AIDS at 25

If I could have been at this week's conference for one session, it would have been this morning's symposium on AIDS denial and responsible journalism. Hannah has already mentioned it and given her impressions and thoughts. The session itself was moderated by HIV researcher Daniel Kuritzkes and journalist Laurie Garrett, currently a Senior Fellow on Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations. Talks were also given by HIV researcher John Moore, South Africa-based science journalist Tamar Khan, Toronto Star science reporter Kim Honey, and Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign. From Hannah's report, it seems there was quite a bit of audience involvement as well.

The issue of reporters and how they address the "controversy" over HIV is one that has implications for fields far beyond just HIV science. Hannah noted that a debate opened up discussing whether journalists should challenge scientific consensus in general. She notes that Lancet editor Richard Horton:

...also accused [journalists] of being too polite, of listening to the dissenting views of denialists and printing their words because they are invited to speak on the world's stage.

This reverberates far beyond HIV, and is a discussion that's also taken place recently regarding how journalists should report on "intelligent design" and the science of climate change. In each case, a small group of scientists and laymen (sometimes including journalists) voice their objections to the mainstream science, typically relying upon the strategies Dr. Moore mentioned ("the abuse of science, their failure to publish any of their own work in peer-reviewed journals, and the myths they spread") rather than any original research that actually would counter the status quo. Some journalists are quite pointed in saying that these are "fringe" ideas and don't represent the vast majority of scientists; others seem to feel that they must provide a sense of "balance" or equality, even when the actual scientific consensus is anything but.

The problem is that, for every solid scientific consensus out there, there's someone, somewhere, who thinks it's bunk. Witness the recent germ theory denier who graced my blog. There are still even actual flat earthers out there. There are many real scientific controversies that swirl around us today, and many in the recent past that have since largely been resolved. The difference between these and the "controversy" over HIV or "intelligent design" is that the former have been resolved by scientists, in the scientific literature. Journalists should be wary of any so-called "controversy" that, because of its utter defeat in mainstream science, moves its campaign into the public sphere.