tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post3139010302510133843..comments2024-03-25T17:14:36.888+00:00Comments on BishopBlog: On the need for responsible reporting of research to the mediadeevybeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-9012461223767838672013-10-19T14:31:40.015+01:002013-10-19T14:31:40.015+01:00Dear Mr Lukeš and Dr Bishop,
You've highlight...Dear Mr Lukeš and Dr Bishop,<br /><br />You've highlighted an interesting case here. I'm pleased that the author of the study commented clarifying a point that is lost in these cases: Press releases are written by university-employed staff. They would/should get fired if they spread misinformation under the name of the university or the researcher, without approval.<br /><br />Having said that I also share the frustration that churning stories from press releases is a really bad practice, and sadly too widespread. As a scientist-turned journalist I have had the chance to look at the industry from both sides. And the conclusion I come to is rather different now, than when I was in academia.<br /><br />There are journalists who do genuine work by looking at the actual papers and talking to relevant researchers. Most of the time they also get a good audience too. <br /><br />But it is unfair to expect every news organisation to live up to that standard. It's all to easy to think journalists are lazy and only care about a good story, even if facts need to be made up.<br /><br />The problems you highlight about journalism are true of science too. Peer review lets through a lot more mistakes than most scientists think (see: http://econ.st/1a0Y0wO). There are proposals that instead post-publication review should be the norm.<br /><br />I think the same should apply to journalism. If you think that a story is done badly, criticise it in the comments and don't promote it. Instead point out to your social network a place where the story had been covered correctly.<br /><br />Alternatively, take the time to write yourself. There are limitations here, of course. Dr Bishop does a fantastic job and has a wide reach, but not all do. That is why places like The Conversation (http://theconversation.com/uk), where I'm science editor, have sprung up. Here academics can work with professional editors to write for the public and then the editors take on the responsibility of promoting the "truth".<br /><br />All this is to say that the problem is real and many people recognise it, but that should not be used against popularisation of science which when done correctly has had a lot of positive impact on the society. The pressure from the government and funding bodies to communicate is based on that evidence. And instead of worrying about why scientists should bother, the question should be how best can the scientists address these malpractices.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03113103322464783385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-39401469751328029042013-10-15T03:59:35.517+01:002013-10-15T03:59:35.517+01:00One of these days we are going to wake up and real...One of these days we are going to wake up and realize that there is nothing inherently more interesting about neurobiology than about digestive biology. Personally, I find both fascinating, but I don't see why the general public would be particularly interested in either. As you say, neuroscientists are under tremendous pressure to make their research sound more exciting than it actually is. It isn't fair on them, and it isn't fair on the public that gets mislead. Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-70565346366598116162013-10-14T11:19:22.053+01:002013-10-14T11:19:22.053+01:00I largely agree with you. It's hard to think o...I largely agree with you. It's hard to think of good instances of accurate and responsible reporting of new research in the media, and I think there is just a mismatch between the incremental progress in science and the need for a 'breakthrough' by journalists. I blogged about this some years ago: http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/journalists-and-scientific-breakthrough.html<br />I think science is better suited to features than to news: there's plenty of interesting stuff out there, but it is seldom the result of one new paper. It would make more sense to have researchers work with journalists to produce articles that gave more of an overview of a developing area. deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-44891608610916289582013-10-12T13:39:52.369+01:002013-10-12T13:39:52.369+01:00Given that media reporting of research is almost u...Given that media reporting of research is almost uniformly bad with or without the help of an eager press office or lab under pressure, why do we persist in popularization efforts through the press? Blogs, direct outreach through education, YouTube, etc. Wouldn't those be better ways to go about things. Lazy journalists, venal headline writers and pressured researchers seem to make up a potent mix of confusion, disinformation and panic mongering that can do little to popularize science and research in any beneficial way (other than satisfying myopic funders). <br /><br />I normally ignore any neurobabble reporting in the press but this was retweeted by Steven Pinker so I clicked on the link expecting the worst. Given the vast amount of controversy around the critical period I had no doubt that no single paper could support a statement such as:<br /><br />"The brain has a critical window for language development between the ages of two and four, brain scans suggest." <br /><br />That is the summary of the article. And the only hint that this might be controversial is "it is too early to be confident about functional implications of the findings" by @deevybee herself. But what non-expert reader can interpret that as 'any talk about critical periods based on these results is irresponsible twaddle'? <br /><br />Perhaps experts should be commenting not on the original findings but on the actual reporting before it goes out. My expertise is on the functional side (linguistics) so my first steps were to this blog to see if I can confirm my suspicions. And as always, I will be sending others here when they ask about this.<br /><br />But the real lesson is: most research like this is not news. Long-term replication and falsification efforts leading to interventions is something worth reporting. But that does not happen on specific dates with embargoed press releases. So, I ask again, isn't it the whole popularisation-through-media paradigm that is broken? I am in favour of the opposite of Cartesian obscurantism but isn't this worse than writing scholarship in Latin to protect it from the masses?Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-49635709347224864872013-10-11T08:50:53.266+01:002013-10-11T08:50:53.266+01:00Dear Dr O'Muircheartaigh,
Thank you for provi...Dear Dr O'Muircheartaigh,<br /><br />Thank you for providing such a clear account of events. I appreciate your frankness and I will add a note to the blogpost pointing readers to your comment.<br /><br />It was clearly wrong of me to assume that the Press Office was at fault, and I apologise to them, but it was a conclusion I came to having two such similarly problematic reports from this press office in a relatively short space of time. The fact that the other story concerned a different research group just increased my interpretation that the press office must be pressing researchers to add some speculation about relevance in order to make the story newsworthy. In my experience, most researchers don't want their work misrepresented and are cautious about going beyond the data - particularly where the media are involved.<br /><br />My own advice on this topic is that researchers in neuroscience should obey one simple ground rule when engaging with the media. Do not mention the words autism, schizophrenia, dyslexia unless your study has involved these clinical groups, and do not talk about implications for intervention or screening unless you have done studies on those topics.<br />deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-80868265186989938642013-10-10T21:48:20.843+01:002013-10-10T21:48:20.843+01:00As the first author and probable cause of the conf...As the first author and probable cause of the confusion I think I should reply. If there is fault, it’s mine for not choosing my words more carefully and not that of the press office. <br /><br />You are absolutely correct, there is a large amount of pressure on researchers to communicate their science, from funders and universities (I think it’s even a factor in the REF), and increasingly the journals themselves. As you’ve acknowledged in this blog in the past, this is a good and bad thing. <br /><br />It seems odd that you link this release to another from an entirely different group, irrespective of university. The press offices are using quotes, not reinterpreting. The researchers consent to a given press release.<br /><br />In any communications, I did spend quite a bit of time emphasising that this research involved typically developing children. However, the purpose of the lab is to longitudinally track brain development so as to have a normative dataset specifically to investigate, again longitudinally, developmental disorders. It is here that I (underlined) failed to emphasise strongly enough that this is future research. <br /><br /><br />With regards to the speculation in the paper itself, in fairness, that was in the discussion. In context, it was fairly unambiguously speculation and is not part of the press release. It was written with respect to a long preceding paragraph. It is not written in the conclusion, which is below for completeness:<br /><br />“Using a large cross-sectional sample of infants and toddlers and a novel in vivo approach to the quantification of water myelin content, we demonstrate that, while cerebral asymmetry may be established and constrained at an early age, this asymmetry is related to language ability in children undergoing a crucial period of neuroanatomical development. Importantly, the coupling between asymmetrical structure and function changes during development and this flux in relations between anatomy and language stabilizes around the age of 4 years”<br /><br />(Jonathan O'Muircheartaigh)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-34958060008760611432013-10-10T13:27:11.794+01:002013-10-10T13:27:11.794+01:00The sad thing is, fear mongering can be destructiv...The sad thing is, fear mongering can be destructive to the parent-child relationship. Don't ask how I know...but until I got over the "fix my kid" stage, it was difficult to develop a loving, accepting response.<br /><br />Now, I did give my son hours of therapy at an early age out of fear, 15 years ago,that it would lead to full blown autism if I didnt. That was the push at the time. How so many adult autistics were raised without this info in the past, makes me wonder.<br /><br />But had I "let him come to me" in his own time and developmental readiness I'm not sure he might have done as well with a far less anxious mother.<br />Usethebrains Godgiveyouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026223483117357541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-83399802978606988332013-10-10T09:38:38.352+01:002013-10-10T09:38:38.352+01:00I agree this is bad reporting. I also know that i...I agree this is bad reporting. I also know that is is *very* tempting when you are asked for a press release to add extra interpretation to a study - because if you don't mention developmental disorders or something scary, then the press will just ignore the study. And getting on the BBC is a great CV point, even if the story is rubbish. I've refused to play this game in the past, and I'm sure that has reduced my lab's press cover.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com