Should science always be publicised?

May 12, 2006

Looks like they want to keep adverse scientific research hushed up

now.....

By Pallab Ghosh

BBC News health correspondent

The Royal Society has called for scientists to consider the public

interest when deciding whether to talk about their research results.

In a report published today Britain's National Academy of Sciences

has said slip ups in the past have led to distorted reporting of

issues such as MMR and GM crops.

Concerns over MMR research have led parents to refuse the jab

Scientists often blame the media for distorted reporting of science

stories.

But does the misreporting have its origins in the research community?

A couple of years ago, scientists organising a major European

fertility meeting invited a researcher to present evidence that a

group of women seeking fertility treatment were more likely conceive

if they were hypnotised.

It was a fantastic story and prominently reported across the world.

The problem was that the research was dubious.

The hypnotised group were much younger and so more likely to be

fertile than - than the un-hypnotised group.

'Not a one off'

Journalists love a good story.

A problem arises though when controversial research designed to

provoke a debate within the scientific community is reported as

gospel

But what was the excuse of the organising committee - which added

credibility to the research by having it presented at their

scientific meeting?

The problem is that this isn't a one off or even a rare event. Those

cynical of the media might expect that. It happens with great

regularity.

But media cynics may be surprised to learn that - as in the case of

the hypnosis study - the stories generally have their origins in the

scientific community.

Concerns over the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine began after a

study was published in the Lancet - a respected medical journal.

The GM crop scare started after a professor at a respected institute

said his experiments showed that genetically modified potatoes had

stunted the growth of lab rats.

'Reported as gospel'

The Institute of Physics produced a new study which suggested that

Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot would have caused much greater devastation

than previously thought had it been successful.

Most national newspapers carried illustrations of the extent of the

damage by circling a large area around Parliament.

Unfortunately, the calculation was based on the assumption that

gunpowder has the same explosive force as dynamite - which it

doesn't.

Late last year there were front page stories suggesting that the Gulf

Stream might be weakening - possibly taking northern Europe into a

new ice age.

The source of this - an article published in the highly respected

journal Nature.

The study was properly carried out but the drop in strength was based

on just two measurements taken since 1992 and was at odds with other

available evidence.

Nature published the article precisely because the research was

anomalous and so of interest to the scientific community.

The Lancet published the MMR study for the same reason.

A problem arises though when controversial research designed to

provoke a debate within the scientific community is reported as

gospel by the general media.

At best, it reduces trust in scientists and the media.

At worst, it can lead to people making poor choices and harming their

health - as in the case of MMR.

That's why the Royal Society has asked researchers to take more care.

The worry though, is that this might lead to a form of self-

censorship and ultimately stifle scientific debate.

May 12, 2006

Hi Jo

>Looks like they want to keep adverse scientific research hushed up

>now.....

The Royal Society has a somewhat dodgy political history anyway - I don't know what it's like nowadays, but it was founded by an " illuminati " group seemingly to direct " science " in a particular direction....

BB

Peter

May 12, 2006

Caution urged over science errors " by Royal Society (11/5/2006)

" We're also concerned about people sometimes producing work which is damaging " -

Patrick Bateson of the Royal Society

The references in the piece below to Pusztai's research and the BMA are complete

nonsense. But that's not surprising given that the source of this BBC piece is

the UK's Royal Society (RS) and the conduit appears to be the BBC's science

correspondent, Pallab Ghosh - the RS & co's patsy of choice when wanting to dump

horsesh*t in the media.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=203

Patrick Bateson of the RS - quoted below - has been caught out lying about the

Pusztai case before. He told readers of the British Association's journal

Science and Public Affairs that The Lancet had only published Pusztai's research

" in the face of objections by its statistically-competent referees'. In fact,

Pusztai's Lancet paper successfully came through a peer review process that was

far more stringent than that applying to most published papers!

For the RS's whole sorry history of lies on GM and its attempts to stifle the

reporting of awkward research findings - see: