Chapter Four --

 

Journalists dont need to know science in detail but should understand scientific method.

 

(John Dewey's distinction knowledge of and knowledge about).

 

Scientific method -- theory --> tests --> proof or falsification

 

Types of studies -- clinical, epidemeological, etc.

 

Probability -- Understand margin of error, sample size, confounders, reproducability,

 

 

Golden questions (Victor Cohn)

 

-- Was the study large enough to pass statistical muster?

-- Was the study designed well, or could unintentional bias have affected results?

-- Did the study last long enough?

-- Are there other explanations for findings?

-- Do conclusions fit scientific evidence?

-- Do I have the full picture?

-- Have the findings been checked by others?

-- What's the potential for the research?

 

Understanding scale --

 

• ppm --parts per million -- milligrams / liter = mg/L
• ppb -- parts per billion -- micrograms / liter = ug/L
• ppt -- parts per trillion -- parts per trillion

 

---

Problem:

The EPA set the maximum contaminant limit for TCE in drinking water at 0.005 milligrams per liter (0.005 mg/L) or 5 parts of TCE in one billion parts of water.

Your local environmental agency has a reading at 15 micrograms per liter

 

Is this over or under the maximum contaminant limit?

(Answer at the bottom)

 

---

Additional reading

 

Seven warning signs of voodoo science 

 

 Sex.drugs.dinosaurs.pdf

 

 

 

Answer to problem --

15 ug/L / 1000 = 0.015 mg/L

That is 15 PPB which is three times the maximum allowed.

 

 

---

This chapter is a good source for those of us writing about science that do not have a background in a scientific field. Although we do not have to be experts in marine biology or brain surgery, it’s important for us to gain some basic knowledge in areas like that before we cover them. The sections on Power of sample size and bias and confounders are extremely important. When examining scientific studies it’s important to be very skeptical. If a sample size is small, the information is much less useful. If Exxon funds a study on the effects of gas emissions we shouldn’t take the study too seriously without consulting other studies. The section on Understanding scale is especially helpful too. Last class when we discussed parts per million I had no idea how to picture that; the descriptions on p. 65 are very useful.

 

 

-Quentin

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

When I read this quote from page 63, “A balanced report is actually an imbalance of what science has been finding” I was left questioning what exactly we see as balance anyhow and why it is so valued in journalism.

 

When I looked up the term balance I found a number of interesting interpretations;

 

“a balance of power between multiple opposing forces” and

“virtue being between the extreme and the lacking” (wikipedia)

“A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.” (thefreedictionary.com)

 

I then proceeded to interpret what does balance mean in journalism and in science.

In journalism, it is “getting both sides of the story”, in science there are many; every force has an equal and opposite force, every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, etc…)

 

From the reading there was an emphasis placed on peer review as means to validate and pursue balance in scientific study and publications. An article or finding is validated through peer review, but isn’t peer review just review by those that are like-minded, in the same field and pursuing similar studies? How is reviewing an article by peers thus balanced? Wouldn’t it have to be the opposite of review by a peer to truly be a balanced article? And if the process is done by experts, how do we decide whom are experts and why?

 

This then left me questioning is science the study to achieve balance at all? If science is an effort to discover and understand the world around us, isn’t that a human effort to balance surrounding forces with its own understanding of the self? How can you validate these studies through an unbalanced form of review by experts (peer review)? What then is validating?

 

These questions are important because if journalists are to understand science they must first understand where science is coming from. And this doesn’t just apply to journalists, it should apply to everyone. Without thinking critically it leads societies to listen to paid climatologists claiming that climate change is a natural cycle of the earth rather than impact of human caused excessive ghg emissions.

 

To me balance is essential to understand and harmonious relationships between species and the earth. Climate change is caused by humans’ imbalance with their natural environment thus catalyzing more imbalance and ultimately the destruction of life as we know it.

 

 

-Jackie

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I agree with Quentin. I have done a lot of writing, but I do not have any background with science. I think this chapter is useful for me to see the need for at least basic knowledge of the subject matter. We always have to wonder about the validity of the information we obtain as journalists. Sometimes this can become difficult if we do not have the right amount of training on the subject matter we are reporting.

 

--Koryn Stevens