The other day I was chatting with one of my contacts within the world of journalism, who told me about attending a conference aimed at getting reporters more access to scientists. The conference actually collected a good number of working scientists who came to speak with the reporters (not just to present them information, but to answer questions at length). And, the reporters got the opportunity to see research as it was being conducted (e.g., to be in the field with scientists to watch their data collection, rather than just to hear the conclusions drawn at the end of the process). It all sounded promising to me.
"But," said my informant, "lots of the reporters who were there would listen to the scientists with this reflexive attitude of 'You're lying to us.'"
What's going on here?
My first reaction to this news was to think, those darned politicians and corporate flaks, with their tenuous relationships with the truth, have gone and ruined press conferences for everyone else. Much as I'd like to, though, I probably can't blame the politicos or the PR people for this one.
Could it be that the reporters were acting on a weird notion of objectivity that required them to question everything their sources say? Maybe. After all, it's not like there haven't been scientists fronting for corporate interests before, reporting their findings in the best possible light for the interests of their corporate masters. As well, there have been worries that government scientists have been pressured to play up certain findings and to keep quiet about others. But if it were the case that journalists were applying a thoroughgoing critical stance toward their sources, I would have thought we'd see this reflected in the stories that result. My sense is these stories don't often contain critical examination of claims so much as the reporting of the views of "both sides" of any given issue, presented as if the sides have equal evidential support.
My informant suggested something else at work here: on the "environment beat," the line between journalism and advocacy has gotten blurry. That, in turn, may make the journalist-advocates wary of sources of factual information and informed analyses (like scientists) that may not always line up neatly with the story the journalist-advocate wants to write.
The information scientists piece together about the world is full of complexities. Sometimes these complexities are hard for the non-scientist to grasp. (Sometimes they seem like contradictions rather than complexities.) Not every scientist is great at explaining the complexities clearly to a non-scientist. Often the complexities put limits on how accurately and precisely scientists can predict what's going to happen next. And, plenty of scientists will insist that their job is not to tell people how to act on the knowledge they produce, but rather to make sure that knowledge is as well-grounded as possible.
From the journalist-advocate's point of view, it might be more convenient to have a scientist willing to say: here is what we measured, here is what it means, here is what we ought to do about it. Maybe the scientist who points toward uncertainties, or who refuses to identify a public policy upshot as required, is dissembling ... perhaps to protect his or her job security, or economic interests, or whatever. Maybe this scientist is just too scared (or greedy, or high on his or her own power, or whatever) to tell what he or she really knows. Because the scientist isn't making such a straightforward declaration of the facts, the scientist can't really be trusted.
Needless to say, I find this attitude troubling, especially in the context of a multiday meeting in which scientists were trying very hard to communicate with journalists -- not just to talk to them, but to listen to them.
The thing is (and I've noted it before), good science and good journalism really do have a lot in common. Even though you need to start with some ideas and hunches as you're following a story, or building a piece of scientific knowledge, in the end you aren't just going to tell the story you wanted to tell, the facts be damned. The facts you uncover necessarily have a role in shaping the story you end up telling. Otherwise, why bother with research at all?
I don't know that you should be all that surprised. We'd like to think that everyone listens to scientists as paragons of truth and uprightness, because our motives are free from greed or selfish intent. Like in the 50s monster movies when everyone would shut up and listen intently to the explanation from the guy in the white coat.
Skepticism is healthy, even the somewhat nasty skepticism of assuming dishonesty automatically. Did you read this article in the WSJ this morning about scientists shilling for the drug companies over depression treatments? I read things like this and I certainly don't trust studies coming from industry. Or how about the series of articles in PLoS on disease mongering. There's a lot of good reasons to approach science, especially industry-funded science, with total skepticism.
Hell, I go to scientific meetings expecting at least some of the people to be pulling my chain. You can smell it, the handwaving, fast explanations, tearing through weak results hoping you won't read faster than they can click to the next slide.
The trick is, and what should be communicated to journalists, is how to smell out the good science from the bad or at least the minimum effort that should be expended confirming science with peers and leaders in the relevant field. I'm not saying that we need to have a crackdown on bad science and get all punitive at all, don't worry. A lot of mediocre science often has to be done before someone figures out something great, and hey, you gotta justify those grants somehow. But the good science, it just makes your jaw drop. Like when someone has systematically figured out some really complex mechanism and just pounded through it leaving no doubt, or when someone stumbles on something really striking and simple that you can't believe no one saw before.
Lots of crappy papers seem to get attention from the lay press that if I were the reviewer I would have shredded and never allowed it to be published. Often they say something wacky, or even more frequently, confirm some prejudice of the masses, and that's not a bad thing necessarily. But at the very minimum all such articles should have at least a couple sentences dedicated to interviewing leaders in the field, peers etc., who can comment on the strength and significance of the paper, and be given an opportunity to call bullshit what it is.
I was a newspaper reporter for about four years before I went back to grad school, ending up with a phd in atmospheric science. I think (or like to think) this gives me some insight into journalism that many scientists don't have. In short, I have a very low opinion of general media reporters, both electronic (very bad) and print (maybe not quite so bad). My opinion is that journalists are, as a group, the least well educated of all professionals. I am sure there are some very good science and technology reporters; I suspect they would not fall into that group that automatically assumes scientists are lying. As for the rest, I think there is a tendency to distrust things that they don't understand. For them, journalistic balance does mean "telling both sides." Or, as usually happens, seeking out someone to give an opposing view on whatever the main story is about. With little education about the subject, they are left to try to sort out things by deciding who is the most credible, regardless of credentials, which they are not qualified to judge. I also think some reporters are quite carried away with themselves as representatives of the only profession with pure motives. They are not motivated by money (check out the income of reporters from any but the biggest papers). They are motivated by truth, or so they like to believe, and they assume that they are the only ones who can be trusted to find that truth. It is up to them not only to report the facts, but to tell you what they mean. Listen to some of the news media's own puffery, and that's exactly what they proudly tell you.
So at least in my cynical view, it results from reporters' desire to show a lack of bias, expressed as aggressive disbelief; a fear of being gullible (more aggressive disbelief); and at least some lack of confidence when facing areas about which they know little.
Of course scientists lie to reporters. In some areas of research, the lies are routine. In the arena you travel in, the scientists are generally truthful, so you view all scientists as generally truthful. However, some areas of research are so politically charged that some scientists will actually lie about what they really believe.
Unfortunately, when an expert lies, near-experts will unknowingly pick up the lie, and if it fits their own world view, use it to confirm their beliefs. The snow ball effect continues until there appears to be a consensus between experts, near-experts and non-experts alike. This just further re-enforces the lie, making it even harder for the real experts to voice their dissension.
Reporters are acutely aware of this, but unlike the conventions mentioned above, most of those involved truly believe what they say, making it nearly impossible to just apply the standard BS detectors.
I have read papers whose abstracts actually contradict the data in the paper. I have seen headlines in the media that contradict the data in the papers on which they are reporting. I have seen secondary stories based on those primary stories, which go even farther in their conclusions, again completely contradicting the original data.
The real tragedy of this all, is that it becomes nearly impossible to discover the true meaning of the real data, unless you are actually one of the experts. Who are you going to believe? How do you tell the difference between the experts that actually believe what they say and those that are lying to protect their careers?
I've never read a geology paper which willfully and knowingly misinterpereted the data. I've seen sloppy experiments, incomplete understanding of the system being researched, and other aspects of mediocre science, but never an outright deception. Can you link to such a publication?
Lab lemming,
Your statement is a little bit contradictory. You say you've never seen a paper in geology that knowlingly misinterpreted the data, but you've seen sloppy experiments, incomplete understanding, mediocrity etc...that's what we're talking about. People talking big on just such a foundation of weakness.
We're not saying people are falsifying. Falsification is rare. We're saying people talk out of their ass a lot. Whether or not they have "intent" is questionable, and whether they knowingly did it can't really be proven. We're just mocking people who do sloppy stuff, present weak results etc., and make a big deal about it.