Follow The Science
We often hear people say follow the science. They sometimes use the phrase to end a discussion or debate. However, I think we need to ask an important question when someone says that. What does that phrase mean — follow the science?
Let’s begin with a definition of the word science, since it is what people want others to follow. The shortest definition is knowledge. Merriam-Webster defines science this way – “knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Our word science comes from the Latin scientia and means “knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data.” Notice the words demonstrable and reproducible. How is knowledge demonstrable and reproducible? Can knowledge do that by itself? Of course not. It’s done by people. Those people are often referred to as scientists.
Turning again to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a scientist is “a person who studies, specializes in, or investigates a field of science and does scientific work.” A scientist is someone who does scientific work in a particular category of science. Scientists are the people who research, study and investigate things and tell us what they think.
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines science as – “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.”
How can knowledge be concerned about anything? It’s just knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t have eyes and ears, hands and feet. Scientists are the people who are concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and observe and experiment systematically. Scientists have the eyes, ears, hands and feet. They determine what to research and how to share their findings with the public and the people who employ them.
Follow The Scientist
When people say follow the science, what they often mean is follow the scientists they trust. If you don’t trust the scientists another person trusts, you may be accused of “not following the science.” That’s sad but true in our world today and has been for a long time. However, that’s not how scientific investigation should work.
What we need to note carefully is the word unbiased. If science is knowledge and knowledge is what’s true, then why is there conflict among people with differing views on the same subject? It may be that those people entrusted with researching, studying, evaluating, and reporting scientific data are at least one reason for conflicting information. Why would well-educated, highly-trained scientists view the same data differently? Might it be that scientific research is complicated with multiple ways to interpret similar data? Might it be personal, corporate, or even political bias on the part of researchers?
Journalists and Scientists
Journalists are not scientists, at least not most of them. Some scientists appear on television or other media in an expert role, and there are some scientists who call themselves journalists. However, let me point out that people who want to become journalists or scientists usually take different educational and professional paths. I think that’s a good thing overall – as long as the two don’t get confused about who they are and what they do for a living. The lines tend to get blurred in modern media, so it’s good to understand the differences.
As a journalist, I covered hundreds of stories where scientific research and data were an integral part of the story. However, I never saw myself as the expert. My job as a journalist was to be curious, skeptical, objective, and accurate in covering stories. Truth was my only goal. That’s why I built a large file of experts in many scientific fields to contact for help in understanding scientific information. I contacted some for background information and understanding and others for on-camera interviews. Some worked for the government, some for universities and research laboratories, and some in private industry. It was important to me that viewers, listeners, or readers could see the objectivity and accuracy of the news reporting in the variety of experts presented. My objective was for news consumer to trust the information I shared in every story.
Your expert file as a journalist should be large enough to ensure that you are hearing from many different perspectives about a story. If journalists limit their file of experts to just those with whom they agree, then their stories will lack depth, clarity, and most importantly, objectivity, accuracy, and the full measure of truth. Those experts can be local, regional, and national.
Journalists and scientists each play important roles in our national life. I do find it interesting that the founders of the United States thought it important to amend its new Constitution to read –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
BILL OF RIGHTS, 1791
The founders said nothing about science specifically, but they viewed freedom of the press as vital to the success of the newly formed country. I’m not downplaying the importance of what scientists say since freedom of speech would cover their comments, but the press (news media) was called out specifically because of the importance of what journalists do in a free society.
Science Denier?
Are you a science denier? Well, are you?
You may hear people ask that question in personal conversations or in news conferences or reports. The question is often followed by a truth claim that a person or group of people must be science deniers.
The reason some people ask the question or make the claim is because they have a particular belief about science, and anyone who disagrees with their belief is denying science. They may also have a particular agenda to protect and only accept the scientific information that supports their particular cause. Is that position scientific or philosophical?
I believe it’s often philosophical. Their reason for asking the question or making the statement about science denial is to shut down discussion on a particular topic. That has little to do with real science and everything to do with philosophy. Shutting down discussion is in opposition to the free exchange of ideas and information that makes science work as a method for gaining knowledge.
As we’ve already established in this newsletter, science is knowledge which is ever growing and often shifting, depending on research and interpretation of the most recent data. Scientists who believe deeply about a subject one day may have to change their beliefs another day because of new information, new discoveries, new data. That’s the life of being a scientist. New data may lead to new conclusions, many of which will be only temporary until more data becomes available. Journalists need to understand that and be ready to update stories based on advances in scientific research.
“News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.
The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.”
AMERICAN PRESS INSTITUTE
The problem with the news media ignoring new or changing medical information is that most government and health officials determine their decisions based on the scientific research and determinations of health experts. Thus the phrase, follow the science. If the media does not report on new and changing information, the public doesn’t know what’s going on and cannot make informed decisions about their lives.
Science Skeptic
Journalists should not be science deniers, but they should be science skeptics. Don’t be lulled into believing everything someone says because of a powerful title in front of their name or fancy job description. Stay skeptical. Do your research, ask questions, talk to a wide variety of experts, confirm what they tell you, then write your story and submit it for editorial approval.
Editors also need to be skeptical. Question your reporters about their sources, their information, and their conclusions as you approve their stories. If you think their story is incomplete or one-sided, send them back to make it right. The work that editors, producers, and managers do in a news department is vital to the integrity of the journalistic process.
Being a science skeptic also means journalists can do original reporting that flows from their skepticism. Take pharmaceutical science for example. It’s a multi-billion dollar a year industry that employs thousands of scientists. Most of us are familiar with the many pharmaceutical commercials on television that spend almost as much time warning people about the negative features of using the company’s drugs as touting the positive features. We’re also familiar with how expensive prescription drugs have become during recent decades. Are you also familiar with how much corruption there is in the drug industry? If you are, it’s probably because some journalists did their jobs.
In the following-the-money category, the largest government fines for corruption (civil and criminal fraud) in the pharmaceutical industry in the last 15 years were imposed on GlaxoSmithKline ($3 billion), Pfizer ($2.3 billion), Johnson & Johnson ($2.2 billion), Abbott ($1.5 billion), Eli Lilly ($1.42 billion), Merck ($950 million), Amgen ($762 million), and AstraZeneca ($520 million).
You may recognize the names of some of those companies. They were awarded large government contracts within the past two years to design and manufacture Covid-19 vaccines. Story? You may remember that Congress passed a law in 1986 that protects vaccine manufacturers from personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits from vaccine injuries. Story?
In the following-the-people category, former FDA commissioners sit on the board of directors for some of the companies that received government contracts to manufacture the Covid-19 vaccines. Story? Several other FDA commissioners went to work for pharmaceutical companies after leaving the FDA. Their salaries are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Story?
That’s just one example of how journalists following money and people can play an important role in following the science. Scientists do many wonderful things for people, but they are people, and people can be corrupted by money. Former government employees may do wonderful things in their new roles in private industry, but they are people, and people can be corrupted by money. What journalists should want to do is find and report the truth. Skepticism helps journalists get to the truth that news consumers need to know.
We The People
The first words of the U.S. Constitution read “We the People.” Our government is the People’s government and is supposed to serve the will of the public. The news media plays a vital role in informing the People about the actions of its government. It is vital for journalists to remember they serve the public, not the government nor the medical establishment.
The press/news media in the United States has often been called the Fourth Estate. That’s because the press is supposed to serve as an involved observer over the actions of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government (First, Second and Third Estates). The news media should always play a watchdog role in representing the people and never be complicit in promoting or protecting the government.
Journalists who quoted health and medical experts on their original positions should report on the experts’ positional changes in a way that makes clear to viewers/listeners/readers that science (knowledge) has changed. If it changes again? Keep reporting the changes — follow the science. Be curious, skeptical, objective, and accurate. Be journalists.
Next Newsletter
One of the most emotional and challenging stories for both journalists and news consumers at this time is Roe v. Wade. How does that fit into the subject of following the science? We’ll explain in the next newsletter.
Comments Welcome
I hope these thoughts are helpful to you as a journalist or news consumer. Please share your comments and I’ll respond as quickly as I can. If you like what we’re doing in this newsletter, please let your friends know about it so they can subscribe.
Newsletter Purpose
The purpose of this newsletter is to help journalists understand how to do real journalism and the public know how they can find news they can trust on a daily basis. It’s a simple purpose, but complicated to accomplish. We’ll do our best to make it as clear as we can in future newsletters.