5. Making Sense of Scientific Journalism

Section author: Andrea Bruno <bruno.andrea.191@gmail.com>

As a young person interested in research, you have probably browsed through magazine articles, watched documentaries, or listened to podcasts on scientific topics. Some sites, like Popular Science, Science Daily, and Discover Magazine specialize in this. However, we shouldn’t take their reporting at face value. It is important to be conscientious when consuming science journalism, as the writers are typically not experts in the field on which they are reporting, and, as all people are, they are subject to error.

5.1. Example 1: Side-Stitches

To make sure you understand what we’re talking about here, open up a new tab and take a look at the suggested news-feed which pops up on your browser dashboard. Note: this only works if you’re a firefox user, which, in a perfect world, you would be. Now, keep in mind, these articles are going to be different day to day. Some of them will be better than others, and in extreme circumstances, they might even be good. But now, I want to go over some from my feed which I found interesting, and a bit suspect. 1: When You Get a Stitch in your Side, What’s Really Going On? https://getpocket.com/explore/item/when-you-get-a-stitch-in-your-side-what-s-really-going-on?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us [Codosh, 2017] This is how the article begins: “Before the mile run each year in middle school, on the dreaded walk down from the classroom to the course, my classmates would argue over the best way to prevent a side stitch. More so than turning an ankle or coming in last, that repetitive stabbing pain is what the majority of us dreaded most.”

The purpose of this section is to introduce the subject matter to you in a way the reader may find relatable. Chodosh continues,

“There’s a medical term for that stabbing side cramp: exercise-related transient abdominal pain, or ETAP. And it’s far from rare. Around two-thirds of runners experience them every year.”

Chodosh introduces some medical jargon which can connect the reader to the scientific literature she will later cite. She also presents a statistic to establish the prominence of the condition. So far, so good.

“But unfortunately for middle schoolers, elite athletes, and weekend joggers everywhere, this medical term does not come with a medical solution. There’s no standard advice for how to prevent a side stitch, says sports chiropractor Brad Muir, because we don’t know the mechanism that produces the pain in the first place. ‘It’s still up in the air.’”

Now let’s take a second to slow down. She introduces Brad Muir as someone to speak on this topic from a place of authority, while mentioning his practice as a sports chiropractor. Though his professional proximity to sports may give him some experience on athletic injuries, there is no reason to believe he is an expert on side-stitches, or any evidence that he can speak on behalf of the broader literature. And indeed, those who practice as chiropractors do not need to attend medical school, but a separate specialized program.

(As a side note, it is not uncommon for influencers on YouTube who give nutritional “advice,” such as Doctor Berg or Doctor Mindy Pelz, both of whom are Doctors in Chiropractic (D.C), to parade their Doctor titles in their social media handles while conveniently leaving out the “Chiropractic” part, obscuring their lack of background in nutrition or general medicine. I have a vendetta against Doctor Berg specifically, as he has claimed things like “broccoli is the cure to autism,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BmTnaA606I and “onion juice can reverse hair loss,” https://youtu.be/y29tJpldBok. He is truly a professional at overstating preliminary research.)

The major takeaway here: Just because someone is quoted in an article does not mean they are an authority on the topic, and you should not necessarily treat their opinion as expert. But there is more to look at with ETAP! The article continues: “… Even though side stitches are common, researchers haven’t really studied them. In 2015, a review article noted that after a few studies in the 1940s and 50s, there was a nearly 50 year gap in research on side stitches.” The article links the following paper: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4281377/ [Morton and Callister, 2015]

When we go through its overview of the literature, we can find the gap in research Chodosh references. However, she fails to mention the gap was followed by ten papers on the subject! So she didn’t lie, however, she did misguide the reader by omission, and by a matter of emphasis. She implies that the 50 year gap in research on ETAP is still relevant, and that it is detrimental to the knowledge accumulated on the topic, when really, the research has advanced substantially. Okay, but why would she do that? By emphasizing the gap, she implies there is still inadequate research on ETAP, creating the illusion of a mysterious condition which has been neglected by the medical establishment. Quite compelling, no? But when we look at the post-gap papers, we can see that researchers now understand that ETAP is caused by stomach bloating, such as that induced by eating a large meal or drinking a lot of water, which strains the ligaments in the abdomen. So, to say that “researchers haven’t really studied [side stitches]” seems like an awfully bold claim! However, Chodosh makes these statements because the job of a journalist when covering science is, ultimately, to keep the reader’s attention through a narrative. What you are signing up for when you click on a news story is just that— a story. Now, I want to ask you, do you think that science follows such a convenient structure? Let’s take a minute to see what Neil Degrass Tyson, a popular science communicator and frequently interviewed researcher, has to say about the state of science journalism:

Now, Neil here may come across as condescending at points, but he stages a valid argument: It’s more compelling for journalists to sell a story of conflicting perspectives, because conflict has more room for surprise, while also giving the appearance of balanced reporting. In the case of climate change, we should not give equal space to scientists who deny climate change as those who acknowledge it, because the science itself shows that climate advocates have dramatically more evidence to support their claims than their detractors. The desire to sell palatable stories also has a distorting effect. For example, take a moment to consider if are going to click on an article with a picture of a polar bear on a melting ice sheet. Don’t be shy, tell me on a scale of one to ten how personally excited you are by that topic. Some of you might be, and good on you. But a lot of you are probably, to put it frankly, sick of hearing about it. As a public, it feels as if there is very little that we can meaningfully do to curtail climate change, so it becomes exhausting to hear about. It makes you feel helpless, and who is going to seek out reporting which make you feel such a way? Because the job of the journalist is to drive attention, they will respond to this lull in demand by no longer writing about climate change. This leaves a gap in coverage which can be filled by ‘alternative facts,’ which people may find more exciting than the standard narrative. After all, it feels much more exciting to be told something you once believed was actually a myth! A synthetic controversy also has the bonus of giving you your sense of control back. If climate change is the subject of a debate, rather than settled science, it leaves room for people to absorb any narrative of their choice: “Maybe things are fine, actually?”

Headlines are not written in proportion to the importance of the science, and if there is a demand for a narrative, especially on the internet where media is broadly unregulated, someone will step in to provide that narrative.

Another thing which Tyson brings up is the issue of journalistic authority. Let’s take a look at how that authority can be extended to those journalists are interviewing, even in cases where it is unjustified.

5.2. Example 2: Andrew Wakefield

Now, I know this was a while ago, so I will be happy to jog your memory on this recurring villain of ours: How many of you remember Andrew Wakefield?

For those who need a refresher, Andrew Wakefield is the disgraced ex-doctor who popularized the anti-vaccine movement. He published a faulty and fraudulent article about a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism— however, not all of the children he studied were actually autistic, and all of them had been drawn from a sample of children whose parents were anti-vax. This is relevant, because one of the ‘measures’ he reported on was how many parents suspected the vaccine had caused their child’s autism, which is data he went on to manipulate. The journalist Brian Deer revealed that he did all of this because being paid by a lawyer who needed evidence to substantiate a lawsuit he was filing on behalf of a very niche (at the time) anti-vaccine activist group. Now I want you to keep all of this in mind when I show you this antiqued, insensitive, but very relevant news clip from 60-minutes Australia.

Now you might argue that news organizations have developed stronger journalistic standards over the years. On some topics, yes, many media outlets have adopted greater vigilance. However, in the age of the internet, anyone on earth can pick up the mantel of ‘independent journalist,’ with next to no standards of media integrity to hold them accountable.

5.3. Example 3: Jimmy Dore

To examine the role of online commentators in science reporting, let’s talk about the popular influencer Jimmy Dore, who works as a stand up comedian and online political commentator. He has a large following with over 1 million subscribers and close to 1 billion views. During the pandemic, he realized that he could garner more attention by releasing anti-vaccine videos skeptical of the Covid shot, while facing few repercussions. If you can recall, for a period of time, the news cycle was concerned with issues of the Covid-19 vaccine “putting holes in your heart.” This reporting was initially based on a study involving mice receiving the vaccine intravenously.

This video is good overall, but let’s focus on a specific section as an example of how someone can use scientific literature to push a false claim in a way which would, at first glance, appear to be supported by evidence.

(skip to 17:50, end at 27:00)

You can read the mixed up mouse article for yourself here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406358/ [Li et al., 2022]

Amazingly, the mistaken mouse article has not been corrected! I believe this example is important for a few reasons: First: Just because someone cites a scientific article does not mean that they are citing it honestly, and you should not take their interpretation at face value! This does not mean you should disengage altogether. Notice that I showed you a video from an online science communicator, but one who seems to practice on high standards. However, you need to check if those sharing information are being honest before you trust them. People on the internet lie, and they do so under the assumption that you are too lazy to catch them. Please prove them wrong! If they cite an article, the least you should do is read it before accepting their interpretation. Second: Science is a flawed discipline, and it is subject to human error. Therefore, the findings of a single paper should not be taken as conclusive evidence. After all, it’s possible the researchers mixed up the mice! So poke around and see what their peers have to say before making up your mind.

Now, of course, science journalism and pop-science can be an important introduction to science. Ordinary people need a way to dabble in a field before they decide to fully immerse themselves. I’m sure most of us have consumed pop-science media before gaining further interest in a topic. Scientists don’t come out of the womb with microscopes, textbooks, and jargon dictionaries uploaded on their frontal lobes. Scientists are people just like you, given more time and experience.

But the takeaway is this: I would encourage you to go further in depth when you encounter topics you’re interested in. The first few times you read an academic paper, it will seem intimidating, you won’t know a lot of the words, and you might not be able to leave with a clear gist of the information. However, it gets easier every time you do it! So keep doing it, and your future scientific self will thank you for it.