The broadcast on France 2 on January 27 of Dr. Saldmann’s fanciful allegations on the effects of vacations and fasting on intelligence was a new opportunity to note that certain general media still regularly broadcast false scientific or medical news.
For what ? No doubt because they too often prefer to publish good stories rather than true ones, sensational rather than factual ones. Or because they give disproportionate weight to testimony, anecdote and feeling, rather than to an objective and exhaustive examination of factual data. Or because they rely primarily on “good clients” who are not necessarily reliable and competent experts on each subject. And when they are concerned about contradiction – a good thing a priori -, they tend to balance all points of view, as if scientific expertise had the same value as a simple opinion as the opinion of an activist. Finally, as we have already mentioned, when false scientific information is disseminated, it is rarely corrected a posteriori.
A lack of caution
These issues affect some areas more than others. While the media is generally cautious when it comes to fundamental physics or biology, they are less cautious when these scientific disciplines are applied to societal problems like energy, the environment, agriculture, health or nutrition. Or are no longer cautious at all regarding subjects that they do not identify as scientific, such as economics, psychology, well-being, education or sociology.
When they are not simply used for cheap entertainment (as on Do not touch My TV Or What an era!), these subjects are generally covered in the Society sections of general media, by non-scientific journalists, not trained in scientific information and its particular requirements, or even not aware that the subject they are addressing is of a scientific nature and requires certain precautions. Thus, on subjects affecting human beings, the testimony of people concerned will often be taken at face value and relayed without the results of rigorous studies on a larger population being consulted.
Even when the subject is identified as scientific, general journalists often have difficulty verifying the quality of the information. Indeed, as they are not competent to control scientific sources – that is not their job – they must rely on third parties. But most do not know how to identify competent experts on a scientific subject. Rather than consulting international peer-reviewed publications – the best skill index for researchers -, they rely on superficial signs of authority: media appearances, books published in French, high-sounding titles that are more or less relevant and often unverified. If we add to this that the news in magazines and broadcasts – including scientific ones – is often guided by the release of works to be promoted, all the elements are there for false scientific and medical experts to abound in the media.
Fake news has consequences
This is how in psychology, media discourse is monopolized by psychoanalysts and well-being gurus; in economics, by analysts or business consultants; in medicine, by any health professional; in education, by teaching staff or parents of students. All these speakers have in common that they have strong convictions to convey, sometimes having written a book on the subject, but very often knowing nothing of international scientific data on the issues addressed. Even when academics are interviewed, they are not always those whose expertise is best established internationally, and it is not always within their area of expertise.
Unfortunately, scientific misinformation has consequences. They can create hype for illusory remedies or solutions, as well as unfounded panics that divert people from effective treatments or solutions. They can therefore cost many lives – like false information about vaccines – or simply focus attention and resources on minor problems while diverting them from major problems.
Scientific subjects are everywhere in our lives, they permeate all current affairs, and go far beyond the scope of science journalists. To process this information correctly, with the necessary precautions, by calling on competent experts, all journalists, and especially non-scientific journalists, should receive training in scientific information.
Franck Ramus is Director of Research at the CNRS in the Department of Cognitive Studies at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris.