Playground Level of Scientific Balance

In "Unpopular Science," an article written by Christopher Mooney published on TheNation.com, Mooney questions the idea of balance when it comes to science writing. Some people involved in this type of writing believe that articles and publications should present balanced views of their stories, giving equal attention to both sides of every scientific assertion. In his article, Mooney wrote:

“Then there's the problem of "balance"--the idea that reporters must give roughly equal space to two different "sides" of a controversy. When applied to science, especially in politicized areas, this media norm becomes extremely problematic. Should journalists really grant equal time to the small band of scientists who deny the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS when the vast majority of researchers accept the connection between the two? Should they split column space between the few remaining global warming "skeptics" and scientific experts who affirm the phenomenon's human causation? Again, experienced science journalists will know best how to cover such stories and will be aware of the scientific community's very justifiable abhorrence of unthinking "balance". 

Personally, I agree with Mooney's stance on balance in scientific writing to the extent that the two sides of an argument should not be equally represented, because if scientific findings are significant, the skeptical side is usually that which is least represented in scientific findings. I do, however, believe that the other side of the story should be represented somehow in the article or publication in question, rather than ignored. Scientific findings require an intensive amount of evidence and research before they can be considered "facts" and until they can be, science writers should present their readers with the ability to be somewhat skeptical and think for themselves.

I view the issue of balance less like a traditional balance scale such as this one: 

Instead I think of it more in terms of the seesaws my friends and I used to play on as children. When we were of the age to go to the playground and entertain ourselves, all of the children were relatively the same weight, so the seesaw could provide us with seemingly endless entertainment. Once we tired of going up and down, up and down, up and down, we always tried to position ourselves in the air so that neither of us had to be touching the ground. We tried to make the seesaw balance.

The thing about the seesaw was that no matter how close two friends were in weight, the kids never ended up balancing right in the middle. Something about the seesaw itself must have made it such that even if both children could sit in the air at the same time with feet dangling, the two sides of the seesaw were rarely an equal height off the ground. Something about one side of the apparatus caused it to "balance" out at unbalanced height levels. 

Something about good science writing should make the reader feel as if they are receiving "balance" by allowing for both sides of the story to hang in the air of the article, although one side should carry more weight than the other in order to be an effectively compelling piece of writing. The balance lies in sharing enough of the opposite side of the story so that it can hang in the air a bit while the main reason for writing the scientific piece sits higher in the air, thus most visible and important to the targeted audience.

Scientist-eotypes

Historically, scientists have earned a rather strange and somewhat negative reputation among the general public. Although "earned" may not exactly be the right word, considering the reputation is not widely supported when you actually consider the population of scientists in the world.

When a child is asked to draw a picture of a scientist, they most commonly depict aging males wearing glasses and a lab coat in a lab setting with things like beakers and flames surrounding the scientist in the drawing. Back in 2000, a classroom of 7th graders went on a field-trip to a lab called Fermilab, where they all were asked to draw pictures of their idea of a scientist before and after a visit in the lab. (The drawings and description of this little project can be found on this website.) Many of the children's initial drawings are like those described above. There were a few that even had wild hair with bald patches on top.

The 7th graders were also asked to write a short statement about their drawings, which for the most part perpetuated the same stereotypes as the drawings themselves. One girl, Amy, wrote, "He is kind of crazy, talking always quickly." Ashley wrote, "To me a scientist is bald and has hair coming out of the sides of his head...Scientists live in their own world and the rest of society puts them there." Both sets of comments perpetuate this "mad scientist" persona that lies in the minds of many members of society, but Ashley is particularly insightful because she actually pointed that out in her comment.

Society has a tendency to put all types of scientists into this category of borderline lunacy without taking into account the numerous aspects of their lives would be radically different without the amazing and innovative work of so many scientists, past and present. This concept makes the job of a scientist all the more difficult because they do not have the trust of the public, and without that, even the most groundbreaking of discoveries carry little weight in the eyes of society. For this reason, science writers have an obligation to bridge the gap between citizens' distrust and science itself. They have the unique position of being able to take scientific discoveries and make them readable and believable to people who may be suspicious or skeptical. Good science writers can absorb and understand scientists' findings and write about them in a way that has impact to society because it utilizes supportive concrete evidence in a way that is interesting and easy to comprehend.

The Role (or Lack Thereof) of "Truthiness" in Science Writing

According to this video clip of Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report about the concept of "Truthiness," it is different from fact because it implies some kind of internal feeling where the consumer of facts decides what to believe. Colbert says that we live in a "country divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart." He takes a comedic look at the notion that consumers of news and science have a tendency to believe some information and disregard other facts as untrue. Truthiness is, more or less, the information that is developed between fact and public belief, where people take facts and choose to believe them, bend them, or disregard them completely.

Personally, when I make my life decisions, many of them are based on gut feelings, or simply what I feel like I should do at any given moment in any given situation. The thing about most decisions, though, is that most of them do not involve science. Should I go to lunch now or after class? Do I have time to put gas in the car before work, or should I go after? Upper Wismer for dinner or lower? These are not the types of decisions that require consult of science. Therefor, in cases like this I am fine with relying on my own personal conceptions of the "truthiness" of the situation.

When it comes to science, I admit that I also have a tendency to create my own truthiness. I know that scientific evidence says that I should wash my hands with warm water for at least thirty seconds, but my average is probably more like somewhere between five and fifteen seconds. I know that I should eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, but sometimes I need a double bacon cheeseburger for lunch, and no, I do not want a salad with that. I know that my car's gas light is on, but I'm going to try to make it to my destination anyway even though there's a scientific probability that I won't make it all the way to the gas station.

This being said, I believe that scientific facts are just that, facts, and am generally trusting of scientific findings. I think that scientific writers have an obligation to their readers to report facts rather than adding any form of truthiness. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth in an objective manner, once all sides of the story have been considered. Science is science, and should be written about as such, without personal opinions interfering. Every individual obviously has the right to develop his/her own truthiness when it comes to the information they have received, but the important part is that they receive true information. What they do with it afterwards is completely up to them.

Emotional Correlation Between Vaccines and Autism

There is no doubt that vaccine-autism advocates are scientifically incorrect.  Not a single scientific study shows a correlation between vaccines and autism, and numerous studies demonstrate that the risk of injury from vaccination is far lower than the risk of disease from being unvaccinated.  But is it accurate to call vaccine-autism advocates scientifically illiterate, or ignorant?  After all, these individuals probably have done much more “research” on a scientific topic than most other individuals have.  What do the tendencies of vaccine-autism advocates to ignore scientific evidence, yet believe Jenny McCarthy, teach you as a science writer?

While there are numerous advocates that draw connections between childhood vaccinations and autism, these advocates have little scientific evidence on which to stand. There are numerous scientific articles which display evidence that is to the contrary, essentially saying that there is no correlation between vaccination and the onset of autism. Yet still, there are citizens all over the country who still follow Jenny McCarthy's preaching religiously, that vaccines do, in fact, cause autism, even with no scientific backing. 

This phenomenon speaks to the notion that just because scientific evidence exists, does not mean that people will accept it, or even read it. Jenny McCarthy has built herself a following comprised mainly of parents of autistic children who believe that their children are autistic because of vaccinations. In reality, this cannot have been a difficult following to raise, due to the tendency of all people to find a scapegoat for their problems. When parents find out that their child is autistic, they are extremely emotionally vulnerable because they have just found out that their life and their child's life will never be completely "normal" by most social standards. At this point of emotional vulnerability, parents will be looking for a reason. They will be asking, "why me? Why my child? Who did this?" and things of this nature. This is the point at which they may turn on the television and see McCarthy sitting with a panel of researchers who may or may not know what they are talking about, discussing the terrible affects of vaccinating children, i.e. autism. 

With so much scientific evidence to the contrary, parents must cling to this vaccination theory on an emotional level rather than a factual one. If they were trusting of the facts and sought them out, McCarthy's followers would understand that many major medical and scientifically respected organizations agree that there is no link between autism and vaccination. According to a WebMD special report, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine are all in agreement about the nonexistence of this connection. This article speaks a great deal to the idea in this blog post that the connection many people hold onto about vaccination is based in emotions rather than evidence. These emotions are causing scientists to start getting involved and conduct more research, which usually is not fruitful in terms of finding a connection. For further reading about this, please see the article mentioned above.