The Press is Pressing

Photo by: John S.

Journalists, a group often heralded for promoting democratic ideals, are being slapped on the wrist by science. A recent article in Nature magazine, “The Press Under Pressure”, claims that journalists, by spreading the findings of scientific works, are hindering the scientific community. However easy this claim may be to believe, it is not, however, the case. The article claims that by publishing findings in scientific study without a proper scientific background or understanding, the public is being underserved. The author argues that scientists must be left alone to solve societal problems without the interference of journalists or society. While such scientific solitude might be helpful to scientists, it’s important to remember that the name of science doesn’t have a pristine track record. Cases upon cases of unethical scientific experiments have plagued the last century. Rules have been broken, and there is no foolproof plan to prevent such rule breaking in the future.  Society needs journalists to call out such rule breaking before it becomes problematic. Democratically speaking, a schism between science and journalism could do more harm than go. While scientists beg for a scientific and journalistic divide, the first amendment and a journalist's duty to inform the public prove the two fields should not be separated.

                First and foremost, a journalist must inform and protect the public. They seek out practices that are immoral and unjust and report them. While in a perfect scientific community, these practices would not occur, they unfortunately do take place in the real one. Another recent article in Nature, “Hypocritical Oaths,” highlights a slew of unethical scientific experiments and trials that plagued the twentieth century. It details a clinical trial in the 1940’s where scientists unleashed a venereal disease into Latin American communities. A small population of people was chosen to be infected by the disease to measure the effectiveness of a new drug.  Scientists, while claiming to do good, put the lives of a frighteningly large group of people in danger.  If journalists had gotten wind of these tests there would no doubt have been uproar and the scientists could have easily been stopped. Some may argue that this experiment was decades ago and could never happen now, but they would be ignoring current debates over animal testing and other seemingly unethical practices.

The practices of previous decades, though judged as immoral now, were not uniformly seen that way when they took place. The “Hypocritical Oaths” article highlights upon this point and explains that there are current scientific practices like animal testing that are widely considered unethical. Scientists are experimenting on living creatures, and while they may not equal humans in intelligence, they experience pain and suffering in the same ways.  When subjected to experimental medicines, animals often suffer pain and even die. If journalists are to be kept completely separate from science, such practices will never be reported or stopped. There is no school of morality and ethics that scientists must graduate from before becoming scientists. They are supposed to adhere to governmental regulations, but as history has proven, people often disregard rules.  This is where journalists come in. With journalists’ investigative skills, these practices could be reported and prevented before they become dangerous. However, scientists want the very opposite to happen.

Scientists are outraged that journalists are sticking their noses into their business. They want to be left alone to run tests and hypothesize without interrupting phone calls and interviews. This is understandable. However, their comfort and independence should not prevail over what the United States grants as the freedom of the press. As long as no published article is considered libel or has infringed on any legal right, a journalist has done no wrong. Accurate reporting is a hallmark of modern journalism, and if it is adhered to, scientists have little room to complain. Journalists investigate nearly every facet of society and science should not be exempt. If anything, such an important and often controversial field of study should be more heavily monitored. Not to say that the military’s technological advancements should be on the front page of the New York Times, but journalists should not be bridled by science.

The author of “The Press Under Pressure” claims that journalists have done the public more harm than good over the past several years by publishing misinformed articles about autism and other subjects. Through these claims, journalists are demonized for inaccurately reporting a few stories that gained media attention. Yes, they should be reprimanded for any inaccuracies, but they should not be barred from scientific involvement altogether. If anything a closer relationship between the scientific and journalistic communities would prevent this problem from happening in the first place. If scientists would coordinate their efforts, even if only minutely, with journalists, both parties would be served. Scientists would be able to accurately promote and represent their findings and journalists would be absolved from potential demonization.

Though the scientific community calls for an iron curtain between their work and the press, the exact opposite must persist. Scientist must be held accountable for their work and the only way for that to happen is if journalists are allowed to do their job. Both parties seek success on their own accords, but neither will succeed, be it morally or fiscally, if journalists are held back. Legally, journalists have no restraints on their investigations unless they in process break a law or are explicitly dictated by the government. Scientists call for solitutde may work well for themselves, but in the long run its not only harmful, but unlikely to ever happen. They must realize that constitutionally, their desire to be left alone won’t be realized so they must bite the bullet and accept journalistic involvement.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7376/full/480151a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/482132a.html