Earlier this month, the Slate science writer Dan Engber noticed a story circulating in the British media regarding the so-called "five second rule" - the idea that if dropped food is only on the floor for a few seconds, bacteria don't have a chance to swarm it.
Wait, he thought, hasn't that whole idea been discredited? But then he noticed that the new study was funded by a cleaning products company. That fact - and the fact that the industry-subsidized work was getting such attention - led Engber to have a higher-calling kind of moment. Surely U.S. journalists wouldn't have fallen for such company propaganda, he thought? What was wrong with British science writers? And would it rub off on their more noble brethren in the U.S.?
"A great garbage patch of has been forming across the Atlantic, and bits of flotsam are washing up on our shores," Engber wrote. "What makes the Brits so susceptible to these ginned up studies and publicity stunts? And what happens when their faux research starts drifting across the internet?"
His story, titled "Dodgy Boffins: What's Wrong with Science Journalism in the UK?" is worth reading because he's such a good writer and because he has so much fun exploring the question. But it's also worth reading because underneath the lighthearted approach (when he uses the term "garbage patch" above, he links to a story about floating garbage in the oceans) is a very real look at the troubling ways that journalism works today.
And his conclusion will leave you wondering less about British science journalists after all and more about science writers on this side of the Atlantic. As it turns out, that noble brethren concept doesn't really hold up as well as we U.S. journalists might have hoped.
--- Deborah Blum
Comments
Thanks, Charlie. I think Dan Engber is one of the smartest U.S. science journalists working today. And I agree with your comments here - the confusion of primary reporting and reporting press releases really resonated for me. Mostly because I'm seeing way too much of it (which may be a downside of working at the Tracker!)
Thanks Deb, that's a welcome piece from Engber. I do think the UK newspaper readership is acculturated to taking a lot of the news, esp. in tabs, with a wink. Many reporters there take science developments as an opportunity to make jokes and the public is in on such teasing coverage. And some of the jokes and hyperbole are damned witty. Furthermore, when one reads deeper into much of the coverage one realizes the reporters there are often savvier about the news's deeper meanings than they let on and than many US reporters are.
Also valuable is the observation that such wise-ass writing and deliberate credulity are dangerous when sober US media pick news up from the UK but without subtle hints it's all in fun - and without an audience accustomed to such hints.
There are more important issues with UK popular science writing, including the seemingly frequent confusion of press releases with primary sourcing and comment. But that's another topic....