The emergence — and explosion — of media has lead to an impressive amount of content being shared. While this has lead to some amazing things, with not only news traveling globally in nanoseconds but also open source initiatives, it has had some unforeseen and very unfortunate consequences in the realm of science. Namely, the loss of reputation due to pop science medias and non-rigorous peer review journals (to be discussed later).
I’ve had my rants about pop science before, but they still hold true. To be fair, it is really great that the general public is at least being exposed to big news in science. But when people do click on the baited title, the content is often non-serious, overblown, or un-cited.* granted, this is not true for many articles, but it’s frequent enough that it’s an issue. And sites like Buzzfeed and IFLS have gotten better over the past few months, it’s just the problematic articles that spread like wild fire through social media and give science a bad rep.
Moreover, on these media platforms it is not uncommon to find titles like “these weird nanorobots could make chemotherapy treatment easier” on the same page as “11 adorable photos that prove kitty sibling bonding is a very real thing” both under the header ‘science & technology.’ These are both very clickable titles, but they are definitely not on the same conceptual or importance level and the latter might even override any short term memory content you learned in the former. More importantly, a post about cat siblings that considers itself science is wrong. This is exactly why scientific research is losing credibility with mass communities, because ‘science’ is sometimes being marketed and conflated with meaningless feel-good schmutz.
Not to mention that entertainment news sources can weave a few case studies, that have no relevance in general, into an argument that should have serious implications on habits and health. The combination of the lack of depth, light hearted banter, and often unfounded conclusions (with the added bonus of skepticism, because science is broken, right?) can leave the reader confused whether or not to do anything about what they just read. A recent example that I’ve seen is a skit excerpt from truTV on dehydration.
A large part of the problem is scientists themselves do not write the news articles in which their research is featured. I get it: they want to stay in the lab and continue generating and analyzing data. And it is really great that journalists with non-science backgrounds take the time to try to understand and research the topic enough to write a piece on it. But they don’t have the same depth in knowledge on the topic to really convey the seriousness, to really paint the whole picture and express where this latest scientific break through fits into more general health concerns in a realistic way. While this is what it means to have a unit economy, the disjoint in communication between subfields of academia and the general public is an issue because it leaves the former to distance their scholarly efforts away from having practical applications and the latter from misunderstanding the medical and technological advances that are affecting their lives.
Part of the reason this gap exists is because academics think that it is very un-scholarly to write for a journal that is not the top ranked publisher in that field. A recent article by The System Scientists cites survey results saying “that many academics do not see it as their role to be an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal benefits for investing in these activities.” I am not sure if it’s really out of some disdain for anything less than scholarly thought for it’s own sake that keeps them on a sort of high horse over ‘the common pleb’ or a sort of nihilistic outlook on life that keeps them from thinking their very informed opinion matters but either way it’s disheartening.
It’s also frustrating to think groups of the smartest people, researching and figuring out how the world and humans work and function optimally, choose not to be a part of bettering the world. I totally respect the rights of the lab, company, and researcher of academic ownership of what they discovered and the freedom to distribute any product in any honest way they choose, but to not even weigh in on public health issues seems uncaring about the people who are (normally) funding their research in the first place (taxpayers). But even more than the practicality of conveying the importance of your research findings to your monetary source, should be the aesthetic desire to help people. That feeling of wanting to help others, contrary to popular belief, does not have to mean making everything you do free i.e.) if you are developing a new technology or drug.
Even the president of the University of Michigan argues that “it’s actually a responsibility or even an obligation of universities [note: UMich is a state school] to engage in public discourse and to share the expertise that we accumulate, the knowledge we discover, and the understanding that we achieve with the public at large.” beyond this, he added that tenure should facilitate public engagement: “we forget the privilege it is to have lifelong security of employment at a spectacular university. And I don’t think we use it for its intended purpose. I think that faculty on average through the generations are becoming a bit careerist and staying inside their comfort zones.” I think that many academics can fall into this line of thinking, that their work is elitist because it’s complex. However, it’s fine, and a different story, if academics do not have the desire to to and/or do not have the skill set to reach out and educate the public on their work. But just as it is wrong for click-bate articles to belittle the scientific process without understanding it, academics should not belittle the value of information and education especially since it’s a contradiction for them to in particular. And as such, (scientific) journalists need to be more aware of the content they are producing and their intentions.
Something that I, a scientist (and rookie journalist), am personally working on is making articles more accessible, understandable, and developing ways to do that. So far, I think that actually providing primary sources only is a good first step, but more work (both on my end and in general) needs to be done to teach readers how to fact check the article and make sure that the paper actually does lay a groundwork for the sweeping claims that the news post states. Best part about this is that sort of information can be found in the abstract of the paper which is usually always free no matter the paywall so it does not require extensive knowledge of scientific methods. While I think that print (online or paper) are forms of communication that are easily accessible and tangible to most, videos and clips are also very valuable. Many youtube channels have really seized that platform as a means of educating many people, like Veritasium or CrashCourse.
With the amazing technology and platforms that are available for news and education, producers should use it more wisely to promote curiosity rather than slander. In general, journalists of all types should value the validity of the story they are telling over the number of views it gets. I’m convinced that there is a way to tell a complex narrative about an intricate and important scientific finding in an engaging way. And who would know better than the scientists themselves! It’s time that people heard what we do straight from the source so we can defend why the scientific process and peer review is important. Justify why recent findings are contradictory or why the work is important. Explain what the statistical significance of the results and how your method proves it. Sure it will take some background explaining, but it’s important that larger communities of people don’t remain divided or hold disdain for each other.
Scientists are equipped with so many tools, mainly our ability to observe, test, reason, and present an argument, that are ideal for conveying information to individuals outside of our small fields of focus. Imagine a world that is actually interested, and can kind of understand, the work that you do and can meaningfully support research in that field with confidence that good work is being done! Scientists can help make that happen if a few are willing to step out and continue their important efforts outside of the lab as well.
* edit: when I say un-cited, I mean that the statements made do not are not directly tied to the publication that first stated it. Often times online publications are very self referential and will hyperlink to other articles on the same page, or cite another news sources. For example this article ‘cites’ this article which cites this article.