Chemistry, and science in a broader sense. When you hear ‘woah a new medicine has been found that could cure cancer’ it’s most likely 'we have developed a new gadolinium based compound that has shown efficiency in penetrating cancer cells and could be used to deliver drugs to these areas, however it has not been tested in humans because it kills rats faster that it cures cancer"
Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science. They just translate some foreign language into words that suits them.
PopSci is tricky because on one hand, it’s great that there’s a lot of interest in learning about science and it should be promoted, but on the other, the vast majority of research is so complex that you literally cannot explain it to the layman without making it wrong in some way.
That’s why Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc are such treasures. They know science, but also are able to explain shit to laypeople. Scientific breakthroughs need to do press releases that the scientists themselves sign off on. Unfortunately, the misunderstood sensationalism gets clicks which makes money, so there’s absolutely zero incentive for these journalists to get the story straight since they’re profit motivated.
Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer, then a comedian, then a TV presenter. Unlike (say) Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he was never a research scientist.
You’re not wrong in general, but in the specific case of “X against Y”, it’s simply bad journalism. Every half decent journalist should be able to tell that the original research article might be of relevance for the field, but not the public.
Especially adding anything cancer-related to the headline is just pure evil. They knew exactly, that it will get many people’s hope up and they’ll click.
Medical science or research in general, it’s all spun around to get clicks.
When people think there’s a new “superfood” or “recommendation” from doctors every week, they stop trusting doctors. In reality, the processes and recommendations are very robust and take lots of time and research to change. A study will say that “we might want to look into X” and news will run with “groundbreaking study: x is the sole cause of y”.
I’m not even an expert. Like you said “Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science”
I had to do an assignment in college about news report headlines vs what was said in the abstract vs what was said in the conclusion. Basically finding out how many news reports just skimmed the abstract. Kinda shocking tbh.
Chemistry, and science in a broader sense. When you hear ‘woah a new medicine has been found that could cure cancer’ it’s most likely 'we have developed a new gadolinium based compound that has shown efficiency in penetrating cancer cells and could be used to deliver drugs to these areas, however it has not been tested in humans because it kills rats faster that it cures cancer"
Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science. They just translate some foreign language into words that suits them.
Relevant xkcd.
PopSci is tricky because on one hand, it’s great that there’s a lot of interest in learning about science and it should be promoted, but on the other, the vast majority of research is so complex that you literally cannot explain it to the layman without making it wrong in some way.
That’s why Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc are such treasures. They know science, but also are able to explain shit to laypeople. Scientific breakthroughs need to do press releases that the scientists themselves sign off on. Unfortunately, the misunderstood sensationalism gets clicks which makes money, so there’s absolutely zero incentive for these journalists to get the story straight since they’re profit motivated.
The same Bill Nye that aired the episode “My Sex Junk”? Yeah, please no. That guy isn’t even a real scientist.
Bill Nye was a mechanical engineer, then a comedian, then a TV presenter. Unlike (say) Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he was never a research scientist.
Bill Nye has lost my respect recently, but Professor Dave FTW.
You’re not wrong in general, but in the specific case of “X against Y”, it’s simply bad journalism. Every half decent journalist should be able to tell that the original research article might be of relevance for the field, but not the public.
Especially adding anything cancer-related to the headline is just pure evil. They knew exactly, that it will get many people’s hope up and they’ll click.
Medical science or research in general, it’s all spun around to get clicks.
When people think there’s a new “superfood” or “recommendation” from doctors every week, they stop trusting doctors. In reality, the processes and recommendations are very robust and take lots of time and research to change. A study will say that “we might want to look into X” and news will run with “groundbreaking study: x is the sole cause of y”.
I’m not even an expert. Like you said “Almost every science headline was written by someone who never understood science”
https://xkcd.com/882/
https://xkcd.com/1217/
Things that kill cancer include:
Of course, they also kill everything else.
That’s what radiation + chemotherapy does too. The whole goal is for the treatment to kill the cancer faster than it kills the human.
I had to do an assignment in college about news report headlines vs what was said in the abstract vs what was said in the conclusion. Basically finding out how many news reports just skimmed the abstract. Kinda shocking tbh.
Sadly I can only upvote this once