Changing times for science and the public

Abstract

The increasing number of corrections in the scientific record and the debate about reproducibility affect journalists’ reporting about science and thereby public opinion on scientists and research.

“Across time, public understanding about how science works is affected by journalism”, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “A journalist, with very little extra effort, can increase the accuracy of public understanding and minimize public vulnerability to distortions of science” 1. The responsible communication of science has always been an important issue for scientists and journalists, but it has gained more attention during the past few years, owing to growing public interest in the scientific enterprise and demands for accountability. In response to this larger public attention, Jamieson argues that we need to reconsider media narratives about science and research, suggesting that the time is ripe to reexamine the ways and means by which science is communicated to the public 2. This has gained particular importance in light of the contemporary debate about a “reproducibility crisis”, which has stimulated a tale of a science in trouble based largely on a string of retractions and failures to reproduce experiments in the biomedical and the social sciences. A recent analysis reassessed 21 experimental social science studies published between 2010 and 2015 in Nature and Science, and found that 8 lack crucial evidence to support the authors’ conclusions 3. Brian Nosek, one of the co‐authors, reasoned that “someone observing these failures to replicate might conclude that science is going in the wrong direction”. He added though that “science's greatest strength is its constant self‐scrutiny to identify and correct problems and increase the pace of discovery” 4.

The “sience in crisis” narrative

Increasingly, the narrative that science “is going in the wrong direction” and is undergoing a crisis has been revisited. Daniele Fanelli 5 commented that the narrative of a science in crisis is “at least partially misguided”. One issue is that even the notion of “reproducible research” should not be taken for granted, as standards, methodologies, and expectations vary widely across different research fields 6, 7. In addition, “studies that try to tackle complex phenomena (which is to say most social and biological studies) are bound to yield evidence that is incomplete, erratic, sometimes contradictory and endlessly open to revision and refinement” 7.

The responsible communication of science has always been an important issue for scientists and journalists, but it has gained more attention during the past few years…

However, the combination of a “science is in crisis narrative” along with an increasing number of corrections and retractions in the scientific literature is affecting the dynamics of science communication. The widely publicized article on STAP (stimulus‐triggered acquisition of pluripotency) cells by Haruko Obokata, published in Nature in 2014, was retracted within 5 months owing to misconduct. Both, the original article and the retraction, were heavily covered by the mainstream media. About 2 years later, another highly publicized article on gene editing was published in Nature Biotechnology and retracted in August 2017. The authors indicated that a protein (NgAgo) from the archaea Natronobacterium gregoryi could edit the human genome. The apparently ground‐breaking results attracted considerable attention from researchers in the field and from the media. According to an editorial in Nature Biotechnology, “it is hard to overstate the impact of the Han paper following its publication last year, especially in China, where the paper originated. […] nearly 4,000 Chinese news stories cited the Han paper in just the first 2 months after publication”.

Some retractions occur within weeks or even days after publication, often motivated by criticism and discussion in social media. In November 2016, Frontiers in Public Health released findings from an anonymous online questionnaire from which the authors claimed that “vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability)”. After severe and caustic criticism on social media, Frontiers quickly responded that “this article was provisionally accepted but not published” and that it is being re‐reviewed (http://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/28/study-linking-vaccines-autism-pulled-frontiers-following-heavy-criticism/).

The effect of corrections on public trust

These and other cases of correcting the literature raise intriguing questions about whether this is another sign of “science in crisis” and how this affects public trust in scientists. Some surveys consistently indicate that the public trusts scientists more than other social groups, including politicians, business leaders, and the news media. One of the messages of the 2014 “Public Attitudes to Science” study in the UK by Ipsos MORI, in partnership with the British Science Association (BSA), is that “…scientists and engineers are highly trusted figures overall, although trust is still linked to the institutions that they work for”. The same report says “while people may feel they know what scientists do, there is still a large level of uncertainty, and sometimes skepticism, about how scientific research is produced”. Concerning science journalism, the Ipsos MORI report suggests low trust from the public, and half of those surveyed “think journalists only occasionally check that findings are reliable before writing about them”.

Some retractions occur within weeks or even days after publication, often motivated by criticism and discussion in social media.

A positive image of scientists is also prevalent in some Latin American countries, consistent with results from a 2015 major survey on the public perception about science and technology in Brazil by the Center for Strategic Studies and Management. However, an intriguing result from this survey is that a higher fraction of respondents considered journalists (27.3%) as a more reliable source of information than doctors (20.9%), religious people (17.2%), or scientists at public institutions (8.1%). Irrespective of whether or not scientists are ranked first in terms of trust, the “reproducibility crisis” and ensuing debate are still evolving in the research system, and public reactions and changes of attitudes remain yet to be seen.

Thus, science journalists can play a stronger role in raising public awareness and knowledge of this shifting landscape for science. The article “How journalists can help hold scientists accountable” published in the Pacific Standard in 2016 illustrates this point. Among other questions, the article addresses the correction of the scientific literature and the failure or sometimes refusal of the media to correct science news stories; it asks for a culture change in science reporting. John Rennie, former editor in chief of Scientific American, provocatively asked in The Guardian in 2011, “What would happen if all the editors and reporters of the extended science press, including the legions of science bloggers, self‐imposed a moratorium that forbade writing about new scientific findings until 6 months after their journal publication?” Today, journalists face the challenge of covering what is being corrected at an increasingly quicker pace. How they are reacting to and interacting with the scientific record would reflect on how they convey information to their audience. We are not aware of survey data on science journalists’ views on retractions and corrections and have sought to obtain a snapshot of their attitudes.

The view of science journalists

We invited Brazilian Journalists who covered science news, and we conducted two focus groups, as part of a project addressing the correction of the literature at the science & society interface, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). The central topic of these groups of eight participants was the science journalists’ perspective on the correction of the literature and its influence on communicating science news to the public. Six journalists had a graduate degree—Specialization, Masters, or a PhD (or both)—in science journalism, marketing, knowledge management, science education, or history of science. One of the two without a graduate degree was highly experienced and had worked as a visiting professor of science journalism at public universities in Brazil. Each participant had considerable professional experience covering scientific topics for major news organizations in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The professional experience of these journalists varied from approximately 8–40 years—their experience writing and/or producing science news ranged from 6 years to decades.

The two focus groups were conducted in April and May 2018, with four participants each, after they gave informed consent, and their discussions were recorded. The conversation revolved mostly around the journalists’ ideas about the science media with a general appreciation of science news coverage, the attitude of journalists toward scientists, the scientific article, and news about science. The participants’ views on the correction of the literature—the core of our project—were explored along these discussions.

Three of the participating journalists were more familiar with retractions and other ways to correct the research record, but, overall, “… most of the press… does not even know what retractions mean ‐ it is an issue restricted to those journalists that cover science”, according to one journalist. Another said “The very definition of scientific misconduct is not that clear [yet], let alone space for retractions in the agenda of journalists”. These comments are consistent with the idea one respondent shared, that “scientific truths are absolute truths for the journalist, most of the time. […] The scientist assumes this role of corroborating a thought already articulated by the report”. This idea that a scientist is an authority still prevails, but some commented that science journalists should be more skeptical when they interact with scientists: “… one sees the scientist as spokesman for nature, with a knowledge that is not affected by the political motivations and interests that are behind it, as it is easier to see in a politician. I think that in an ideal world we should always be concerned about the kind of interests that could be behind the claims, the experimental design of a particular study, the implications of it, who put money on it”.

… the ‘reproducibility crisis’ and ensuing debate are still evolving in the research system, and public reactions and changes of attitudes remain yet to be seen.

Regarding the correction of the literature, one journalist said that “the public perception of this process is still timid, if there is any”. In terms of the impact of retractions on public confidence in science, there was no consensus. Two respondents felt that the impact would be negative, one of them arguing that “the public does not realize this; when a retraction occurs, in other words, an error or fraud, whatever it is, I think it greatly undermines the credibility of society in science… it [is] as if the scientist [still] regarded as a sort of demigod… became seen as an ordinary human being”.

Overall, however, the journalists regarded retractions, especially those related to outstanding results, as an issue of public interest. A respondent declared: “…my position is absolutely in favor of the mechanisms of detection and falsehoods, because I think the public… deserves the best, even if they do not understand”. Another was more specific and argued, “… it's our duty to report the retractions of major studies that deal with the public interest. […]. So if you reported A and then, years later… it was discovered that it was not A, it's up to us [journalists] to go public to say and clarify that the scientific literature has this mechanism of self‐correction and that, in the end, things work that way…” Another said “I think a retraction is great news for a journalist because it draws attention… news that catches the eye of the public is good news”. In fact, publicity on retractions could indeed draw attention and influence public views. A recent study presented evidence that news coverage of a retracted publication did influence public perceptions of genetically modified food 8. But, for a respondent who is among the few who have written professional reports on retractions, [in practice] the scientific article is still seen by journalists “as the big totem…”

This perception, shared by most in the group, may be partially attributed to the fact that corrections of the scientific literature were rare until a decade ago. But although corrections and retractions have become an essential component of the self‐regulation of science, self‐correcting claims and/or data openly are not yet popular among most scientists; as for retractions, they still carry a stigma. Thus, incorporating the correction of the literature into the tradition of communicating science to the public will require a cultural shift 1, 2, which will also include the role of post‐publication peer review and self‐correction of articles. Retractions and corrections thus create opportunities for journalists to offer a more realistic picture of science and scientists and to “update” the audience on scientific progress. But conveying to the public the idea that “scientists are wrong all the time and that's fantastic” 9 is not easy, and the message can be distorted in the context of a “science in crisis” narrative.

New narratives for a better public understanding of science

As quoted at the beginning of this article, Jamieson 2 challenges assumptions that science is in a crisis and highlights the importance of accurate narratives for better understanding of the scientific enterprise. She advocates that responsible coverage of “breaches of integrity and attempts to forestall them” would enable “its accountability function without undermining public trust…” Better oversight and new policies and guidelines by journals to correct the literature are some reactions to deal with honest errors or deliberate misconduct.

Retractions and corrections thus create opportunities for journalists to offer a more realistic picture of science and scientists and to ‘update’ the audience on scientific progress.

These initiatives are crucial given that the public has “scarce appropriation of scientific and technological information, and they know very little about the history of science and technology…” (https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10182/734063/percepcao_web.pdf). Although this comment relates to Brazil, it is not limited to it; the latest National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators finds only about 3 in 10 Americans (31%) would have a “clear understanding” of what a scientific study is. Today, improving the understanding of the public about “the scientific process” is a societal demand (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/), especially in light of contemporary discussions on the reliability of the research record 10. It is thus a perfect time for science journalists to help improve public understanding of the ongoing changes in the communication of science. Exploring the many factors underlying the correction of the literature can help to enlighten this process.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Box 1: Further Reading.

For different intersections between science and society in the communication of science, including the role of the media

Editorial (2009) Cheerleader or watchdog? Nature 459: 1033. https://www.nature.com/articles/4591033a

Liskauskas S, Vasconcelos S (2018) Interface ciência‐público em tempos de correção da literatura científica: Questões éticas contemporâneas. SciELO em Perspectiva. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/07/24/interface-ciencia-publico-em-tempos-de-correcao-da-literatura-cientifica-questoes-eticas-contemporaneas/#.XABSmuhKjIU

Green S (2017) The Ethics of Science and Health Journalism: A Q&A with Gary Schwitzer. Discover the Future of Research, The Wiley Network. https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/research-impact/the-ethics-of-science-and-health-journalism-a-q-a-with-gary-schwitzer

Rennie J (2011) Time for change in science journalism? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jan/26/science-online-2011-journalism-blogs

Schulson M (2016) How Journalists can help hold scientists accountable. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/environment/journalists-should-hold-scientists-accountable

Oransky I (2015) How Publish or Perish Promotes Inaccuracy in Science – and Journalism. AMA J Ethics 17: 1172–1175

Peters HP, Dunwoody S, Allgaier J, Lo YY, Brossard D (2014) Public communication of science 2.0. Embo Rep 15: 749–753

Ashe T (2013) How the media report scientific risk and uncertainty: a review of the literature. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. University of Oxford. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/How%20the%20Media%20Report%20Risk%20and%20Uncertainty_0.pdf

Union of Concerned Scientists (2012) Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/04/establishing-accountability-climate-change-damages-lessons-tobacco-control.pdf

For more on perspectives on the “reproducibility crisis”

Amaral O, Neves K, Wasilewska‐Sampaio AP, Carneiro C (2018) The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative: a systematic assessment of Brazilian biomedical science. https://osf.io/ahf7t/

França TFA, Monserrat JM (2018) Reproducibility crisis in science or unrealistic expectations? EMBO Rep 19: e46008

Randall D, Welser C (2018) The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science. National Association of Scholars. https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_irreproducibilityReport.pdf

Redish AD, Kummerfeld E, Morris RL, Love AC (2018) Opinion: reproducibility failures are essential to scientific inquiry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115: 5042–5046

Hunter P (2017) The reproducibility “crisis”: reaction to replication crisis should not stifle innovation. EMBO Rep 18: 1493–1496

Saltelli A, Funtowicz S (2017) What is science's crisis really about? Futures 91: 5–11

Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers EJ, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1: 0021

Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716

Additional literature on the correction of the research record, including the retractions mentioned in the article

Gregory T (2017) Ivan Oransky on the Value of Tracking Retractions. PLOS Blogs. http://blogs.plos.org/plospodcasts/2017/11/28/ivan-oransky-tracking-retractions/

Barbour V, Bloom T, Lin J, Moylan E (2017) Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? [Version 1; referees: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research Open for Science. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1960/v1

Gao F, Shen XZ, Jiang F, Wu Y, Han C (2016) DNA‐guided genome editing using the Natronobacterium gregoryi Argonaute. Nat Biotechnol 34: 768–773

Nature Biotechnology (2017) Editorial: Time for the data to speak. Nat Biotechnol https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3938.pdf

Fanelli D (2016) Set up a “self‐retraction” system for honest errors. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/531415a

Pulverer B (2015) When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J 34: 2483–2485

Cyranoski D (2014) Papers on “stress‐induced” stem cells are retracted. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15501

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 17028–17033

For more on public perceptions of science and technology and/or trust in science/scientists

Pew Research Center (2017) Public trust of information from scientists is higher than for industry leaders, news media, elected officials. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/pi_17-04-13_scienceconfidence_publictrustofinfofromscientists/

Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT) (2016) Encuesta Nacional de Percepción Social de la Ciencia Y la Tecnología en Chile 2016. http://www.conicyt.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/resumen-ejecutivo-encuesta-nacional-de-percepcion-social_web.pdf

Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (MCTIP) (2015) Cuarta Encuesta Nacional de Percepción Pública de la Ciencia : la evolución de la percepción púública de la ciencia y la tecnología en la Argentina, 2003–2015. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/est_inst_cuarta_encuesta_nacional_percepcion_publica_de_la_ciencia_2015.pdf

Center for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE) (2015) A ciência e a tecnologia no olhar dos brasileiros ‐ Percepção pública da C&T no Brasil – 2015. https://cgee.org.br/documents/10182/734063/percepcao_web.pdf

Castell S, Charlton A, Clemence M, Pettigrew N, Pope S, Quigley A, Jayesh NS, Silman T (2014) Public attitudes to science 2014. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348830/bis-14-p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2014-main.pdf

EMBO Reports (2019) 20: e47906