That’s all fine and dandy, but what I liked was this comment by one of the original authors, Mary Schweitzer

Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation, forms a testable hypothesis about the observation, gathers data, and the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined and retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times, it is strengthened, and eventually moves to become a theory, one of the strongest statements in science.

If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis and the data put forth by another researcher to support it, one is under the obligation to 1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first; 2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original, and 3. produce new data that, in addition to the original, more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original. That is the progression of science. Hypotheses are continually being reformulated in this way, because science IS a process, and undergoes revision as new data become available.

A good friend of mine recently complained to me that he didn’t bother reading science information (in the popular media) because it’s “always changing”, so he never knows what to believe.  I think this  is a common problem,  particularly in medical and health sciences (of which he was speaking directly).  One day we’re not supposed to eat eggs, the next we are.  One day we should be able to talk while we're doing our cardio, the next we should only do interval training.  To many people, science seems like a game of ping pong.

But, the hard truth is that the way popular science media outlets (some, certainly not all) present science grossly distorts the reality of what actually happens in science.  I call it the Indiana Jones Effect.  Archeologists (rarely) carry whips, and when I realized this it ended my ambitions to be an archeologist.  Similarly, science is rarely exciting and newsworthy in the way that editors would like it to be (though it is to scientists).  Science is slow, tedious, and sometimes downright boring.  One new study that looks promising and exciting (and therefore gets tons of media attention) doesn’t mean jack shit.  It has to be repeated, over and over, and shown to be consistently true. 

This happened with eggs.  At first scientists noticed that eggs had a lot of fat and cholesterol.  Bad.  So the media flipped out!  Never eat eggs, they said.  Ever.  The heavens above will rain lava upon you!

But, over the years, study after study has clarified that the composition of the cholesterol and fat in eggs is such that it evens itself out, with a slight nod towards being good for you.  In fact, there are numerous studies suggesting that people who don’t already have high cholesterol would be wise to eat them.  The quality of protein in eggs is ridiculously high, they are packed with nutrients, and they’re relatively cheap.  In addition, there are many brands that have added omega-3’s, which are hard to come by now-a-days.  Heavens be damned. 

It can look to an outside observer that the entire field of nutritional science was for one thing one day, then flipped on a dime because of one study--the study that was reported.  But, it doesn't happen that way.  There are a lot of studies, and they only beg new questions.

Fossil hunting suffers the same fate in the media.  One new fossil can be exciting, “we’ve discovered the missing link” (whatever THAT is).  But, that one fossil doesn’t tell a whole story.  It rarely can give us more than peeked interest to further investigate, or fill in a small gap that leads to another gap.  Multiple fossils, corroborating data from other fields, etc are needed before any conclusions can be reached (if they ever are).

This is going on in science all the time, of course, but you’d have to read the professional journals to know it.  Since most people don’t (hard to blame them, the writing can be grotesquely dry), they must rely on the popular media to filter the information.  That wouldn’t be so bad if the media stuck to reporting regularly on those scientific "answers" that have the most abundance of backing.  I need it to be great, just cognizant of the fact that science is a process.    But, that isn't what usually happens.  For every great New York Times piece, or Scientific American piece, there are tons of little articles over-dramatizing a new study in media outlets that that have a far larger audience than the science section of the Washington Post. 

The media constantly goes after what’s new and exciting.  It has to.   But that is the opposite of what makes science tick.  New is interesting, but tried and true is … well, tried.

Solution?  There likely isn’t an easy one.  But, for all my bashing of media science writing, there are a number of very good science writers who try hard to put things in perspective (Carl Zimmer among them).  You just have look for them and be your own filter. 

I know I know, more work.