It is no small thing reporting on scientific research. It becomes possible to influence how people think about a given question and with that comes significant responsibility.
How a journalist reports on climate change, for example, or some new discovery in medical science, nuclear power or genetically modified organisms can sway public opinion. And public opinion in turn can drive a government’s response to a subject of interest to the electorate.
This is immediately apparent in political reporting, with the journalist controlling how the story is told and how the reader might react to it. Yet the potential to sway opinion is, to a degree, countered by our familiarity with politics. We probably already have a view or a preference for a given party and its position on a subject. We take in what the reporter is saying and add it to our existing store of opinions, sometimes changing them or discarding the new reportage as irrelevant.
But this body of experience is not always available to temper reportage of scientific research. Often the reader has no experience of the issue or only a limited understanding of what is involved. This means that balance and the way in which details of a story are presented become very important when reporting science.
Balance in journalism generally means presenting both sides of a story, allowing all those involved to state their views. Striking this balance should allow the journalist to remain neutral on the issue. We present the facts and readers form their own opinions on the subject.
But what are facts and how can we know they are true? Achieving balance is supposed to overcome this problem for the journalist – we don’t have to be experts on a subject, we just have to report honestly and accurately on what is said and present the views of both sides, leaving it up to the reader to decide.
Yet achieving that balance can in itself throw a story severely off balance, with reportage on climate change a perfect example. Balance dictates that the reporter should give an equal amount of linage to those who argue that the changes we are seeing in the climate and the persistent warming trends are caused by human activity and to those “climate sceptics” who say it is caused by changes in the sun or other natural phenomena.
Both sides of this argument will present scientific data, or “facts”, to prove what they say is true. Both sides will quote professors and throw in scientific findings but the public – like the reporter – will not automatically know which set of “facts” is more reliable.
If normal journalistic balance is applied then both arguments will be presented as having equal weight. But this ignores the reality of the research findings in climate change. While both sides can quote their professors and experts, more than 95 per cent of all the research findings support claims for human induced climate change. Findings quoted by the climate sceptics represent only a tiny fraction of all the research being done.
This is not something of little consequence. If climate change is real we have to respond to it on a global scale. Polls taken in the US over the past few years suggest however that about 40 per cent of Americans now believe that claims made for climate change are exaggerated. There is no public groundswell in support of action on climate change in the US despite it being a major emitter of greenhouse gases.
Balance in reporting can disappear altogether, however, with research findings that make spectacular claims that cannot immediately be confirmed. This happened most spectacularly when researcher Andrew Wakefield published a paper in The Lancetin 1998 that claimed there was a link between the childhood MMR vaccine and autism.
The findings caused an immediately sensation and triggered fresh research as scientists tried to duplicate Wakefield’s findings. The information vacuum caused parents to avoid having their children vaccinated, leading in turn to spikes in measles and the related burden of deaths and health damage it can cause.
More research was done and virtually all the findings indicated there was no link between the vaccine and autism. Flaws were found in Wakefield’s work and eventually it was overturned. He subsequently withdrew his paper and accepted it was wrong.
Earlier this month the British Medical Journalwent further, dismissing Wakefield's research as "an elaborate fraud". Its editor Dr Fiona Godlee said the work was not just bad science but a fraud with "clear evidence of falsification of data".
Children suffered as a consequence as parents held “measles parties” where an infected child was invited as a way to spread the bug. And there continues to be a sub-optimal uptake of the MMR vaccine due to ongoing but misplaced concerns of parents today.
That is why the public must become more engaged with reportage in the sciences. Stories about dinosaurs and space travel can be fun but your response to science news can also represent a matter of life and death.
