In an
ideal world, you would only read news accounts that accurately
described scientific research, without giving you exaggerations or
misinterpretations. But we don't live in such a world. In our world
there are three vested interests that may cause the raw data of a
scientific experiment to be distorted, twisted or exaggerated.
Vested Interest 1: The
Scientific Researcher
Many
people think that a scientific researcher is some entirely impartial
person who will write a scientific paper describing data with dry
objectivity. Many researchers act in such a way, but many others do
not.
Consider
the following all-too-common type of case. Imagine you are a
scientist who has put forth a research proposal asking for funding
from some institution such as a university or the federal government.
You do the experiments, but nothing very interesting comes up. How do
you then describe these results in your scientific paper? You have a
problem if you honestly describe the research as a failure to find
anything interesting. For one thing, such honesty may decrease your
chance of being funded the next time you present a research proposal
asking for funding from the same institution. Also, honestly
reporting the research as a failure to find anything very interesting
may mean that your scientific paper will not get published. That's a
problem given the “publish or perish” culture inside
universities, in which it's almost as if each researcher is expected
to produce a certain number of published papers each year.
So
under such conditions a researcher may have a motive to do something
like data dredging or correlation fishing, in which the data
is diced, spliced, and crunched until some type of semi-interesting
correlation coughs up. The problem is that such a correlation will
often be coincidental. Or the researcher may have a motive to
describe the results in some manner that makes the results seem more
interesting or suggestive than the data actually suggests. For
example, instead of describing a weak correlation (between, say, TV
watching and prostate cancer) as a “borderline correlation,” the
scientific paper's title or abstract may describe this as an
“intriguing connection.”
Vested Interest 2: The
College or University Issuing a Press Release
When
you read a news story on some scientific finding, you are typically
reading an account that is based on a press release issued by a
college or university, typically a press release issued at the same
time the scientific paper is published. Some web sites simply publish
such university or college press releases word-for-word; others have
stories that are based on such press releases. What often happens is
that the college or university press release will exaggerate or
over-dramatize the scientific research it describes.
Why
would such a thing occur? It occurs because the college or university
has a motive to present itself as a place where important research is
occurring. If a university issues a press release entitled, “We
Funded This Research, But It Didn't Find Anything,” then such a
story is not one that can be used on the university's web site to
help attract student enrollments and donors. But if the same research
is described with a press release entitled, “Fascinating New
Research Probes the Frontiers of Knowledge,” or something along
those lines, then such a press release has some value in helping to
uphold or build the university's reputation or prestige.
So
clearly a university or college can have a vested interest in hyping
or exaggerating somewhat the announcement of scientific research it
has funded.
So by
now we see the chain of exaggeration can be:
Unimportant
Research Results→ Researcher Exaggeration → University Press
Release Exaggeration
Vested Interest 3: A
Web Site Hyping the Press Release
The
biggest inflation in the chain of exaggeration can occur when some
popular web site writes a story based on the press release issued at
the same time as the scientific paper. Here shameless hyping and
unbridled exaggeration are very common, and simple lying is not very
uncommon. Some research suggesting a possibility only very weakly
may be trumpeted as dramatic proof of such a possibility, or the
research may be described with some claim completely at odds with
what the research actually found. It's pretty much an “anything
goes” type of situation.
Why
does this happen? It all boils down to money. The way large modern
web sites work financially is that the more people access a
particular page, the more money the web site gets from its online
ads. So large web sites have a financial motive to produce “click
bait” stories.
Here's
an imaginary example. A scientific study asking lots of health
questions of respondents may “data dredge” its way to reach a
very modest, borderline correlation between Alzheimer's disease and,
say, brushing with toothbrushes older than two months. Let's say it
finds that you are 2% more likely to get Alzheimer's if you brush
with old toothbrushes. This borderline result (probably due to just coincidence) may be hyped up a bit
by some university press release with a headline such as “An
Intriguing Link Between Alzheimer's and Toothbrushes?” But then
when you go to your favorite news site, you may see a "runaway hype" link such as
“PROOF YOUR TOOTHBRUSH IS MELTING YOUR BRAIN.” That link is click
bait.
When
you follow the link, you may either find a story honestly mentioning
how borderline the results were, or you may find a story exaggerating
the results and terrifying you. For the web site, it really doesn't
matter. The people running the site were merely interested in getting you to click
on the link, so that they could make money from the display of the
online ads.
So by
now we see the chain of exaggeration can be:
Unimportant
Research Results → Researcher Exaggeration $$$$→ University Press
Release Exaggeration $$$$→ Popular Web Site Exaggeration $$$$
And
at each of these $$$$ points we should hear the ka-ching of
the cash register, the sound of a vested interest profiting directly
or indirectly.
For some tips on how to spot overblown hype in a science-related news story, see this post.
For some tips on how to spot overblown hype in a science-related news story, see this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment