But whatever you do don’t shave, because that’s been shown to increase the risk of cancer, as will exposure to just about every product in your bathroom (hairspray, talcum powder, hair dye, shampoo) and the contents of your fridge (sausages, bacon, steak). And as for what we now know about tap water! It’s lethal, and a small wonder that any of us are still alive.
According to scientists, the world we live in is a death trap. Not a day goes by when there isn’t a warning that something or other will finish us off quicker than you can ask, “Do chocolate-covered raisins count as one of my five a day?’’
These claims, however outlandish, make news because they are backed up by scientific evidence of sorts. But even a cursory look reveals contradictions and inconsistencies. One minute we’re told there’s good evidence that red wine will stave off all manner of ailments, while the next we’re warned that a glass or two a night is only slightly better than downing rat poison.
It’s journalists who tend to be blamed for this, accused of wilfully distorting and misrepresenting the science to generate headlines. That is unfair. Instead, let’s look at the scientists as the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has done. It has reviewed press releases on health stories issued by the main universities in 2011, and tracked the subsequent news stories.
It found that many of the exaggerations and inaccuracies in the news reports originated in the press releases.
Over a third of the press releases made claims for the impact of the research on humans, when in fact the study was carried out on animals. A third also made claims of causation when an “association only’’ had been identified.
Particularly worrying was that many of the more excitable claims appear to have been written, or at least have been approved by, scientists — the press officers weren’t to blame.
The BMJ also found that the most hyped press releases generated the least amount of coverage, suggesting that journalists are far more rigorous than many give them credit for.
You could argue that journalists share some of the blame for not going back to the source material and checking out the claims.
But the reality is that journalists, like the public at large, have tended to believe what the white coats tell them because, well, scientists are wedded to empiricism and truth, aren’t they? Why would they lie? Their mission is a search for the truth.
So when a newspaper report says “scientists claim that...’’ and they have indeed claimed it and are quoted in a press release to boot, you can hardly blame the journalist.
The problem is that scientists don’t exist in the ivory towers of academia any more.
They have funding and grants to worry about and a front page story in a newspaper about their research is as important for securing future revenue as is getting it accepted by the Lancet.
And scientists have egos, too. It’s far more satisfying to think that the months spent pipetting something on to a Petri dish is now making headlines, rather than being buried in the back of an obscure journal. Add to this the fact that every research facility or university now has a press office, whose job it is to get research into the media.
Scientists know they have to make some bold and shocking claims if they are going to get people to take notice.
The other problem is that interpreting results and conclusions in a scientific paper relies on a degree of scientific literacy that most journalists don’t possess. I think that this is a good reason to make understanding and interpreting a scientific paper a fundamental part of science education.
That way we would encourage people to scrutinise the claims for themselves and, hopefully, improve public understanding of basic scientific principles instead of being hoodwinked by the hype.
No comments:
Post a Comment