Freaking Out About Science News? Double X Science Has A Cure

If you don’t know the website, Double X Science, I’d like to bring it to your attention. Its self-declared emphasis is on women in science and/or women interested in science – and you’ll find that there, ranging from profiles of female scientists to a hilariously smart blog on the science of pregnancy.

But its editors, including biology editor Jeanne Garabino (who writes the pregnancy blog), managing editors Anne Merchant and Emily Willingham (whom I cited earlier for her excellent work on the non-connection between high-fructose corn syrup and autism), physics editor, Matthew Francis,  chemistry editor, Adrienne  Roehrich, and education editor,  Chris Gunter, make “women in science” an idea allows for wide-ranging intellectual inquiry.

Consider, for instance, Francis’s blog, Everyday Physics, which explores everything from the science of lighting to the weird physics of mirrors. The guiding principle seems to be that women in science are interested in everything about it – which means that Double X Science offers up material generally interesting to, let’s say, humans in science.

Which brings me to Willingham’s Friday post, which offers up a Double X Double Check List for readers who find themselves unnerved by science stories, such as recent takes on risk factors for autism:

It begins: “You’ve probably seen a lot of headlines lately about autism and various behaviors, ways of being, or “toxins” that, the headlines tell you, are “linked” to it. Maybe you’re considering having a child and are mentally tallying up the various risk factors you have as a parent. Perhaps you have a child with autism and are now looking back, loaded with guilt that you ate high-fructose corn syrup or were overweight or too old or too near a freeway or not something enough that led to your child’s autism.”

It goes on to point out that we don’t actually know what causes the very complex disorder of autism and that we aren’t necessarily in an autism epidemic (better diagnostic and reporting tools seem to be a major factor here.) But the post moves beyond the elegant debunking of recent reports into a common sense discussion of how readers – for their peace of mind – can evaluate such stories.

I’m reprinting the save-yourself-misery checklist here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read the post – and I recommend it –  there’s a further discussion of each of these points. These are great points for any reader but I’d like to add that they also provide a useful check-list for journalists (and, let’s face it, aggregators)  seeking to evaluate reporting on a specific issue.

And with that in mind, I’d also like to flag an earlier post,  Real vs. Fake Science: How Can You Tell Them Apart?,  that could help many of us from going astray when trying to evaluate the latest, hottest scientific study. What can I add to this accounting of Double X Science? How about – more, please, more!.

 

— Deborah Blum