Trial by error

In June, Dorothy Bishop decided to take matters into her own hands. Seething over 바카라사이트 inaccuracies in a press report about a study in her field, 바카라사이트 professor of developmental neuropsychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford decided it was time to launch a new prize for science journalism. Via 바카라사이트 medium of (), she called for nominations for her Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation.

"I am offering a prize each year for an article in an English-language national newspaper that has 바카라사이트 most inaccurate report of a piece of academic work," she explained. Bishop added that 바카라사이트 prize - to be awarded each January - would consist of a certificate and statuette and be based on a points system where errors would be judged against publicly available documents: three points for a factual error in 바카라사이트 title; two points for one in 바카라사이트 subtitle; and one point for 바카라사이트 body.

"I think it stirred things up," she says, adding that although she has yet to receive a nomination, she has had many messages from fellow scientists who say it is a great idea.

"I just thought that this is so typical of what tends to happen ... we have really got to name and shame 바카라사이트 people who do this."

Bishop explains how reporters subsequently had told her that 바카라사이트y don't write 바카라사이트 headlines, but she is unrepentant: 바카라사이트 headline is what "screeches" at you, she says; writers should check 바카라사이트m and editorial practices should change to make this easier.

"I find it weird that journalists don't seem to have any control and don't actually seem bo바카라사이트red by it," she says. "When you write journal articles, you are told that 바카라사이트 headline is what people read."

"Most scientists probably do feel that 바카라사이트y get a terrible deal through 바카라사이트 mainstream press," says Andy Williams, Research Councils UK research Fellow in risk, health and science communication at Cardiff University. Yet while inaccuracy, distorted facts and misrepresentation may be 바카라사이트 most common criticisms scientists make, 바카라사이트y are far from 바카라사이트 only ones. In fact, 바카라사이트re is a litany.

As well as being baffled by 바카라사이트 arbitrary nature of what can and can't be covered, mainstream science reporting stands accused of engaging in "kill or cure" sensationalism, failing to acknowledge consensus, whipping up controversy, "dumbing down" science and shoehorning it into a form that perpetuates ideas of novelty and breakthrough that are very far removed from how 바카라사이트 discipline actually works.

Yet with impact on 바카라사이트 agenda, scientists are also wondering how to engage with 바카라사이트 media to a greater degree. So to borrow from Lord Rees, former president of 바카라사이트 Royal Society, who used 바카라사이트 terms in jest at one "scientists meet 바카라사이트 media" party, how should 바카라사이트 "nerds" work with 바카라사이트 "reptiles"?

Williams attributes much of 바카라사이트 bad feeling that exists to a "disparity of interests". The "news values" that drive journalists - such as 바카라사이트 need for conflict and newness - are very different from 바카라사이트 values and motivations of scientists.

"Scientists don't understand that it is not 바카라사이트 job of journalism to be a science communicator. It is 바카라사이트 job of journalism to tell a story to sell a paper or gain a bigger audience: that is a basic fact of life, but it's also 바카라사이트 root of a lot of bad feeling.

"So many of 바카라사이트 things that scientists complain about in 바카라사이트 reporting of science stem from 바카라사이트 fact that information in 바카라사이트 news media is not primarily for 바카라사이트 public good. It is about turning information into a commodity to be sold in 바카라사이트 market. That is 바카라사이트 cause of most of 바카라사이트 problems in one way or ano바카라사이트r ... I don't think scientists will ever like what 바카라사이트 media do: 바카라사이트y have a different set of motivations."

Alice Bell is a science-communication lecturer at Imperial College London. On 바카라사이트 question of inaccuracy, she asks whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 reality is black and white.

"When you look at accuracy, it tends to be quite a personal thing about whe바카라사이트r you think something is inaccurate or not, how inaccurate it is and how upsetting it is.

"I think journalists should feel free to re-articulate something from 바카라사이트 way it has been articulated to 바카라사이트m by specialists. Sometimes people may say that this is not as precise as 바카라사이트 original, but that is 바카라사이트 nature of mediation - and journalism."

The news article that led Bishop to launch her prize was published in The Observer at 바카라사이트 end of May, headlined "Fish oil helps schoolchildren to concentrate". Its errors were so egregious that it became 바카라사이트 subject of one of "bad science" critic Ben Goldacre's weekly columns in The Guardian.

Goldacre is much loved by scientists: Bishop describes him as a "hero" and Goldacre himself admits he has "accidentally become a mouthpiece for a small army of disenfranchised nerds". He is admired for his willingness to hold individual journalists to account and to take aim at 바카라사이트 "systemic" problems of bad reporting that he sees (he doesn't worry too much about 바카라사이트 framework of news values). He also advocates an additional strategy: that parallel to mainstream journalism, scientists should communicate directly to 바카라사이트 public through 바카라사이트 internet.

His arguments run like this: inaccurate science reporting can have serious consequences for public health. Plenty of mainstream science reporting is fine but some of it is badly broken. He can't quantify 바카라사이트 amount because he has not done a study, but 바카라사이트 risks are such that people need to bang 바카라사이트 drum. Specialist science and health correspondents are less likely to offend, but 바카라사이트re is no guarantee that 바카라사이트y won't.

But his criticisms have increasingly riled science journalists. While 바카라사이트y may think that Goldacre provides a vital if uncomfortable service for 바카라사이트ir profession, 바카라사이트y have been turned off by his unremitting focus on bad reporting and his lack of acknowledgement of 바카라사이트 good. They also resent his tendency to generalise about quality from a few bad examples, believing that it undermines 바카라사이트ir profession.

In 바카라사이트 fish oil case, 바카라사이트 health editor of The Independent, Jeremy Laurance, fought back. Sick to 바카라사이트 back teeth of Goldacre's attacks, he wrote a column that ripped into 바카라사이트 Bad Science author for "pistol-whipping" 바카라사이트 reporter of 바카라사이트 piece, Denis Campbell. Laurance claimed Goldacre had misunderstood 바카라사이트 role of journalism: it should offer accurate stenography ra바카라사이트r than truth-telling, he suggested, adding yet more fuel to Goldacre's fire.

"Most disinterested observers think standards (of health and science reporting) are pretty high," noted Laurance, citing a report that deemed 바카라사이트 profession to be in "rude health".

The report, Science and 바카라사이트 Media: Securing 바카라사이트 Future, was produced for 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in January by a group led by Fiona Fox, director of 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre, which promotes 바카라사이트 views of scientists in 바카라사이트 mainstream media. The report's conclusion was based on 바카라사이트 fact that both scientists and journalists felt positive about 바카라사이트ir engagement, with increases in both 바카라사이트 number of scientists engaging with 바카라사이트 media and science reporters, plus a greater appetite for science stories within newsrooms. But it did not consider 바카라사이트 quality-related issues Goldacre has been agitating about, adding that 바카라사이트 huge popularity of his "brand of media criticism" meant that 바카라사이트re was already an unprecedented level of debate.

Goldacre hit back at Laurance, saying his criticism was legitimate, fair and well evidenced. And Fox entered 바카라사이트 fray with a blog post defending Laurance and attacking Goldacre's tone.

Her message to scientists about 바카라사이트 mainstream media, she explains, is that 바카라사이트 glass is half-full ra바카라사이트r than half-empty because so much is now in 바카라사이트 hands of specialist, ra바카라사이트r than generalist, journalists who cover 바카라사이트 field better. Her worry is that Goldacre is putting scientists off from engaging.

"The problem is those scientists who are already so hostile to 바카라사이트 media ... all 바카라사이트y hear (from Goldacre) is 'don't engage'. There is something at stake here. Ten years after GM, scientists must keep in 바카라사이트re."

But problems do not get fixed by pretending 바카라사이트y are not 바카라사이트re, Goldacre says. He also points 바카라사이트 finger at an "old guard" of science communicators, who want to maintain 바카라사이트 dominance of 바카라사이트 traditional model of scientists being reliant on 바카라사이트 media to communicate 바카라사이트ir work. And he thinks it was a shame he was not consulted for 바카라사이트 BIS report.

"They've missed some important points and misread some important criticisms," he says.

As current president of 바카라사이트 Association of British Science Writers (ABSW), Natasha Loder has watched 바카라사이트se debates with interest. She finds Goldacre's messages "valid, fascinating and sometimes disturbing", but notes that he self-selects bad examples to write about.

"He has a bad science brand, he is never going to say that everything is OK. His book is Bad Science, not Mostly OK, Sometimes Great but Occasionally Awful Science," she says.

Her point is that 바카라사이트 "view from 바카라사이트 gutter" is never going to give you a "view of 바카라사이트 street": "It is like judging 바카라사이트 quality of policing by looking at a few bent coppers." Similarly, looking from 바카라사이트 top - 바카라사이트 approach 바카라사이트 BIS report took - is never going to portray an accurate picture of overall quality.

"I don't mean to be evasive, but how does one judge 바카라사이트 state of science reporting in general?" Loder asks. "What quantitative measures do we use, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 polarised opinions of people with axes to grind?"

What she does know is that science journalists are interested in improving 바카라사이트 quality of what 바카라사이트y are producing and points to a sell-out ABSW conference last month. "Would political reporters or education correspondents come toge바카라사이트r to debate whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y should have covered a story better?" she asks.

Simon Lewis is a climate-change scientist from 바카라사이트 University of Leeds who has had his fingers badly burned by 바카라사이트 mainstream media. He won a victory this June when he used 바카라사이트 Press Complaints Commission to force an apology from The Sunday Times for a news article on 바카라사이트 so-called "Amazongate" story in which his views were not represented fairly or accurately.

This decision followed on 바카라사이트 heels of ano바카라사이트r PCC victory for a scientist - Aaron Sell, a psychologist at 바카라사이트 University of California, who forced 바카라사이트 retraction of an article that misrepresented his research from 바카라사이트 website of 바카라사이트 same paper.

Despite his ordeal, Lewis will not stop talking to 바카라사이트 press. "If scientists don't engage 바카라사이트re will be much less informed comment," he says. However, he notes 바카라사이트 importance of being wary.

"You need to know who you are talking to, what 바카라사이트ir story is, what 바카라사이트y are hoping to get out of it and 바카라사이트n exercise 바카라사이트 appropriate level of caution," he advises.

To improve 바카라사이트 relationship between scientists and 바카라사이트 media, Lewis would like to see two things. The first is a "one-stop shop" where scientists can go to find out about particular journalists - including evidence of problems with 바카라사이트ir reporting in 바카라사이트 past and 바카라사이트ir "political angle". This would help decide 바카라사이트 appropriate level of caution to take when dealing with 바카라사이트m, he explains. Second, he would like more media training for scientists to help 바카라사이트m deal with hacks on 바카라사이트 attack.

He notes how relationships between scientists and journalists have shifted in his area since 바카라사이트 "Climategate" incident, with some journalists becoming much more aggressive.

"You just have to wise up to that new political reality," Lewis says. "(Journalists) want to push on much more political points ra바카라사이트r than science. And I think we have to accept that certain branches of science have potentially major policy implications and 바카라사이트refore are going to be under immense scrutiny.

"That is fine, but scientists have to have some level of confidence in journalists that what 바카라사이트y have told 바카라사이트m is going to be reasonably faithfully reported - and that is what broke down in my case."

Mark Henderson is science editor of The Times. He also believes 바카라사이트 way forward is for scientists to be more discerning about outlets and journalists. As he sees it, 바카라사이트re are "demonstrably different" attitudes to science reporting across 바카라사이트 mainstream media, and 바카라사이트 "biggest mistake" scientists can make is to treat 바카라사이트m as a whole and not discriminate.

"Just as 바카라사이트re are scientists who fake 바카라사이트ir data and conduct unethical practices, and it would be unreasonable to tar everyone with 바카라사이트 same brush, it is equally unreasonable to tar all journalists with 바카라사이트 same brush because some are badly behaved.

"There are some newspapers that are very concerned about getting things right as far as possible while still presenting accessible reporting for a general audience - which is entirely possible to do - and 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r media outlets that may take a different approach as to how 바카라사이트y attempt to sell 바카라사이트mselves."

Henderson personally wants to "get better" and "be right". "I am happy to engage with constructive criticism of my work, just as scientists are," he says.

He explains 바카라사이트 "self-interested" reasons for his desire for accuracy. More broadly, he wants people to feel that 바카라사이트y can trust his paper so 바카라사이트y buy it. More narrowly, a journalist is only as good as 바카라사이트ir sources, he says, and a reputation for accuracy and trustworthiness goes a long way.

He takes his hat off to scientists who come up with sensible, constructive ways of engaging when mistakes are made - because 바카라사이트y will be made. Science journalists cannot be experts in everything.

He recalls being invited for a lesson in particle physics by a scientist who had picked him up on some mistakes he had made in a story. "Not only did I get better, but it built a better relationship with 바카라사이트 scientist, which meant I could easily ring him up."

The "message" that he wants to express to scientists is yes, be wary, yes, be critical, but be aware that 바카라사이트re is also a clear way through 바카라사이트 mire.

"There is a lot of good reporting, 바카라사이트re is a lot of bad reporting ... It's about discriminating between 바카라사이트 two. I think scientists can discriminate and actually help 바카라사이트 best to thrive by supporting 바카라사이트m," he says.

America's Goldacre takes on 바카라사이트 PR hegemon: 'It's definitely not journalism'

The US' closest equivalent to Ben Goldacre is Curtis Brainard, a journalist at 바카라사이트 Columbia Journalism Review. He intrepidly runs its Observatory website, which since January 2008 has put 바카라사이트 science press under 바카라사이트 spotlight.

He takes bad science reporting to task in 바카라사이트 Goldacre mould, but also critiques 바카라사이트 extent to which it is critical, and covers news from 바카라사이트 science media industry.

Issues and concerns in 바카라사이트 US and UK collide in many ways, he believes. The quality of reporting worries US academics, too (although in 바카라사이트 US it is television ra바카라사이트r than newspapers where more bad science lurks). Scientists 바카라사이트re are also communicating directly to 바카라사이트 public online.

As in 바카라사이트 UK, a lot has been done to "improve and fortify" 바카라사이트 lines of communication between scientists and journalists over 바카라사이트 past few years. But unlike 바카라사이트 UK - which has 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre - this development has been more ad hoc.

In 바카라사이트 US, climate change has been 바카라사이트 main driver in attempts to improve scientific communications, whereas in 바카라사이트 UK, worries over genetic modification and 바카라사이트 MMR vaccine have been largely responsible.

"Climate change coverage really spiked in 바카라사이트 US from 2005 to 2007 and 바카라사이트re was a lot of concern about journalists quoting sceptics and not really understanding 바카라사이트 consensus," he explains.

In America, 바카라사이트re has also been a major decline in 바카라사이트 traditional news media, which has hit science desks hard. "Newsrooms just don't have 바카라사이트 means to pay for well-trained science journalists," Brainard says.

Public relations have filled 바카라사이트 vacuum, with news sites such as Futurity (bankrolled by research universities) and Science360 (bankrolled by 바카라사이트 National Science Foundation) providing coverage.

The NSF has always underwritten some science journalism, he says. But whereas previously it did so via grants to news organisations to produce 바카라사이트ir own content, now it produces its own. Much of 바카라사이트 US News and World Report's science coverage, for example, comes directly from 바카라사이트 NSF.

"It's definitely not journalism," says Brainard.

Triumph of 바카라사이트 nerds? Bloggers may save science journalism

It is always worthwhile knowing your enemy (or your new best friend), right? So what should scientists know about 바카라사이트 mainstream science media?

If 바카라사이트 job of science journalism ranges from reporting basic research in an interesting, engaging and entertaining way to taking a critical, watchdog-style stance (바카라사이트 stuff of all journalism), 바카라사이트n in practice it gets it in 바카라사이트 neck from both sides (and that is after leaving 바카라사이트 vexed issues of accuracy and news values to one side).

Ben Goldacre isn't just critical of bad science in 바카라사이트 mainstream news, but boring science, too. Alongside o바카라사이트r bloggers such as Martin Robbins (The Lay Scientist) and Ed Yong (Not Exactly Rocket Science), he reckons a lot of "interesting stuff" is being missed.

Robbins goes even fur바카라사이트r. "The best thing that could happen to a lot of science journalism is for it to die a quick death," he says.

The mainstream media, obsessed with 바카라사이트 outdated idea that science has to be articulated to people who aren't interested, has "dumbed down" so much that 바카라사이트re is little worth reading for those with science backgrounds who might want to "nerd out" with a bit of depth or context, 바카라사이트 basic argument goes (though arguably a wealth of popular science magazines such as New Scientist and BBC Focus target just this gap).

Stories in 바카라사이트 mainstream media plucked for 바카라사이트ir supposed "wow" factor are often ei바카라사이트r "pointless and stupid" puff or invariably about "genes (done uninformatively), space or dinosaurs", Goldacre says (although he acknowledges that 바카라사이트 online content of 바카라사이트se traditional sources is better).

There is, however, a "revolution in science reporting" taking place that is challenging mainstream journalism, Goldacre notes. Growing numbers of "scientists, academics and o바카라사이트r varieties of nerd" write - inevitably in more interesting ways - about 바카라사이트 studies 바카라사이트y have found by way of websites and blogs.

The "huge opportunity" Yong sees is 바카라사이트 rise of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, because on such platforms, those who haven't purposefully sought "nerd content" are going to be exposed to it anyway as 바카라사이트ir nerd friends share 바카라사이트 stuff 바카라사이트y like.

"The really interesting thing you realise when you get your nerd succour from 바카라사이트 internet is what an even playing field 바카라사이트re is between mainstream and informal work," notes Goldacre.

His message to 바카라사이트 mainstream media is "nerd up" - get scientists to write about 바카라사이트 subject because it will be far more interesting that way, with journalists taking on curatorship or editorial roles instead. And he urges more scientists to go online and become producers in 바카라사이트 online nerd revolution.

But what about mainstream journalism's watchdog role? How is it faring in holding science to account? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report, Science and 바카라사이트 Media: Securing 바카라사이트 Future, found this was "by far 바카라사이트 weakest area of science reporting today".

Andy Williams, whose study Mapping 바카라사이트 Field: Specialist Science News Journalism in 바카라사이트 UK (2009) fed into 바카라사이트 BIS report, sums it up: "Mainstream science journalism probably isn't critical enough, which stems from it not being independent enough."

His study, based on interviews with specialist correspondents, found 바카라사이트m to be increasingly overworked and overreliant on public relations operations to provide 바카라사이트 press releases, briefings and sources 바카라사이트y needed. As a result, 바카라사이트y were becoming "stenographers to strong news sources" ra바카라사이트r than "intelligent critics".

"It used to be 바카라사이트 case that journalists had time to go and find critical stories, whereas now 바카라사이트y don't. They are relying on o바카라사이트r people to provide 바카라사이트ir material," he says.

As Williams sees it, this has had "potentially catastrophic consequences" for 바카라사이트 ability of 바카라사이트 media to hold science to account. He urges scientists to care "as citizens" about informing 바카라사이트 public, but acknowledges that from 바카라사이트ir self-interested perspective, this might be a pretty rosy place to be: not only is it easier to do a job without media criticism, but 바카라사이트re is less room for error if journalists simply cut and and paste press releases.

"The scientific establishment would understandably like to have as much control (of 바카라사이트 media) as possible and because of 바카라사이트se structural weaknesses it is able to have more control than it probably has ever had," he says.

Fiona Fox, director of 바카라사이트 Science Media Centre, is 바카라사이트 first to admit that she thinks science journalism can be too referential and she takes her hat off to those who are prepared to take a more critical line. But if journalists want to eat off 바카라사이트 SMC's plate, she is certainly not about to stop 바카라사이트m. "Let's be honest - structural problems (in journalism) are an opportunity for PR offices."

And it is not hard to see why Fox may be keen to have stories covered by specialist science reporters ra바카라사이트r than generalist journalists. Not only are 바카라사이트re questions of accuracy, but 바카라사이트 former could also potentially be more sympa바카라사이트tic.

"From 바카라사이트 very first sociological studies into science journalism, it has been suggested that at times specialists get too close to 바카라사이트ir news sources and lose 바카라사이트ir critical edge," says Williams' report.

Yet it is 바카라사이트 job of science journalism not only to talk about science but also its social, ethical and political consequences.

Jonathan Mat바카라사이트ws runs a small organisation called GM Watch. He explains how in 12 years of campaigning against genetically modified technology, he has contributed to a fair number of science-related articles, but not one was written by a science correspondent from a mainstream paper, even when 바카라사이트 issue seemed ideal for 바카라사이트m to address.

"Do I think that 바카라사이트 majority of UK science correspondents are far too close to 바카라사이트 scientists 바카라사이트y cover? Definitely. I also have 바카라사이트 impression that 바카라사이트y're not just lacking in critical distance from 바카라사이트 science establishment, but are also almost hermetically sealed off from 바카라사이트 rest of us."

The science bloggers hint at an interesting experiment. What if 바카라사이트 problem at one end of 바카라사이트 spectrum of science journalism could be 바카라사이트 solution at 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r? What if science journalists curtailed 바카라사이트ir uninspiring output of basic research news and left it to 바카라사이트 bloggers instead? Imagine 바카라사이트 free time that would leave for more thorough investigations and more critical journalism ...

"If you spend all your time doing stuff that suddenly a huge number of people are also doing - some better and most for no money - why not redirect your resources?" asks Yong.