I am currently putting together a piece for BBC4 about bad science reporting, something which seems particularly to effect the UK Daily Mail. I wonder if anyone has a favourite piece of poor science reporting from the daily newspapers, especially in the UK.
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
I can't give you any examples myself but please let us know when the programme is due to air.
Thanks.
Edit: Of course, it depends what you mean by 'poor science reporting'. Can you clarify? Do you want pieces that portray a minority of scientists' views as that of the majority? Articles that wrap dubious claims with scientific jargon?
Thanks.
Edit: Of course, it depends what you mean by 'poor science reporting'. Can you clarify? Do you want pieces that portray a minority of scientists' views as that of the majority? Articles that wrap dubious claims with scientific jargon?
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Agreed. More clarity needed. What Jim said and:
What is the focus of this program?
Do you mean good science that is reported poorly? In what way?
Do you mean bad science is reported and it should not be?
Will the program include pseudo-science?
Will you be including subjects that claim to be science and are not, such as homeopathy and Intelligent design?
Will supposed technology wrapped in confused jargon and techno-babble, such as the recent audiophile products covered by Randi, be included?
Most important. What is the intended balance of the program? We have all seen programs that claim balance and the woo contingent is allowed to rant away about any nonsense without challenge and the token skeptic is given 10 seconds in a 1 hour program and calls it a "balanced" view.
What does "putting together a piece for BBC4" actually mean?
What is your involvement?
Do you have a small segment of a larger program?
Are you preparing data for a whole program?
Is it a one off?
Is it part of a series?
If so, what is the nature of the series as a whole?
This is a skeptical forum and you should come to expect many questions and be prepared to answer reasonable requests. I accept that you are new here and offer these questions as a guide to help you deliver more information to preempt a barrage of questions.
From what I can glean from your post it has potential to be of great interest to many here and I'm sure you will get a lot of support once you answer questions similar to mine, which is by no means comprehensive.
Oh, and welcome to the forums.
What is the focus of this program?
Do you mean good science that is reported poorly? In what way?
Do you mean bad science is reported and it should not be?
Will the program include pseudo-science?
Will you be including subjects that claim to be science and are not, such as homeopathy and Intelligent design?
Will supposed technology wrapped in confused jargon and techno-babble, such as the recent audiophile products covered by Randi, be included?
Most important. What is the intended balance of the program? We have all seen programs that claim balance and the woo contingent is allowed to rant away about any nonsense without challenge and the token skeptic is given 10 seconds in a 1 hour program and calls it a "balanced" view.
What does "putting together a piece for BBC4" actually mean?
What is your involvement?
Do you have a small segment of a larger program?
Are you preparing data for a whole program?
Is it a one off?
Is it part of a series?
If so, what is the nature of the series as a whole?
This is a skeptical forum and you should come to expect many questions and be prepared to answer reasonable requests. I accept that you are new here and offer these questions as a guide to help you deliver more information to preempt a barrage of questions.
From what I can glean from your post it has potential to be of great interest to many here and I'm sure you will get a lot of support once you answer questions similar to mine, which is by no means comprehensive.
Oh, and welcome to the forums.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I have many bad science examples from the news. How much time would I have to dig some up? I can't say without looking if any are from the BBC.
The last one I saw was last week's Time magazine. Here's what I wrote to the editor:
Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Error Doctor's Orders Current Issue CHICKEN POX: GOOD NEWS AND BAD
To: letters@time.com
Shingles is not "nastier" than chicken pox as your
brief article claims. The only people to die from
shingles are those who are severely immunocompromised.
Seemingly innocuous statements such as these
contribute to the serious problem of myths about
vaccines that prevent many persons from receiving
those life saving vaccines.
It also isn't clear to the reader that the speculated
protection from shingles in adults is due to natural
boosting of one's chicken pox antibodies from exposure
to natural infections. This is pure speculation and
there is not evidence to support that claim. Since the
vaccine is also a live viral infection it may
accomplish the same thing as exposure to the natural
infection anyway.
Varicella, the chicken pox virus, becomes established
in nerve root cells after a chicken pox infection.
Years later the virus is reactivated for unknown
reasons and it erupts as shingles. A person exposed to
shingles who has never had chicken pox will get
chicken pox not shingles. No one catches shingles from
shingles. Except for those with compromised immune
systems, shingles only occurs once in a person's
lifetime.
The article:
"The chicken-pox vaccine introduced in the U.S. in
1995 has cut infections, and the number of deaths per
year from the childhood disease is down from 145 to
66. But some doctors are worried it could also lead to
an increase in shingles, a related but even nastier
disease. Adults exposed to kids with chicken pox tend
to be protected against shingles, but now there will
be fewer infected children around to help. The kids,
however, as they age, may be resistant to shingles."
The story I presume comes from the latest NEJM
article,
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/5/450
The last one I saw was last week's Time magazine. Here's what I wrote to the editor:
Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Error Doctor's Orders Current Issue CHICKEN POX: GOOD NEWS AND BAD
To: letters@time.com
Shingles is not "nastier" than chicken pox as your
brief article claims. The only people to die from
shingles are those who are severely immunocompromised.
Seemingly innocuous statements such as these
contribute to the serious problem of myths about
vaccines that prevent many persons from receiving
those life saving vaccines.
It also isn't clear to the reader that the speculated
protection from shingles in adults is due to natural
boosting of one's chicken pox antibodies from exposure
to natural infections. This is pure speculation and
there is not evidence to support that claim. Since the
vaccine is also a live viral infection it may
accomplish the same thing as exposure to the natural
infection anyway.
Varicella, the chicken pox virus, becomes established
in nerve root cells after a chicken pox infection.
Years later the virus is reactivated for unknown
reasons and it erupts as shingles. A person exposed to
shingles who has never had chicken pox will get
chicken pox not shingles. No one catches shingles from
shingles. Except for those with compromised immune
systems, shingles only occurs once in a person's
lifetime.
The article:
"The chicken-pox vaccine introduced in the U.S. in
1995 has cut infections, and the number of deaths per
year from the childhood disease is down from 145 to
66. But some doctors are worried it could also lead to
an increase in shingles, a related but even nastier
disease. Adults exposed to kids with chicken pox tend
to be protected against shingles, but now there will
be fewer infected children around to help. The kids,
however, as they age, may be resistant to shingles."
The story I presume comes from the latest NEJM
article,
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/5/450
an explanation
Apologies for my previous brevity. The item I am putting together is a short VT piece for a new weekly show on BBC4 which will be looking at the world of news reporting and politics in a satirical manner.
I am going to write and present a 4 minute piece about how easily the media can bamboozle and panic non-scientists such as myself. This will be followed by a studio chat with the presenter. I have as an accomplice a physicist who shall help guide me through areas where I am utterly foolish. Obvious examples of the sort of bad science reporting I am talking about from the past would be the hysterical linking of the MMR jab with autism or bandying words like radiation around willy nilly as if all radiation were deadly. At the same time, the British tabloids embracing of The Bible Code would be another example of confounding the public by giving them only carefully chosen "facts".
I hope that answers any queries. I am not desperate for examples, but merely thought that there may have been features or reports that I missed that have had people on this forum fuming. I was particularly intrigued by the Daily Mail's report last week of "a black box that may be able to see into the future".
Apologies for my previous brevity. The item I am putting together is a short VT piece for a new weekly show on BBC4 which will be looking at the world of news reporting and politics in a satirical manner.
I am going to write and present a 4 minute piece about how easily the media can bamboozle and panic non-scientists such as myself. This will be followed by a studio chat with the presenter. I have as an accomplice a physicist who shall help guide me through areas where I am utterly foolish. Obvious examples of the sort of bad science reporting I am talking about from the past would be the hysterical linking of the MMR jab with autism or bandying words like radiation around willy nilly as if all radiation were deadly. At the same time, the British tabloids embracing of The Bible Code would be another example of confounding the public by giving them only carefully chosen "facts".
I hope that answers any queries. I am not desperate for examples, but merely thought that there may have been features or reports that I missed that have had people on this forum fuming. I was particularly intrigued by the Daily Mail's report last week of "a black box that may be able to see into the future".
walthrup48
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 1,087
From JB on the ASKEnet private discussion list:
I'd recommend that Robin contact the Wellcome Library on Euston Road as they collect newspaper cuttings on a variety of science topics. It might also be worth him contacting the Psci-com mailing list (also run by Wellcome), see the links below for more details. Feel free to pass on this email or post it to the Randi forum.
Wellcome Library
http://library.wellcome.ac.uk
Psci-com
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
Other stuff which might be of interest:
Hitting the Headlines
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/help.asp
These references might be of interest as well:
Friedman, S. M. (1994) The Media, Risk assessment and Numbers: they don't add up [Internet]
Available from http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol5/summer/friedman.htm
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Kitzinger, J. (1999) Researching risk and the media.
Health, Risk & Society 1(1): 55-69
Millar, R. and Wynne, B. (1988) Public understanding of science: from contents to processes.
Int. J. Sci. Edu. 10(4): 388-398
Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. H. (1996a) AGCI Session II: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.
Discussion on S. Dunwoody's paper "What's a journalist to do? Challenges and approaches to reporting scientific assessment."
[Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/2cw2v
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. H. (1996b) AGCI Session
II: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty. Discussion on S. H. Stocking's paper "How
journalists deal with scientific uncertainty." [Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/3fhjp
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Schneider, S. (1996) AGCI Session II: The role of the Scientist-Advocate
[Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/26jf5
[Accessed on 29th June 2004]
Science Media Centre (2002) MMR: Learning Lessons
[Internet] Available from http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/aboutus/MMRreport.html
[Accessed 26th June 2004]
Stocking, S. H. (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty, Chapter 2 in Communicating Uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (p23-41).
Edited by Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
I'd recommend that Robin contact the Wellcome Library on Euston Road as they collect newspaper cuttings on a variety of science topics. It might also be worth him contacting the Psci-com mailing list (also run by Wellcome), see the links below for more details. Feel free to pass on this email or post it to the Randi forum.
Wellcome Library
http://library.wellcome.ac.uk
Psci-com
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
Other stuff which might be of interest:
Hitting the Headlines
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/help.asp
These references might be of interest as well:
Friedman, S. M. (1994) The Media, Risk assessment and Numbers: they don't add up [Internet]
Available from http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol5/summer/friedman.htm
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Kitzinger, J. (1999) Researching risk and the media.
Health, Risk & Society 1(1): 55-69
Millar, R. and Wynne, B. (1988) Public understanding of science: from contents to processes.
Int. J. Sci. Edu. 10(4): 388-398
Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. H. (1996a) AGCI Session II: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.
Discussion on S. Dunwoody's paper "What's a journalist to do? Challenges and approaches to reporting scientific assessment."
[Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/2cw2v
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. H. (1996b) AGCI Session
II: Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty. Discussion on S. H. Stocking's paper "How
journalists deal with scientific uncertainty." [Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/3fhjp
[Accessed 29th June 2004]
Schneider, S. (1996) AGCI Session II: The role of the Scientist-Advocate
[Internet] Available from http://tinyurl.com/26jf5
[Accessed on 29th June 2004]
Science Media Centre (2002) MMR: Learning Lessons
[Internet] Available from http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/aboutus/MMRreport.html
[Accessed 26th June 2004]
Stocking, S. H. (1999) How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty, Chapter 2 in Communicating Uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (p23-41).
Edited by Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. L. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Oleron
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 940
Sorry for the derail but are you this Robin Ince?
If so, welcome to the forum. If not, welcome anyway!
As for science reporting, I have seen the BBC (on "Should we be worried about...?" show with Richard Hammond) giving airtime to Roger Coghill's views on radiation and health. The show did treat him with a degree of skepticism but Coghill is being used generally by the media as an authority on radiation dangers (mobile phones and electricity pylons) when his research has been thoroughly critiqued by some members of this very forum (look for the bioelectromagnetics thread - Coghill posts as Cogreslab).
Coghill seems to get wheeled out when the media want to wind the public up with the latest health scare.
Also try PM'ing CFLarsen with your query. He has oodles of info on this kind of stuff and runs the SkepticReport website. Good Luck.
If so, welcome to the forum. If not, welcome anyway!
As for science reporting, I have seen the BBC (on "Should we be worried about...?" show with Richard Hammond) giving airtime to Roger Coghill's views on radiation and health. The show did treat him with a degree of skepticism but Coghill is being used generally by the media as an authority on radiation dangers (mobile phones and electricity pylons) when his research has been thoroughly critiqued by some members of this very forum (look for the bioelectromagnetics thread - Coghill posts as Cogreslab).
Coghill seems to get wheeled out when the media want to wind the public up with the latest health scare.
Also try PM'ing CFLarsen with your query. He has oodles of info on this kind of stuff and runs the SkepticReport website. Good Luck.
Robin, if this is a weekly show would you like us to report stuff on a regular basis?
I, for one, would certainly be happy to send anything your way that I find in the papers or elsewhere.
One good example recently was the "No animals died during the Tsunami" myth which was circulating quite widely.
We discussed it here .
It seems a lot of papers and media outlets were discussing the mechanisms by which animals could 'sense' the tsunami, without actually providing any real evidence that this had actually happened to any great degree (other than that they can usually run faster, and don't wander curiously down to the sea when it suddenly, mysteriously draws away from the beach prior to a tidal wave - unlike humans).
I have actually read news reports in the papers that stated something like "No birds seemed to be harmed by the tsunami".
They seemed to be assuming that birds had some kind of special 'eartquake-sensing ability'.
Whereas I had been kind of assuming that, er, birds can fly.
The media always jumps straight in with explanations before finding out whether the phenomenon actually happened in the first place.
I'm sure there have been loads of articles recently 'explaining' EVP after the film 'White Noise' came out. The fact that it doesn't actually exist other than as a natural by-product of pareidolia , trickery, badly erased tapes and radio transmissions doesn't seem to bother anyone.
It's always the same. Armageddon and Deep Impact come out in cinemas, and suddenly we are bombarded with stories about huge meteorites that are about to hit us.
Anyway, good luck with the show - please let us know when it airs.
I, for one, would certainly be happy to send anything your way that I find in the papers or elsewhere.
One good example recently was the "No animals died during the Tsunami" myth which was circulating quite widely.
We discussed it here .
It seems a lot of papers and media outlets were discussing the mechanisms by which animals could 'sense' the tsunami, without actually providing any real evidence that this had actually happened to any great degree (other than that they can usually run faster, and don't wander curiously down to the sea when it suddenly, mysteriously draws away from the beach prior to a tidal wave - unlike humans).
I have actually read news reports in the papers that stated something like "No birds seemed to be harmed by the tsunami".
They seemed to be assuming that birds had some kind of special 'eartquake-sensing ability'.
Whereas I had been kind of assuming that, er, birds can fly.
The media always jumps straight in with explanations before finding out whether the phenomenon actually happened in the first place.
I'm sure there have been loads of articles recently 'explaining' EVP after the film 'White Noise' came out. The fact that it doesn't actually exist other than as a natural by-product of pareidolia , trickery, badly erased tapes and radio transmissions doesn't seem to bother anyone.
It's always the same. Armageddon and Deep Impact come out in cinemas, and suddenly we are bombarded with stories about huge meteorites that are about to hit us.
Anyway, good luck with the show - please let us know when it airs.
H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Thank you Robin. Much clearer.
To add my tuppence worth I would be interested if you could work into your sketch the role of professional illusionists in exposing fraud, trickery and deception. "Set a thief to catch a thief" so to speak. There are some circumstances where a physicist, for example, is least able to detect such things. Your use of "bamboozle" would indicate that this may be apposite.
To add my tuppence worth I would be interested if you could work into your sketch the role of professional illusionists in exposing fraud, trickery and deception. "Set a thief to catch a thief" so to speak. There are some circumstances where a physicist, for example, is least able to detect such things. Your use of "bamboozle" would indicate that this may be apposite.
Here's a new one for you Robin from, of ll places The British Medical Journal:
BMJ test magnetic bracelets
It appears the British Medical Journal has published a report giving a positive effect of Magnetic bracelets on arthritis.
Slight problem is, it doesn't appear that the British Medical Journal know how to conduct and carry out an experiement properly.
As pointed out in the thread, the experiment not only isn't double-blind, it isn't even single blind!
But I know we will be hearing plenty more about this report from the pro-magnetic bracelet groups as a result of this poor scientific experiment.
BMJ test magnetic bracelets
It appears the British Medical Journal has published a report giving a positive effect of Magnetic bracelets on arthritis.
Slight problem is, it doesn't appear that the British Medical Journal know how to conduct and carry out an experiement properly.
As pointed out in the thread, the experiment not only isn't double-blind, it isn't even single blind!
But I know we will be hearing plenty more about this report from the pro-magnetic bracelet groups as a result of this poor scientific experiment.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
I came across this yesterday. Oh dear oh dear... it doesn't get any better, does it?
* J Randi (1977) The media and reports on the paranormal. The Humanist (37) pp.45-47.
A lot of the time, you've got to look at what they're not telling you... which would take you precisely the time and effort which, by buying the newspaper, you are paying the journalists involved to put in on your behalf.
Unfortunately, making people more ignorant when you're paid to inform them is not culpable negligence under the law. But it should be.
--- Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn't So
* J Randi (1977) The media and reports on the paranormal. The Humanist (37) pp.45-47.
A lot of the time, you've got to look at what they're not telling you... which would take you precisely the time and effort which, by buying the newspaper, you are paying the journalists involved to put in on your behalf.
Unfortunately, making people more ignorant when you're paid to inform them is not culpable negligence under the law. But it should be.
voodoochile
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 184
No link, but shortly after I moved the New Bern, they ran a story on a HS girl who got drunk at a friends house. The father of the friend was a cop, so it got lots of play around here (as it should).
The girl nearly died and her BAC was .24 when her stomach was pumped at the hospital. The reporter went on to say, "that means nearly 1/4 of her blood was alcohol."
Um... no... that means nearly 1/4 or 1% of her blood was alcohol. If 1/4 of her blood were alcohol, she would be preserved, not drunk.
The girl nearly died and her BAC was .24 when her stomach was pumped at the hospital. The reporter went on to say, "that means nearly 1/4 of her blood was alcohol."
Um... no... that means nearly 1/4 or 1% of her blood was alcohol. If 1/4 of her blood were alcohol, she would be preserved, not drunk.
CurtC
Illuminator
Are you familiar with Ben Goldacre over at The Guardian? He has a weekly column called Bad Science, and he's always mentioning things in the Daily Mail (and others) like this:
I'm sure you could get lots of ideas from him.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't read the Daily Mail, but I think you should give some thought to the constant credulous acceptance of the claims of "alternative" medicine. No matter how implausible the assertions, they always seem to be treated as some sort of holy writ. In fact, celebrities who turn to such scams when they are ill are frequently described as "brave" and "battling" when at best they are simply paying for entertainment while the chemotherapy does the work, and at worst they are signing their own death warrants by rejecting potentially effective treatments for coffee enemas or something.
It's not uncommon for qualified doctors to be involved in these frauds - homoeopathy is probably the most notorious. For sheer implausibility it's hard to beat, but instead of taking a sensible look at the claims and the evidence the media seem to bend over backwards to give credence to the expensive sugar pills.
Doctors and scientists who should know better don't help here, because instead of telling the truth about the lack of efficacy of these things, they often hide behind weasel words like "no strong evidence", or "further research is needed". Or maybe that's the only way they get reported at all!
There are so many frauds going on. Vulnerable people, frightened and finding it difficult to come to terms with the truth of their situation, are being exploited and in many cases milked for their last penny by charlatans hiding behind a mask of "caring" and "treating the whole person" (what do they think real medicine does, for goodness sake?) The media are full of puff articles going very easy on the frauds, often flat-out endorsing them, or at worst dropping heavy hints that "there might be something there". But the truth, that could help these patients save their money and concentrate their energies on dealing positively with their situation, are as rare as hens' teeth.
Maybe this is actually mis-reporting of pseudoscience, rather than science, but I thought it was worth a mention.
Rolfe.
It's not uncommon for qualified doctors to be involved in these frauds - homoeopathy is probably the most notorious. For sheer implausibility it's hard to beat, but instead of taking a sensible look at the claims and the evidence the media seem to bend over backwards to give credence to the expensive sugar pills.
Doctors and scientists who should know better don't help here, because instead of telling the truth about the lack of efficacy of these things, they often hide behind weasel words like "no strong evidence", or "further research is needed". Or maybe that's the only way they get reported at all!
There are so many frauds going on. Vulnerable people, frightened and finding it difficult to come to terms with the truth of their situation, are being exploited and in many cases milked for their last penny by charlatans hiding behind a mask of "caring" and "treating the whole person" (what do they think real medicine does, for goodness sake?) The media are full of puff articles going very easy on the frauds, often flat-out endorsing them, or at worst dropping heavy hints that "there might be something there". But the truth, that could help these patients save their money and concentrate their energies on dealing positively with their situation, are as rare as hens' teeth.
Maybe this is actually mis-reporting of pseudoscience, rather than science, but I thought it was worth a mention.
Rolfe.
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
I've only paid attention to UK reporting in regards to vaccination. There have been some whoppers... that are often noted by commentators.
For instance --- Brian Deer got some feedback on his investigation of Wakefield:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/private-eye.htm
and commentaries on Spiked-Online:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA444.htm which refers to this article:
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm130303.htm
THEN... there is the travesty of science reporting in of all places "Discover" magazine, with this horrible thing:
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/features/our-preferred-poison/
For instance --- Brian Deer got some feedback on his investigation of Wakefield:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/private-eye.htm
and commentaries on Spiked-Online:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA444.htm which refers to this article:
http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm130303.htm
THEN... there is the travesty of science reporting in of all places "Discover" magazine, with this horrible thing:
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-05/features/our-preferred-poison/