Comments on: Who’s To Blame for Bad Science News Reporting

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:41:11 +0000

“I simultaneously am annoyed and disgusted at the spread of misinformation by professionals who should know better, but delighted by the excellent blog fodder.”

I see this as problematic in that it increases the gap of knowledge amongst the general public even further. The majority of the general public are passive learners of science and will disporportionately hear more misinformation as general science reporting becomes more sensationalized. Bloggers, on the other hand tend to reach people who seek out information (therefore less likely to be passive learners), and this group will also be more knowledgeable on average.

If these apparent trends continue, it will result in the most knowledgeable becoming even more so (and more sophisticated about the bad reporting), and the least knowledgeable becoming more confused (confused at best, misinformed at worst). I don’t see blogging as an antidote to the problem until their visibility approaches that of mainstream media. Right now it is largely a self selected bunch being exposed to the good stuff.

By: pseudonymoniae

pseudonymoniae — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 02:23:08 +0000

A point you might want to include Dr Novella is that there tend to be rather perversE incentives at each and every level of the process to obfuscate, prevaricate and ultimately fabricate simpler and ostensibly more interesting explanations for the results of many scientific findings. Clearly the incentives to correct the explanatory failings of others also exist, by generally only for individuals who are more talented, conscientious or both (at transmiting knowledge) than the average member of these chains of misinformation.

By: SARA

SARA — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:19:49 +0000

Human Nature being what it is, I don’t suppose we will ever completely eradicate bad science reporting.

I saw an article a while ago about a drug that might eliminate baldness. I clicked on the link to the study and found that it was being developed for some disease (sorry I don’t remember which) but it had a curious side effect of growing more hair in a certain percentage of the patients.

The side effect was not prominently listed in the abstract. The abstract was about the drug’s effectiveness with the disease. But the article left it’s intended purpose to one line at the end of the article.

Science Journalists also look for the hook. A cure for baldness is a hook.

By: Orac

Orac — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:58:12 +0000

Speaking of good science journalists, sadly we’ve lost one of the best. Trine Tsouderos recently announced that she’s leaving the Chicago Tribune to take a job that doesn’t involve science journalism. It’s a huge loss.

By: Orac

Orac — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:56:25 +0000

It often begins with the press release:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/

By: MWSletten

MWSletten — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:57:42 +0000

Interesting (and often funny) discussion of the way neuroscience is often misrepresented by the media.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2012/09/your-brain-pseudoscience