Comments on: Does science journalism falter or flourish under embargo?

By: Lancet editor and embargo addict Richard Horton calls for openness « Embargo Watch

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:25:19 +0000

[...] has been outspoken about embargoes before. As Ed Yong reported last year, this was the scene as Richard — whom Ed said suffers from a 14-year embargo addiction [...]

By: David Dobbs

David Dobbs — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:11:35 +0000

Comrade Physioprof asks:
“What kind of “investigative journalism” could science journalists possibly engage in that relate to scientific discoveries per se, and not things like corruption or fraud?”
The kind that looks at science gone awry. Like, for example, the overexpansion of the PTSD diagnosis (http://is.gd/1qfES) or the growing debacle over the DSM-V. That’s watchdogging.

By: Stephen Serjeant

Stephen Serjeant — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:42:17 +0000

Since when was the Lancet obscure?

By: Sojournposse

Sojournposse — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:23:43 +0000

Well done, Mr Yong, for raising this issue.
Never mind the embargo, I find that many science journalists, especially those working for trade rags, sell out big time anyway. Scoop? What is that? At the life science publication I am currently at, so-called journalists are no more than a mouthpiece for pharma and agchem companies. They let the PR people edit their copies, and they thrive on press junkets – especially overseas trips – sponsored by these companies.
Some don’t even have science or technology background (degree in journalism only). Those who have the qualifications got swept away by the PR/press machine – because they have bills to pay, or when the opportunity comes, leave to pursue science once more.
Thankfully, this is the kick in the arse that I need. This summer, I will go back to uni to do social sciences again (well, digital anthropology). The world needs knowledge, wisdom and guidance – which science might be able to provide – not another PR noise.
So thank goodness for rubbish journalism.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:41:05 +0000

Similarly, the concept that ridding science reporters of embargoes would foment more investigative journalism is surely too simplistic.

What kind of “investigative journalism” could science journalists possibly engage in that relate to scientific discoveries per se, and not things like corruption or fraud? Unlike in the case of traditional arenas for investigative journalism, such as government and politics, science journalists have no recognized right of access to the people who could possibly give them information about new scientific discoveries before they are published.
If some reporter came snooping around asking me questions about what other people in my field are doing, I’d tell her to go fuck herself. And if any of my trainees or collaborators disclosed unpublished information to a science journalist about things going on in my lab without my permission, I’d crush them.
So, what could a science journalist possibly “investigate” in a way that doesn’t depend upon either published information, or information provided with the consent of the scientists and/or journal publishers?

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:34:13 +0000

Strange Loops – different press offices have different policies on what sort of people they allow on their list, ranging from fairly relaxed to utterly draconian. There are aggregators like Eurekalert and AlphaGalileo, but your university press office probably has a list of journos that they distribute to.
John – I wholeheartedly agree and no, there wasn’t much detail given from those calling for more investigative reporting as to what that might entail (at least, not that I recall).
The Ida paper was the ultimate example of worst practice. There was a half-hearted embargo in that some of the scientists blabbed to the media first, while the paper was only provided to certain journalists under incredibly restricted conditions. (I know you already know this btw; I’m citing it as an case study for other readers).

By: John Timmer

John Timmer — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:13:45 +0000

I’ve seen the Lancet editor make that argument in print. What I’ve not seen him do is actually describe what reporters would be investigating. Did he do anything of the sort at the SCSJ?
In any case, i think there’s a tremendous value to giving people the chance to digest papers before they can report on something, especially in light of the problem with press releases and the like. Ida was a great example – a claim via promotion done straight to the press that’s completely absent from the paper. You can see similar things with the recent “birds aren’t dinosaurs” and “orangutans are humans’ closest relatives” press releases. Both contained overblown claims that peer review didn’t allow into the actual papers.
So, my counterargument would be that peer review acts as a restraint on scientists’ advancement of their pet ideas, and the embargo system improves the chances that press coverage incorporates the results of peer review.

By: Strange Loops

Strange Loops — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:02:56 +0000

Hey Ed, long time reader, first time commenter (heh, I had to say it).
Thanks for sharing this. I’m a scientist myself (okay, okay, an all-but-diss grad student), but my passion has always been the philosophy, history and communication of science.
I’m curious — how does one get access to the embargoed stories? What sort of journo-cred is required? I’ve seen things from the other end (from behind my university’s science PR dude and how he preps material to send out for an embargoed story), but no idea how science journalists get access to that.