I have briefly discussed in a few posts now that the reporting of science (and archaeology) has been concerned too much with headline-grabbing piece of news rather than meditated news, as it should be done by journalists. Evidence of this comes from the reporting of climate-change (reports about ancient climates) and human evolution that I have discussed multiple times. I commented several news, pointing out that whilst the research behind the news is serious and laudable, the actual news generalise or oversimplify matters to a point where contradictory news can make the round of mass media the same week (e.g. whether Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans ever met). The result is confusion for the general public and ridicule to solid science. The general public cannot be told different things without explanation, as this appears as if scientists do not know, or are bickering unprofessionally. I generally use the BBC as primary source for scientific news, since it is the leading source in the UK (where I am based) and one of the best sources in the world. Still, it is far from perfect, as a review of BBC Science coverage has determined. The results have also been discussed today on the radio (webpage may not be accessible outside the UK). Of course, further reactions and possibly actions are expected in the near future.
I think that all the members of the public should learn how the scientific process works. Indeed, in the radio discussion, Lord May, president of the Royal Society, suggested that,
"science is best seen as organised scepticism."
This may be a negative approach to science, which is usually considered as a method to reach certainty. Mathematics, the discipline most closely associated with pure science, provides exact results and descriptions and leaves very little room for opinions or creative solutions. In fact, there is no certainty or definitive conclusions in the vast majority of what is examined and scrutinised in the real world, because nothing is frozen in the dimensional reality. The physics of climate change is based on variables, which do vary throughout time, and human evolution is based on constant minuscule changes that add up in time. A fixed number, as precise and truly measured as it may be (i.e. measured in one specific test), will always express an approximation. Even when we boil water in a kettle, and the kettle stops when water reaches 100 degrees Celsius (boiling point), that temperature will be determined by testing some molecules of water or parts of the kettle and some water will almost certainly be a bit warmer (nearer the heating element) and some colder (some vapour or condense at some distance from the heating element). Stating that the water has reached 100 degrees is true and can be measured, but that is also an approximation, a good (simplistic) average of the temperature of all water molecules within the kettle. Similarly, when we examine human fossil bones to answer questions about our ancestors, those bones only tell us about specific individuals that lived in particular times and geographic areas. They do pose constraints, and ways to test general theories, but they do not provide absolute values (e.g. finding an individual 1 metre tall does not preclude that some other individuals were a bit taller or shorter). Scientists have therefore to come up with explanations that meet the constraints of the available evidence, or can be tested with new or additional experiments or findings, but also they must take into account that the actual reality is much richer and more complex than specific values. There can also be statistical outliers, i.e. individual specimens that are more different from the average than the vast majority of specimens known or existing. The resulting debate will always include a degree of uncertainty, but that does not mean that we do not understand anything. By reporting news of individual studies in absolute terms, as scientific "truth", and often generalising even further than in the original published papers the importance of some findings, the general public ends not understanding what is really known to the scientists (the available evidence or test results), and what is being debated within a reasonable approximation to find general (and still approximate) rules that connect some new or re-examined evidence to broader corpora of evidence (what has been published so far). Thus, Neanderthals may not have met anatomically modern humans at some point in time and in a specific area, but that does not mean they never met. Contradictory evidence suggests therefore that actual meetings were few and far between, and possibly concentrated in some hotspots, rather than supporting or denying one specific view. The fact that they met does not mean that it was always true, and when they did not met, genetic and cultural exchanges may still have happened before, later or somewhere else. In a way, the approximate thinking is more familiar to social scientists and humanists, whereas the mathematical approach is most familiar to pure scientists, but in fact they both exist as two faces of the same coin, and neither is more important of the other.
It is for this reason that I have now commented several news, often reading both the news itself and the source paper. It is not easy to do, and it is time-consuming. I do not see journalists ever doing it without having a PhD (multiple PhDs if multiple disciplines are targeted). What they can do however is reading the papers, and determine in as simple terms as they can manage what is the evidence, what is the methodology used for testing or analysing the evidence and what are the actual conclusions. They should leave or be sceptic about final claims of importance or suggestions, which are part of the open scientific debate. Once you know what is the evidence (e.g. a fossil tooth and a few artefacts), the methods used (e.g. tooth dated and species determined, artefacts associated to specific individual), and the significance as presented in the conclusions (e.g. presence of humans determined for the first time in a certain time and geographical area, evidence of burial practices and symbolic thought connecting that individual and possibly the community it belonged to with a broader culture), anyone can assess the significance of the published result and the validity of other claims (e.g. no Neanderthals recognised at the same site). There will be many clues and very few ground-breaking discoveries leading to new generalisations, but reporting the discoveries as "scientific progress", or "improved knowledge" should be fascinating enough that exceptional headlines should not be needed. We live in a complex world that can still fascinate and surprise, and it important that the general public sees science progressing, but also understands that solutions or proven understandings can also be challenged or be diminished in their importance without needing to attack the science supporting them. Everything changes or evolves, and that is just how things are. Strong with that knowledge, informed reporting of the basics forming a publication (evidence, methods and significance) with anything else clearly marked as questionable or being assessed or tested, will give greater joy to everyone caring for science and the understanding of our world.
Separate from this basic practice is the problem of (religious) belief. This can be a belief part of an organised religion, but also "faith" in science intended as untested acceptance of deductions or inferences from limited scientific tests and analyses or available evidence assuming that science points in the right direction. Science does not do that. Science only allows to determine and understand particular facts, allowing to develop sound broader models, which are theories for the most part. These theories, as sophisticated they can be (e.g. the Standard Model or M-theory in astrophysics), are never absolute and are not necessarily true for all the minute details of nature in their current form just because widely accepted or endorsed by scientists. The contrary is also true: fringe theories may one day become mainstream, or strengthen current theories by being proven wrong, or more likely improve our understanding by spurring further research in unclear or uncertain sections of some theories. Beliefs in science or outside science should never be reported as part of any scientific coverage: they do not belong there. The general public should also be aware that science is ultimately what we understand, what we can prove, and what we think about it, and as such it should respect science, with all its possible flaws leading to some uncertainty. Anything that is perceived as "known" outside science should not be ridiculed, but accepted as unproven belief (valid for at least some fellow humans) until further discoveries or research. What is proven scientifically is still a drop in the ocean compared to the nature that we can perceive, but should not be subjected to interpretation or doubts outside of the scientific process. Scientific interpretations may prove wrong or inexact, but they are the best we can do in pursuing an understanding, and should be appreciated as a monumental collective effort. People pursuing scientific research are never satisfied, and further research always add up and changes or improves our theories. Beliefs lack such constant and determined collective effort, and while they should not be ridiculed, science should have the upper hand when it comes to obtain respect and it should always be preferred to beliefs where sound science has been possible. Disrespecting solid science is like lacking self-respect. Ultimately, confidence in science is confidence in humanity, and science is a collective pursuit that brings people together in their journeys of discovery. Beliefs, right or wrong, are often a way to cause divisions and hatred and should be kept as personal, intimate understandings, not to be forced on anyone else.
In these days, when science is being used by politicians to substantiate their own beliefs or political views (climate change, again, is the best example, but economic theories are also often used to support misguided efforts), it is very important to follow scientific discoveries, and be part of the general scientific debates taking place in the world, even if only as silent observers. Science is not "democratic" in that it does not allow each participant the same weight (anyone who can prove something or present theories that cannot be disproven just yet wins), but science allows for everyone to participate and it creates collective support for what appears to be the best solution or understanding, regardless of the proponent; whether it is common sense or counterintuitive; or personal advantages. In fact, it is my personal opinion that science should affect and change politics and not the other way round. That is still a dream for now in most countries, as I can see it. Science coverage by journalists can be very important, essential to allow widespread participation in scientific debates, and it is therefore hoped that some improvements will happen soon and scientific journalists will be far more conscious and active in reporting science than they have been so far. Reporting press releases, or bits from scientific papers is not scientific journalism. Giving way to beliefs because shared by many or because some scientific discoveries challenge beliefs is also not a good way to report science. As I stated before, one has to understand what is science: I am not claiming that all scientific theories are always right (if anything, I probably suggested the opposite, though I still have confidence in science for future developments). Fringe science (and non-mainstream theories) should not be entirely forgotten until proven wrong, but reporting the news there should be an adequate balance among the views reported, on the basis of the scientific weight of each position rather than the prominence of the proponent or implications or beliefs. In politics, all opinions are important and should be represented; in science, this is not the case, one or very few positions will prevail and only these should be presented to the general public and discussed. Minority positions pursued by individual scientists or small groups are best left out from the coverage until some concrete results can be presented and there can be an informed debate. Once again, science is not democratic in the sense that it aims to represent in balanced form all opinions and positions, rather it selects the best theories to move forward our understanding. Science provides collective leadership.
To conclude, the review is welcome, and I hope that scientific journalists will become one of the voices of science rather than the voices of some scientists. The debate at the BBC has already begun.
EDIT 25 JULY 2011: A further post with additional thoughts is now available.