Good Science but Bad Journalists?

Science may be interesting but it is not often exiting. Test tubes don't really provide the same opportunity for media coverage that Z-list celebrities trying to ice- skate so clearly does. 

As such the media can often exaggerate scientific progress, 'Cure for Most Cancers 'Soon'' being a fantastic Daily Express FRONT PAGE (!) headline in January.

Scientific papers and journals are complex to understand, simply because they have to be otherwise the lack of detail would be useless to fellow researchers. But media have to put it simply because the public can't be expected to understand complex scientific ideas, and won't read something they don't follow anyway. 

The media has a duty to report the news fairly, and the science world has a duty to make itself accessible. I think that's fair don't you?

PS: The reporting of science in non-scientific media can still be notoriously bad. Check out Martin Robbins in the Guardian last year for a superb parody of this, complete with great references.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

PPS: Nothing annoys me more than an article without a reference. It should be illegal.

REF:

The Lay Scientist, Martin Robbins, Monday 27 September 2010, 09.19 BST, guardian.co.uk   ... should be ok I think!