3 ms·

It's important to draw a distinction between positive tonality and censoring negative results. For example, the recent COVID-19 vaccines: they're commonly repo

by _Nat_ 6y ago

It's important to draw a distinction between positive tonality and censoring negative results. For example, the recent COVID-19 vaccines: they're commonly reported to be 95% effective and have some risk of side-effects. This can be reported factually, or spun in a positive or negative light. For example, a sensationalist might try to stir up interest by spinning a narrative that focuses on the vaccines being unreliable and dangerous, as proven by science that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about! And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings. However bad their ploy may be for society overall, the sensationalist themself may stand to profit. So as reprehensible as censoring legitimate scientific research would be, a directive to "strike a positive tone" sounds like it could be a very different, far more sensible thing.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings. We're talking about published research papers, not people posting stuff on twitter. I have not seen anyone get a "cult following" from a research paper.
- _Nat_ 6y ago
  It's common for researchers to publish a journal article in a more academic tone, then use it as a basis for legitimacy in public venues. This happens at both individual and institutional levels. Examples: 1.) At an individual level, someone might publish a study on a social issue that's important to them, adhering to relevant academic standards, then establish a popular identity as the author of that study. Afterwards they can comment on blogs, in media releases, on talk shows, etc., using the perceived credibility established through academic publication to pursue their personal goals. 2.) At an institutional level, someone might publish a study on some issue relevant to an industry, then use it in political lobbying related to that industry as well as popular press to build good-will. Many academics have industrial sponsors for this reason.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Well, I'd be fine with Google putting its thumb on the scale in terms of how researchers engage in public press conferences/media releases/talk shows, etc. What we're discussing, however, is "striking a positive tone" in actual research papers.
    - _Nat_ 6y ago
      > What we're discussing, however, is "striking a positive tone" in actual research papers. Yeah.. that's what pretty much every academic does. Most talk up the merits of their work and the general importance of their field. The idea's to be constructive, always looking for avenues of improvement. For example, if you test a new medical treatment and it's not great, you don't trash it as a failure but rather focus on how it can be improved to get more positive results. Though I'm starting to get the impression that you're reading "striking a positive tone" as meaning something other than what I'm seeing in those words. So to avoid talking past each other, what exactly are you seeing? And do you find it somehow problematic?
- sdawodu 6y ago
  Allow me to introduce Andrew Wakefield. The father of the antivax movement.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    That's a good counterexample, although I'll note that Andrew Wakefield is referred to as the founder of the "science by press conference" phenomenon - so not really his research paper that was the single thing that attracted attention.

by _Nat_ 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

> And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings. We're talking about published research papers, not people posting stuff on twitter. I have not seen anyone get a "cult following" from a research paper.

_Nat_ 6y ago
It's common for researchers to publish a journal article in a more academic tone, then use it as a basis for legitimacy in public venues. This happens at both individual and institutional levels. Examples: 1.) At an individual level, someone might publish a study on a social issue that's important to them, adhering to relevant academic standards, then establish a popular identity as the author of that study. Afterwards they can comment on blogs, in media releases, on talk shows, etc., using the perceived credibility established through academic publication to pursue their personal goals. 2.) At an institutional level, someone might publish a study on some issue relevant to an industry, then use it in political lobbying related to that industry as well as popular press to build good-will. Many academics have industrial sponsors for this reason.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Well, I'd be fine with Google putting its thumb on the scale in terms of how researchers engage in public press conferences/media releases/talk shows, etc. What we're discussing, however, is "striking a positive tone" in actual research papers.
  - _Nat_ 6y ago
    > What we're discussing, however, is "striking a positive tone" in actual research papers. Yeah.. that's what pretty much every academic does. Most talk up the merits of their work and the general importance of their field. The idea's to be constructive, always looking for avenues of improvement. For example, if you test a new medical treatment and it's not great, you don't trash it as a failure but rather focus on how it can be improved to get more positive results. Though I'm starting to get the impression that you're reading "striking a positive tone" as meaning something other than what I'm seeing in those words. So to avoid talking past each other, what exactly are you seeing? And do you find it somehow problematic?
sdawodu 6y ago
Allow me to introduce Andrew Wakefield. The father of the antivax movement.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  That's a good counterexample, although I'll note that Andrew Wakefield is referred to as the founder of the "science by press conference" phenomenon - so not really his research paper that was the single thing that attracted attention.