 2007. There were explicit references to the movie in 28 per cent of the stories in 2006 and 17 per cent of the stories in 2007. On the other hand, a leading Republican climate change denier, Sen. Jim Inhofe, was not featured in a single story on <em>Fox News</em> in 2006 and in only one per cent of the stories in 2007. </p>
<p>The traditional media also focused heavily on Al Gore. In 2006 and 2007, the former U.S. vice-president was featured in 13 per cent and 17 per cent of news stories in the highest circulation newspapers in the United States, and in 16 per cent and 23 per cent of the network broadcasts. </p>
<p>In other words, if you tuned in to news about climate change in that time period, you were exposed to Al Gore and his message. And even though that message was unabashedly pro-climate and for strong climate action, it likely played a role in turning Republicans against that message, since to them, Gore was simply a Democratic politician they disliked. </p>
<p>It’s highly unlikely that the release of Al Gore’s sequel to <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> will have an impact similar to the original. The movie is generating significantly less traction in the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aninconvenientsequel.htm">box office</a> and in the media. Furthermore, climate change has already become one of the most polarized issues of the day. </p>
<p>Sadly, there is likely no way to turn back the clock. But it should serve as a warning for the future. It is not only important to pick a salient and informative message, but also an effective messenger to deliver it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominik Stecula receives doctoral research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Merkley receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Eleven years after its release, An Inconvenient Truth, the iconic climate documentary, has spawned a sequel. But did the original do more harm than good by polarizing Americans on climate change?Dominik Stecuła, PhD candidate in political science, University of British ColumbiaEric Merkley, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/791062017-06-20T20:01:36Z2017-06-20T20:01:36ZScience journalism is in Australia’s interest, but needs support to thrive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174622/original/file-20170620-21787-njr1ix.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Interviewing scientists - shown here is physicist Louise Harra - is a skill that takes experience and in depth knowledge on the part of the journalist. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uclmaps/16303733184/in/photolist-FK5qNj-vu9gvs-w9xXoL-G4ktzp-qQGTS1-qQGU7j-qQGTXS-w9Ewb6-wraqyX-rKpUVb-FPHBim-LiFA9w-NZoa1C-NULdDR-L2CFMW-Lt4TLv-wqtWxm-rQewGa-GTthKt-yoE4JC-U6bpNG-MpokcW-qP6rxc-N5JNsh-Pb6a2N-xiAg4q-xkUFWn-DtsEmF-xiAgMj-woTP7q-xmubPT-xiAf4Q-dyPtKL-cmLyNC-b8fQYT-b8euMB-b8ed6k-b8bXgP-b8bwLn-b8bbQ2-b89Ry6-9L2pkn-8qNp5S-88tdUo-75NUWw-Y4XbL-8HAMs-8HAMt-8HAJb-8HArM">uclmaps/flickr </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-moroccan-fossils-suggest-humans-lived-and-evolved-across-africa-100-000-years-earlier-than-we-thought-78826">oldest known human bones</a>; the first detection of <a href="https://theconversation.com/gravitational-waves-discovered-top-scientists-respond-53956">gravitational waves</a>; the successful landing of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/curiosity-rover-has-landed-on-mars-let-the-science-begin-8681">rover on Mars</a>, and the discovery of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cern-discovers-a-higgs-like-particle-let-the-party-and-head-scratching-begin-8036">Higgs boson particle</a>: all of these highly read global science stories illustrate the public’s thirst for the latest research and technological innovations. </p>
<p>But is science journalism in the public interest?</p>
<p>Specialist science journalists are vital in our society in a few key ways. These include as public disseminators of sound science that can lead to policy, as identifiers of flawed journalism and “dodgy” (even life-threatening) science, and as gatekeepers between public relations departments in research institutions and the general media. </p>
<p>And yet the number of specialist science reporters in Australia is in serious decline.</p>
<h2>Journalism can drive science policy</h2>
<p>Over 2012 and 2013 a range of media outlets teamed up with the <a href="https://ama.com.au/media/ama-supports-new-scientific-evidence-based-resource-promote-immunisation">Australian Medical Association</a> and the <a href="https://www.science.org.au/">Australian Academy of Science</a> to coordinate a national immunisation campaign.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f_Xtd8Jh0LE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Channel 10’s The Project presented evidence-based coverage of the science of vaccination. The Roast (ABC TV) also took a humorous approach to covering the story.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not only was the story given robust and prominent coverage across Australian news media platforms, the Daily Telegraph and news site MamaMia also ran campaigns encouraging readers to <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/update-we-took-your-vaccination-concerns-right-to-the-top/">pledge</a> to immunise their children.</p>
<p>In 2013 the Daily Telegraph followed up with a “<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/no-jab-no-play-campaign-reveals-vaccination-refusals-high-as-babies-die/news-story/2e9a6c32b61102ca32bed8478639cdd0">No jab, no play</a>” concept, promoting the idea that childcare centres should ban children who had not been immunised. <a href="http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/immunisation/Pages/child-care-enrolment-changes-2016.aspx">State</a> and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination">federal</a> governments have subsequently introduced legislation to effect this proposal. The program is <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/206/9/no-jab-no-pay-and-vaccine-refusal-australia-jury-out">still being monitored</a>. </p>
<p>Linked to this coverage, a successful case was mounted in the NSW Office of Fair Trading against anti-immunisation activist group the Australian Vaccination Network. The network’s name was <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140401062528/http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/About_us/News_and_events/Media_releases/2013_media_releases/20131125_australian_vaccination_network.page">found to be misleading</a> and the group has now re-badged itself as the “Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network”.</p>
<h2>Journalism as a gatekeeper for “bad” science</h2>
<p>Sound peer review and editorial procedures are in place in many research journals, but sometimes what can best be described as “dodgy” science is published, and this can lead to disastrous results. </p>
<p>The classic example is the (now falsified) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500320">study</a> in 1998 that <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-the-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-3739?sr=3">reported on</a> autism-like symptoms and gastrointestinal abnormalities in children associated with the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination. The study was small (only 12 children), observational, and submitted for publication <a href="https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-the-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-3739?sr=3">without key disclosures</a> from lead author Andrew Wakefield. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://briandeer.com/wakefield/royal-video.htm">subsequent press conference</a>, Wakefield expressed his concerns about the MMR vaccine. The media’s enthusiastic reporting and less than critical response to these claims took an ethically and scientifically unsound report and turned it into what has been described as “<a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1345/aph.1Q318">perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years</a>”. In 2008 measles was <a href="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=18919">reported</a> to be once again endemic in the UK, a development that has been linked to reduced MMR take-up. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174635/original/file-20170620-770-rj89ps.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t open the floodgate! Not all science deserves media attention.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/489649144?src=86NdAme4YzyCPMfbzPT1eA-1-8&size=medium_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Had the journalists at that initial press conference been equipped to appraise the findings critically, the poor science may have been revealed from the start. The paper was later <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347">found to be fraudulent</a> by investigative journalist Brian Deer, who published stories in print and made a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UbL8opM6TM">documentary</a> revealing the hoax.</p>
<h2>Science journalism vs science PR</h2>
<p>Science journalism and science public relations (PR) can be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/11/the-decline-of-journalism-and-the-rise-of-public-relations/?utm_term=.0b612b79ea68">difficult to distinguish</a>. The job of the PR specialist is to maximise eyeballs on each story. The job of the journalist is to find the story and report the evidence behind it, no matter whose story it is.</p>
<p>Stories that are written with a university press release – rather than a peer-reviewed science paper – as the main source of evidence <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/mar/23/how-the-media-warp-science-the-case-of-the-sensationalised-satnav">can easily cross the line</a> into <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/may/16/need-for-critical-science-journalism">infotainment</a> rather than independent reporting. </p>
<p>It’s also the case that some stories that look like science journalism are heavily sponsored by universities and research institutions. This so-called “native content” – in that it looks appropriate for its context – is <a href="https://theconversation.com/academics-on-the-payroll-the-advertising-you-dont-see-27792">becoming more prevalent</a>. </p>
<p>It’s a trend exacerbated by the movement of journalists from media organisations into communication roles in academic and research institutions. While the writing style is journalistic, the focus is to promote the science from the institutions that employ them. This bypasses robust and independent examination of the evidence. </p>
<p>There may be more of this to come as science journalists become an endangered species. </p>
<h2>An endangered species</h2>
<p>Embedded in Australian news rooms, the investigative science journalist is a <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2013/02/24/from-the-perfect-job-to-an-endangered-species-the-demise-of-science-journalism-and-why-it-matters/">rare beast</a>; the most recent in a long line of casualties are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/09/abc-boss-michelle-guthrie-spooks-foreign-correspondent-again">Marcus Strom from The Sydney Morning Herald</a>, and Bridie Smith of Melbourne’s The Age, who left Fairfax last week after 16 years. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"874125863259787264"}"></div></p>
<p>It seems the ABC is the only mainstream media outlet with a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/">science unit</a>. Here, specialists <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/anna-salleh/6762802">Anna Salleh</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/jake-sturmer/3572168">Jake Sturmer</a> along with experienced science journalists, communicators and broadcasters (Robyn Williams, Natasha Mitchell, Joel Werner, Bernie Hobbs, Ruben Meerman and Dr Karl amongst others) present regular science content on various platforms.</p>
<p>Journalists in specialities such as environment, health and technology do still hold positions at major media platforms, and Cosmos Magazine provides another platform for science content in Australia. Freelance science journalists including Bianca Nogrady, Leigh Dayton and Graham Readfearn work on specific projects across a variety of platforms. </p>
<p>Specialist correspondents develop a deep and complex understanding of their round over time, and carry a knowledge of what’s gone before that surpasses a quick internet search. They might, for instance, recognise that a particular “breakthrough” is simply an old study repackaged, that a study is very small, or that its promises have been made before <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4647548.htm">without amounting to much</a>. Or that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/neutrinos-and-the-speed-of-light-not-so-fast-3513?sr=1">“faster than light” neutrinos</a> were a statistical anomaly (and an error) rather than a tested matter of fact.</p>
<p>The disappearance of the specialist science correspondent means a loss of personnel with the time and the expertise to probe deeply and to ask uncomfortable questions. The consequences are declines in the breadth, depth and quality of science coverage. Pair this with an increased workload, the need for journalists to apply multimedia skills and the constant pressure to publish (driven by the 24-hour news cycle), and the opportunities for genuine investigation are slim.</p>
<h2>New ways to cover science</h2>
<p>As the number of science correspondents has fallen, the science sector has rushed in to fill the online void with <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090318/full/458274a.html">blogs</a> and social media sites (some <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/i-fucking-love-science-teams-science-channel-curate-best-science-content-web/">terrifically successful</a>).</p>
<p>Facilities such as the <a href="http://www.smc.org.au/">Australian Science Media Centre</a> now work to support and facilitate evidence-based science journalism. The Centre boasts 1,600 subscribers and informs hundreds of reporters who attend regular briefings. </p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.smc.org.au/about-us/our-people/staff/">chief executive Susannah Elliot</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the Australian Science Media Centre started in 2005, there were around 35 specialist science reporters in mainstream newsrooms around the country. Now you need less than one hand to count them. </p>
<p>This loss of specialist reporters means that there is no one to fight for good science in editorial meetings or look for science angles in everyday news stories.</p>
<p>We’re all going to have to do everything we can to help general reporters cover science and make sure they don’t miss the important stuff.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174637/original/file-20170620-9968-q66qms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Australian Science Media Centre is a not-for-profit resource that supports evidence-based science coverage.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The future of science journalism</h2>
<p>It may be that science journalism has never enjoyed a consistent position in media outlets - some <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7250/full/4591055a.html">report</a> that “peak science journalism” happened in 1987. In an important <a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400720848">review of the history of popular science</a>, writer Martin Bauer points out that science journalism is prone to a “boom and bust cycle”. </p>
<p>The call for more and improved science journalism is based on an assumption that lives are worse off without it. This is an easy leap for academics to make; after all, our very existence is based on the idea that more knowledge is better than less knowledge. </p>
<p>But how can we convince the general public this is the case? Studying the “decline of science journalism” – fewer numbers of journalists, diffuse science reporting, the rise of branded and native content – will not be enough to show that we need more science journalists. We must be able to clearly identify a public good, and convince media-saturated consumers that science deserves a place in their lives. </p>
<p>We must also develop a clear business case that supports science journalism. Relatively new media platforms such as <a href="http://nautil.us/">Nautilus</a> and <a href="http://narrative.ly/">narrative.ly</a> provide some evidence that blending science with creative nonfiction, philanthropic funding, subscription services, paywalls, and hybrid models of journalism and public relations are worth further exploration. </p>
<p>Supported primarily by the university sector, The Conversation publishes <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/technology">science, technology</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/environment">environment and energy</a> stories that are written by academics. </p>
<p>However there has yet to be a convincing case of overwhelming public support for robust science journalism. In our view, this is a shame. We think academic and media groups, and those private sectors that rely on science and technology, should start articulating the public value of science journalism. </p>
<p>A colleague in New Zealand, <a href="http://www.victoria.ac.nz/science/about/staff/rebecca-priestley">Rebecca Priestly</a>, has put some money behind finding out, though establishing a <a href="http://www.victoria.ac.nz/news/2017/06/new-zealands-first-fund-for-science-journalism">fund for science journalism</a>. Perhaps it’s time to do the same in Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-authored with Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer of Science and Technology Australia, and Visiting Fellow at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79106/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from the ARC. </span></em></p>The number of specialist science journalists in Australia has dropped from around 35 to less than five over the period 2005-2017.Joan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/766302017-04-26T01:05:33Z2017-04-26T01:05:33ZCan Bill Nye – or any other science show – really save the world?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166714/original/file-20170425-13380-14ry8qb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will Bill Nye's new show find a wider audience than Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos' did?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Vince-Bucci-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAENT-C-/513a1e21274242ed99d659d85630c48b/3/0">Vince Bucci/Invision for the Television Academy/AP Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Netflix’s new talk show, “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748">Bill Nye Saves the World</a>,” debuted the night before people around the world joined together to demonstrate and March for Science. Many have lauded the timing and relevance of the show, featuring the famous “<a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/80046944">Science Guy</a>” as its host, because it aims to myth-bust and debunk anti-scientific claims in an <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-isnt-lying-hes-bullshitting-and-its-far-more-dangerous-71932">alternative-fact era</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">But are more facts</a> really the kryptonite that will rein in what some suggest is a rapidly spreading <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-5-most-ldquo-anti-science-rdquo-moves/">“anti-science” sentiment in the U.S.</a>?</p>
<p>“With the right science and good writing,” Nye hopes, “we’ll do our best to enlighten and entertain our audience. And, <a href="https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/netflix-announces-new-talk-show-with-bill-nye">perhaps we’ll change the world a little</a>.” In an ideal world, a show like this might attract a broad and diverse audience with varying levels of science interest and background. By entertaining a wide range of viewers, the thinking goes, the show could effectively dismantle enduring beliefs that are at odds with scientific evidence. Significant parts of the public still aren’t on board with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-we-can-do-sound-climate-science-even-though-its-projecting-the-future-75763">scientific consensus on climate change</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">safety of vaccines</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">genetically modified foods</a>, for instance.</p>
<p>But what deserves to be successful isn’t always what ends up winning hearts and minds in the real world. In fact, <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">empirical data we collected suggest</a> that the viewership of such shows – even heavily publicized and celebrity-endorsed ones – is small and made up of people who are already highly educated, knowledgeable about science and receptive to scientific evidence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166715/original/file-20170425-13414-qu005f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Cosmos’‘ pedigree and publicity seemed like they would translate to success….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/inVision-Frank-Micelotta-Invision-AP-a-ENT-CPAE-/194092c8627d4ef3aa898b073e2f2c83/1/0">Frank Micelotta/Invision for FOX/AP Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Cosmos’ illustrates the issue</h2>
<p>The 2014 reboot of <a href="http://www.carlsagan.com/">Carl Sagan</a>’s popular 1980 series “Cosmos,” starring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is just one recent example. Tyson’s show, “<a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey/">Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey</a>,” aired prime time on Fox and the National Geographic channel, received several <a href="http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominees-winners/2014">Emmy nominations</a> and was considered a critical success in which “Tyson managed to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/02/26/neil-degrasse-tyson-to-receive-the-national-academy-of-sciences-most-prestigious-honor/?utm_term=.ae59385f7780">educate and excite viewers of all ages</a> across the globe.”</p>
<p>However, Tyson’s efforts to reach a broad audience and preach beyond the proverbial choir fell short. Nielsen ratings indicate the new version of “Cosmos” reached 1.3 percent of television households, which doesn’t compare well even to other science shows and educational programming. PBS’ “NOVA,” for instance, <a href="http://www.sgptv.org/media/pdfs/SGPTV_2016-17_Media_Kit_100416.pdf">typically reaches about 3 percent</a> of households (around <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/nielsen-estimates-118-4-million-tv-homes-in-the-us--for-the-2016-17-season.html">four million viewers</a> a week), and PBS’ other prime time programming usually gets higher Nielsen ratings than “Cosmos” had. “Cosmos” lagged even further behind science entertainment shows like “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/ncis/">NCIS</a>,” which reached 11.2 percent of households, and “<a href="http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/">The Big Bang Theory</a>,” which reached 10.8 percent of households during the same week “Cosmos” aired its first episode.</p>
<p>In 2014, we conducted a <a href="https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper18139.html">representative national survey</a> in a collaboration among the University of Wisconsin, the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center and Temple University. We found that 76.1 percent of Americans did not watch any episodes of “Cosmos,” 7.1 percent said they watched one episode, and only 2.4 percent said they watched all 13 episodes.</p>
<p>And there were really no surprises about who tuned in. Respondents who saw at least one episode were 40 percent more likely to be male, 35 percent more likely to claim interest in science, and significantly more knowledgeable about science than those who didn’t watch. Less affluent audiences were less likely to watch at least one episode, as were those who were highly religious. Even those who expressed above-average interest in science watched only 1.5 “Cosmos” episodes on average.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166716/original/file-20170425-13401-110os80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What science programming will capture the imaginations of those who aren’t already into science?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-boys-brothers-watching-tv-attentively-56826280">Watching image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Success is out there?</h2>
<p>Engaging scientific programming could still be an antidote to waning public interest in science, especially where <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-achievement-gaps-start-early-in-kindergarten-65028">formal science education</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-kids-fall-behind-in-science-56785">is falling short</a>. But it is revealing that “Cosmos” – a heavily marketed, big-budget show backed by Fox Networks and “Family Guy” creator Seth McFarlane – did not reach the audience who need quality science information the most. “Bill Nye Saves the World” might not either. Its streaming numbers are not yet available.</p>
<p>Today’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10935.html">fragmented and partisan media environment</a> fosters selective exposure and motivated reasoning – that is, viewers typically tune in to programming that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015701">confirms their existing worldview</a>. There are few opportunities or incentives for audiences to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320868111">engage with scientific evidence</a> in the media. All of this can propagate misleading claims and deter audiences from accepting the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111">conclusions of sound science</a>. And adoption of misinformation and alternative facts is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">not a partisan problem</a>. Policy debates questioning or ignoring scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change and GMOs have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756">cut across different political camps</a>.</p>
<p>None of this is meant to downplay the huge potential of entertainment media to reach diverse audiences beyond the proverbial choir. We know from decades of research that our mental images of science and its impact on society are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988">shaped heavily</a> by (sometimes stereotypical) portrayals of science and scientists in shows like “The Big Bang Theory” or “<a href="http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/orphan-black">Orphan Black</a>.”</p>
<p>But successful scientific entertainment programming needs to accomplish two goals: First, draw in a diverse audience well beyond those already interested in science; second, present scientific issues in a way that unites audiences around shared values rather than further polarizing by presenting science in ways that seems at odds with specific political or religious worldviews. </p>
<p>While “Cosmos” failed to attract a diverse audience eager to be introduced to the wonders of the universe (and science), there’s still value in the science community and entertainment industry collaboratively developing these kinds of television programs. In order to be successful, however, these collaborations must draw on insights from social science research to maximize the reach of novel diverse formats, communication strategies and media outlets. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s <a href="http://scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/">Science and Entertainment Exchange</a>, for instance, tries to connect the entertainment industry and the nation’s best scientists in order to combine the reach of entertainment media’s engaging storytelling with the most accurate portrayal of science.</p>
<p>And social science research suggests that complex information can reach audiences via the most unlikely of places, including the satirical fake news program “The Colbert Report.” In fact, a University of Pennsylvania study showed that a series of “Colbert Report” episodes <a href="http://www.cc.com/video-collections/8iug7x/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac/3yzu4u">about Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups</a> during the 2012 presidential election <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138">did a better job educating viewers</a> than did mainstream programming in traditional news formats. </p>
<p>Social science can help us learn from our mistakes and better understand how to connect with hard-to-reach audiences via new formats and outlets. None of these shows by themselves will save the world. But if done right, they each might get us closer, one empirical step at a time.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>After publication, “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” host <a href="https://theconversation.com/go-76630#comment_1276757">Neil deGrasse Tyson responded to this article</a> in a comment.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Popular programming that focuses on science tends to not actually be all that popular. Bringing in new audiences who aren’t already up to speed on science topics is a challenge.Heather Akin, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of PennsylvaniaBruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Temple UniversityDietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonDominique Brossard, Professor and Chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754202017-03-30T14:30:15Z2017-03-30T14:30:15ZHow scientists should communicate their work in a post-truth era<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163293/original/image-20170330-15612-tuvzt8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">UK scientists protest against proposed cuts in 2010.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanemcc/5065050307">Shane/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not an easy time for scientists to talk to the wider public. The US president, Donald Trump, has <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-questionnaire-recalls-dark-history-of-ideology-driven-science-70379">called global warming</a> “bullshit” and a “Chinese hoax”. In the UK, leave campaigner and MP Michael Gove famously declared that people “<a href="https://theconversation.com/sorry-michael-gove-we-really-do-need-experts-heres-why-62000">have had enough of experts</a>”. But now UK MPs have published a report arguing that there should greater backing for public dialogue and engagement with science.</p>
<p>The new report, published by the UK House of Commons <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2015/science-communication-engagement-report-publication-16-17/">Science and Technology Committee</a>, follows a 12-month inquiry into science communication. It argues that scientists need support to be more prominent as communicators, more strategic in how they develop relationships with the media and need to engage more with the general public to ensure that science benefits everyone.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most important obstacle to this is time. Most scientists – especially those working in universities – are not given time for science communication. So work like this is often seen as voluntary or added value. Without proper recognition, there will never be a serious, strategic science communication.</p>
<p>Scientists have a wide range of opportunities to engage with the public and communicate their knowledge. For instance, there is a <a href="http://www.cafescientifique.org/">worldwide network of “cafes scientifique”</a>, which take researchers into cafes, pubs and other unusual spaces to talk about their research. This is often the best way to engage with the public, because it happens in a place where they are comfortable. And even if a presentation doesn’t in itself go far enough to convince people that science is worthwhile, the message might get across better over a drink after the talk.</p>
<p>The report also highlights the need for the government to be more visibly involved with science communication. Part of this involves providing more funding for science communication – but the report also argues that public engagement needs an overhaul, with less talking at the public and more public involvement. It says good practice includes initiatives such as using “<a href="http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/docs/citizensjuries.pdf">citizen juries</a>” in science governance, in which members of the public are invited to help policymakers reach decisions. This is a great idea. If the public felt more engaged in science and developed a proper understanding of how it operates, the chances are their trust in expertise and evidence would naturally increase.</p>
<h2>Changing media landscape</h2>
<p>The report also has a lot of recommendations for science journalists, who obviously <a href="https://theconversation.com/journalism-teaches-the-public-about-science-but-whos-teaching-the-journalists-15003">have an important role</a> and a great responsibility in driving what the wider public thinks about science.</p>
<p>Of course, journalism has suffered significant cuts in recent years – including science journalism. The <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090318/full/458274a.html">number of science journalists has been steadily declining</a> and the content is increasingly based on press releases.</p>
<p>The report <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2015/science-communication-engagement-report-publication-16-17/">cites evidence</a> showing that only 28% of people believe that science journalists check the “reliability of research findings before they write about them”. It also notes that reporters typically cover new scientific findings rather than the general methods and principles of science. This represents a problem to the MPs who compiled the report who believe that an understanding of methods is crucial in order for journalists to make sound judgements about the credibility of findings. In response to the inquiry, the BBC’s science editor said the organisation had run courses for reporters on this area.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163294/original/image-20170330-15612-5cc135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Journalists have a great responsibility to avoid false balance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/media-journalists-interviewing-businessman-435659020?src=v78V-pBfJPjAR4NvX7MnYg-1-24">Microgen/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps more worrying is the tendency of many journalists <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/nov/08/impartial-journalism-is-laudable-but-false-balance-is-dangerous">to strive for “balance”</a> – presenting each opinion alongside the opposing view – at any cost. This is well-meaning but can be dangerous – leading, as it can, to scientific expertise being treated as a political opinion. In science there are many conclusions that the vast majority of scientists agree on – and these are grounded in strong scientific evidence. So giving voice to a maverick scientist may give the false impression that there is divided opinion on a topic. This has happened several times in the past, such as with the <a href="http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8187/full/">MMR vaccine</a> and climate change.</p>
<p>The report argues that the media needs a more sophisticated way of ensuring that experts quoted in articles about science really are experts. I’d agree. In a world where trust in expertise has been lost, it is crucial that we get across the message that science is more than just another opinion.</p>
<p>The backdrop to the MPs’ inquiry was a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348830/bis-14-p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2014-main.pdf">2014 government report</a> suggesting that a loss of trust in the media has diminished the credibility of science journalism. But three years later, it is short sighted to focus on inadequacies within traditional media. Of bigger concern is how content within social media platforms masquerades as journalism, or how social media’s aggregation of journalism content makes it more difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. </p>
<p>It is also crucial that politicians are mindful of the consequences for science of dismissing journalism as “fake news”, which is luckily still unusual. There may be a need for politicians to undertake training in understanding the scientific method to help them distinguish fact from fiction. </p>
<p>Scientists and the public need the media more than ever to help navigate this increasingly complex information ecosystem – but this also means more effectively protecting the press as its ad revenue shifts over to social media platforms, causing even greater limitations in their capacity to deliver the kind of science journalism we desperately need.</p>
<p>It is fitting then, that on April 22, scientists around the world want everyone – not just scientists – to <a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/">march for science</a>, because everyone benefits from science and from scientists speaking their mind. As the world embraces a more dynamic practice of “citizen journalism”, scientists must be a part of this and be adequately prepared to get involved with public debate about their work, without fear of reprisals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75420/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andy Miah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From mistrust in experts to fake news, it has never been more important for scientists to talk directly to the public.Andy Miah, Chair in Science Communication & Future Media, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/745482017-03-21T20:27:52Z2017-03-21T20:27:52ZHow we edit science part 3: impact, curiosity and red flags<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161077/original/image-20170316-20816-n1hcf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard for scientific publishing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>We take science seriously at The Conversation and we work hard at reporting it accurately. This series of five posts is adapted from an internal presentation on how to understand and edit science by Australian Science & Technology Editor, Tim Dean. We thought you would also find it useful.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The first two parts of this guide were a brief (no, seriously) introduction to what science is, how it works and some of the errors that can seep into the scientific process. This section will speak more explicitly about how to report, edit (and read) science, and some of the pitfalls in science journalism.</p>
<p>It’s primarily intended as a guide for journalists, but it should also be useful to those who consume science articles so you can better assess their quality.</p>
<h2>What’s news?</h2>
<p>The first question to ask when considering reporting on some scientific discovery is whether it’s worth reporting on at all.</p>
<p>If you <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Biochem+Biophys+Res+Commun%5BJOUR%5D+AND+2017%2F3%2F6%5BEDAT%5D">randomly pick a scientific paper</a>, the answer will probably be “no”. It doesn’t mean the study isn’t interesting or important to someone, but most science is in the form of incremental discoveries that are only relevant to researchers in that field.</p>
<p>When judging the broader public importance of a story, don’t only rely on university press releases. </p>
<p>While they can be a useful source of information once you decide to run a story, they do have a vested interest in promoting the work of the scientists at their institution. So they may be inclined to oversell their research, or simplify it to make it more likely to be picked up by a journalist.</p>
<p>In fact, there’s evidence that a substantial proportion of poorly reported science can be traced back to <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7015">poorly constructed press releases</a>. Many releases are accurate and well researched, but as with any press release, it’s worth double-checking their claims.</p>
<p>University communications teams also don’t necessarily do exhaustive homework on each study they write about, and can sometimes make inaccurate claims, particularly in terms of how new or unique the research is. </p>
<p>I once fielded a snarky phone call from a geneticist who objected to a story I wrote on the first-ever frog genome. Turns out it wasn’t the first ever. The geneticist had sequenced a frog genome a year prior to this paper. But “first ever” was in the university press release, and I neglected to factcheck that claim. My bad; lesson learned. Check your facts.</p>
<h2>Impact and curiosity are not space probes</h2>
<p>Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of science story: impact and curiosity.</p>
<p>Impact stories have some real-world effect that the reader cares about, such as a new drug treatment or a new way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>A curiosity story, on the other hand, has little or no immediate or direct real-world impact. These include just about every astronomy story, and things like palaeontology and stories about strange creatures at the bottom of the sea. Of course, such research can produce real-world benefits, but if the story is about those benefits, then it becomes an impact story.</p>
<p>The main difference between the two is in the angle you take on reporting the story. And that, in turn, influences whether the story is worth taking on. If there’s no obvious impact, and the curiosity factor is low, then it’ll be a hard sell. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to turn it into a great yarn, but it just take more imagination and energy – and we all know they’re often in short supply, especially when deadlines loom.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=229&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161733/original/image-20170321-9117-1uksz2b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">NASA and ESA are great sources for illustrative imagery, and astronomy, of course. Most are public domain or Creative Commons, so free to use with appropriate attribution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA/ESA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the study looks like it has potential to become a good story, then the next thing to check is whether it’s of high quality.</p>
<p>The first thing to look for is where it was published. Tools like <a href="http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php">Scimago</a>, which ranks journals, can be a helpful start.</p>
<p>If it’s published in a major journal, or a highly specialised one from a major publisher, at least you know it’s cleared a high peer-review bar. If you’ve never heard of the journal, then check <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/">Retraction Watch</a> and <a href="https://clinicallibrarian.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers/">Beall’s list</a> for signs of dodginess.</p>
<p>If it’s a meta-review – a study that compiles the results of multiple other studies – such as those by <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/about-us">Cochrane</a>, then that makes it more reliable than if it’s a single standalone study.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, be wary of pre-press servers, as they haven’t yet been peer-reviewed. Be particularly wary of big claims made in pre-press papers. You might get a scoop, but you might also be publicising the latest zero point energy perpetuation motion ESP hat.</p>
<p>It’s not hard to Google the lead authors (usually those listed first and last in the paper’s author list). Check their profile page on their institution’s website. Check whether the institution is reputable. ANU, Oxford and MIT are. Upstate Hoopla Apologist College is probably not.</p>
<p>Check their academic title, whether they work in a team, and where they sit in that team. Adjunct, honorary and emeritus usually means they’re not actively involved in research, but doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t still experts. You can also punch their name into <a href="https://scholar.google.com.au/">Google Scholar</a> to see how many citations they have.</p>
<p>You should also read the abstract and, if possible, the introduction and discussion sections of of the paper. This will give you an idea of the approach taken by the authors.</p>
<h2>Red flags</h2>
<p>While it’s unlikely that you’ll be qualified to judge the scientific merits of the study in detail, you can look for red flags. One is the language used in the study.</p>
<p>Most scientists have any vestige of personality hammered out of their writing by a merciless academic pretension that a dry passive voice is somehow more authoritative than writing like a normal human being. <a href="http://stevenpinker.com/publications/sense-style-thinking-persons-guide-writing-21st-century">It’s not</a>, but nevertheless if the paper’s tone is uncomfortably lively, vague or verging on the polemical, then treat it with suspicion. </p>
<p>You can also look for a few key elements of the study to assess its quality. One is the character of the cohort. If it’s a study conducted on US college students (who are known to be “<a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-weird-evolution-of-human-psychology/">WEIRD</a>”), don’t assume the results will generalise to the broader population, especially outside of the United States.</p>
<p>Another is sample size. If the study is testing a drug, or describing some psychological quirk, and the sample size is under 50, the findings will not be very strong. That’s just a function of statistics.</p>
<p>If you flip a coin only 10 times and it comes up heads 7 times (the p-value, or chance of it coming up 7, 8, 9 or 10, is 0.17, so not quite “significant”), it’s a lot harder to be confident that the coin is biased compared to flipping it 100 times and it coming up heads 70 times (p-value 0.000039, or very very “significant”).</p>
<p>Also check what the study says about causation. Many studies report associations or correlations, such as that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172213">college students who drink and smoke marijuana</a> tend to have lower grades than their peers. But correlation doesn’t imply causation.</p>
<p>It might be that there is a common cause for both phenomena. Perhaps those students who are more likely to choose to drink and smoke are predisposed towards distraction, and it’s the distraction that causes the lower grades rather than the content of the distraction per se.</p>
<p>So never imply causation when a study only reports correlation. You can speculate as to causation – many studies do – but do so in context and with appropriate quotes from experts.</p>
<p>Many studies are also conducted on animals, especially medical studies. While it’s tempting to extrapolate these results to humans, don’t.</p>
<p>It’s not the case that we’ve cured cancer because a drug made it disappear in a mouse. It’s not even the case that we’ve cured cancer in mice (which would still be big news in some circles). </p>
<p>What we’ve found is that application of some drug corresponded with a shrinkage of tumours in mice, and that’s suggestive of an interesting interaction or mechanism that might tell us something about how the drug or cancers work, and that might one day inform some new treatment for cancers in people. Try fitting that into a pithy headline. If you can’t, then don’t overhype the story.</p>
<p>Many impact stories also have a long wait until the impact actually arrives. Be wary of elevating expectations by implying the discovery might start treating people right away. Optimistically, most health studies are at least ten years away from practical application, often more.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=200&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161731/original/image-20170321-9129-1jclgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Generic telescope image set on picturesque Australian outback background. It’s actually CSIRO’s ASKAP antennas at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory in Western Australia. CSIRO has a great image library.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Neal Pritchard</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Sources</h2>
<p>It’s good practice to link to sources whenever you make an empirical claim. But don’t just Google the claim and link to the first paper or news story you find. Make sure the source backs the claim, and not just part of it. So don’t link to something saying people generally overestimate risk and then link to one paper that shows people overestimate risk in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1020695730192?LI=true">one small domain</a>.</p>
<p>When linking to a source, preferably use the <a href="http://www.doi.org/">DOI</a> (Digital Object Identifier). It’s like a URL for academic papers, and when you link to it, it will automatically shunt the reader through to the paper on the journal site.</p>
<p>DOIs usually come in the form of a bunch of numbers, like “10.1000/xyz123”. To turn that into a full DOI link, put “https://doi.org/” at the beginning. So “5.771073” becomes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073">https://doi.org/10.1109/5.771073</a>. Go on, click on that link.</p>
<p>As a rule, try to link directly to the journal article rather than a summary, abstract, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed">PubMed</a> listing, blog post or review of the paper elsewhere. Don’t link to a PDF of the paper on the author’s personal website unless the author or the journal has given you explicit permission, as you may be breaching copyright.</p>
<p>And definitely avoid linking to the university press release for the paper, even if that release has the paper linked at the bottom. Just link the paper instead.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated with corrected p-values on the coin flip example. Thanks to Stephen S Holden for pointing out the error, and for highlighting both the difficulty of statistics and the importance of double checking your numbers.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In part three of our series on reporting science, we look at what’s news, different types of science stories and red flags to watch out for.Tim Dean, EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/689202017-02-16T19:13:53Z2017-02-16T19:13:53ZEssays on health: reporting medical news is too important to mess up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157081/original/image-20170216-27423-8dmkg5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stories in the media are often the first or even the only way that people hear about science and medical news. So we need to get the reporting right. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/352247702?src=j1OSqT6u6IAZFyvqiFnVPQ-1-30&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>News stories regarding the latest in the world of medicine are often popular. After all, most people are interested in their own health and that of their family and friends. </p>
<p>But sometimes reports can be confusing. For example, one minute <a href="https://theconversation.com/coffee-good-today-bad-tomorrow-15707">coffee seems good for you, and the next it’s bad for your health</a>. And remember when <a href="http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/your-voice/open-letter-to-world-health-organisation-re-olympics-and-zika-virus">150 health experts</a> from around the world called for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games to be cancelled or postponed because of the Zika virus? This call was swiftly opposed by both the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/zika-health-advice-olympics/en/">World Health Organisation (WHO)</a> and the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0713-paralympic-games-risks.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>. </p>
<p>Sometimes these contradictions reflect differences of opinion in the scientific community, and different approaches to research. These are a normal part of the scientific process. </p>
<p>But in other instances, health news misinforms because of the way some journalists interpret and report research findings. </p>
<h2>Lost in translation</h2>
<p>The reporter’s job is to speak to sources, look critically at both sides of a debate and write a story that is balanced, factual and accurate. </p>
<p>In medical health news, reporters also have to make sense of complex scientific data and present it in a way that everyone can understand. </p>
<p>However, in the hands of inexperienced reporters, the true meaning of medical research may get lost in translation. Rather than inform or educate accurately, stories may exaggerate and mislead. These shortcomings can be a problem as the public usually first hears about the latest scientific findings regarding advances in health and medicine from the news media. </p>
<p>Stories can end up generating <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2015.1045237?scroll=top&needAccess=true">false hopes or unfounded fears</a>. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1326365X16669194">These can range widely</a>, from stories about clinical hands-on practice to research, or from disease prevention to new drugs and techniques, or health risks to health policy. </p>
<p>Given the potential for medical reporting to have powerful effects on the public, it’s important reporters understand science – its language, processes and topics – before they translate the information for everyone else. Having enough background knowledge and experience will <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1326365X16669194">prevent being misled</a> by unfamiliar claims and assertions. </p>
<h2>The power of a good story</h2>
<p>Reporters have to make their articles and news items appealing and interesting to a lay audience. That means a story based mainly on dry lab results often needs some compelling storytelling to capture the public’s attention. </p>
<p>A common journalistic technique is to insert a personal account from patients or others to tell the story and “humanise” it for readers, listeners or viewers. Individual anecdotes are one of the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2012.721633?scroll=top&needAccess=true">tools journalists use</a> to promote audience understanding of complex health issues. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156124/original/image-20170209-28746-rxt70f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Giving a human face to diseases like chicken pox can help journalists tell a story more effectively.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepies/3539476944/in/photolist-6oLKby-JXHu9-6mFiYQ-aq9X-JXHb9-7PpY4m-76Wbk8-77164L-7715EL-a8cGic-fASSr-fASWK-fASQX-JXJEf-t4YorZ-t4VSjH-s87wsp-s7VLxb-55b916-t4VUFg-81omC-6CMRTA-aEATt-7CxoC5-dEgCw3-dEgCHS-5qwURW-aeA4Yg-8euJyR-6e7yK5-9dHMfv-dTq5A3-cgheqA-d1kv5-9ubDSZ-76W8YP-chAB4C-55baCi-ci5FAQ-ci5Ebs-Kmp7q-6CHH8D-cghfnj-dEbfDD-5MRzpD-chBazS-55bcT2-chB8z5-chB9qb-ciCtg7">sheepies/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, despite being a useful device in complicated medical news, putting a “face” on scientific facts and figures without further context may only serve to skew the story’s content and quality. When this happens <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/16/1/85/527341/Does-qualitative-synthesis-of-anecdotal-evidence">the public can be swayed to change health behaviours</a> on the basis of a lay person’s account rather than by the weight of scientific evidence. </p>
<p>Avoiding single source stories and including an independent “expert” can counter some common failings in health news. Experienced medical reporters also know <a href="https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S3-S3">asking the “right” questions</a> of sources will avoid some rookie misunderstandings. </p>
<h2>Common problems in medical reporting</h2>
<p>A public online monitoring site used ten criteria to <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/11/deconstructing-cancer-what-makes-good-quality-news-story">assess the quality of Australian health stories</a> in print, online and TV media from 2004-2013. These included </p>
<ul>
<li>whether the treatment was “genuinely new” in Australia</li>
<li>that alternative options were mentioned</li>
<li>that there was objective evidence to support any treatments mentioned</li>
<li>how benefits and harms were framed (in relative or absolute terms)</li>
<li>harms and costs of treatments were discussed</li>
<li>sources and their conflicts of interests disclosed</li>
<li>whether or not there was “heavy” reliance on media release information provided by PR (public relations) practitioners, who often represent clients with vested interests. </li>
</ul>
<p>This analysis revealed reporters portrayed new devices, drugs and medical interventions positively, while potential harms were downplayed and costs often ignored. </p>
<p>Potential sources’ conflicts of interest are often ignored by reporters. For example, the 2009 swine ‘flu pandemic in Australia resulted in mass vaccination roll out in this country. But <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884913480460">some reporters</a> covering this public health crisis revealed they hadn’t considered asking about conflicts of interest of their expert sources - such as any potential links with the vaccine manufacturer - as part of their interviewing process. This is despite the fact <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884913480460">some public health experts were concerned</a> about others who had conflicts of interest yet were providing comments to the media. </p>
<p>It seems reliance and trust in officials and experts <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884913480460">may be greater</a> in cases of emerging risks. </p>
<h2>Big stories create powerful waves</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156118/original/image-20170209-17345-vhci0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s common knowledge Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to reduce her risk of breast cancer.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/363240596?size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Large-scale publicity about celebrity illnesses have often led to an increased knowledge of certain diseases. For example, actor Angelina Jolie’s preventative double mastectomy significantly raised <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2014.995866">public awareness of “breast cancer genes”</a>.</p>
<p>However, news reports can also have the opposite effect, introducing doubt and even mistrust of existing medical practice. When the ABC’s science program <a href="https://theconversation.com/viewing-catalysts-cholesterol-programs-through-the-sceptometer-19817">Catalyst</a> questioned the link between high cholesterol and heart disease in a 2013 two-part report, there was a <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/11/crux-matter-did-abcs-catalyst-program-change-statin-use-australia">significant drop in community use</a> of cholesterol lowering medications known as statins. Statins are the most commonly prescribed medications in Australia for those aged over 50. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3888657.htm">Critics</a> described the ABC program as “unscientific” and “irresponsibly misleading”. </p>
<p>Adverse reports in the media about the effects of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) in menopausal women also caused a <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7419/845">dramatic drop</a> in use. </p>
<p>There’s some evidence even media coverage of as little as one to two days’ duration can affect the public’s health-related behaviours. For example, even brief television news coverage of iodine deficiency disorder - which can cause brain damage in children - resulted in a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/her/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/her/cym028">significant increase</a> in the sale of iodised salt in Australia. So it matters how health news is written and presented. </p>
<h2>Peer review doesn’t mean it’s perfect</h2>
<p>Reporters are usually well trained to be inherently sceptical of claims being made by government or industry. Yet when it comes to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-peer-review-27797">peer review process</a> in published research, especially in prestigious medical journals, there’s an inclination by some to swallow the information “hook, line and sinker”. </p>
<p>But there’s a fine line between doing a positive story and becoming an inadvertent cheerleader. When dealing with such respected sources, which are often regarded as infallible, reporters’ attitudes have been described as “<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.1.057">uncritical reverence</a>”. Even top journals get things wrong. </p>
<p>Remember the controversial study which linked the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine to autism published by highly respected journal The Lancet in 1998? It took twelve years to retract the article. Yet public health repercussions are ongoing, with some still refusing to vaccinate their children despite many studies discrediting the original research. It seems “<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084500-warning-wakefields-anti-vax-film-may-make-you-sick/">it’s easier to scare, than unscare people</a>”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156126/original/image-20170209-28718-1va1u14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There is no evidence linking Measles Mumps Rubella vaccination with autism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbybatchelder/4038220707/in/photolist-stMHy6-mLdEQv-4RyMov-mLfshS-ngzgyQ-76JgQz-sck8bR-HUFNeF-PbUzCs-79QWjX-76NxrC">abbybatchelder/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science does benefit from media coverage</h2>
<p>Like government and business, medical journals send out media releases to alert journalists about the latest research, breakthrough or discovery. Often there’s a <a href="http://ebm.bmj.com/content/19/3/81.full">tendency in the media release</a> to exaggerate the importance of the research to attract the reporters’ attention, overstating the study’s significance. </p>
<p>Scientists also stand to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2013.811327?scroll=top&needAccess=true">directly benefit</a> from positive news stories. Media coverage can increase scientists’ citation rates (a measure of how widely read their research is), raising their public profiles and improving funding opportunities for their research. If reporters suspend their usual scepticism and watchdog vigilance, this can lead to stories which may simply promote research that is either premature with no immediate benefit for public health, or may never eventuate beyond the animal testing stage. </p>
<p>This concern is nothing new. Almost 16 years ago, the Australian Press Council (a self regulatory body of the print media) <a href="https://accountablejournalism.org/ethics-codes/Australia-APC-Reporting-Guidelines">warned about</a> “inadequately researched” health news stories and their effect on the public. </p>
<p>In the US, a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265160490908086?scroll=top&needAccess=true">statement of “principles”</a> was set up to guide medical health reporters and lift standards and quality. These codes emphasise the need for journalists to understand the process of medical research in order to accurately report it. </p>
<p>For example, it’s <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265160490908086?scroll=top&needAccess=true">important to understand the differences</a> between <a href="https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/what-clinical-trial/phases-clinical-trials">Phases I, II, and III</a> of drug trials. </p>
<h3>Phase I clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase I trials test a new biomedical intervention for the first time in a small group of people (around 20-80) to evaluate safety.</p>
<h3>Phase II clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase II trials study an intervention in a larger group of people (several hundred) to determine whether it works as intended, and to further evaluate safety.</p>
<h3>Phase III clinical trial</h3>
<p>Phase III studies examine the efficacy of an intervention in large groups of trial participants (from several hundred to several thousand) by comparing the intervention to other treatments (or to standard care), and to collect additional safety information.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156122/original/image-20170209-17349-11heunn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Effective medical reporting does not require becoming a cheerleader for science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/85329395@N04/8398076849/in/photolist-dN7kEr-8rdW-eiChjS-eiwwPe-eiwwMz-6X9rAi-6WRqjq-6WMsfz-pDDGEQ-28eRF-6XPceD-6XTejd-6XTcQL-cQ7HzJ-6XPbJZ-6XPcpe-6XPbUZ-6Btbu-6WLWh6-6WQQBL-79GFM1-P2KxD-5yHY9x-4Mc8sX-6XTevo-6XTeWd-rEh6N-4fb7cJ-rz8CU-kZasi-5ZTMH7-6DckVn-7aNb5J-5yUCae-4fb6Uh-o6RNZ-5ZTML1-5ZTMSd-angtbB-6XfbCS-74gTEM-5BVUC2-558YfE-C5LU-aDksdP-5ZPzDi-6WRoyh-B3bEYV-4Mgi1q-7WcqyF">85329395@N04/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265160490908086">area of misunderstanding</a> regards <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/03/15/absolute-versus-relative-risk-making-sense-of-media-stories/">“absolute” and “relative” risks</a>. A 50% increase in relative risk <a href="http://patient.info/health/absolute-risk-and-relative-risk">may not mean much if the absolute numbers are small</a>. For example, let’s say some women have a four in 100 chance of getting a particular disease by the time they’re 65. Recent medical research claims a new drug will reduce the relative risk of getting this condition by 50%. Sounds like a big deal, doesn’t it? </p>
<p>But 50% is the reduction of relative risk and refers only to the effect on the number four. Half of four is two. So the absolute risk, which is the actual risk of contracting this disease, is reduced from four in 100, to two in 100, which is a <a href="http://patient.info/health/absolute-risk-and-relative-risk">fairly minor reduction</a> for each individual. Not presenting this accurately can lead to hyperbole in the media.</p>
<h2>We need specialist medical reporters</h2>
<p>Medical health news is important, as this is how most of us first hear about the latest research, interventions, devices, drugs, surgical techniques and risks. It can influence us to change attitudes and behaviours. It can <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-theres-hope-but-treating-spinal-injuries-with-stem-cells-is-not-a-reality-yet-72493">catapult scientists into the public eye</a> with many benefits for them. </p>
<p>But as with other specialised reporting, medical writing can take a long time to master. Although you don’t have to be a scientist to report well in this area, it’s important to understand the language used by scientists. This allows a reporter to challenge claims being made by them. How big is the study? Who funded it? How much does it cost? What are the side effects? Inexperienced journalists may not spot all the subtleties of the scientific process, but asking the “right” questions can only help, not hinder, public understanding.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrizia Furlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Health reporting requires asking the right questions and doing quality research. But specialist skills are also handy, especially when it comes to knowing the language and processes of science.Patrizia Furlan, Program Director, Journalism and Professional Writing, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/706342017-01-11T02:08:11Z2017-01-11T02:08:11ZGetting a scientific message across means taking human nature into account<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152315/original/image-20170110-29024-qr971p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Yeah, I'm not hearing that.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=452192425">Woman picture via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We humans have collectively accumulated a lot of science knowledge. We’ve developed vaccines that can eradicate some of the most devastating diseases. We’ve engineered bridges and cities and the internet. We’ve created massive metal vehicles that rise tens of thousands of feet and then safely set down on the other side of the globe. And this is just the tip of the iceberg (which, by the way, we’ve discovered is melting). While this shared knowledge is impressive, it’s not distributed evenly. Not even close. There are too many important issues <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">that science has reached a consensus on that the public has not</a>. </p>
<p>Scientists and the media need to communicate more science and communicate it better. Good communication ensures that scientific <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-academics-are-losing-relevance-in-society-and-how-to-stop-it-64579">progress benefits society</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-communication-is-on-the-rise-and-thats-good-for-democracy-62842">bolsters democracy</a>, weakens the potency of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-challenge-facing-libraries-in-an-era-of-fake-news-70828">fake news</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-can-distort-and-misinform-when-communicating-science-59044">misinformation</a> and fulfills researchers’ <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/why-researchers-should-resolve-to-engage-in-2017-1.21236?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews">responsibility to engage</a> with the public. Such beliefs have motivated <a href="http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/">training programs</a>, <a href="https://www.aaas.org/pes/communicating-science-workshops">workshops</a> and a <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">research agenda</a> from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine on learning more about science communication. A resounding question remains for science communicators: <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-research-say-about-how-to-effectively-communicate-about-science-70244">What can we do better?</a></p>
<p>A common intuition is that the main goal of science communication is to present facts; once people encounter those facts, they will think and behave accordingly. The <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">National Academies’ recent report</a> refers to this as the “deficit model.”</p>
<p>But in reality, just knowing facts doesn’t necessarily guarantee that one’s opinions and behaviors will be consistent with them. For example, many people “know” that recycling is beneficial but still throw plastic bottles in the trash. Or they read an online article by a scientist about the necessity of vaccines, but leave comments expressing outrage that doctors are trying to further a pro-vaccine agenda. Convincing people that scientific evidence has merit and should guide behavior may be the greatest science communication challenge, particularly in <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274">our “post-truth” era</a>.</p>
<p>Luckily, we know a lot about human psychology – how people perceive, reason and learn about the world – and many lessons from psychology can be applied to science communication endeavors.</p>
<h2>Consider human nature</h2>
<p>Regardless of your religious affiliation, imagine that you’ve always learned that God created human beings just as we are today. Your parents, teachers and books all told you so. You’ve also noticed throughout your life that science is pretty useful – you especially love heating up a frozen dinner in the microwave while browsing Snapchat on your iPhone.</p>
<p>One day you read that scientists have evidence for human evolution. You feel uncomfortable: Were your parents, teachers and books wrong about where people originally came from? Are these scientists wrong? You experience <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html">cognitive dissonance</a> – the uneasiness that results from entertaining two conflicting ideas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152316/original/image-20170110-29019-1s8m21j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s uncomfortable to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=463867253">Man image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Psychologist Leon Festinger <a href="http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3850">first articulated the theory of cognitive dissonance</a> in 1957, noting that it’s human nature to be uncomfortable with maintaining two conflicting beliefs at the same time. That discomfort leads us to try to reconcile the competing ideas we come across. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-science-issues-seem-to-divide-us-along-party-lines-66626">Regardless of political leaning</a>, we’re hesitant to accept new information that contradicts our existing worldviews.</p>
<p>One way we subconsciously avoid cognitive dissonance is through <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781">confirmation bias</a> – a tendency to seek information that confirms what we already believe and discard information that doesn’t. </p>
<p>This human tendency was first exposed by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161">psychologist Peter Wason</a> in the 1960s in a simple logic experiment. He found that people tend to seek confirmatory information and avoid information that would potentially disprove their beliefs.</p>
<p>The concept of confirmation bias scales up to larger issues, too. For example, psychologists John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky asked people about their beliefs concerning global warming and then <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186">gave them information stating that 97 percent of scientists agree</a> that human activity causes climate change. The researchers measured whether the information about the scientific consensus influenced people’s beliefs about global warming. </p>
<p>Those who initially opposed the idea of human-caused global warming became even less accepting after reading about the scientific consensus on the issue. People who had already believed that human actions cause global warming supported their position even more strongly after learning about the scientific consensus. Presenting these participants with factual information ended up further polarizing their views, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-for-climate-change-only-feeds-the-denial-how-do-you-beat-that-52813">strengthening everyone’s resolve in their initial positions</a>. It was a case of confirmation bias at work: New information consistent with prior beliefs strengthened those beliefs; new information conflicting with existing beliefs led people to discredit the message as a way to hold on to their original position.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/152318/original/image-20170110-29036-1lcs417.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just shouting louder isn’t going to help.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=518718154">Megaphone image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Overcoming cognitive biases</h2>
<p>How can science communicators share their messages in a way that leads people to change their beliefs and actions about important science issues, given our natural cognitive biases?</p>
<p>The first step is to acknowledge that every audience has preexisting beliefs about the world. Expect those beliefs to color the way they receive your message. Anticipate that people will accept information that is consistent with their prior beliefs and discredit information that is not.</p>
<p>Then, focus on <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">framing</a>. No message can contain all the information available on a topic, so any communication will emphasize some aspects while downplaying others. While it’s unhelpful to cherry-pick and present only evidence in your favor – which can backfire anyway – it is helpful to focus on what an audience cares about.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">these University of California researchers point out</a> that the idea of climate change causing rising sea levels may not alarm an inland farmer dealing with drought as much as it does someone living on the coast. Referring to the impact our actions today may have for our grandchildren might be more compelling to those who actually have grandchildren than to those who don’t. By anticipating what an audience believes and what’s important to them, communicators can choose more effective frames for their messages – focusing on the most compelling aspects of the issue for their audience and presenting it in a way the audience can identify with.</p>
<p>In addition to the ideas expressed in a frame, the specific words used matter. Psychologists <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683">Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first showed</a> when numerical information is presented in different ways, people think about it differently. Here’s an example from their 1981 study:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If Program B is adopted, there is ⅓ probability that 600 people will be saved, and ⅔ probability that no people will be saved.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Both programs have an expected value of 200 lives saved. But 72 percent of participants chose Program A. We reason about mathematically equivalent options differently when they’re framed differently: <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/misfires.aspx">Our intuitions</a> are often not consistent with probabilities and other math concepts.</p>
<p>Metaphors can also act as linguistic frames. Psychologists Paul Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky found that people who read that crime is a beast proposed different solutions than those who read that crime is a virus – even if they had no memory of reading the metaphor. The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782">metaphors guided people’s reasoning</a>, encouraging them to transfer solutions they’d propose for real beasts (cage them) or viruses (find the source) to dealing with crime (harsher law enforcement or more social programs).</p>
<p>The words we use to package our ideas can drastically influence how people think about those ideas.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>We have a lot to learn. Quantitative research on the efficacy of science communication strategies is in its infancy but <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">becoming an increasing priority</a>. As we continue to untangle more about what works and why, it’s important for science communicators to be conscious of the biases they and their audiences bring to their exchanges and the frames they select to share their messages.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rose Hendricks receives funding from the US NSF GRFP. </span></em></p>Quirks of human psychology can pose problems for science communicators trying to cover controversial topics. Recognizing what cognitive science knows about how we deal with new information could help.Rose Hendricks, Ph.D. Candidate in Cognitive Science, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/702442016-12-13T17:28:10Z2016-12-13T17:28:10ZWhat does research say about how to effectively communicate about science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149954/original/image-20161213-1594-1dl3zpm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1383%2C287%2C4616%2C3260&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking stock of what we know works... or not.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=299110817">TV head image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Truth seems to be an increasingly flexible concept in politics. At least that’s the impression the Oxford English Dictionary gave recently, as it declared “post-truth” the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/post-truth-named-2016-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-dictionaries/">2016 Word of the Year</a>. What happens when decisions are based on misleading or blatantly wrong information? The answer is quite simple – our airplanes would be less safe, our medical treatments less effective, our economy less competitive globally, and on and on.</p>
<p>Many scientists and science communicators have grappled with disregard for, or inappropriate use of, scientific evidence for years – especially around contentious issues like the causes of global warming, or the benefits of vaccinating children. A <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556">long debunked study</a> on links between vaccinations and autism, for instance, cost the researcher his medical license but continues to keep vaccination rates lower than they should be.</p>
<p>Only recently, however, have people begun to think systematically about what actually works to promote better public discourse and decision-making around what is sometimes controversial science. Of course scientists would like to rely on evidence, generated by research, to gain insights into how to most effectively convey to others what they know and do. </p>
<p>As it turns out, the science on how to best communicate science across different issues, social settings and audiences has not led to easy-to-follow, concrete recommendations.</p>
<p>About a year ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CurrentProjects/DBASSE_168731">brought together a diverse group of experts and practitioners</a> to address this gap between research and practice. The goal was to apply scientific thinking to the process of how we go about communicating science effectively. Both of us were a part of this group (with Dietram as the vice chair). </p>
<p>The public draft of the group’s findings – “<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda">Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda</a>” – has just been published. In it, we take a hard look at what effective science communication means and why it’s important; what makes it so challenging – especially where the science is uncertain or contested; and how researchers and science communicators can increase our knowledge of what works, and under what conditions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149935/original/image-20161213-1610-1emkkfm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bacteriologists engage with kids at the Wisconsin Science Festival, one way of communicating science to the public.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://photos.uc.wisc.edu/photos/21060/view">Bryce Richter / UW-Madison</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence for effective approaches</h2>
<p>As we discovered, effective science communication – including listening to and engaging with audiences – is particularly complex, and far from simple to study. It’s highly dependent on what is being communicated, its relevance to who’s participating in the conversation and the social and media dynamic around the issues being addressed (especially if those issues or their policy implications are contentious). But it also depends on what people feel and believe is right and the societal or political contexts within which communication and engagement occur. And this makes getting it right and deriving lessons that can be applied across issues and contexts particularly challenging.</p>
<p>Because of this complexity, the practice of science communication (and there are many great practitioners) is currently more of an art than a science. Good communicators – whether reporters, bloggers, scientists or people active on social media and platforms like YouTube – typically learn from others, or through professional training, and often through trial and error. Unfortunately, the social sciences haven’t provided science communicators with concrete, evidence-based guidance on how to communicate more effectively. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3">Two</a> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_4">earlier</a> NAS meetings identified how diverse the areas of expertise are when it comes to research on science communication. Research spans behavioral economics and sociology along with media and communication studies. They also began to map out what we do and don’t know about what works.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the “deficit model” of science communication – the assumption that if we just “fill people up” with science knowledge and understanding, they’ll become increasingly rational decision-makers – <a href="http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110">simply does not work</a>. This is not because people are irrational; rather, we all have our own built-in psychologies of how we make sense of information, and how we weigh different factors when making decisions.</p>
<p>We also know all of us are predisposed to accept, reject or interpret information based on a plethora of mental shortcuts, including a tendency to take on face value information that <a href="https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781">seems to confirm our worldview</a>.</p>
<p>And we know how information is presented, or framed, can have a profound impact on how it is interpreted and used. The power of the “<a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/10/the-original-frankenfoods/">Frankenfood</a>” frame, for example, used with genetically modified foods, has nothing to do with providing new information. Instead, the term subconsciously connects genetically modified organisms to mental concepts we all share – worrisome ideas about scientists creating unnatural organisms with unintended consequences – and raises moral questions about science going too far.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149956/original/image-20161213-1600-vqcdqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grasping scientific evidence has important real-world implications, as when making medical decisions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=284499956">Waiting room image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Decisions factor in more than facts</h2>
<p>Science communication may involve communicating scientific consensus about, for instance, the benefits and risks of vaccines to patients. Or it may encompass much broader societal debates about the ethical, moral or political questions raised by science.</p>
<p>For example, our ability to edit the genetic code of organisms is developing at breakneck speed. Over the next decade, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/crispr-15704">CRISPR</a> and similar technologies will have a profound impact on our lives, from how we modify plants and animals and control disease, to how we produce our food, and even how we change our own genetic code as human beings.</p>
<p>But it will also present all of us with questions that cannot be answered with science alone. What does it mean to be human, for instance? Is it ethical to edit the genome of unborn embryos? If people involved in those decisions don’t have the opportunity to grasp the evidence-informed implications of the technology and make informed choices about its development and use, the future becomes little more than a lottery.</p>
<p>For those communicating the science, then, the endeavor comes with some degree of responsibility. Even deciding what information to share, and how to share it, involves personal values, beliefs and perspectives, and can potentially have far-reaching consequences. </p>
<p>There’s an especially high level of ethical responsibility associated with communication designed to influence opinions, behavior and actions. Scientists are well equipped to document the public health risks of lowered <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">vaccination rates</a>, for example. The question of whether we should mandate vaccinations or <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-mississippi-hasnt-had-measles-in-over-two-decades-37075">remove belief-based exemptions</a>, however, is an inherently political one that scientists alone cannot answer. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ECic_pHHJIc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Mapping out a better way</h2>
<p>At some level, all science communication has embedded values. Information always comes wrapped in a complex skein of purpose and intent – even when presented as impartial scientific facts. Despite, or maybe because of, this complexity, there remains a need to develop a stronger empirical foundation for effective communication of and about science.</p>
<p>Addressing this, the National Academies draft report makes an extensive number of recommendations. A few in particular stand out:</p>
<ul>
<li>Use a systems approach to guide science communication. In other words, recognize that science communication is part of a larger network of information and influences that affect what people and organizations think and do.</li>
<li>Assess the effectiveness of science communication. Yes, researchers try, but often we still engage in communication first and evaluate later. Better to design the best approach to communication based on empirical insights about both audiences and contexts. Very often, the technical risk that scientists think must be communicated have nothing to do with the hopes or concerns public audiences have. </li>
<li>Get better at meaningful engagement between scientists and others to enable that “<a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5609/977">honest, bidirectional dialogue</a>” about the promises and pitfalls of science that our committee chair <a href="https://www.aaas.org/person/alan-i-leshner">Alan Leshner</a> and others have called for.</li>
<li>Consider social media’s impact – positive and negative.</li>
<li>Work toward better understanding when and how to communicate science around issues that are contentious, or potentially so.</li>
</ul>
<p>Addressing these and other areas is going to take focused research efforts that draw on expertise across many different areas. It’s going to need strategic and serious investment in the “science” of science communication. It will also demand much greater engagement and collaboration between those who study science communication and those who actually do it. And it’ll require serious thinking about why we communicate science, and how we can work respectfully with audiences to ensure that the science we do communicate about is of value to society.</p>
<p>This will not be easy. But the alternative – slipping further into a post-truth world where disdain for evidence creates risks that could be avoided – gives us little option but to dig deeper into the science of science communication, so that science and evidence are more effectively incorporated into the decisions people make.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dietram Scheufele is vice-chair of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine's Committee on The Science of Science Communication, and is a co-author on the report "Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda."</span></em></p>Now that we’re in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn’t when talking about science.Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State UniversityDietram A. Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-MadisonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/681612016-11-04T05:31:14Z2016-11-04T05:31:14ZWhat the ABC’s new Catalyst could mean for science on TV<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144519/original/image-20161104-25353-bj7cgp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Catalysts to move to a new format.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC/Screenshot</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ABC says the run of the popular science television show, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/">Catalyst</a>, has reached the end in its current format.</p>
<p>In its place, the <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/press-releases/abc-tv-announces-new-catalyst-format/">ABC has proposed</a> it will deliver a series of 17 one hour-long documentaries that will be aired later in the evening than the current half-hour science magazine style programming.</p>
<p>It would appear that most Catalyst staff will be let go from the new series as the ABC says “up to 9 ongoing staff members may be affected” although “some staff” will be offered other positions.</p>
<p>This change is despite Catalyst’s popularity and relatively inexpensive costs. Many documentary makers <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/science-leaders-slam-changes-to-catalyst/news-story/14e1814befdb714e4876dd7d6b3d3642">are somewhat sceptical</a> of the ability of the ABC to follow through on the promise of the 17 documentaries independently produced from outside the ABC.</p>
<p>According to several film makers, one-hour programs take disproportionately greater resources and can have a production time running to years in order to get a good product. </p>
<p>This begs the question as to whether or not the ABC will be able to carry through with this replacement.</p>
<p>These changes also run in the face of a <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ATTACHMENT-E-ABC-Science-Qualitative-Reseach.pdf">recent review for the ABC</a> that suggested short science programs shown early in the evening were more popular than longer programs shown later in the day.</p>
<p>So why is the ABC taking this dramatic turn with the popular and award-winning Catalyst?</p>
<h2>A convenient controversy?</h2>
<p>Catalyst has not been without its controversies over the past three years.</p>
<p>First there was the 2013 story <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/heartofthematter/">on statins and heart disease</a> which was <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/catalyst-program/5446620">found to breach</a> the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/12/abc-takes-down-catalyst-heart-disease-episodes-after-review-criticism">ABC’s editorial standards</a> on impartiality.</p>
<p>Then there was the July 2016 <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4494933.htm">Wi-fried</a> episode which relied on a single study <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/abc-catalyst-program-linking-mobile-phones-to-brain-cancer-should-never-have-aired">to claim links</a> between Wi-Fi and mobile phone networks and brain cancer. </p>
<p>Wi-fried was criticised by several academics <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-wi-fi-and-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-experts-respond-54881">writing in The Conversation</a>. It was also described as “<a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/02/17/mobiles-might-not-give-you-brain-cancer-but-catalyst-gives-scientists-a-headache/">scientifically bankrupt</a>” by a leading Australian cancer researcher.</p>
<p>The episode was again <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/wi-fried/7569664">found to have breached</a> ABC’s impartiality guidelines. </p>
<p>The same reporter, Dr Maryanne Dimasi, was involved with both stories, and could be <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-saves-catalyst-but-staff-to-go-in-restructure-20161103-gsgzdf.html">one of those losing their job</a> in the axing of the old program format.</p>
<p>Is the failure of a few instances (as egregious as they appear to be) of investigative reporting not countered by the award-winning reporting of other Catalyst journalists? </p>
<h2>Public disinterest in science?</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has emphasised the critical importance of innovation and science to Australia’s future. And he is right. </p>
<p>Without an articulate and science savvy population, Australia runs at risk of falling behind in the globalisation stakes.</p>
<p>As climate change intensifies, technology continues to escalate and human population busts, the need for greater understanding of science and its processes will determine whether we are able to seize opportunities or not. </p>
<p>The axing is presumably not because of audience disinterest. Audiences want more science, not less. In <a href="http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/research/projects/electoral-surveys/anupoll/aussie-say-science-knocks-sport-six">a poll conducted by the ANU</a> in 2010, almost all of the 518 respondents reported an interest in science and related topics. </p>
<p>A national survey conducted on behalf of Inspiring Australia in 2014 similarly found <a href="http://diffusion.weblogs.anu.edu.au/files/2014/05/Searle-S.D.-2014.-How-do-Australians-engage-with-science.-April-2014.pdf">82% of respondents</a> engage with some form of science reporting at least fortnightly.</p>
<p>Most science itself isn’t a hard sell for media organisations operating on limited resources and highly competitive for market share.</p>
<p>It’s the critical examination of science in media that is hard to do, but worth trying (despite Catalyst’s lapses).</p>
<h2>The science investigators</h2>
<p>While scientists can be excellent communicators, they are not necessarily great investigative reporters. The ABC’s announcement suggests that a future science program could be in the scientist-led format.</p>
<p>If well-resourced, this could be a successful vehicle for some aspects of science with some audiences. But it will favour established science that lends itself to in-depth treatment.</p>
<p>Where will the up to date stories of Australian science be broadcast? Where will the audiences go who want to watch a bit of the latest Australian science content? </p>
<p>In a time when “innovation” is the catch-cry, we need a reliable source of information to promote the research being done and the discoveries being made.</p>
<p>Probably most important is the role of science journalists in telling us what science means, providing objective views in the face of unrelenting hype and wrangling the amazing scientific talent in Australia. </p>
<h2>Australia’s science stories</h2>
<p>Anyone can start a Facebook page or a YouTube channel, but where is the quality control? There are notable benchmarks of quality out there, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium">Veritasium</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Vsauce">VSauce</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/sciencealert">ScienceAlert</a> to name a few, but these exist online. </p>
<p>Within the traditional broadcast media context, it is difficult to identify a program that consistently delivers critical appraisals of science and its implications. </p>
<p>Sure, there exists <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-too-much-science-communication-is-barely-enough-38277">plenty of other options for science stories</a> to be told in the media and Australia oozes talent in science communication. This includes the <a href="http://www.celebrityspeakers.com.au/dr-jonica-newby/">award-winning Jonica Newby</a> of Catalyst who finds her future in question.</p>
<p>But all of this talent needs a vehicle.</p>
<p>Certainly there is a societal shift towards accessing content online, such as The Conversation, rather than via the traditional media. But the role of the traditional journalist – to convey information accurately, impartially and critically – is vital, whatever platform is used.</p>
<p>If even the best science journalists in the country are unable to retain positions that allow them to do that, then Australian science is either unrelentingly hyped, unquestioned, or at worst ignored. </p>
<p>It’s hard to be a clever country when you’re in the dark.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg undertakes research on coral reef ecosystems and their response to rapid environmental change, which is supported primarily by the Australian Research Council (Canberra), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Washington, D.C.), Catlin Group (London), and Great Barrier Reef Foundation (Brisbane). He not receive salary for writing this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Joan Leach undertakes research in science communication and is Director of the National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the ANU. She is also President of Australian Science Communicators, the professional organisation for science communicators and science journalists. She receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, the NHMRC, and has worked with Inspiring Australia, the Australian National Strategy for science engagement.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merryn McKinnon lectures and researches at the National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the ANU. She is a member of the Australian Science Communicators, the professional organisation for science communicators and science journalists. </span></em></p>Changes to the ABC’s science show Catalyst follow recent criticism of some of its journalism. But will the new format still give a voice to Australian science, or will some issues lose out?Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandJoan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityMerryn McKinnon, Lecturer, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620972016-07-06T07:18:07Z2016-07-06T07:18:07ZThe lessons to be learned now the ABC’s pulled its ‘inaccurate’ Wi-Fried program<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129502/original/image-20160706-817-10gk48v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The ABC breached its impartiality standards in a Catalyst program on the safety of wireless devices such as mobile phones.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Sidarta</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ABC has this week <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/wi-fried/7569664">announced</a> that an episode of its <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/">Catalyst</a> television program “breached the ABC’s impartiality standards” when it raised concerns about the safety of wireless devices such as mobile phones.</p>
<p>The episode, titled Wi-Fried? and broadcast on February 16 this year, claimed that the radiofrequency (RF) emissions from Wi-Fi was causing health effects ranging from DNA damage to cancer.</p>
<p>Such statements are not mainstream scientific positions, but rather are views that leading health authorities have considered when <a href="http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/FactSheets/index.cfm">concluding</a> that there is no evidence that low-level RF, such as that from Wi-Fi, mobile phones or base stations, impairs health. </p>
<p>I was one of many people who raised concerns about the claims in the Catalyst program, writing as part of <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-wi-fi-and-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-experts-respond-54881">an expert panel for The Conversation</a>. But there were many other <a href="http://www.amta.org.au/newsletters/EME-Update-March-2016?Article=49982">critics of the program</a> including the ABC’s own <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4411611.htm">Media Watch program</a>.</p>
<h2>ABC investigation</h2>
<p>The conduct of the Catalyst team in producing and airing this misinformation was investigated by the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs unit. It found that Catalyst breached the relevant editorial standards for accuracy. Specifically, it breached <a href="https://edpols.abc.net.au/guidance/accuracy/">both of the following</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context; and</p>
<p>2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It the <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FINAL-REPORT-Catalyst-WiFried-Investigation.pdf">ABC’s full 31 page report</a>, the unit concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] the findings for accuracy all unduly favour the unorthodox perspective that wireless devices and Wi-Fi pose significant health risks.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The episode has now been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4407325.htm">removed from the ABC website</a> and the journalist Dr Maryanne Demasi <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4495341.htm">reported by the ABC</a> to be suspended pending a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-06/catalyst-under-review-again/7572816">review of the program</a>.</p>
<p>It is indeed comforting to see the thorough scrutiny of the “journalism”, and that tangible consequences ensued, but it also raises a number of important issues that I believe are worthy of reflection.</p>
<h2>Science journalism should challenge</h2>
<p>Perhaps most important is the role of any journalist in science reporting. Here it is important to acknowledge that it is normal for science to get things wrong from time to time. I thoroughly believe that a journalist plays an important role in showing errors in the standard view.</p>
<p>For example, if the standard view was incorrect – that Wi-Fi was indeed dangerous and there was good evidence in support of this – then I would be grateful to have a journalist point this out.</p>
<p>But as we see from the numerous internet perspectives on everything from Wi-Fi and health to alien abductions, in order to inform the audience there is also a strong need for the journalist to provide appropriate balance.</p>
<p>For example, without appropriate consideration of expert opinion, the airing of emotive views (of those who believe they’ve been abducted) may make the claim appear more real.</p>
<p>This was a great failure in the Wi-Fried episode, as unsubstantiated claims were put forward without adequate attention to the scientific consensus (nor evidence as to why the consensus was wrong).</p>
<p>So unless the aim of science journalism was similar to advertising and merely to encourage a particular perspective, it requires great care and objectivity to achieve its objective. If the audience has a more accurate understanding of an issue after the piece, then I think it has achieved an important objective.</p>
<h2>The consequences of getting it wrong</h2>
<p>As we’ve seen though, science journalism doesn’t always get it right. This is not surprising given that ratings rather than knowledge conveyance is increasingly becoming the metric of journalistic success. But what are the consequences of getting it wrong, and has the ABC done enough to improve its journalism?</p>
<p>In this case Catalyst has clearly shot itself in the foot, reaching beyond good journalism and into sensationalism, and having its reputation damaged in the process.</p>
<p>This is a good outcome as it pressures the ABC to work on improving its internal review mechanisms to re-establish its strong journalism reputation. But I fear that less scrupulous media organisations rely less heavily on such reputations and are less likely to be influenced by such embarrassments.</p>
<p>Further, even given the determination of the Audience and Consumer Affairs unit within the ABC, it is questionable whether the damage can be rectified.</p>
<p>The resource that went into the unit’s enquiry was admirable and very unlikely to be repeated in the vast majority of similar cases. And even if it was it is unlikely that the resultant Catalyst retraction would have the reach and persuasiveness to counter the original misinformation.</p>
<p>We can only hope that this example will serve to encourage other journalists to strive to inform rather than sensationalise, and remind editors of their responsibility to truth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62097/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodney Croft receives funding from National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia. He is affiliated with University of Wollongong, International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence the "Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research", and the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence "Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy".</span></em></p>The ABC failed its own accuracy test when it broadcast claims of health risks associated with wireless devices such as mobile phones.Rodney Croft, Professor of Health Psychology, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/598712016-06-02T01:04:41Z2016-06-02T01:04:41ZAccurate science or accessible science in the media – why not both?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124855/original/image-20160601-1951-sdxq1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists themselves may be the key to finding the right balance.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-342000797/stock-photo-scales-on-wooden-background.html">Scales image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every day, millions of people take to search engines with common concerns, such as “How can I lose weight?” or “How can I be productive?” In return, they find articles that offer simple advice and quick solutions, supposedly based on what “studies have shown.”</p>
<p>A closer look at these articles, however, reveals a troubling absence of scientific rigor. Few bother to cite research or discuss studies’ methodologies or limitations. The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kvf225">authors seldom have scientific training</a>.</p>
<p>As young scientists from four diverse fields (psychology, chemistry, physics and neuroscience), we’ve noticed that much writing about science, particularly on topics most relevant to the daily lives of readers, is currently failing to resolve the trade-off between accessibility and accountability. Rigorous findings shared by researchers in specialist journals are obscured behind jargon and paywalls, while accessible science shared on the internet is untrustworthy, unregulated and often click-bait.</p>
<p>If this communication crisis is due to a lack of scientifically literate voices, the solution may be for more scientists to enter the fray. Scientists have the expertise to publicly correct misinterpretations of their and others’ data. By developing new ways to disseminate science knowledge, they can help prevent inaccurate and overhyped stories from gaining traction. We argue that scientists bear a responsibility to reform the way their work is ultimately communicated.</p>
<h2>Science gets lost in translation</h2>
<p>Scientific publication – which operates through an intensive peer review process – is flourishing. In 2014, over <a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scholcom">2.5 million scholarly articles</a> were published on topics that ranged from how to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18965">reduce carbon emissions</a> to how <a href="http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614557867">Twitter influences the rate of heart disease</a> and how <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.193">regular exercise can prevent inflammation</a> associated with rheumatic diseases. Because of recent research, we know there’s little evidence that genetically modified vegetables <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003">are unhealthy</a>, and that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004">eating less meat</a> is <a href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5">a simple way</a> to positively influence the environment.</p>
<p>These are important messages, and when people don’t hear or listen to them, there can be serious consequences. Misinformed campaigns arise <a href="https://theconversation.com/vaccines-back-in-the-headlines-heres-what-the-experts-say-47815">against vaccinations</a>, and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/06/anti-vaccine-movement-is-giving-diseases-a-2nd-life/7007955/">near-extinct diseases return</a>. Mental illness remains <a href="https://theconversation.com/inspiration-from-gamers-on-tackling-mental-health-stigma-18769">shamefully stigmatized</a>. Climate change is <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php">dismissed as fiction</a>. People become erroneously convinced that <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/bacon-and-sausages-do-cause-cancer-says-the-who#.mxz3wYjge">red meat causes cancer</a> and that <a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800">eating dark chocolate helps weight loss</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124856/original/image-20160601-1951-zljpl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s hard for the general public to even access most research journals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maggie Villiger</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rigorous science is locked away</h2>
<p>So how can we ensure that everyone has access to useful science knowledge?</p>
<p>Most scientific articles are aimed at an audience of other experts in highly specific fields, making them ill-suited for popular consumption. Between complex methodological language and frequent acronyms, even scientists have trouble following the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/04/two-sciences-separated-by-a-common-language/">jargon specific to other fields</a>, leaving little hope for those with less scientific training.</p>
<p>An even more pressing issue, however, is that people outside of research institutions can’t even access most journal articles. Many of these papers are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/17/open-access-publishing-science-paywall-immoral">hidden behind a publisher paywall</a>, and nonsubscribers are forced to pay <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/read-this-academic-journal-article-but-prepare-to-pay/71536/">US$30-$50 for a single article</a>.</p>
<p>These paywalls are not merely obstructive; we would argue they’re also unethical. Most research is publicly funded, yet taxpayers are charged to consume scientific articles.</p>
<p>Ideally, scientific publishing will transition to healthy open-access journals that serve both researchers and readers. Legislation regarding quasi-monopolistic scientific publishing companies, predatory publishing practices and public access to primary scientific sources would go far to serve this end. </p>
<p>The European Union recently stipulated that all <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0577">publicly funded research articles be freely accessible</a> by 2020, but the United States has not yet passed a similar mandate. Scientists will play a crucial role in calling for and implementing these kinds of changes.</p>
<h2>The public wants accessible science</h2>
<p>As debates over open access continue, people’s desire and need for evidence-based solutions to medical and social dilemmas has not diminished. As a consequence, we see a rising tide of popular science outlets that are more accessible both in content and availability than the research journals some of their content is ostensibly based on. </p>
<p>These platforms range in accuracy, from questionable blogs preaching “7 ways to get happy now” to serious websites and magazines like <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/">Discover</a> and <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org">American Scientist</a>. As part of our own efforts to bridge the divide between accessibility and accuracy, we each contribute content to the nonprofit <a href="http://www.usefulscience.org/">Useful Science</a>, which curates research for the general public through short reviewed summaries and an <a href="http://www.usefulscience.org/podcast">in-depth podcast</a>.</p>
<p>However, even reputable sources are not immune to sensational headlines. In 2012, an article in ScienceNews on female mimicry in snakes was titled “<a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/she-male-garter-snakes-some-it-hot">She-male garter snakes: some like it hot</a>.” An article on male sheep neuroendocrinology was headlined “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201462.html">Brokeback mutton</a>” by the Washington Post, and “<a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html">Yep, they’re gay</a>” by Time. This unfortunate trend in popular science suggests that open-access publishing, even if it does proliferate, would still need to compete with flashier posts that sacrifice strict validity for clicks.</p>
<p>The growth of science communication websites that solicit and address questions and feedback directly and immediately from the general public provides some hope. These include <a href="https://www.quora.com/">Quora</a> and communities on Reddit such as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience">AskScience</a>. The popularity of these resources (AskScience has over <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/">eight million subscribers</a>) shows that a good portion of the public wants scientific information communicated, on demand, in an accurate and approachable manner. Furthermore, a lack of direct incentive for contributors may make <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nn0505-535">content manipulation less likely</a>.</p>
<p>These efforts are laudable but suffer from a lack of accountability – any author can claim to be speaking from a perspective of expertise. Even in the best cases, when authors have training in science or its communication, advice is not scrutinized prior to posting.</p>
<p>There are ways to resolve these problems. Science journalists should solicit feedback from independent experts before publishing. Posts in scientific communities could go through an expedited peer-review process. In all cases, scientists and science communicators should be working together to match the accessibility of their content with accuracy and precision. </p>
<h2>Who will lead the revolution?</h2>
<p>The present state of science communication reveals important work to be done, but no burden of responsibility. </p>
<p>Some responsibility seems to fall on scientific journals, but most journals are profit vehicles, not conscientious individuals. Some seems to fall on media outlets, but many websites and magazines are squeezed by intense competition for ad revenue. Furthermore, reporters are seldom trained to understand science, let alone contribute to the discipline’s evolution.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124858/original/image-20160601-1425-wv6cbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers need to think beyond the lab notebook.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/proteinbiochemist/3167660996">J Biochemist</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The onus, then, is on scientists. There are <a href="https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-18.pdf">20 million people with science or engineering degrees</a> in the United States alone. Instead of passively consuming media with outrageous scientific claims, it should be scientists’ personal responsibility to make research freely available, and to moderate accessible scientific communities so they’re accurate and accountable. Scientists should also work with journalists to set guidelines for media publication, such as a vetting process where popular articles are approved by experts in the field before publication, and should speak up when inaccurate information is disseminated. </p>
<p>It’s time for the scientific community to act; not only as individuals, but also as interdisciplinary groups. If scientists do so, the next generation of science communication vehicles may be coalitions of journalists and researchers (as in <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are">The Conversation’s collaborative model</a>) who can disseminate messages that are both exciting and responsible. Science will not only be more interesting and accountable. It will also be more useful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Conrad Jackson receives funding from the National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Mahar receives funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaan Altosaar founded Useful Science (usefulscience.org) and receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Gaultois receives funding the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 659764. He is affiliated with the non-profit organization Useful Science (usefulscience.org).</span></em></p>The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.Joshua Conrad Jackson, Doctoral Student, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillIan Mahar, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience, Boston UniversityJaan Altosaar, Ph.D. Student in Physics, Princeton UniversityMichael Gaultois, Postdoctoral Researcher in Chemistry, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/596502016-05-25T01:01:22Z2016-05-25T01:01:22ZWhat does it mean for researchers, journalists and the public when secrecy surrounds science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123803/original/image-20160524-25213-q3h9yn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C369%2C2968%2C2090&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People get suspicious when ethically fraught science is discussed behind closed doors.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=133184528&src=id">DNA image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Did you hear about the secret meeting earlier this month at Harvard Medical School? The one where scientists schemed to create a parentless human being from scratch? Maybe you read one of the skeptical <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html">news</a> <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_29890402/critics-attack-harvards-secret-meeting-human-genome-synthesis">articles</a>, or the stories illustrated with images from the dystopian sci-fi classic “<a href="http://gizmodo.com/experts-held-a-secret-meeting-to-consider-building-a-hu-1776538323">Blade Runner</a>” or of a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/13/secret-harvard-meeting-on-synthetic-human-genomes-incites-ethics-debate/">robot Frankenstein</a>. One blogger compared the meeting to a gathering of “<a href="http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/05/secret-dna-meeting-held-at-harvard-screams-bond-villains/">Bond villains</a>.”</p>
<p>The press coverage was suspicious and critical. Why would a bunch of scientists need to exclude the media and the public from a meeting about something as ethically fraught as synthesizing a human genome?</p>
<p>Three weeks later, the exact details of what happened are still being contested. I’m a researcher in synthetic biology, and I learned of the project from reading the newspaper. I reached out to the meeting’s organizers, who – for reasons I’ll explain – declined to comment for this article. But in conversations with meeting invitees, as well as some critics, I’ve found that much of the press coverage was misleading, and says more about the relationship between journalists and scientists than the meeting itself.</p>
<p>What really happened behind closed doors when over 130 scientists, industry leaders and ethicists convened to talk about synthesizing a human genome? How did these sessions end up so widely misunderstood by the media and the public?</p>
<h2>Open doors versus science publishing protocols</h2>
<p>The May 10 meeting was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html">titled</a> “HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells.” HGP refers to the <a href="https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-genome-project-completion-frequently-asked-questions/">Human Genome Project</a>, the world’s largest collaborative biological effort that resulted in the sequencing of the full human genome in 2003.</p>
<p>Those invited say the organizers hoped to inspire scientists and the public with a new grand challenge project: to advance from <em>reading</em> genomes to <em>writing</em> them, by manufacturing them from individual DNA building blocks. In an invitation dated March 30, the hosts proposed a bold collaborative effort to “synthesize a complete human genome within a cell line.” Panels tackled whether such an effort is worthwhile, as well as the ethical, technological and economic challenges.</p>
<p>The conversation was not intended to be restricted. The meeting organizers – Harvard geneticist <a href="http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/">George Church</a>; New York University systems geneticist <a href="http://www.med.nyu.edu/research/boeke-lab">Jef Boeke</a>; <a href="http://andrewhessel.com/">Andrew Hessel</a>, of the Bio/Nano research group at <a href="http://www.autodesk.com/">Autodesk, Inc.</a>; and <a href="http://nancyjkelley.com/nancy/">Nancy J. Kelley</a>, a lawyer specializing in biotechnology consulting – had plans to engage the broader scientific community, as well as industry, policy makers and the public. They made a video recording of the entire meeting, originally intended to be live-streamed over the Internet. They planned to apply for federal funding, which would invite regulatory oversight. And they submitted a white paper to a major peer-reviewed journal explaining the scientific, technological and ethical aspects of the project.</p>
<p>But the publication of the paper was delayed – editors commonly ask for revisions as part of the peer review process and Dr. Church told STAT News they wanted “more information about the <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/13/harvard-meeting-synthetic-genome/">ethical, social, and legal components</a> of synthesizing genomes” included. (As of this writing, the paper has not yet come out.) The organizers are prohibited from discussing the paper in public until it is published – a common <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-editorial-policies">journal</a> <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/embargo.html">policy</a> known as an embargo. In deference to the embargo, they declined to comment in detail for this article.</p>
<p>News of the delay came just days before the meeting, and, with dozens of attendees en route, the hosts made a fateful decision. They chose to proceed, but to close the doors to most journalists and ask attendees to delay public discussion until the embargo lifts. (At least one journalist was there – Simone Ross, co-founder of <a href="http://techonomy.com">Techonomy Media</a>, confirmed her attendance to me.) “<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/13/harvard-meeting-synthetic-genome/">I’m not sure that was the best idea</a>,” Dr. Church told STAT News of the decision to proceed out of the public eye.</p>
<p>The secrecy bred suspicion. “Would it be OK to <a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/102449/ShouldWeGenome.pdf?sequence=1">sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome?</a>” asked Stanford bioengineer Drew Endy and Northwestern bioethicist Laurie Zoloth in a joint essay. In theory, an artificial human genome could be used to generate a living human without biological parents. “This idea is an enormous step for the human species, and it shouldn’t be discussed <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/13/harvard-meeting-synthetic-genome/">only behind closed doors</a>,” STAT News quoted Dr. Zoloth.</p>
<p>Beyond qualms about the science itself, some observers were concerned that the organizers’ decisions - which included seeking industry partners and private funding - were quiet moves towards “<a href="http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=9374">privatiz[ing] the current conversation about heritable genetic modification</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123821/original/image-20160524-25202-1vcfg0q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Like stringing together letters in a printing press, DNA synthesis involves building genes base-by-DNA base.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=297675230">Letters via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The mundane truth about synthetic DNA</h2>
<p>But whether or not the meeting was truly secret is a distraction from its declared main purpose – to discuss the future of DNA synthesis.</p>
<p>The process of making artificial DNA is similar to letterpress printing – each character is painstakingly assembled in the correct order. The result is chemically identical to naturally-occurring DNA. The <a href="http://www.synthesis.cc/2016/05/synthesizing-secret-genomes.html">global market for synthetic DNA</a> is estimated at nearly US$1 billion annually, and does not typically draw much ethical scrutiny. Indeed, both Drs. Church and Endy are co-founders of a DNA synthesis company called <a href="https://www.gen9bio.com/about-us/our-founders">Gen9</a>. </p>
<p>Synthetic DNA is behind promising treatments for <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42462/title/The-CAR-T-Cell-Race/">cancer</a>, <a href="http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/pcsk9-inhibitors-a-major-advance-in-cholesterol-lowering-drug-therapy-201503157801">heart disease</a>, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/528S8a">HIV</a> and <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/20/11450262/crispr-base-editing-single-nucleotides-dna-gene-liu-harvard">Alzheimer’s disease</a>. In their invitation, meeting organizers expressed hope that the project would enable “the development of safer, less costly and more effective therapeutics.” Customized cells could be designed to produce biofuels, clean up pollution, or halt the spread of pandemics. Additionally, scientists know that small changes to one’s DNA can majorly influence health, but they have a limited set of tools to study these changes in detail.</p>
<p>The press has largely cheered recent advances in synthesizing DNA. In 2010, J. Craig Venter and his team <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html?_r=0">fabricated</a> all 1 million bases of a bacterial genome and transplanted it into a cell. In 2014, meeting organizer Dr. Boeke accomplished the same with <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.14941">one of the 16 yeast chromosomes</a>; he currently leads a consortium <a href="http://syntheticyeast.org/">trying to synthesize the rest</a>. And the goal of synthesizing a human genome is not new - Mr. Hessel, another organizer, stated <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html">his interest in doing so</a> as early as 2012. </p>
<p>And while undoubtedly controversial, meeting conveners say the proposal to make a human genome was intended to inspire a unified vision for the future of synthetic biology, and a plan for addressing the current barriers.</p>
<p>For example, even the genome of a tiny microbe proved to be a steep and costly challenge for Dr. Venter and his team. Creating the synthetic bacterium <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html?_r=0">cost over $40 million</a> and required years of work. At current prices, a single human genome would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/science/synthetic-human-genome.html">cost $90 million to manufacture</a> – though Dr. Endy predicts that as costs continue to decline, the price tag could drop to $100,000 by 2036.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of manufacturing capacity. Currently, the <a href="http://www.synthesis.cc/2016/03/on-dna-and-transistors.html">entire yearly global production</a> of synthetic DNA would not be enough to print a single human genome.</p>
<p>A major focus of the meeting, say numerous attendees, was to begin to address these technical shortcomings.</p>
<h2>Ethical debate in advance</h2>
<p>Much of the suspicion around the meeting focused on the idea that researchers were hatching clandestine plans to clone human beings via synthetic DNA. And chemically manufacturing the human genome - the set of genetic instructions found in every cell - would truly give new meaning to the term “test-tube baby.” If such a technology existed, any individual’s genome could be decoded and then synthesized on demand by anyone with the know-how.</p>
<p>Ethicists and the news media blew the whistle on what looked to them like scientific hubris.</p>
<p>In their essay, Drs. Endy and Zoloth argue that synthesizing life is “<a href="https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/102449/ShouldWeGenome.pdf?sequence=1">an enormous moral gesture</a>” which should not be undertaken lightly. And they worry that linking the future of synthetic biology to such a controversial stated goal could jeopardize the entire endeavor. </p>
<p>It makes sense to wrestle with ethical questions well in advance of being confronted with immediate, real-world applications. But at the moment, I’d argue human cloning remains a distant dream.</p>
<p>Importantly, there’s currently no way to transplant an artificial genome into human cells, and even the most impressive achievements - like Dr. Boeke’s yeast project - are hundreds of times smaller in scale than the proposed challenge. It’s not even clear that making a synthetic human cell is worth it. Fabricating the genome of a fruit fly or nematode - <a href="http://www.biology-pages.info/G/GenomeSizes.html">30 times smaller</a> and less ethically fraught than that of a person - could answer many of the same questions. </p>
<p>Scientists could also study human genetics by analyzing people whose DNA already <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/genome-news-flash-were-all-a-little-bit-broken/2012/02/15/gIQAyacKIR_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop">contains the desired features</a>, or by using tools to <a href="http://theconversation.com/crispr-cas-gene-editing-technique-holds-great-promise-but-research-moratorium-makes-sense-pending-further-study-43371">edit existing DNA</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123820/original/image-20160524-25239-1l82yt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Content from scientific meetings is as likely fodder for social media as journal papers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-344818604/stock-photo-audience-at-a-business-conference-person-taking-photo-with-smart-phone.html">Meeting image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science/journalism symbiosis</h2>
<p>Apart from the scientific questions, the episode highlights the complicated relationship between scientists and the journalists who cover their work. It’s a necessary partnership but one with more than a hint of distrust in both directions.</p>
<p>In a lemons-out-of-lemonade email sent to invitees after the embargo prompted them to close the event to journalists and the public, conference organizers wrote they hoped the decision would allow attendees to “speak freely and candidly without concerns about being misquoted or misinterpreted” – though apparently that wasn’t enough of a concern for them to bar media from the get-go. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"729777013213401088"}"></div></p>
<p>The organizers of the meeting are surely not blameless for the public reception. The decision to respect the embargo was interpreted by the press as suspicious. If one goal of the meeting was to provoke, can the media be blamed for taking notice? And if the meeting was held in private, then isn’t it natural to ask what those in attendance have to hide?</p>
<p>The episode also points to an emerging conflict between social media and traditional science publishing. Research journals move at a glacial pace; nearly all of my colleagues have at at one point waited six months or more to publish. Will the long publication cycle and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-logic-of-journal-embargoes-why-we-have-to-wait-for-scientific-news-53677">normally obscure embargo policy</a> be able to adjust to an era when scientific discussions happen at the speed of Twitter?</p>
<p>Researchers must rely on journalists for their communication skills and the audience they reach. And journalists will play a crucial role in facilitating the ethical discussion around synthetic biology – one whose stakeholders include scientists as well as ethicists, policy makers and the broader public – and what the goals and action items of such a debate will be. Critically, a balance must be struck between the watchdog role of the press and the legitimate needs of any profession to carry out some of their discussions in private.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was updated to include the reason why the research journal postponed publication of the HGP-Write group’s paper.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59650/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Bessen receives funding from the NIH and HHMI. </span></em></p>A recent closed meeting about building synthetic genomes raised suspicions about just what scientists were planning, away from the public eye.Jeff Bessen, PhD Candidate in Chemical Biology, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/542012016-02-23T11:12:47Z2016-02-23T11:12:47ZA beginner’s guide to sex differences in the brain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112325/original/image-20160222-25888-1gs7zf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Our brains are different, but can sex explain why?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=181397006">Couple image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Asking whether there are sex differences in the human brain is a bit like asking whether coffee is good for you – scientists can’t seem to make up their minds about the answer. In 2013, for example, news stories proclaimed differences in the brain so dramatic that men and women “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/%20article-2518327/Mens-womens-brains-truth-As-%20research-proves-sexes-brains-ARE-wired-differently-%20womens-cleverer-ounce-ounce%C3%90men-read-female-%20feelings.html">might almost be separate species</a>.” Then in 2015, headlines announced that there are in fact <a href="http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/12/01/Study-No-sex-differences-in-human-brain/6481448978446/">no sex differences in the brain at all</a>. Even as I write this, <a href="http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2016/02/verma/">more findings</a> of differences are coming out.</p>
<p>So which is it? Are there differences between men’s and women’s brains – or not?</p>
<h2>What is a sex difference?</h2>
<p>To clear up the confusion, we need to consider what the term “sex difference” really means in the scientific literature. To illustrate the concept, I’ve used a web-based tool I helped develop, <a href="http://sexdifference.org">SexDifference.org</a>, to plot some actual data. The three graphs below show how measurements from a sample of people are distributed along a scale. Women are represented in pink, and men in blue. Most people are close to the average for their sex, so that’s the peak of each “bump.” People on the left or right side of the peak are below or above average, respectively, for their sex.</p>
<p>I’ve added individual data points for three hypothetical study subjects Sue, Ann and Bob. Not real people, just examples. Their data points are superimposed on the larger data set of hundreds of people.</p>
<p>Before we get into the brain, let’s look at a couple of familiar sex differences outside the brain. Many of us, if asked to describe how men’s bodies differ from women’s, would first mention the sex difference in external genitalia. The graph below depicts the number of nontransgender adults that have a “genital tubercle derivative” (clitoris or penis) of a given size.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112322/original/image-20160222-25898-34vnro.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Size of human genitalia. Data from Wallen & Lloyd, 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Donna Maney</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All of the women in this sample, including our hypothetical Sue and Ann, fall within a certain range. All of the men, including Bob, fall into a different range. With relatively rare exceptions, humans can be accurately categorized into sexes based on this measure.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112323/original/image-20160222-25879-1okollw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sex difference in human height. Data from Sperrin et al., 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Donna Maney</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Next, let’s consider another difference that we can all see and understand: the sex difference in height. Here, we see overlap, depicted in purple. Unless a person is very tall or very short, knowing only that person’s height will not allow us to categorize that person as male or female with much certainty. Yet, even though we all know that some women are taller than some men, we would probably all call this a sex difference.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/112324/original/image-20160222-25891-153vg74.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A typical sex difference in the human brain. Data from Tunç et al., 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Donna Maney</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now let’s consider a typical sex difference inside the human brain. This graph depicts a sex difference in structural connectivity, or the degree to which networks of brain areas are interconnected, as reported in a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0111">recent study</a> (the median effect size from the study is shown). The distributions of values for men and women are essentially the same; they overlap by 90 percent. Sue and Bob have fairly similar values, and Ann’s value is higher than the average man’s. </p>
<p>We can see that this sex difference in the brain is quite different from the sex difference in genital measurements. With only the measurement of brain connectivity, the odds of correctly guessing a person’s sex might be as low as 51 out of 100. Since the odds aren’t perfectly 50:50, <em>this is technically a sex difference</em>. The term means that sex explains a portion of the variability in a trait, not that men take one form and women another. There may be a few more women at one end of the range and a few more men at the other, but for the majority, the trait is not that related to sex.</p>
<p>Small differences such as this one are important. The discovery of any sex difference is valuable for scientists and physicians because it points to other, more meaningful sources of variation. Because the sexes differ according to factors such as genes, hormones, and environment, a sex difference in the brain provides clues about the impact of these <em>other factors</em> on the brain. Following up on those clues helps us understand why susceptibility to disease, efficacy of drugs and even the course of normal development are different among all individuals, not just between men and women. </p>
<p>Despite their relevance to human health, the scientific value of sex differences is rarely discussed in the news media. Instead, sex differences become clickbait for <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110830">promoting stereotypes</a>. Small differences in the brain have been reported to explain a wide variety of presumably sex-typical behaviors, from hunting to cleaning the house. Although it makes intuitive sense that a difference in the brain must translate to a difference in behavior, there is very little evidence linking any sex difference in the human brain directly to a particular function or behavioral outcome. So think twice before you assume that greater brain connectivity confers better multitasking or map-reading skills.</p>
<h2>Do-it-yourself evaluation of sex differences</h2>
<p>The graphs above are meant to illustrate why it’s not particularly informative to ask a yes-or-no question like “Do the sexes differ?” We need to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0119">ask more sophisticated questions</a>: to what extent do the sexes differ? How much do they overlap? </p>
<p>Any decent scientific report of a sex difference contains all of the information needed to answer these questions. But not many journalists look at the actual report; they often rely on press releases, which may <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110830">misrepresent</a> the nature and meaning of a difference. As a result, the headlines can turn out to be wrong. For example, in the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316909110">2013 study</a> reportedly showing that men and women differ profoundly, the sexes overlapped by an average of more than 86 percent. And the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509654112">2015 study</a> that supposedly showed no sex differences in the brain? The authors never actually made such a claim. In fact, they provided a long list of bona-fide sex differences. </p>
<p>The next time you read about a sex difference, if you have access to the research report you can graph the difference yourself on <a href="http://sexdifference.org/">SexDifference.org</a>. Enter the average value (reported as the “mean”) and variance (reported as the “standard deviation”) for each sex. The tool will automatically draw a graph and calculate the degree of overlap. You can then see for yourself the extent to which the trait is related to sex.</p>
<p>Don’t be surprised if you can’t find the values you need to graph the difference. The authors may not report them, or they may not have actually compared the sexes. Take, for example, the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2741">report</a> last year on thermal comfort in office buildings. The media were aflutter for days, explaining why women are always cold at the office. A quick look at the scientific paper itself shows that there were no men in the study at all! This makes calculating the overlap a bit problematic.</p>
<h2>Why overlap matters</h2>
<p>Overlap between the sexes may seem so <a href="http://economicsdetective.com/2015/12/new-study-finds-strong-evidence-of-male-female-brain-differences/">obvious</a> that it needs no discussion. But its underappreciation is leading educators to separate boys and girls into <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_339">single-sex classrooms</a> in order to accommodate their different brains, and physicians to consider sex, instead of more relevant factors such as body weight, when <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13419.full#">prescribing drugs</a>. Although well-intentioned, these practices amount to stereotyping because they assume the distribution looks like the top graph above when it may look more like the bottom one. </p>
<p>Nearly every day, new research is published that, if overinterpreted, could be used to promote sex stereotypes. Most neuroscientists are not interested in doing that. The few neuroscientists who do overinterpret their data, often to the great delight of the media and the public, provide fuel for discriminatory practices and cast the entire field in a negative light. The best way to deal with dubious interpretations is to examine the data and draw our own conclusions. The data will speak for themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54201/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Donna L. Maney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Are there sex differences in the human brain? The answer is more nuanced than yes or no.Donna L. Maney, Professor of Psychology, Emory UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/536772016-02-11T16:05:13Z2016-02-11T16:05:13ZThe logic of journal embargoes: why we have to wait for scientific news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111203/original/image-20160211-29190-1yx92jl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Extra, extra! The embargo's lifted, read all about it.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=248829895&src=id">Newspapers image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rumors were flying through the blogosphere this winter: physicists at the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (<a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/">LIGO</a>) may finally have directly detected <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-6-cosmic-questions-they-can-tackle-1.19337">gravitational waves</a>, ripples in the fabric of space-time predicted by Einstein 100 years ago in his general theory of relativity. Gravitational waves were predicted to be produced by cataclysmic events such as the collision of two black holes.</p>
<p>If true, it would be a very big deal: a rare chance for scientists to grab the attention of the public through news of cutting-edge research. So why were the scientists themselves keeping mum?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"686574829542092800"}"></div></p>
<p>This wouldn’t be the first time scientists thought they had detected gravitational waves. In March 2014, a group claimed to have done so. In that case, scientists announced their discovery when they posted an article in <a href="http://arxiv.org">arXiv</a>, a preprint server where physicists and other scientists share research findings prior to acceptance by a peer-reviewed publications. Turns out that group was <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830">wrong</a> – they were actually looking at galactic dust. </p>
<p>The LIGO scientists were more careful. Fred Raab, head of the LIGO laboratory, <a href="http://www.geekwire.com/2016/after-gravitation-wave-rumors-its-getting-close-to-go-time-for-advanced-ligo-results/">explained</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As we have done for the past 15 years, we take data, analyze the data, write up the results for publication in scientific journals, and once the results are accepted for publication, we announce results broadly on the day of publication or shortly thereafter. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"686587441478766592"}"></div></p>
<p>And that’s what they did, timing their news conferences and media outreach to coincide with the <a href="http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102">official publication</a> in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters about their discovery. Why did they delay their public announcement rather than spread the word as widely as possible as soon as possible?</p>
<h2>Science’s standard operating procedure</h2>
<p>Although it may sound unnecessarily cautious, the process Raab described is how most scientists prepare and vet discoveries prior to announcing them to the world – and, indeed, it’s the process most scientific journals insist upon. <em>Nature</em>, for example, <a href="http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html">prohibits</a> authors from speaking with the press about a submitted paper until the week before publication, and then only under conditions set by the journal. </p>
<p>Scientific publishing serves both the scientist and the public. It’s a quid pro quo: the authors get to claim priority for the result – meaning they got there before any other scientists did – and in return the public (including competing scientists) gets access to the experimental design, the data and the reasoning that led to the result. Priority in the form of scientific publishing earns scientists their academic rewards, including more funding for their research, jobs, promotions and prizes; in return, they reveal their work at a level of detail that other scientists can build on and ideally replicate and confirm. </p>
<p>News coverage of a scientific discovery is another way for scientists to claim priority, but without the vetted scientific paper right there alongside it, there is no quid pro quo. The claim is without substance, and the public, while titillated, does not benefit – because no one can act on the claim until the scientific paper and underlying data are available.</p>
<p>Thus, most scientific journals insist on a “press embargo,” a time during which scientists and reporters who are given advanced copies of articles agree not to publish in the popular press until the scientific peer review and publishing process is complete. With the advent of <a href="http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/oct00/tomaiuolo&packer.htm">preprint servers</a>, however, this process itself is evolving. </p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197706022962204">First introduced</a> in 1977, journal embargoes reflect a scientific journal’s desire both to protect its own <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198110013051408">newsworthiness</a> and to protect the public from misinformation. If a result is wrong (as was the case with the 2014 gravitational wave result), peer review is supposed to catch it. At the least, it means experts other than the researchers themselves examined the experimental design and the data and agreed that the conclusions were justified and the interpretations reasonable. </p>
<p>Often, results are more “nuanced” than the news article or press conference suggests. Yes, this new drug combination makes a (minor) difference, but it doesn’t cure cancer. Finally, the result could be correct, but not because of the data in that paper, and the premature press conference claims an unwarranted priority that can disrupt other research. In all these cases, having access to the research article and the underlying data is critical for the news to be meaningful.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111035/original/image-20160210-12153-9yc2pi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Peer-reviewed and published.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maggie Villiger</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Purposes of a press embargo</h2>
<p>A press embargo has additional benefits for the reporter, the journal and the public.</p>
<p>Multiple journalists get an equal chance to publish a well-researched and balanced article. In exchange for respecting the journal’s press embargo, reporters find out what’s being published in advance of publication. This gives multiple journalists a chance to read the scientific article, find experts who can help them make sense of the article, and publish a carefully crafted story. From the scientist’s (and scientific journal’s) perspective, this maximizes the quality and quantity of the coverage by the press.</p>
<p>The public gains access to the scientific article very close to the time they read the news story. The popular press tends to bias a story toward what’s “newsworthy” about it – and that sometimes winds up exaggerating or otherwise inaccurately summarizing the scientific article. When that article relates to human health, for instance, it’s important that doctors have access to the original scientific paper before their patients start inquiring about new treatments they’d heard about in the news.</p>
<p>Other scientific experts gain access to the scientific article as soon as the findings become news. Scientists who jump the gun and allow their research to become news before publication in an academic journal are making unvetted claims that can turn out to be less important once the peer-reviewed article eventually appears.</p>
<p>A press embargo can protect a scientist’s claim for priority in the face of competition from other scientists and journals. Scientists generally accept journal publication dates as indicators of priority – but when a discovery makes news, the journal considering a competitor’s paper often both releases its authors from the embargo and races the paper to publication. And, if your competitor’s paper comes out first, you’ve lost the priority race.</p>
<p>The embargo system allows time for prepublication peer review. Most experiments designed to address research questions are complicated and indirect. Reviewers often require additional experiments or analyses prior to publication. Prepublication peer review can take a long time, and its value <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/dmm.001388">has been</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals">questioned</a>, but it is currently the norm. If a news story came out on the paper while it was under review, the process of peer review could be jeopardized by pressure to “show the data” based on the news article. Many journals would decline publication under those conditions, leaving the authors and public in limbo.</p>
<p>I know of no case in which talking about a discovery in advance of scientific publication helps the public. Yes, “breaking news” is exciting. But journalists and other writers can tell riveting stories about science that convey the excitement of discovery without breaking journal embargoes. And the scientific community can continue to work on speeding its communication with the public while preserving the quid pro quo of scientific publication.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vivian Siegel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sometimes big research news bypasses the usual scientific publishing process. Here’s why that’s not good for scientists or the public.Vivian Siegel, Visiting Instructor of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/521012015-12-09T18:01:09Z2015-12-09T18:01:09ZPositive Paris talks not like cynical Copenhagen – but how will media cope?<p>It has become a mantra here that Paris 2015 is not Copenhagen 2009. This time, the US and China are on board; the price of renewables has dropped by more than half; the vast majority of countries here have already pledged emission cuts and Paris is seen as a “staging post” not a final destination.</p>
<p>But how different is Paris 2015 for the 3,700 media representatives accredited here?</p>
<p>Like Copenhagen, where there were <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Summoned%20by%20Science%20Reporting%20Climate%20Change%20at%20Copenhagen%20and%20beyond_0.pdf">4,000 from nearly 120 countries</a>, the sheer volume of journalists makes the summits two of the most media-covered political events ever.</p>
<p>So it’s a daunting task for anyone analysing the bewildering array of content the journalists are producing. </p>
<p>A preliminary look at some of the hundreds of articles already published by the mainstream media suggests that, as in Copenhagen, the main angles are the process of the negotiations, and the political wrangling behind the sticking points.</p>
<p>So in Paris, much has already been published about <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-indias-plan-to-fight-climate-change-doesnt-hold-water-51966">the position of India</a>, whereas in Copenhagen there was more <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas">about China</a>.</p>
<p>More interesting are the other aspects of the climate change “mega-story” that journalists choose to cover beyond the negotiations. One strong impression is that since Copenhagen, as one veteran agency reporter put it to me recently, “climate change has moved from being just an environment story to a business and energy story”. </p>
<p>The Financial Times, for instance, has long been interested in climate change for its business readers (often presenting it a risk issue). It covered the Copenhagen summit extensively. But this time round, like many legacy media organisations, the FT has added a live blog, videos, a beginners’ guide, and <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/paris-climate-talks">a special index on the Paris talks</a>.</p>
<p>Another difference is that journalists here receive an endless stream of announcements of new initiatives on renewables, technology and business risk. And many of them have received extensive coverage – the <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/calm-storm-paris-prepares-climate-130346382.html">new initiative by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg</a> to boost clean energy research in the new “Breakthrough Energy Coalition” predictably hit the headlines beyond the business press.</p>
<p>But so did <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/major-powers-pledge-20bn-for-green-energy-research">the pledge by the US and 18 other countries</a> to double funding for similar research, India’s <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/modi-launches-international-solar-alliance/article7934560.ece">International Solar Alliance</a> aiming to boost the use of solar power, and the announcement of an <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-g20-fsb-idUSKBN0TN18P20151204">international Financial Stability Board</a>, chaired by Michael Bloomberg, to manage threats from climate risks.</p>
<p>In the same vein, the Washington Post headlined <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/04/this-may-be-the-biggest-news-yet-to-come-out-of-the-paris-climate-meeting/">a recent piece</a> as possibly “the biggest news yet to come out of the Paris climate meeting”. It was not about some breakthrough in the negotiations, but about a new initiative to deliver at least 300 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity to Africa by 2030, all from clean or renewable energy.</p>
<p>Such stories are one indication of how media narratives about climate change are becoming more about hope and opportunity and less about the more traditional doom and gloom.</p>
<p>In part, this may be due to a realisation that the transition to a low-carbon economy is inevitable, even though the pace of it is uncertain. But for some media organisations, such as the Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/05/a-story-of-hope-the-guardian-launches-phase-two-of-its-climate-change-campaign">more messages of hope</a> form part of a deliberate editorial policy driven in part by readers’ wishes.</p>
<p>Another major change since Copenhagen is the boom in <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/">niche sites</a> about climate change and the rise of successful “digital natives” such as Huffington Post, Vice and BuzzFeed giving priority to environment coverage.</p>
<p>At first sight, BuzzFeed is offering its traditional diet of listicles, photo galleries, quizzes and humorous content. But a closer look shows that much of its coverage is <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/climate-scientists-on-what-makes-them-hopeful">positive and hopeful</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105104/original/image-20151209-15584-x6etnl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Buzzfeed tends to look for the positives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/climate-scientists-on-what-makes-them-hopeful">Buzzfeed</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They and other new players seem to offer no space to sceptical voices. The “Climategate affair” received considerable coverage at the time of the Copenhagen summit, offering plenty of traction to deniers <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-apart">particularly in the UK and US</a>. But this time round there seems to be a consensus that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-skeptics-idUSKBN0TQ2F220151208#uRFDqlfxGHvbjLkD.97">deniers have become much more marginal</a>. Unilever boss Paul Polman recently described them as “the only endangered species”.</p>
<p>Matt Ridley, the Conservative hereditary peer who describes himself as a “lukewarm” sceptic, is an exception. He has appeared in several right-leaning newspapers in <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate-1448656890">the US</a>, <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4626317.ece">UK</a> and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/cutting-emissions-is-secondary-to-global-warming/news-story/687645a6ab6ef4360a70f75e93c4280a?=">Australia</a>. But several climate scientists <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims">have come out fighting</a>, laboriously picking holes in a recent interview he gave to the BBC.</p>
<p>A crucial test remains for the media at the end of the summit. The wise money is on some sort of deal being signed here. The outcome is likely not to be enough to keep warming below 2°C, but nevertheless an important step on the path.</p>
<p>It is a truism that journalists like binary stories with winners and losers, and success or failure – nuance will be more of a challenge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter is coordinating research in six countries on how new and old media are covering the summit. In the past he has received money from the European Climate Foundation, the Norwegian Environment Agency, the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, and the British Council. </span></em></p>The media prefers positive stories to the traditional doom and gloom of climate coverage.James Painter, Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.