Introduction
By Apoorva Mandavilli / 2 minute read
Science moves slowly — and good science even more so. If there is one overarching message in this chapter, it’s that the best scientists are careful and methodical, moving from hypothesis to confirmation step by deliberate step. Journalism, especially daily journalism, tends to operate with a different metabolism, emphasizing significant advances that meet a subjective “newsworthiness” threshold.
That can make reporting on science challenging — first to discern where in the research process a particular study falls and then to engage audiences and clearly explain why that single step matters.
When reporters and editors don’t fully appreciate this deliberate and incremental nature of science, it can result in overhyped headlines, reports of “cures” or “breakthroughs” based on studies involving just a few people, mice, or even cells, or in stories that seem to contradict one another, as is often the case with diet and nutritional studies.
“I think science journalism is and should be moving away from covering medical research when it is at the mouse-model stage,” says Laura Helmuth, editor in chief of Scientific American. “There have been too many cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, genetic disorders, and other problems that look miraculous in mouse studies and fail completely in humans. It’s cruel and misleading to raise people’s hopes during this stage of research.”
Scientific results reported without context can also erode readers’ trust in both science and journalism.
In this chapter, we’ll talk about the context in which science happens — how science is funded; how it is conducted in academia versus in companies; what standards results have to meet before they can and should be publicized; and how they are communicated to the public.
We’ll also delve into the publication process which, especially for biology and medicine, can be a bewildering morass of preprints, embargoes, niche journals, corrections, and retractions.