Skip to main content

BIOL143 - Intro to Env Sci - Burke: Junk Science

Evidence-Based News Outlets

Chart Y-Axis title: Is the Science Content Compelling Enough to Read? Bottom row: Not Usually; Middle Row: Sometimes; Top row: Almost Always. X Axis title: titled Is the Media Outlet's Coverage Driven Mostly by Evidence? First column: Evidence-based Reporting; Middle Column: Mixed Record; Last Column: Ideologically Driven or Poor Reporting.  First column - Media outlet's in top tier of almost always compelling/evidence-based: Nature, Science, The Economist, LiveScience, New Scientist, ARS Technica, Smithsonian, The Atlantic, National Geographic. middle tier sometimes compelling/evidence based: Space The Scientist, Chemistry World, BBC, Inside Science, The Guardian, Vox, ScienceNews, Discover. Bottom tier: not usually compelling/evidence based reporting: MIT Technology Review, Wired, physicsworld, Popular Science, Five Thirty Eight.

Not all science reporting is created equal.  Here is one infographic depicting science news outlets by their reliance on evidence-based reporting.

A really funny, well done exposé on the problematic reporting of science by mainstream media.

Public vs. Scientists

Wide Differences Between the Public and Scientists on Safety of GM Foods; chart percentage of each group it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods: U.S. Adults 57 percent say generally unsafe 37% say generally safe, AAAS Scientists 11% say generally unsafe, 88% say generally safe. Chart: Public Largely Skeptical of Scientific Understanding of Health Effects; percent of U.S. adults saying that scientists have or do not have a clear understanding about the health effects of GM crops: 67 percent U.S. adults say that scientists are not clear, 28 percent say scientists have clear understanding. Survey of U.S. adults August 15-25, 2014 Question 38 and 39. AAAS scientists survey September 11-October 13 2014. Other responses and those saying don't know or giving no answer are not shown. Pew Research Center.

Pew Report investigates the differences of opinions between scientists and the general public. Interesting!