Stop the Scientizing!

I'm a fan of science. I use it every day. I'm using it right now. And with a smile. But that doesn't mean, in my view, that science should poke its nose into everything. Particularly when the science under consideration is the kind that scientizes something just because it can. I'm talking here about two related phenomena: The first is for researchers to study and then quantify something that was more fun when it was explained via non-science, and the second is for news organizations to report such psuedo-science as, well, news. Not only does the scientization suck the fun out of these events, it also cheapens the idea of scientific journalism.

I bring this up because today, on three major (online) news outlets, I came across headlines for three articles detailing such scientization. These were: an ABCNews.com story on the mortality rates of rock stars, a CNN.com report on a study that "confirms" that men are attracted to attractive women, and a stop-the-presses from MSNBC.com about how scientists have (finally!) located the gene which controls skinny. My issue is not just that these studies seem a little unfocused (look at the sample rates, for instance), or that this is headline news (which it was on two of the three sites), but rather that I can't figure out the motive behind the stories and their newsworthiness in the first place. Why is it worth scientizing things that most people knew anyway? Who benefits from this research and reporting? What am I supposed to do with this information?

Now, I should be upfront about my standards: the only two magazines that I read cover-to-cover each week are Entertainment Weekly and Newsweek. So, I certainly admit to having a lot of flex in what I'm willing to take as "news." But I do spend at least an hour each morning reading over my local and national online news sources. So I have some standards. And I've spent a good deal of time in my professional life looking at how science and popular culture intersect, so I think I'm coming at this from a fairly reasonable perspective.

Despite all of that, I am absolutely flummoxed by these three articles. If you read them, you'll see that they are very descriptive, but not at all prescriptive. By that I mean, they say a lot about what the studies report (Shocker! A rock 'n' roll lifestyle is not conducive to longevity!), but say very little about what they mean or what you or I, or even a rock 'n' roller, should do about any of this. You're either genetically skinny or you're not. If you're a heterosexual female, you're also either hot enough or you're not (interesting that these two stories came out on the same day, no?). And it turns out that, in both cases, being skinny and "hot" may not be the best thing, except the articles don't go into too much detail about what you could or could not do about it if you were or were not. You are whatever you are, and then that's that. Frankly, it's neither science nor reporting so much as it is just charting. They put the diagram up on the board, and then you stand next to it and see how you measure up. What comes next ... well, apparently that isn't important. To my mind, I don't think it is too much to ask of science journalism that, when reporting a study, they take a few steps out on the limb and and answer the notorious "So what?" question.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the "So what?" question is presumed (or is it assumed?). Maybe it's enough these days simply to know how one measures up. But is that the most we should expect, even from pseudo-science? That it provides people with a scapegoat? "I'm not fat; I'm genetically predisposed to surviving famine." This is America's new, brilliant strategy! Eat all the food so that when the rest of the world starves, we'll be able to have it all. But if this logic is true, then it may explain the skinny and hot articles, but not the dead rockers. What is the point of studying, and then reporting, the mortality rates of rock stars? I suppose, and I'm stretching here, that such a study would be beneficial to actuaries. But I'd also suppose that, in the general risk assessment, giveaways like a fiendish drug habit and an inability to blink in unison -- not to mention checking the "Yes" box for the "Are You Keith Richards?" question -- would make such research redundant.

As I said, I'm not just irked by the fact that this seems to be both dead-end psuedo-science and dead-end journalism -- marginally informative yet woefully under-instructive. I'm also upset that scientists feel they need to apply their methodologies to things that are more fun, even useful, without quantitative data. The morbid mythology of rockers was running along just fine before someone drew a graph across Kurt Cobain's tombstone. I don't think most people need a study confirming for them who they are attracted to (maybe a study telling them why, but certainly not who). And I'd wager that, just like the skinny gene study, seeing the answers to those questions quantified isn't going to do a whole lot for one's outlook on life. And I think that's a real concern. It's not just un-fun, it's depressing to see things like rock 'n' roll, dating, and even body types reduced to numbers without a sense of what comes next or even what to make of it.

There are plenty of things out there that need the efforts and attention of real science. I love the science that lights up the imagination, and science journalism that puts those ideas within reach. I need that kind of science, and I want to read about that kind of science. I'm not as sure that I need to read about a study that proves that Cobain, Lennon, and Elvis all died before their time, that they probably were attracted to "hot" women, and that two out of the three probably had the skinny jean. I kinda sorta had that stuff figured out by myself already. I read it in Entertainment Weekly, where that kind of journalism happily belongs.

Comments

[jmsloop]

I very much enjoyed this post. Since you and I evidently read a great deal of the same news sources, I had read two of these reports (the rock star longevity one, and the one on the skinny gene. I think I read the one about attractive women being attractive ten years ago).

Not to ignore your larger concern, which is significant, I also share one of your smaller concerns--that is, the problem with making "skinniness" purely genetic. When news reports or headlines make those universalizing claims, it drives me crazy. I find myself more and more concerned that I'm going to hear people say things like, "I'm sorry I'm obnoxious and arrogant, but it's genetic" or "It's too bad that I have the genes for blurting out inappropriate thoughts." Scientific journalism--rather than the research itself--the strips all individual responsibility can be simultaneously dangerous and irritating when put in the wrong hands.

[Daniel]

As a profession, journalists aren't particularly literate when it comes to science, and the two cultures clash.

Much of my favorite year as a reporter was spent covering science, which I'd been told wasn't very interesting to readers. Yet after every "boring" science story i wrote, people made a point of contacting me to tell me how interested they were. I got named Journalist of the Year in my state for that body of work, praised for "making science interesting," and a few months later, once I'd moved on to another assignment, the newspaper dumped the science portion of our weekly Health & Science section, turning it into a press-release driven "Your Health" page.

So why are newspaper editors so convinced that people aren't interested? Because science frustrates and confuses them. American journalism, as a profession, developed in response to a two-party system, with tit-of-tat ideas about fairness and getting "both sides of the story." Things that don't fall into those categories get treated like novelty baubles... cats that watch TV, middle-age mothers, people who idolize Ethel Merman. Things of little or no consequence that catch your eye, but aren't worthy of a second look.

As an industry, we like the kind of junk you write about in this post because it is so digestible. Devoid of context and meaning, these "No-Shit Studies" fit easily into whatever we already believe and require no particular explaining. The study about men and attractive women just re-enforced existing stereotypes and seemed kind of humorous, so it was the perfect science story. It was everywhere I looked online for about 24 hours, and every newspaper carried it.

[Huffman]

I completely agree that scientific journalism at the big media companies can be lacking. Usually they focus on some sensational aspect of the study, and they almost never provide a reference or link to the published results.

Because of that, I do not think we should condemn any of these studies as devoid of value based on a single article from CNN, ABC, or MSNBC.

(Well, ok: maybe the one about rock star mortality.)