media Archives - EcoEvo@TCD

24/01/201410/01/2014

Science and Journalism

As scientists with access to hundreds of peer reviewed journals its easy to forget that we are a privileged bunch. We get to read science straight from the horse’s mouth without anyone to get between us and the research. Yet for the majority of people journals are hidden behind paywalls and even open access journals remain largely the domain of working scientists if for no other reason than reading scientific journal articles is hard work. They demand a high level of prior knowledge and often use terms that are completely meaningless to anyone outside their field. It’s no surprise that the majority of people get their science news from newspapers.

The problem with science in newspapers is that it’s really badly done. It’s often based on press releases from universities and others have written about how the media will take a story and run in whatever direction they please, regardless of the actual research. Science journalism has been relegated to the side-lines. While it would cause outrage if someone who knew nothing about football was allowed to write in the sports section, non-science journalists are regularly writing science stories, unable to critique the work or put it in any context. On the one hand it leads to sensationalist stories but on the other it can result in the real news story being buried among trivialities (something I’ve written about before).

It’s one thing to disagree with a news story about your own research but what about other science stories? If you have any interest in science chances are you’ve read a news story and shook your head in disbelief at the poor reporting. You may have moaned about it to friends until they wondered off saying something about “letting it go” or “getting a life”. But what, really, can you do? You’re just one person. . .

Well, it turns out there is something you can do. You can email the journalist. You can explain, politely and calmly, exactly what was wrong and then suggesting ways of making the story better. So, rather than say;

“Your article was rubbish, you don’t have any idea what you’re on about it was all wrong!”

you could write,

“I was disappointed by your article. You said that whales are a fish when they are actually mammals”.

(Hopefully you won’t see any errors that egregious!)

You may be thinking that it’s all very well and good to email them, but why should they listen? Why do they care? The story’s finished, they’ve moved on. Well, one reason is that most stories are online where they form a permanent record, so any errors will remain forever unless corrected which does nothing to help a journalist’s reputation. Secondly, most of the errors aren’t out of spite or even callous disregard, it’s because they don’t know any better. As I said, a lot of science journalists aren’t experts so they’re going to make mistakes. Even if do have a background in science they can’t know everything. Could you write as well on quantum mechanics as you could on evolution, for example? I doubt it.

This all sounds wonderful. You see an error in a science story, you email the journalist and he corrects it and everyone goes merrily on their way. Really? Life isn’t that pleasant. Well, actually, it can be. The inspiration for this post came from an article I saw hyperbolically titled “New species of terrifying looking ‘skeleton shrimp’ discovered”. The original article gave no information about who had discovered the animal or why it was important. It also had incorrect formatting on the genus and family names. I emailed the author and politely explained the problems. I had a lovely response and he corrected the formatting errors, added the information it lacks and, most importantly, gave credit for the discovery where it was due. The article now online is the amended one and while still not brilliant, is much better.

The moral of this story is that if you see bad science in the news contact the journalist. Chances are they don’t know they’re making mistakes and as long as you are polite and specific they will heed your advice. While you won’t get a 100% success rate, or even a 100% response rate, you will get some response. Focus on the smaller articles usually written by people low down the hierarchical food chain who are most receptive, who haven’t been jaded and welcome polite, constructive advice and can be encouraged to do better in the future. If we all make the effort to correct bad science reporting we can hopefully help journalists and improve science understanding in the public domain. Not bad for one email.

Author: Sarah Hearne, hearnes[at]tcd.ie, @SarahVHearne

Image Source: blogs.discovermagazine.com

01/10/201330/09/2013

Radio Ga Ga Science: a student’s point of view

I was planning to write a blog about our new paper recently published in Animal Behaviour however something relatively unexpected seemed to scupper those plans, the media!

For those who haven’t come across an article talking about the best way to swat a fly or heard me rambling away on radio, our paper has been covered from Roscommon to North Korea so I won’t delve into it further here, especially with some nice summaries and our article available through open access.

What I wanted to write about was the perspective of a PhD student caught in the whirlwind of the big bad media world and how I felt about the whole experience as both a student and scientist.

First off I still have not fully grasped what happened, to sit on the Dart and read about your own research in the metro is very surreal and its extremely flattering to think that someone thought that what I was working on would be interesting for someone else to read about!

Despite it being a fantastic thing to be acknowledged in the media, it did also make me feel very anxious as something I had been working on for nearly two years was completely out in the open multiplying every hour as it became part of the international news recycling system. I also now know what it feels like to be the squirrel on water-skis fluffy news piece at the end of the news, there to lighten up the fact that the news is the even more depressing then watching “The Road”.

This lack of control is probably something any scientist is not comfortable with, with every comment section full of ludicrous assumptions and misunderstanding about the research none of which I could, or even should, try to set right or defend. In fact after so many “I knew that when I was five” comments it becomes more fun just to see whether the Independent or the Daily mail fared worse below the line (the guardian was worse again but seems to have closed the comment section).

While I think this experience has been nothing but beneficial through advertising our science, in terms of the more general aspect of science communication with the public I found it a little tricky to decide how useful it was. This is due to what I found to be the fine balancing act of lowest common denominator reporting and getting the intricacies of you research across. For example, while I think the metaphor of swatting a fly is a good way of explaining our research in a real world scenario, we did not expect it would spawn a full article on the best methods to swat a fly, or that we would be referred by Ray D’Arcy as “Fly Experts”, despite the fact that flies were not in our dataset or that none of us have ever studied anything on flies!

It also raises the question of the value of engaging with the media from a scientist’s point of view. In one respect I think it is important to engage with the public as at the end of the day research is largely funded through the State and it’s important to remind the public not only that research is worth it but that “blue skies” (awful term) research cab also be relevant. I think in some respects I am happy we achieved this with sites specifically aimed at 10-12 year olds with a specific educational aim and also through some good interviews on radio that I think got a generally positive response.

However with this there are also a lot of “the best way to swat a fly” pieces which aren’t getting anything across and at times may even start to trivialise the research and hence devalue its worth in the public’s eye (clear from comments hoping that no money was spent on this research).

Overall I think almost any science that enters the media will produce a mixed bag of results. But after the level of enthusiasm from people and the genuine line of questions such as seen in this reddit forum (Unlike the Irish reddit forum), I think it’s nearly always worth it to let your research out there as it will undoubtedly be genuinely appreciated by at least some people.

Author and Photo Credit:

Kevin Healy: @healyke, healyke[at]tcd.ie

30/09/2013

Radio Ga Ga Science

In the midst of the media circus surrounding our paper “metabolic rate and body size are linked with perception of temporal information”, I was invited to speak about our work on several radio shows. What followed was a mixture of immense excitement, nervous trepidation, deflation and all round good fun. This is only the third time I have spoken about research on the radio, but this time there was so much exposure that I really learned a lot – mostly how to manage my own expectations and general sanity with the whole bizarre affair.

It starts with excited phone calls with producers of the radio shows. They tend to call you at ungodly hours and want to chat with you about the work. I get the impression this is as much to sound out what you are going to say and how you will come over on the airwaves as it is to let you know what the focus of their on-air discussion will be.

What followed for me was a very exciting and bleary-eyed 6am trip to our national broadcasting headquarters RTE in their Dublin studios where I would do a “link up” to the British BBC radio stations for their various breakfast shows. Since I was just there to use their facilities, I was shepherded down to the basement to sit in a tiny studio cubicle beside their engineering and IT department. Were it not for a very nice, interesting and friendly sound engineer (lots of engineers I know are “sound” but this guy was both – its an Irish thing) Kevin Cronin, I would have been lonely and bored indeed.

First lesson – you get mucked about. I don’t think a single time-slot I was given was kept strict, so you end up sitting around not quite sure who you are going to talk to next. Then, suddenly, the earphones go live with the sound of the radio show you are going to link with, and a producer’s voice comes over to check the line and give you a few minutes warning alerting you to the go-live. Next thing, typically following some grim story unfolding from somewhere around the world, you are introduced by some typically odd segue and off you go. Talking to what could just as easily be a few million people as a few thousand. They will take liberties with your time, so if you need a break, tell them you can’t talk at a certain time. Don’t feel beholden to them – although if it’s a big show then probably you should make the effort.

Second lesson – the presenter is in charge. Make no bones about it, you are there to answer their questions, not to talk about your actual research. They will have read your press release if you are very lucky, else they will have garnered the gist from the producers notes or worse still from whatever news article they read about your work on the way to work – a chinese whispered, now long-since bastardised version of your science. In my case, I ended up talking about how best to swat a fly, not the tiger beetle that runs so fast it runs blind, or the swordfish that speeds up and slows down its visual processing abilities as and when required. No. Fly swatting. I don’t work on flies, never have, likely never will. I don’t mind though, it’s not up to me to say what’s interesting in my work for other people, just as it’s not up to the artist to determine what people should see in their painting – Jesus face on a piece of toast for all I know.

Third lesson – it gets boring. If you find yourself doing a few of these in one day, you will likely be over the excitement after the first few. Then repetition and boredom sets in. Same questions, but now, more aware of what’s happening and determined to get my point across I try to steer the topic back to the actual work we did and away from flies. Nope. Remember, the presenter is in charge. You can sense their desire to cut you off when you start to drone on, and you are back to flies. It also gets tiring, so remember to eat and load up on coffee.

It gets easier. Once the first nerves die off (I wasn’t particularly happy with my first interview of the day on BBC Radio 4 with John Humphries), and you stop trying to second guess what you will be asked, you find yourself just going with the flow. It has certainly helped me with my “elevator pitch” and I would like to think I would be more confident if and when this kicks off again sometime in the future.

It was a mad day, typified by having loud conversations on my phone in the tea room in Zoology along the lines of “yeah, no, I can’t do that slot, I’m with BBC world service at 12.30, I can probably fit you in after though…”.

Best parts – I got to chat with John Humphries live on air, shook Ryan Tubridy’s hand (I just stopped him in the corridor and gave him no choice!) and I got to talk to “Daddy Ray” (Ray D’Arcy from my childhood favourite Zig and Zag show The Den). My parents are proud to say the least, various people high up in College seem happy, and my PhD student Kevin Healy has had a whirlwind start to his academic career – on 16^th September 2013 he won the internet.

Last pointer – don’t get flippant or try to be funny if you are anything like me. At the end of my piece, I took a swipe at Ray D’Arcy’s audience with a bit of a pun joke saying that some of them had too much time on their hands with their over-thinking of how to swat a fly.

Author:

Andrew Jackson, @yodacomplex, a.jackson[at]tcd.ie

Photo Credit:

Kevin Healy