Weird Science: Wrong science in the media

Science in the media is good: it raises awareness of the challenges that face today’s scientists, and keeps the public abreast of key developments in science-based areas such as healthcare. It is increasingly apparent, however, that journalists walk a thin line between healthy reporting of current science events and dangerous misinformation.

The advancement of science is dependent on the continuing, gradual collection of viable empirical evidence in order to reject or accept hypotheses. In this way our picture of the universe is continuously and consistently updated to reflect our best knowledge. This matters to scientists; if their evidence is shown to be unworkable, their theories – under the constant scrutiny of the peer-review process – will eventually be shown to be hokum. If dishonest scientists continue in this manner, their careers can be ruined.

This pressure to always base decisions on sound evidence clearly applies to scientists. However, it does not seem to apply to journalists and politicians. They are less constricted by the inconvenience of providing accurate evidence, and are content (and mostly unchallenged) when spewing untruths to further their own diabolical ends. Politicians clearly realise the importance of evidence – they frequently attempt to provide it. However, they seem happy to wilfully misrepresent it.

Take everyone’s favourite Health Secretary Andrew Lansley as an example. His increasingly unpopular NHS reform bill has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks and rightly so. For over a year now, Lansley has been attempting to sell his bill to the general public with misinformation. He claims that ‘the evidence’ supports his position, but this is not the case. As Ben Goldacre explained at length a year ago (see his brilliant Bad Science blog), there are next to no data that back him up in his lofty claims. There is no evidence to show that GP commissioning results in greater efficiency and it has not been demonstrated that competition improves health services. In fact, the best available evidence suggests that this is not the case (the NHS is the second most efficient health service in the world, the USA’s competition-orientated system is among the least efficient).

So where do journalists come into this? How are they to blame for the untruths of politicians? The answer lies in their obsession with appearing unbiased, and for obvious reasons this particularly applies to the BBC. Journalists have a responsibility to keep our politicians honest, especially when it comes to matters of science and public health. Neutrality is all well and good, but when someone is fundamentally wrong – according to the evidence – and their wrongness will lead to severe consequences for public health, then the public should be made aware.