The Good, The Bad, The Spin

A couple of years ago I received a phone call of a reporter. She wanted to know the effects of human-ingested substances–pharmaceuticals, caffeine–on the environment and other humans after being deposited in sewage. Before referring her to the resident environmental scientist experts, I did some research.

Five minutes and a few Google search terms later I found a readily available report (from an expert, non-news-media source) on the subject that essentially said the amounts of such substances are so minuscule that there is no ill effect.

My short amount of research, and the reporter’s excellent sense of judgment, effectively killed the story.

But it’s a story that won’t die that easily. And the cost is being shared by everyone as a result of the Associated Press’ latest iteration last week, which stirred the pot and generated fear among readers by suggesting not enough is being done about potentially toxic public waters. Water agencies are going out to test local water supplies as a result of this story in an attempt to calm public fears and address the issue.

The AP story is so full of qualifiers–the word “may” appears over and over–the the story’s unintended reaction, maybe, is to engender fear. JunkScience.com has this to say: (more…)

The world of scientific research holds a principle of conservatism that hasn’t yet entered the public consciousness–and likely never will. It is the idea that if something isn’t yet explainable by rigorous and established controls and procedures, researchers are cautious to draw broad conclusions about that phenomenon.

The reason for this is simple: In order to best understand phenomena, researchers are careful about offering conclusive statements because the process of research demands a constant challenging and updating of information, new and old. What makes science, science is the constant refining of knowledge.

Problems arise because the human tendency is to take familiar features of one’s situation and to reduce those features into a seemingly plausible and easily accepted conclusion. An example: The world works in mysterious ways and many ideas exist about how and why the world turns as it does. Commonly, an invisible force–an intelligent designer, a god—is deemed to be responsible.

Such a deduction goes against fundamental scientific principles. Evolutionary explanations are readily available and are accepted by scientists in spite of the fact that more than 80 percent of Americans believe in God. (more…)

Do liberals and conservatives spindoctor science, or are renegade journalists high on anthropomorphism? Franz de Waal, who’s a scientist, a primatologist to be exact, weighs in on the primate revisionism that occurs in this month’s issue of The New Yorker. De Waal explains:

“The main message of (Ian) Parker’s piece could of course have been that fieldwork is no picnic, but instead he went for profound revelation: bonobos are not nearly as nice and sexual as they have been made out to be. Given that the bonobo’s reputation has been a thorn in the side of homophobes as well as Hobbesians, the right-wing media jumped with delight. The bonobo ‘myth’ could finally be put to rest. Parker’s piece was gleefully picked up by The Wall Street Journal and Dinesh D’Souza (yes, the same one who blamed 9/11 on the left), who accused ‘liberals’ of having fashioned the bonobo into their mascot. D’Souza urged them to stick with the donkey.”

At the end of the day, this issue is essentially about the common discomfort–on both sides of the political spectrum–with comparing humans to primates. It’s the worst kind of human exceptionalism because it ignores one simple point: We are primates. One kind of many.

Of course, it’s not just journalists who have trouble with science. So do scientists. (more…)