What do you think can be done to improve the way science is reported in the media, and what do you think can be done to

Question: What do you think can be done to improve the way science is reported in the media, and what do you think can be done to combat the issue of pseudo-science affecting the applications of vaccines, causing avoidable illness when parents choose not to vaccinate?
- Keywords:
  media,
  society,
  topical
Asked by to Amy, Anita, Daryl, Nimesh, Sandra on 24 Jun 2014. This question was also asked by .
- Amy Monaghan answered on 24 Jun 2014:
  
  Hi Simonthedavies
  
  This is an absolutely fantastic question and one that is very close to my heart. Yes I think there is always room for improving science reporting, and more and more scientists are getting involved in the media themselves (I’ll actually be on my weekly science radio show this afternoon).
  
  There’s also a fantastic group called “Sense about Science” that are dedicated to combating pseudoscience and science claims in the media. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/
  
  They ask for the evidence made behind claims from GM food to detox diets to vaccinations and find real scientists to show us the evidence. They also compile leaflets and books to inform people about these technologies. Anyone can get involved in this “mythbusting”.
  
  I think the vaccination problem is a troubling one. It was started by an unfortunately corrupt scientist with the MMR scandal. This is also a personal source of annoyance for me as my brother is autistic and I know that there is absolutely no link between this and vaccination. I think the only way to address this issue is by education of the public, particularly those of school age now so that they understand the importance of vaccination when they have to make the decision for children of their own.
  
  Amy
- Anita Thomas answered on 24 Jun 2014:
  
  I think that this sort of forum is a good way of improving science communication. The problem with science is that we qualify every statement we make. We have to. We don’t say ‘we’ve found a way of preventing cancer’ we say ‘we’ve got a treatment that looks promising in reducing the growth of x cancer when given to y-type of patients under z-type of conditions.’ We have to say things this way in order to be accurate – we would be lying if we just said ‘we can cure x cancer!’.
  
  Regarding your pithy observations regarding pseudo-science, well, we all find it hard. How can Jo and Joe Public going to get a handle on things when Scientists appear to change their minds? What was ‘true’ in one year may no longer be ‘true’ another year – truth is relative. Don’t forget that the original MMR observation was published in a very reputable Scientific Journal. Eventually more experiments were performed which proved him wrong. We try to be as stringent as possible regarding accepting data for Scientific publication. But things slip through. There is no money (or glory!) in repeating somebody elses experiments!
  
  People are right in not accepting ‘I say so, so do what I say’. However, the vacuum left by Scientists and Clinicians not ‘stating truths’ is filled by pseudo-science. It’s a real problem. Perhaps we need to rely on you to answer it.
  
  Thank you for asking such an interesting question,
  Anita.
- Daryl Jones answered on 26 Jun 2014:
  
  That’s a great question simonthedavies!
  
  I think, instead of journalists writing media articles, that scientists should be writing them! Sometimes i read articles and it makes me cringe, because obviously the person who wrote the article had no idea what they were talking about!!!!
  
  Awesome question, very thoughtful!

Question: What do you think can be done to improve the way science is reported in the media, and what do you think can be done to combat the issue of pseudo-science affecting the applications of vaccines, causing avoidable illness when parents choose not to vaccinate?

Comments