A couple of posts ago, I quoted (as I do frequently) Alan Barth:

 

 

I read a dissertation about this quote once, and the author (who I can’t recall at the moment) went on at length about this statement. Yes, having a free press is one of the most essential ingredients of a free society. But, the author said, that is only part of what Barth meant by the statement. The other implication, which at least to me is pretty straightforward, is that the press also must maintain some measure of integrity in their reporting.

 

I could go on about this subject for hours, probably even days. I hope most people agree with me in that accurate reporting is the cornerstone of public knowledge.

 

It is this subject of public knowledge (and the systematic destruction of it) that makes me wince. It isn’t just that the press is not being fair. It’s that they dumb it down so much that it loses integrity by default. This is the result of a number of different things, ranging from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove’s systematic destruction of science in the public domain to abysmal public school science knowledge rankings to the “knows almost nothing about everything” nature of most journalists. I’m not placing blame; I don’t know where to start.

 

What sent me off on this topic (today) was this article in the Washington Post. Before you go reading the whole thing, just look at the headline, as I did when I clicked: “Study: Exposure to Plastics Chemical Elevates Health Risks”. You’re probably familiar with this.  Bisphenol-A (BPA), an ingredient in some #7 plastics products, was banned by the Canadian Health Ministry because of studies done in animals showing health problems such as cancer and heart disease. I guess the FDA has done a similar study with people.

 

But here’s where the inconsistencies start. I read the article looking in vain for the “link” they claimed existed. The word “link” was used, but there was nothing that any well-versed scientist or doctor would call that. A correlation between BPA levels in the urine and blood and heart problems and diabetes is not a “link.” Correlations do not necessarily indicate causation. It’s what lawyers refer to as post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after, therefore because of it,” and even courts find it a weak defense.

 

A famous net-culture phenomenon mocked this sloppiness. Global average temperature has been rising since at least 1820, while the number of pirates has been declining. The CFSM’s conclusion is that, therefore, pirates must stave off global warming. How novel! All we have to do is make more pirates, and we’ll save the planet!

 

Obviously this is not true. Which was exactly the CFSM’s satirical point. Just because two statistics show a trend doesn’t mean they are connected. And while sometimes this is the case, these correlations are what scientists think of as “preliminary” or “weak” evidence.

 

To its credit, the WP article notes that scientists are calling strongly for further study to back up these findings.

 

This is not to say that I think correlative evidence is entirely useless. There are many things in science that we know to be true even though we have yet to prove it. Take gravity, for it. Since the time of Gallileo people have been calculating and defining how gravity works, to enormous degrees of success. We have the math, but it’s based entirely on observed evidence: things fall. Observed evidence, under scientific definition, can only go so far as supporting a theory. Gravity is just a theory.*

 

So what would be stronger evidence, you ask? As a scientist, I am qualified to tell you: Strong evidence in the case of a chemical interaction or causation.* Strong, conclusive evidence would be discovery of the chemical reactive process that causes BPA to create abnormal liver enzymes, kill off the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (which is what causes diabetes), and create artery blockages or other things that cause heart disease. This kind of evidence is much harder to obtain. Research takes more time, is more expensive, and a lot of non-scientists (including reporters) can’t read the findings because they are so technical. In fact, different scientific fields are so specialized that even other kinds of scientists can’t necessarily read them.

 

Here’s the part where I blame the scientific illiteracy of the public at large … at least a little.

 

Even people with a high school education should know—and schools should teach—basic scientific principle. Even someone who never takes a class about biology or organic chemistry should understand the difference between a theory and a postulate, what constitutes evidence, what science considers a “scientific” teaching versus an “unscientific” one. Textbooks often provide an introductory chapter which talks about this subject, but I think many teachers skip or gloss over them…and that many students don’t pay attention because they aren’t tested on it.

 

Understanding the principles behind the practice of science is, I believe, more important than knowing how many biological kingdoms there are or what the pH of pure acetic acid is. And it would clear up a lot of confusion in the domain of public knowledge. Copy editors, journalists and PR directors might benefit from (unintentionally) inaccurate headlines. Maybe it would even be possible to call out politicians when they slaughter statistics and conclusions.

 

I believe this so strongly that I’d go so far as to say it’d be acceptable to replace or even require a year or semester of a specific science discipline with a “foundations” class in middle or high school. Such a class could address not only the concepts addressed above but also how statistics are (and aren’t) useful, how current issues in science are debated (global warming, endangered species, organic food, evolution, etc.) among scientists, instead of the politicians who often misconstrue it.

 

It’s a difficult task to maintain vigil against the onslaught of inaccurate reporting in the news on these subjects, from HPV to BPA to global warming to NASA. Science is the greatest school of rationality, but often a defiance to our natural instinct to “listen to our gut.” But the more people understand the subtle differences, the more people will get the right idea. Society benefits.

 

Complex ideas can lead to deceptively simple results.  It's the first bit that's more difficult.

 

 
 

*Just like evolution is “just a theory.” The word “theory” in the public domain is not the same as the word we scientists use. To a scientist, a theory is actually pretty kick-ass. But try explaining this to a fundamentalist and you get a lot of stubbornly blank stares.