There’s an interesting discussion on Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science site about the way in which the media regularly publishes scare stories, but never prints the evidence that shows the stories were bollocks. The article talks about a favourite scare – mercury fillings in your teeth rot your brain, or something – which has been thoroughly debunked; the debunking hasn’t been reported.
Bad Science reader Tristan has a genius suggestion:
I think positive science stories should be turned into conflict ones. For example, the mercury fillings one could have got much more press if the authors of the research had offered to head butt anyone who still said mercury fillings were dangerous.
0 responses to “How to make the press report good science”
I dunno; what if the idiots who promote global warming are bigger and stronger than the scientists who, you know, wait for like, actual proof? Do we want to leave things up to the randomness of physical contest? ;-)
Not like you to mention global warming, sir ;-)
I know, it is uncharacteristic!
Do you think I’ve become as boring as the environmentalists? I hope not!