8 Responses to “How Science Reporting Works”

1. 1.   Walker Says:
   August 31st, 2009 at 11:35 am

   Today’s comic on science publishing is even better. It perfectly captures the “least publishable unit” phenomena that I have run into many, many times.

2. 2.   ARJ Says:
   August 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm

   In fairness though, it’s not just science reporting… it’s reporting on most serious subjects… politics, economics, war/foreign policy, even the arts… by practical necessity it’s all condensed and oversimplified to the point of being error-prone. The errors and misinformation in the reporting on healthcare reform have been abysmal (but predictable).

3. 3.   » Blog Archive » O cientista e o repórter Says:
   August 31st, 2009 at 9:22 pm

   [...] Via Discover [...]

4. 4.   MadScientist Says:
   September 1st, 2009 at 8:15 am

   Speaking of publishing – at a somewhat recent event one of the Murdochs told the audience that profit is the only guarantor of unbiased reporting – naturally I laughed until I was wheezing. “Fox News” is undoubtedly profitable but it is rarely, if ever, unbiased – and it is controlled by the Murdochs of course.

5. 5.   Ethan Siegel Says:
   September 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am

   Sheril,

   Thanks for this one! Although I often look at the actual science and the news articles that result and am appalled, my own personal experience with journalists has been very good. They’ve been accurate, circumspect, and have asked multiple follow-up questions to ensure that they’ve understood me correctly. (This is, admittedly, based on a small sample size of about 5.)

   How much of the problem do you think is unscrupulous, sensationalistic journalists (which certainly exist), and how much of the problem do you think is on the heads of scientists, who can’t form a complete sentence that can be understood by a non-scientist?

6. 6.   Roman Says:
   September 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

   Hilarious!!!

7. 7.   D Wolfe Says:
   December 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm

   In the case of climategate, the answer to Ethan Siegel is that the mainstream media will publish “a lot” without the faintest understanding of what they are saying and without questioning.

   The cognitive biases and logical errors in the process of doing climate research, peer review and publicizing and propagandizing the climate research is large: Confirmation bias (achieving results that confirm the expected or desired result); expert bias, not allowing questioning points of view to even be raised; selection bias — distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected; disfiguration of those having dissenting points of view; base rate fallacy or sampling bias (using only data that fits the desired story / result); media bias (a.k.a. polar bear syndrome .. did you know the polar bear population has actually been increasing?); moral credential effect — the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice; focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome; bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same (this is related to groupthink and herd behavior; focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event – causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome, probability or statistical bias – massaging the probabilities associated with outcomes to make your case appear more likely or more disastrous; Semmelweis reflex — the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm, or your own point of view, and others. Historian Norman Davies in “Europe – a History” defined his 5 rules of propaganda:

   1. Orchestration: repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations

   2. Deformation: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies

   3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if everyone is in agreement with it and attacking and conquering those who doubt it including use of appeals of famous people, so called experts and applying social pressure through planned media events, movies etc.

   4. Transfusion: manipulating the views/values of the public to your own advantage

   5. Simplification: reducing all facts into a comparison between ‘good and evil’ and ‘friends and enemies’

8. 8.   D Wolfe Says:
   December 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm

   In fact you might say that there has been a bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one’s own cognitive biases, or even bias seeking fallacy – using any means to achieve your desired outcome.