The internet can make you an instant expert. You only have to do a Google search and you can find pages of videos explaining science, which can be a real minefield for public (mis)understanding. I am certainly not trying to discredit any particular creators of topics; I have used many of these resources in a previous life as a science teacher. Pupils used to love it when I showed them a video. They are concise and simple with visuals to captivate viewers. However, is there a dark side?
Pop science is entertainment. This means that some liberties have to be taken in these explanations, sometimes, sacrificing the crucial but complicated stuff for the sake of clarity. Or, sometimes a topic may not be fully researched or balanced.
Science communicators can get caught up with their content, especially if it’s an emotionally charged topic. Authors can get lost in the issue and lose focus of the big picture. More insidiously, facts can also get in the way of an interesting story, resulting in the creation of “clickbait” or over-sensationalising headlines. If something doubles your risk of developing cancer, that certainly sounds scary, but if that is only raising your chances from 0.005 per cent to 0.01 per cent in a study on mice, that certainly changes things. This may seem like semantics, but it muddies the waters for how citizens perceive information, and if trust in scientific validity is eroded, it could have, and already has had, serious repercussions.
This problem is not limited to quacks peddling snake oil. Experts can fall into these traps. Getting work published in reputable scientific journals is difficult, with only high impact research making it. This means there is a tendency for buzzworthy papers being brought to the wider scientific community, leaving less interesting confirmation experiments (essential to solidify understanding), or experiments that lack a probability of significance (results due to random chance), on the shelf.
So, what can be done? There are examples of good and bad pop science out there; even seasoned veterans like TED talks have hit and miss videos. If these videos inspire people to go and learn more about a topic… great.
However, science is hard. Getting a little taste of a subject from a video is a good start, but we need to be critical, be aware of bias, and like all good scientists, we need to do research – that’s the only way you’ll become an expert!
Sound bites
• A new study has found that cartilage in human joints might be able to repair itself. The process is similar to the mechanism used by salamanders and zebrafish to repair their limbs. Scientists hope that learning more about this process could help develop treatments for a type or arthritis.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191009142852.htm
• Owning a dog seems to be associated with a longer life. A recent study found that people who owned dogs may reduce the death from heart related problems. Less physical isolation and more exercise are key benefits of dog owners.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191008083121.htm
For more science news, listen to Radio Mocha on Radju Malta and www.fb.com/RadioMochaMalta/
Did you know?
• A bank in Latvia will lend you money, using your soul as collateral, $1,000 per soul.
• There is a world record for the most number of kicks to one’s own head (134 in a minute).
• Studies have shown that orangutans like playing with iPads, but gorillas do not.
• Alexander the Great banned beards in battle to combat beard-pulling.
For more trivia see: www.um.edu.mt/think