Vaccines and Autism – Media Report Card

Just got sent this link by the irrepressible Aimee, a “Not great” article about the Vaccines vs Autism “Debate”.

Here’s my Media Score Card for this article:

Much rubbish, a few good points. I give her a C^-.

‘vaccinate at any cost’ = Strawman
Court decisions =/= Science
Incomplete knowledge = No knowledge = Fail
Anecdote =/= Good Evidence
“acceptable risk” argument simplifies risk/benefit assessment = Fail
“Teh Toxins” = Fail
Injection = Unnatural = Fail
“canaries in the coalmine” = Fail.   Can someone say “Mommy instinct”?

Respectful discussion = Win
Pro-information = Win
Complex topic = Win.

All-in-all a reasonable person sucked into the Vaccine -> Autism perspective.

Pity.

Science Coverage in the Media – A Report on the BBC

I just read this story about an independent review of science reporting from the BBC (via RD.net). It covers the release of a report on the coverage of science by the BBC, while the report is mostly favourable there are a few things that could be addressed and done better.

The obvious one is the general media habit of false balance. This is the practice of inserting contrary views for the sake of it and in doing so providing a false sense of the actual sate of affairs. Examples given in the report are AGW, the MMR vaccine/Autism brouhaha and GM crops. For other markets I’d throw in the creationism/evolution “debate”, clashes between so-called Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM, or now “Intergrative Medicine”) and other issues where the science strongly favours one view point.

This is a significant problem in the media where the pressure must be great to both appear “impartial” and to take advantage of “manufactroversies” to drive consumers up-take of content. Care must be taken when presenting stories to give due weight to each view point in order to convey the correct interpretation to the target audience if stories are to be presented correctly. Too often fringe views are given disproportionate air time in order to the provide “balance”, but this has the effect of giving these views more credence in the public consciousness than they deserve.

A great parody/analogy used in the report by the reviewer was “mathematician discovers that 2 + 2 = 4; spokesperson for Duodecimal Liberation Front insists that 2 + 2 = 5, presenter sums up that “2 + 2 = something like 4.5 but the debate goes on”.

That’s it in a nutshell.

A great video of comedian Dara O’Briain covers the same point. (I know it’s been posted before but it’s hilarious)

I have not yet had a chance to look at the entire report (it’s over 100 pages) but hopefully I can wade through it at some point ad pull out a few more interesting points.

Seducing Scientists into Science Communication

When it comes to science communication I (and I assume many of the bloggers I am aware of though I’d rather not put words in their mouths) do so because of a perceived lack in the mainstream media (MSM). Along with this is a frustration with the amount of unscientific thinking among the general public, though this is perhaps a matter of perspective. You might say that I have been subjected to the motivational “stick” as it were, my actions are a response to a negative stimulus.

Well an article published earlier this month in the Journal of Translational Medicine attempts to apply the motivational “carrot” to get scientists to become more involved in science communication especially through the MSM and journalists.  The article “Bridging the divide between science and journalism” starts out by reminding scientists of the MSM’s short format and the wide variety tasks and high workload expected of current journalists.

These two points are expanded upon later in the article along with tips on how to compensate for them. First though the authors whet scientists’ appetite for why they should be expending this effort:

“The answer  is simple. Clear communication and greater awareness of your work can equal
additional  funding, enhanced career advancement and  further scientific breakthroughs. According  to
plainlanguage.gov, a recent study showed that medical articles reported  in The New England Journal of
Medicine and  then  reported  in The New York Times  receive about 73 percent more citations  in medical
reports  than  articles  not  reported  in  The  New  York  Times. “

Now these might seem like cynical self serving motives for scientists to popularise their work, and maybe they are, but the trickle down effect has got to be good for everyone. Scientists clearly explaining their research to journalists in a format that is easily disseminated and digested will surely benefit the public as well as the funding bottom line.

The article authors also note that cultivating clear and concise language will help with receiving funding directly:

“If a scientist can pitch his or her grant proposal  in  three minutes or  less,  it has a better chance at being funded.”

If all that is too too superficial to be deeply motivating then the last point covers a more altruistic outlook. Research that is covered in MSM effectively reaches a wide audience, as such it has the possibility of promoting “cross-fertilization” between disciplines and perhaps leading to better science.

The article finishes up with a number of “Tips for Working with the Media” which cover simple concepts that must be kept in mind when dealing with journalists like:

“…it  is  vital  that  you  can quickly explain the results of your research and put it into context about its relevance. You must always be able to explain why  the information  is new and exciting, and compelling enough for a journalist to want to share that information with hundreds of thousands of people.”

and:

“Also, be  sure  to get  to  know  key  reporters  covering  your  field  in  the  local and  national media. Often  times  these  people  can  be  found  attending major  conferences  and meetings.  Introduce yourself. Briefly explain what you are working on and why it is important. Ask what the reporter is working on and see if you can be a resource to him or her.”

These are just small extracts of well thought-out and helpful advice, I recommend interested parties read the full article. I would add to this advice that there is no substitute for practice and that starting a personal Blog about your area of research and interest can help hone your style and develop the skills required to communicate effectively. It is also a good way to expose yourself to the variety of voices in current media, most Bloggers also tend to be avid blog readers, this is no coincidence.

I should finally point out that the authors of the article do run a communications consulting firm. Despite this, and even in the current climate of suspicion about sources and conflicts of interest, I think that good advice is still good advice whatever it’s source.

Van Eperen, L., Marincola, F., & Strohm, J. (2010). Bridging the divide between science and journalism Journal of Translational Medicine, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-8-25

Related articles by Zemanta

• New science journalism ecosystem: new inter-species interactions, new niches (scienceblogs.com)
• Why You Can’t Depend On The Press For Science Reporting (sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Man Flu, the Disappointing Reality

Man Flu, scourge of modern Manly life. Struck down by this dreaded disease men are reduced to a shadow of their former glory, unable to maintain the meager level of household responsibility they usually get away with or even care for their own well being. Reduced to mewling invalids, men afflicted with Man Flu have little recourse beyond bed rest and watching daytime television while a significant other tends to their every need. After being ridiculed by wives and girlfriends for decades science has come to the rescue and vindicated us, the Man Flu exists!*
*The preceding is a work of fiction and any resemblance to real people or events is coincidental.
Despite what the media would have us believe recent advances in scientific research has not in fact established that Man Flu is a real phenomena beyond simply showing our inability to deal with sickness effectively. The real science behind the hype, as usual, is much more modest in it’s scope and consequences.

So what was actually studied? The research was carried out by McGill University in Canada and looked at the effects of a certain protein, caspase-12. The study involved investigating how the activity of this protein affects immune response against Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, a microbe that can cause serious food poisoning, in mice. Part of the study also investigated the effect of gender on the activity of the protien and whether any difference was mediated by the hormone oestrogen. To do this researchers infected mice with the bacteria and looked at spleen and liver bacteria levels in male and female mice with and without the gene for the protein and male mice with the gene and being treated with estrogen. 

The interesting thing is that this gene did have a different effect on how sick the mice got depending on the presence or absence of estrogen. Those male mice with the gene were more susceptible to the infection than females or males recieving hormone treatment, but the gene is inactive in most humans. Only about 20% of native Africans have a working version of the gene, so this research has virtually no applicability to general differences in flu severity between men and women. I guess Man Flu remains a myth, for now.