3 ms·

In cases like this I think it would be helpful if the reporter (probably with the help of the scientist) laid out all the possible explanations for this finding

by hyperion2010 12y ago

In cases like this I think it would be helpful if the reporter (probably with the help of the scientist) laid out all the possible explanations for this finding. In this case it would include 'people with a smaller nucleus accumbens are more likely to smoke pot.' Showing people all the possible interpretations of a scientific result is hard, even for scientists. We often miss interpretations that in retrospect seem obvious given the data. Science news needs to report about the science first and about any human elements second.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
I don't know; I bet that happens pretty well now: Scientist says, "well, foo could be because A, B, or C; we just don't know." Journalist asks, "what would happen if B?" Scientist says, "well, it's unlikely, but D could happen". Newspaper reports, "Scientists Show D Happens Because Foo Causes B". The real problem is there is no disincentive to ignore the truth and publish sensationalist drivel, but there are definitive incentives to do so: you get more readers, you tend to embed yourself in whatever philosophical echo chamber you are trying to reach, and, as a result, you get more money. Until there are disincentives, the problem will never go away.
devindotcom 12y ago
Problem is many people read science news for the 'human element,' the big take-away that explains why the research was done — something which rarely exists, but that doesn't stop people from expecting it. Good science articles at science-focused sites often do go into such detail, but if you read a science article at CNN or gawker, you're going to get a version tweaked for their audience, and abbreviated to boot. Multiple explanations and bouncing possible confounding variables off multiple experts isn't an option if the writer has one hour to create the article and it mustn't exceed 300 words.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

I don't know; I bet that happens pretty well now: Scientist says, "well, foo could be because A, B, or C; we just don't know." Journalist asks, "what would happen if B?" Scientist says, "well, it's unlikely, but D could happen". Newspaper reports, "Scientists Show D Happens Because Foo Causes B". The real problem is there is no disincentive to ignore the truth and publish sensationalist drivel, but there are definitive incentives to do so: you get more readers, you tend to embed yourself in whatever philosophical echo chamber you are trying to reach, and, as a result, you get more money. Until there are disincentives, the problem will never go away.

devindotcom 12y ago

Problem is many people read science news for the 'human element,' the big take-away that explains why the research was done — something which rarely exists, but that doesn't stop people from expecting it. Good science articles at science-focused sites often do go into such detail, but if you read a science article at CNN or gawker, you're going to get a version tweaked for their audience, and abbreviated to boot. Multiple explanations and bouncing possible confounding variables off multiple experts isn't an option if the writer has one hour to create the article and it mustn't exceed 300 words.