Collide-a-scape

The Washington Post has a regular column called “The Fact Checker,” by Glenn Kessler, a longtime Post reporter. It’s a relatively new feature. Earlier this year, Kessler described the column’s origins and purpose:

My colleague Michael Dobbs started the column during the 2008 [Presidential] campaign and now, in 2011, The Washington Post is reviving it as a permanent feature.

We will not be bound by the antics of the presidential campaign season, but will focus on any statements by political figures and government officials–in the United States and abroad–that cry out for fact-checking. It’s a big world out there, and so we will rely on readers to ask questions and point out statements that need to be checked. Over time, we hope to build this page into a more interactive feature than the blog it has been.

The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to “truth squad” the statements of political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local. As the 2012 presidential election approaches, we will increasingly focus on statements made in the heat of the presidential contest. But we will not be limited to political charges or countercharges. We will seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various “code words” used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth.

All this makes total sense, of course. And it’s a great public service. But why only for politics? Science is also a battlefield, with claims, counterclaims and all manner of misstatements that cry out for fact checking. Climate science, a subject that is often hotly debated in the public arena, would obviously be a recurring topic in any such Truth Squad column. So would nuclear power, biotechnology, evolution, and many medical and health-related issues that are often in the news.

If it’s important to gauge the accuracy of what politicians say about the budget deficit, foreign policy, Medicare, etc., it’s equally important to gauge the accuracy of what newsmakers say about climate change, stem cell research, vaccines, evolution, and so on.

The big newspapers, such as The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today, have eminently qualified science reporters that could be charged with a column that fact checks questionable scientific statements made by government officials, politicians, and even widely read pundits.

Science is just as important to society as politics. And just as is the case with political and policy related issues, the public often has trouble separating out fact from fiction on many scientific claims and statements.

Science, like politics, needs a Truth Squad.

Randy Olson, in response to this post, offers an unstinting and thought-provoking commentary on science communication. Olson is a marine biologist turned filmmaker. One of his movies is called Flock of Dodos, which might best characterize his view of  the science community–with respect to their overall communication skills. 

Although critical of scientists, Olson also offers some constructive suggestions below. Have a read and let’s discuss.

*******

Interesting discussion here.  Lots of good points.  I like Tom Fuller’s plea for simplicity — which is exactly what’s needed for broad communication.  And by the way, all of my essays, comments and my book are directed at trying to reach the general public, not the hard core aficionado crowd you get on serious climate blogs — it’s two different modes of communication. I also love Jonathan Gilligan’s Dirty Harry idea — as a simple PSA it would be better than the vast majority of the dull offerings of the NGOs in their efforts — the sort of Russian Roulette we’re playing with the planet, which is another variation on the loading the dice metaphor that is often used.

As for Michael Tobis, I don’t think you quite get my comment about scientists being “mumblers.”  That’s what they are, in essence, when it comes to broad communication.  They are the guy at the party over in the corner mumbling the truth as the loudmouthed fools in the middle blabber on and on about topics they know nothing about but have read of on blogs.  Specifically there is no excuse for me to hear Bill Maher last September say that Climategate revealed scientists “fudging” their data when 5 investigations had already shown nothing of the sort.  The problem occurred because all the science world had managed to do with the 5 investigations was mumble about them (meaning tout them on blogs that few people read).   I wrote about it at the time here. 

The science world has never had a need to engage in large scale public relations, but that’s because the world has never been like it is today.  This is not your father’s science world.  This is not just the world of Twitter, it is also the world of magazine articles written last fall by journalists (Andrew David H. Freedman in the Atlantic, Jonah Lehrer in the New Yorker, you can Google them both) who have nothing against the science world, but are pointing out there are major psychological flaws in the brains of all humans, including scientists, that lead to high levels of false positives and other significant sources of noise.

All of which means the time has come to take a deeper interest in understanding these basic dynamics of storytelling that we are all burdened with.  And that is the key point of my essay on uncertainty.  Your audience is defective to begin with — we are ALL defective.  That’s what the two articles point out.  People don’t respond to “just the facts” in the way you wish they did.  But there are ways to deal with this that do not involve dishonesty or distortion.  One of which is making certain the public is aware of how much certainty you have provided them in the past.

Last month I published this editorial in The Solutions Journal.

One of my suggestions/complaints/observations is why in the world isn’t the climate science community taking credit for the amazing amount of benefits they have brought our society through an understanding of El Nino.  Twelve years ago in California the term was a blank slate.  Today it is part of the way of life.  That is a huge amount of certainty climate science has provided.  That certainty builds public trust, but only if the public is made to realize who is responsible for it.

It’s called positive public relations.  Corporations understand this dynamic.  But the science world simply does not.  And I’m now telling you this from down in the trenches.  The public health and medical science worlds have connected with my book and the basic message of “Don’t be such a scientist,” and are reaching out to me now for lots of workshops with doctors, epidemiologists and medical researchers.  They understand this need to be accountable and connect with the general public.

But the climate crowd is still back in this philosophy of, “the truth is plenty scary enough.”  Just spouting the facts no longer works.  There has to be an understanding of how NOISY our society has become, and what needs to be done to deal with it.  It’s not impossible, but it requires an acceptance that the world has changed.  And that’s a hard thing for a lot of the older generation of scientists.  I know.  I’m talking directly to these old guys.  They don’t appreciate my message.  But they are on a sinking ship.  Something needs to be done.

A wildlife ecologist seeks to tame them.

In its current issue, The New Yorker has an excellent piece on the prevalence of (unconscious) bias in scientific studies that builds on this recent must-read piece in The Atlantic. And to some extent, Jonah Lehrer’s New Yorker article builds on this story he did for Wired in 2009. Anyone interested in the scientific process should read all three, for they are provocative cautionary tales.

Back to Lehrer’s story in The New Yorker. I’m going to quote from it extensively because it’s behind a paywall, but I urge people to buy a copy of the issue off the newsstand, if possible. It’s that good.

His piece is an arrow into the heart of the scientific method:

The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.

But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.

This is not the same as scientific fraud, Lehrer writes:

Rather the problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results.

He then describes “one of the classic examples” of selective reporting:

While acupuncture is widely accepted as a medical treatment in various Asian countries, its use is much more contested in the West. These cultural differences have profoundly influenced the results of clinical trials. Between 1966 and 1995, there were forty-seven studies of acupuncture in China, Taiwan, and Japan, and every single trial concluded that acupuncture was an effective treatment. During the same period, there were ninety-four clinical trials of acupuncture in the United States, Sweden, and the U.K., and only fifty-six percent of these studies found any therapeutic benefits. As [University of Alberta biologist Richard] Palmer notes, this wide discrepancy suggests that scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don’t want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness.

Lehrer then introduces Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis, the star of the The Atlantic story. Lehrer writes:

According to Ioannidis, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls “significant chasing,” or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance–the ninety five percent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. “The scientists are so eager to to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy,” Ioannidis says. In recent years, Ioannidis has become increasingly blunt about the pervasiveness of the problem. One of his most cited papers has a deliberately provocative title: “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.”

The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. “It feels good to validate a hypothesis,” Ioannidis said. “It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends on it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven”–he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins–”you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”

That’s why [UC Santa Barbara cognitive psychologist Jonathan] Schooler argues that scientists need to become more rigorous about data collection before they publish. “We’re wasting our time chasing after bad studies and underpowered experiments,” he says. The current “obsession” with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design…In a forthcoming paper, Schooler recommends the establishment of an open-source database, in which researchers are required to outline their planned investigations and document all their results.”I think this would provide a huge increase in access to scientific work and give us a much better way to judge the quality of an experiment,” Schooler says.

As I said, you really should read the whole piece if you want to learn more about this widespread but little discussed problem with a key tenet of the scientific method. Lehrer perceptively concludes:

We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

UPDATE: Jonah Lehrer’s New Yorker article has spawned much discussion in the science blogosphere. See Jerry Coyne, Randy Olson, Steven Novella, John Horgan, Matthew Nisbet, Charlie Petit, David Gorski, and Judith Curry. Additionally, Lehrer, at his blog, elaborates on what his article is NOT implying.

UPDATE: Five days after hitting the send button on my post, I see that Marc Morano has linked to it. Readers coming here via Climate Depot should be aware of Jonah Lehrer’s answer to a reader who asks: “Does this mean I don’t have to believe in climate change?” Lehrer’s response:

One of the sad ironies of scientific denialism is that we tend to be skeptical of precisely the wrong kind of scientific claims. In poll after poll, Americans have dismissed two of the most robust and widely tested theories of modern science: evolution by natural selection and climate change. These are theories that have been verified in thousands of different ways by thousands of different scientists working in many different fields.

I concur with Lehrer’s assessment of the science underlying evolution and climate change.

Speaking of contests, Orac has winnowed a list of “terminal terminator cranks” into the top three and asks readers to pick a winner:

• Anti-vaccine loons
• Tobacco/secondhand smoke denialists
• Anthropogenic global warming denialists

There’s an interesting food fight taking place at ScienceBlogs. Orac is dismayed that Coby Beck allowed his father to “hijack” his blog with this “case against flouride” post.

Orac is all over the irony of this. I have to agree. It’s akin to Coby handing over his blog to an anti-vaxxer.

This is the second post of what will be a three part series on the terminology used in the climate debate to define individuals and groups of people that share a common position.

The first post surveyed responses from science and environmental writers on two common terms used in the climate debate: “skeptic” and “denier.”

This second post will discuss the intellectually inconsistent use of “denier” as a pejorative term.

In the climate discourse, “denier” has become widely adopted by climate “hawks,” liberal climate bloggers, and some scientists. Defenders of the term insist that

denialism is not a priori meant to invoke Holocaust denial, but rather describes an attitude and set of behaviors that are common among many groups that reject mainstream scientific and/or historical concepts.

The argument being that denial of global warming is a form of denialism no different than denial of the Holocaust, evolution, the HIV virus, and germ theory.  With liberals, though, there appears to be a double standard in usage of the term “denier.”

For example, I’ve long wondered why Bill Maher isn’t derided as a “denier” and why liberals don’t call the Huffington Post a “denialist” outlet.

Maher is a comedian and talk-show host who last year famously advised against getting the swine flue shot. Over the years he has been an outspoken opponent of the seasonal flu vaccine. Here he is in 2005, railing against “western medicine” and vaccines on the Larry King show. You’d think that if anyone deserved to be labeled a “denier,” it would be Maher. (Incidentally, Maher’s rant against the swine flu vaccine last year triggered so much backlash that he felt compelled to respond with this teach the controversy post.) But I’m not seeing anyone labeling Maher a denier.

To be fair, plenty of liberals are dismayed at Maher’s quackery. But he’s mostly called a “crank” for his anti-vaccination nonsense and opposition to western medicine. No broad brush tarring as a “denier.” (I could also make the same case for Robert Kennedy Jr., especially since he seems to get special dispensation from liberals.)

As for the hugely trafficked Huffington Post (which takes its name from the liberal pundit and socialite Arianna Huffington), it has become “since its inception a bastion of pseudoscience,“  a crazy “rabbit hole of anti-science,” or to put it more gently, a forum for all sorts of wacky views on alternative medicine and immunization.

What it’s not, of course, is a “denialist” communications vehicle.  It can’t be, because “denialism” is…well…not associated with enlightened liberal thinking, right? Arianna Huffington can’t be a denialist any more than Robert Kennedy Jr. Liberals calling liberals denialists? Nah, you’re not going to see that.

Meanwhile, climate denialism is treated uniquely as part of of some larger conservative derangement syndrome, that, oh yeah, threatens the future of the world. Why aren’t Bill Maher and the Huffington Post labeled similarly as “denialists” when they promulgate misinformation and myths that threaten public health?

No, I’m not saying that liberals ought to be more more evenhanded in the way they throw around the term “denier.”  What I wish, though, has been said best by this blogger, who writes that

both liberals and conservatives alike must own up to their own extremists. Liberals must own up to the fact that they don’t have a universally-solid grasp on scientific truth, and just like the right wingers, we have people and movements within the left wing that are cranky and denialist. I would say left wing crankery includes animal rights extremism, altie/new age woo, and anti-technology Luddites.

Bill Maher is one of these cranks (he scores 3/3), and if the liberals want to represent themselves as truly pro-science we must make a concerted effort to reject the unscientific beliefs of these crackpots.

That includes the cranks that happen to be liberal icons, too.

What to make of this latest study charting American ignorance?

Well, let’s see. Are we flunking history? Check. Are we flunking geography? Check. Are we this flunking basic science? Check.

So it should come as no surprise that Americans are a wee bit challenged on the basics of climate science.

I have two questions: Do other countries similarly track how stupid their citizens are? And, whose fault is it that only 1 in 10 Americans (surveyed by Yale) are “very well informed” about climate change issues?

UPDATE: In the comments, an objection to my word choice (which I find a fair criticism) has been made here. Also, a contextual (and to my mind, more accurate) take on that 1 in 10 statistic I cite can be found here.

The crusading, hydra-headed anti-vaccine movement deserves more consistent coverage in the media. Here’s the title of today’s press release from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

How the anti-vaccine movement threatens America’s children

Paul Offit, a pediatrician and the author of “Autism’s False Prophets,” (who didn’t tour bookstores because of death threats he received from the anti-vaccine community) will be the plenary speaker today at the American Academy of Pediatrics conference in San Francisco. According to the press release, here are the themes he will touch on:

• The origins of religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines in the U.S.;
• The impact of those exemptions on vaccine rates and the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases;
• The delicate balance between individual freedoms and societal good.

Says Offit:

Parents are bombarded with false stories about the dangers of vaccines, and the result is that some are backing away from vaccinating their children. This is tragic, because it leaves children vulnerable to deadly diseases, and it lowers the immunity of the entire community.

Offit is the subject of an excellent 2009 story in Wired magazine by Amy Wallace.  Shortly after the piece was published last Fall, Wallace got slimed with all manner of vitriol from vaccine opponents and sued by a charismatic leader of the anti-vaccine movement. The suit was later dismissed.

At an NYU event last Thursday, I heard Wallace talk about the jarring experience. She seems to have taken it in stride and good humor. (It probably helps that Conde Nast–Wired’s corporate parent–was highly supportive and paid all her legal bills.) As this event was geared towards journalists covering science, much of the discussion (which was moderated by Robert Lee Hotz, a WSJ science columnist), focused on how Wallace went about reporting and writing the story.

Wallace’s meta description of the interrelated themes explored in her piece strikes me as fertile territory for editors who want to follow up:

I see this as about a movement in our culture, about people afraid to vaccinate their kids, and about distrust of experts.

At one point, Hotz asked Wallace: “How do you continue the journalistic discussion” of this story? In response, she said that “deluging people with data” on the safety of vaccines wouldn’t work. Instead, she suggested that narrative story-telling was the only thing likely to cut through all the misinformation and distrust of science.

But that means editors and writers have to be creative and dogged in pursuing those stories.

Politics is the gruel that feeds The Daily Show and The Colbert Report with endless material. But science often finds its way onto both shows as well.

In an interesting post, Matthew Nisbet wonders, to what effect? He asks

what evidence is there for the potential of these programs—rich with satire and built on comedy—to engage viewers on complex issues such as climate change, or to promote learning about science more generally?

Recent findings, according to one scholar interviewed by Nisbet, suggest that

that satirical news programs can be important outlets for broadening public attention to science and the environment.

Which seems kind of obvious to me, and perhaps to anyone else who recalls seeing Paul Ehrlich appear over a dozen times on Johnny Carson’s show in the 1970s. (I didn’t because I was too young then.) But there are larger questions raised in Nisbet’s interview with Lauren Feldman, a communications professor at American University, such as whether comedy shows detract from the seriousness of issues like climate change.

On a related note, Feldman raises an even more important issue, which has a lot to do with how information on climate change is disgested by the public:

Another area that is ripe for study is the role of news satire in promoting news media literacy. Arguably, The Daily Show is at its best when it is critiquing the news media. An important question is whether watching the program actually helps make audiences more critical and discerning news consumers, a question that is increasingly relevant given the vast amount of information – much of which is of dubious credibility – that citizens are forced to sift through in our contemporary media environment.

The problem here is that people tend to view information (and especially hot button issues like climate change) through a predisposed political or ideological filter.