Who let the gene genie out of the box?

When a science journalist sits down to write an article, the last thing they have in mind is that an academic somewhere will use the piece as in a research project. But that is just what Rebecca Carver did in her doctoral work on "Genes in the media" at the Institute for Basic Medical Sciences (IMB) at the University of Oslo.

Not content with writing her PhD and a journal paper, Dr Carver has colluded in the creation of a press release on her work Oslo-scientists have found the media gene. In this we read:

“We chose to analyse the national newspapers Aftenposten, VG and Dagbladet from Norway; The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Sun from the UK,” Carver explains. “We randomly selected a total of 300 articles, including commentaries, features, news stories and news briefs that referred to the gene concept in various ways.”

There then follows a detailed description of different uses of the "gene" thingy in these media. You will have to read the paper in "the important international journal EMBO Reports, issued for the European Molecular Biology Organization" for the full details.

Carver's key message seems to be that "journalists and editors, striving for a catchy news story, often convert a relativistic message into a deterministic one". Guess what, it all comes down to the "titles and bylines". As Carver pouts it "we have found that the titles and bylines are often deterministic whilst the relativistic and evolutionary frames tend to be present further into the article".

Carver, who has also has a "Master degree in Science Communication from Imperial College London," wants to hear from science reporters. As Carver and Jarle Breivik, her supervisor, put it, “We hope our work will increase awareness of how we communicate the gene concept, and would like to come into contact with both scientists and journalists.”

Ben Goldacre between soft covers

The man who has spent the past few years dismembering medical quacks in his weekly column in The Guardian, Ben Goldacre, has made it into paperback. While the "Bad Science" title of his new book might provoke some to complain that it should really be "Bad Medicine," there's no doubt that Dr Goldacre, a fellow member of the ABSW, has done a service to medical journalism, even though the fake remedies, and some journalists' willingness to puff them, shows little sign of going away.

Saturday's Guardian has an extract from the book, The media’s MMR hoax. In this, Goldacre excoriates the newspapers that did much to fuel the hysteria around MMR. His line is that it isn't just, or even primarily, Dr Andrew Wakefield who deserves the blame for this descent into scientific lunacy, but the media.

Given the tradition that dog does not eat dog – that journalists do not pick holes in each others stories – we have to rely on Goldacre for this sort of thing. Journalists happily pick holes in stories over a pint, but they won't do it in print.

One area where Goldacre's account may be slightly divorced from reality is his observation that "While stories on GM food, or cloning, stood a good chance of being written by specialist science reporters, with stories on MMR their knowledge was deliberately sidelined, and 80% of the coverage was by generalist reporters." Plenty of the coverage of GM came from hacks with little understanding of the science.

This really just confirms his thesis that science goes out of the window when medical, or even science, stories get into the hands of columnists, pundits and others not versed in how science works.

Another quibble is the reference to "didactic statements from authority figures on either side of the debate". Didactic is the wrong word. Dogmatic maybe.

Still, anyone who takes potshots at The Daily Mail has to be on the right side. It will be interesting to see how many of the publications in Goldacre's sights find room to review his book.

Science and the media as a hot topic

Some science writers may find it a bit worrying to be the subject of the sort of research that they sometimes have to report. Others might like to chortle at the misconceptions out there. Both camps will find something to confirm their prejudices over at Intute: Health and Life Sciences which has added Science and the media to its series of "Hot Topics".

There are links to interesting documents. They even have a small plug for the ABSW.

Intute, since you asked, is "a free online service providing you with access to the very best Web resources for education and research".

Other hot topics that might be of more long-term interest include "Hospital Superbugs and Infection Control," "Animal diseases: an international perspective," and "Museums and Libraries Online".