We all live in a fast-paced world, where we have information on anything and everything readily available. We can find information on the newest studies conducted by scientists, news on what is happening around the world, and can connect with anyone even if they are near or far away from us. The media can report anything comprising the scientific researches that are been conducted around the world. The media can report any scientific research like:
- Chocolate is good for a healthy pregnancy.
- Late-night snacking is bad for your brain.
- And one of the most essential, “smelling farts could prevent cancer.”
However, are these scientific researches with proof, or just a single study report? The level of public understanding of science and scientific studies all depends on how the media covers these subjects. As John Oliver said, “Scientific studies aren’t blanking TV they're all over your Facebook feeds with alerts...” Most of the scientific researches that are been published in the media has been only tested on a few people and most of them have no controlled group. How can a scientific study that is just been conducted on 20 presume for the rest of the people? Scientific studies need replication; which means that if one scientist runs an experiment and gets a result, then another scientist should pick up the same experiment and see if they get the same result, only then it can be published as scientific research to the media. Replication helps to verify certain findings, but it does not happen because replication studies are not been funded, appreciated, and rewarded. As John Oliver Said, ''There is no Nobel prize for fact-checking.'' Single study report and flawed reporting; both are just as equal.
Science should make us more informed, but how the media covers the new study reports often leads to misinformation. If this does not stop, people will lose their faith in science and will think that every research under the umbrella of scientific studies is untrue. As John Oliver said, “Science is by its nature imperfect, but it is hugely important, and it deserves better than to be twisted out of proportions and turned into morning gossips,” it is through science and its studies we know most of the information about things like climate changes happening, global warming, health, etc. Every scientist is under constant pressure to release new studies and research in the best way possible, and, in the same way, the journalists are also under pressure to release the best article that will attract many people. However, while reporting the researches or the findings, the media usually oversimplify the information, and it turns out to be out of context. This is because the media tends to favour the brief, easy to digest, and sensational context that will make it easier for the people to read. However, we cannot always blame to media for reporting misleadingly, the audience (i.e. we the people who consume the news or information) also like only that news that is poppy, catchy, and gossip-worthy; hence the media makes the news look the same manner to attract us the lay public. Like how John Oliver said, we have a certain perspective of how a scientist should look and how certain information must be published; if we stop this, things might get better. As Oliver said, this is truly like a game of telephone, where journalists only cover the press reports and that information they received becomes a translation of a translation; in between all these translations, the real information gets lost and leads to misinformation. Sad but true, the science journalists are not really scientists, while reporting there is not fact-checking or correction, and we who consume the news will blindly believe it even if it makes no sense. The show is funny, but in the end, gives us a lot of information on many things. Things like p-hacking, the pressure the scientists and journalists are under, how there is a bias to make the results look positive (even if the results are not positive), how the lay public has a certain mindset on certain things, how even if we love and respect science we only allow certain things to be accepted, how the media gives out some misinformation, replication is a must in scientific studies, etc. I wouldn't gain this new information if I didn't watch the show.
So the next time we read an article on “A new study shows that...” or we hear from someone about some new scientific study, we must make sure that there is a valid source that has proof for the study, replication is been done, is it applicable on humans and not just on rodents, and it’s not some fake report. If we start to make a change, things will eventually get better. Science is complicated, layered, and significant; neither science nor we humans are perfect, but it cannot change the fact that science is the best way for us to find out more about our whole world and beyond. Like how we respect every human being and every other field of study, let us continue to respect and accept science.
Comments
Post a Comment