3 ms·

> The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not about the science. What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their

> The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not about the science. What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research? That's ridiculous! In a scientific paper, a theory is hypothesised, an experiment designed, data and observations conducted and a conclusion is formed. That conclusion, based on the observations and data collected by the scientist, is analysis. What you are saying is that the scientist will misrepresent their own conclusions. Let's put that another way: you are saying that the scientist will misrepresent science by contradicting their own conclusions. Another way of putting it, just to be clear: the scientist will publish their conclusions in a paper, then tell the media the exact opposite of their conclusions. Either by mistake or because they are lying. You seem to be surprised by the incredulity your post is generating. There's why!

caseysoftware 11y ago
To suggest that scientists would never misrepresent their work because "science!" is naive at best. Scientists are human. They are not above human motivations - both good and bad - related to their work, their stature, and their jobs. Funding can be based on certain results. Getting published can be based on certain results. This is why making experiments and studies that are reproducible is so important.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Reproducibility is important, but not to check that what a scientist says about their own work is accurate. To verify the accuracy of what a scientist says about their own work you merely have to read their work. That said, however, I am actually saying that it's unlikely that a scientist would misrepresent their own published findings. Perhaps it may occur - but if that happened then the government of the day could discipline the scientist who misrepresented their work. They would have to prove it. What I find more naive is that a media relations person, employed by the government to portray them in the best light, would not misrepresent the work of the scientist. Who would you want the reporter to speak to: the person employed to protect the reputation of the government of the day, or the scientist who did the actual work?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Let's say you're worried that a scientist might misrepresent their work. So you force them to communicate through a PR staff person. Now you have 2 people who might misrepresent the work.
Swizec 11y ago
No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist. Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Which assumes scientists are utterly incapable of communicating with anyone other than other scientists.
  - Swizec 11y ago
    I think it instead assumes that journalists will do anything to sell more papers. Regardless of what the scientists actually say.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      So a media officer won't do any good then.
      - evgen 11y ago
        Actually it can, because if the media officer becomes the gateway then the reporters are forced into an iterated game with someone who knows them compared to ranging the herd of scientists looking for PR and hoping to pick off the weak and inexperienced.
        chris_wot 11y ago
        If they are that interested in reporting a slanted story, a media officer isn't going to help.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Is it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science? If so, why not just manage the reporters directly? Every science news story could be reviewed by a central government office prior to publication, to make sure it's accurate. Of course, the reviews would be done by political appointees and their staff, not the scientists themselves since they have a conflict of interest, it being their research and all. This would never fly, of course. Canada has at least some semblance of freedom of the press. But for some reason the exact same system, applied to the scientists themselves, was OK?
bobcostas55 11y ago
>What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research? That's ridiculous! Why? Just look at that study about sexism on github that came out a couple of months ago, the authors were lying through their teeth. They (correctly) surmised that reporters wouldn't bother looking at the actual results, and so managed to generate tons of media coverage.

caseysoftware 11y ago

To suggest that scientists would never misrepresent their work because "science!" is naive at best. Scientists are human. They are not above human motivations - both good and bad - related to their work, their stature, and their jobs. Funding can be based on certain results. Getting published can be based on certain results. This is why making experiments and studies that are reproducible is so important.

chris_wot 11y ago
Reproducibility is important, but not to check that what a scientist says about their own work is accurate. To verify the accuracy of what a scientist says about their own work you merely have to read their work. That said, however, I am actually saying that it's unlikely that a scientist would misrepresent their own published findings. Perhaps it may occur - but if that happened then the government of the day could discipline the scientist who misrepresented their work. They would have to prove it. What I find more naive is that a media relations person, employed by the government to portray them in the best light, would not misrepresent the work of the scientist. Who would you want the reporter to speak to: the person employed to protect the reputation of the government of the day, or the scientist who did the actual work?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
snowwrestler 11y ago
Let's say you're worried that a scientist might misrepresent their work. So you force them to communicate through a PR staff person. Now you have 2 people who might misrepresent the work.

Swizec 11y ago

No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist. Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

chris_wot 11y ago
Which assumes scientists are utterly incapable of communicating with anyone other than other scientists.
- Swizec 11y ago
  I think it instead assumes that journalists will do anything to sell more papers. Regardless of what the scientists actually say.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    So a media officer won't do any good then.
    - evgen 11y ago
      Actually it can, because if the media officer becomes the gateway then the reporters are forced into an iterated game with someone who knows them compared to ranging the herd of scientists looking for PR and hoping to pick off the weak and inexperienced.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        If they are that interested in reporting a slanted story, a media officer isn't going to help.
snowwrestler 11y ago
Is it the government's job to prevent mis-reporting of science? If so, why not just manage the reporters directly? Every science news story could be reviewed by a central government office prior to publication, to make sure it's accurate. Of course, the reviews would be done by political appointees and their staff, not the scientists themselves since they have a conflict of interest, it being their research and all. This would never fly, of course. Canada has at least some semblance of freedom of the press. But for some reason the exact same system, applied to the scientists themselves, was OK?

bobcostas55 11y ago

>What, it was worried that the scientist would misrepresent their own research? That's ridiculous! Why? Just look at that study about sexism on github that came out a couple of months ago, the authors were lying through their teeth. They (correctly) surmised that reporters wouldn't bother looking at the actual results, and so managed to generate tons of media coverage.