The Media: Scientists Can’t Live with Them, nor without Them

The media continues to misreport, misunderstand, mis- quote and exaggerate science, creating quite a stir in the scientific community. Why do they do this?  Perhaps out of ignorance, lack of specialisation or, dishearteningly, just to sell a few papers. 

It is somewhat ironic that one of the few channels avail- able for the popularisation of scientific knowledge is also responsible for the demise of its reputation.  The misreport- ing of research has the ability to induce unnecessary but profound panic, leading to long lasting and wide spread concern. Such actions, including the use of wacky headlines and general hyperbole can discredit both the scientists and journalists concerned. The demoralizing effects on the re- searchers themselves can include not only the unnecessary personal humiliation but also the possibility that they lose their funding, or even lose their willingness to communicate findings to the public altogether. 

This issue is ongoing. Recently, Professor Simon Baron- Cohen, Director of the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge [4], became one of the latest victims in the battle for accurate depiction of research. On January 12th this year he published a paper in the British Journal of Psychology following a study that showed a positive correlation between foetal levels of testosterone and certain behavioural ‘autistic traits’ [3]. His paper found its way onto the front page of The Guardian under the headline “new research brings autism screening closer to reality”, with the strapline reading “call for ethics debate as tests in the womb could allow termination of pregnancies”. Baron-Cohen retorted to this with an article published in the New Scientist in which he attempted to clarify a fact that The Guardian seemed to have completely missed – that nowhere in his paper was it suggested that high levels of testosterone in the womb are linked to autism itself, especially since none of the 235 children studied had autism. It instead found a relationship between high foetal testosterone and autistic traits [2]. Baron-Cohen argued that “the headline writers went beyond the data to create a simple, bite-size but inaccurate message” as well as fused “two issues that should have been kept separate: the study itself, on prenatal hormonal effects in children developing typically, and the issue of autism screening” [2]. 

A sloppy headline, if not forgivable, can at least be a simple misunderstanding, after all science can be very hard to grasp for anyone unfamiliar with the subject.  The science that is communicated to the public is forever being ‘dumbed down’ by journalists in the hope of expanding the potential audience [1]. “While stories on GM food or cloning stood a good chance of being written by specialist science reporters” writes The Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre in his book ‘Bad Science’, “80% of the coverage [of the MMR/autism hoax] was by generalist reporters”[1]. Moreover, science journalism often involves the employment of a second or even third party, creating multiple opportunities for misun- derstanding and general errors to occur. Most worryingly, experimental evidence is rarely presented in the article itself [1], never allowing the reader to form their own opinions and forcing them to rely on conclusions drawn by some under-qualified reporter or editor.   

Under pressure to bring in readers with break-through stories, journalists have been known to bend the truth or pick and choose their sources, ignoring counter-evidence to favour their argument. As highlighted by Goldacre, sci- ence is rarely groundbreaking – it is often slow moving, with the accumulation of small incremental discoveries contributing to present day knowledge. Thus, journalists may feel obliged to exaggerate or deliberately misinform the reader with the hope of deceiving them into believing the research in question is a breakthrough [1]. Health storiesare particularly vulnerable to this sort of manipulation as they equate to good business in the media; after all, the new finding may affect every reader. Whether intentional or accidental, the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of statistics is often a significant part of this. Few health scares have had the coverage comparable with the MMR/ autism hoax, which started in the nineties and steamrolled its way through the papers for nine years [1] thanks to such ‘bad stats’. Reports of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism resulted in the rate of vaccinations falling from 92% to 80% [9], after which the number of cases of measles in the UK soared, despite numerous follow-up studies failing to support these claims [10]. 

Most scientists think of communicating results as integral to the process of research, nevertheless there has recently been cause for concern as we witness the beginnings of a decline in science journalism within the realm of the mass media. The results of a recent Nature survey of 493 scientists revealed an alarming loss of jobs in science journalism, whilst reporting that 59% of the journalists remaining were suffering from a subsequent increase in workload [6]. This is possibly due an overall trend towards cutbacks in newspaper staff or to a shift in science communication towards the use of online blogging and other forms of internet media [5], instead of the more traditional channels. 

Science blogs allow scientists and institutions more influence over published material and hence what the public reads. Whilst this seems to solve the problems created by second party communication, science blogging has its own downfalls as it reduces the size of the audience exposed to new discoveries. Despite the most successful websites attracting hundreds of thousands of readers each month [6], information is only available to those who seek it and important discoveries may be ignored simply because the public are unaware that they have happened. 

In light of the ever-diminishing relationship between scientists and the media, the decline of science journalism seems understandable, if not inevitable. One is left wondering whether the decline is the cause or effect of this deteriorat- ing relationship. Whatever the case, solutions are available which predominantly involve the introduction of systems in which science articles are subject to tighter controls. After all, the 1999 “Frankenstein Food” debacle stemmed from the release of unpublished, and hence not yet reviewed, material by Arpad Pusztai [8]. Numerous stories appeared in the Daily Mail and the Express superfluously condemn- ing all GM foods [7] following Pusztai’s claims that mice develop stunted growth and impaired immune responses from eating genetically altered potatoes [8]. Baron-Cohen feels passionately about the inconsistency concerned, “if scientists are regulated by ethics committees, perhaps science journalists should also have some kind of regulation”. Whilst the time restraints that journalists are subject to would make the practicalities of such a system difficult, he believes that “at the very least science journalists could offer free peer review to each other prior to printing.” 

Baron-Cohen fears that “misinformation may influence public opinion about research” and that “this could in theory affect parents’ willingness to join in research studies and even funders’ willingness to fund research”. Emphasising that science journalism “is essential if we are to avoid a two-tier society between scientists who have the knowledge and the public who do not”, and despite the many disheartening examples of misreported science, he still believes that the “pros [of science journalism] outweigh the cons”; nevertheless he is calling for “tighter regulations” as a new way forward.  

 Laura Corrigan is a third year studying Zoology at Gonville and Caius College.