Rotten Apple
One rotten apple? Photo by Sparrow’s Friend.

In this week’s Bad Science column Ben Goldacre eviscerates science journalism in the UK. He lays the blame for poor science reporting firmly at the door of humanities graduates in the media. As a Humanities graduate with an interest in science I’ll say that he is 75% correct +/- 5% error.

There is a problem not simply in the reporting of science in the media, but with the attitude of many in Humanities to Science. Andrew Ross’s acknowledgment “This book is dedicated to all of the science teachers I never had. It could only have been written without them.” in Strange Weather, Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits is, with all due respect, one of the most unutterably moronic statements of all time.

Hyperbole?

What would you say of a History department that insisted that its students read no books, to prevent them from being prejudiced by the evidence? My problem is not so much with Ross, who at least is kind enough to broadcast his book is worthless at the beginning, thus preventing many wasted hours. It is with an academic environment that considers such an academic a credible person. You could argue that Ross’s position is more subtle than I paint it, but it’s only the bold strokes that will be seen by mediocre undergraduates and that’s what they’ll take with them when they go into journalism.

You would think that journalists themselves would spot the problem of ‘science’ journalists being unfamiliar with science. A reporter on the Middle-East would be expected to know where Iraq was within a couple of guesses at least. It’s surely not unreasonable that a science journalist should understand basic science.

This lack of understanding makes science in the media a charlatan’s playground. Rather than investigative reporter, we get “He said, she said” journalism. The result is Malyszewiczism, where experts say one thing, and a guy with a flair for publicity and some disinfectant to sell says another. The result is a nice scare story which wastes time that could be used more productively like, I don’t know, helping patients maybe?

Ok, so newspapers employ duff journalists to report science. Why should it therefore only be 75% their fault?

Scientists have identified the problem, and it’s not news. It’s been known of for a while. So what is the solution they’ve come up with? Whinging about it at the bar.

That’s not totally fair. There are scientists who do outreach and who do write for the public, but so far priorities for academics of any stripe are research, teaching and service to the public a distant third. I can’t remember the guy’s name, and I’m in university waiting for a meeting, so I can’t look it up at the moment, but one of the authors in Popularizing Anthropology did have a solution. You make the act of producing a public piece of work a necessity for a PhD. It would remove some of the stigma or talking to the great unwashed.

Some disciplines have realised it’s a problem. Kudos are due the CBA and the AIA for both tackling the issue head on. You can buy British Archaeology and Archaeology magazines at newsagents. I can’t recall a similar magazine set up by an academic society for the much busier and better funded fields of biology or physics. I notice that:

“The Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress. It supports many of the UK’s top young scientists, engineers and technologists. It influences science policy, it debates scientific issues with the public and much more.”

It doesn’t have an accessible magazine for the public though.

Ben Goldacre is right science journalism is a problem, but rather like bad history on TV, it requires scientists to be proactive in the problem rather than just victims. Given the collapse in applications for science courses in UK universities, you’d hope it’s not just Goldacre who’s seriously thinking about the subject.