Hey there! Have you ever come across some wild science headlines and wondered if they’re true? Like, could the universe really be a hologram, or is there a link between living near freeways and autism? These headlines can be confusing, and it’s important to know how to separate fact from fiction. Let’s dive into some tips on how to read and understand science news better.
First off, if a headline starts with a question, be cautious. Headlines like “Could the Large Hadron Collider create a black hole?” might not provide the answers you’re looking for. A good article should give you information, not leave you with more questions.
Have you noticed headlines with words in quotes, like “Zebra stripes mystery ‘explained’”? These quotes can be misleading, suggesting that the explanation might not be as solid as it seems. It’s a good idea to read further to see if the claims hold up.
Do you know the difference between a press release and a news article? Press releases are often marketing tools, while journalism should be fact-checked and balanced. Be wary of websites that present press releases as news without any critical analysis.
Look out for words that indicate uncertainty, like “link,” “correlation,” or “study suggests.” These words often mean that the findings are not definitive. Scientists are always exploring and questioning, so it’s normal for them to be “baffled” sometimes, but that doesn’t mean the science is settled.
Check if the research has been peer-reviewed or presented at a conference. Peer review is a crucial part of the scientific process, ensuring that findings are scrutinized by other experts. Good science writing should apply the scientific method, treating findings as hypotheses to be tested further.
Consider whether someone stands to gain financially from the article. Commercial websites with ads or subscriptions might prioritize clicks over accuracy. While making money isn’t inherently bad, the primary goal should be to inform you truthfully.
Did the writer do their own research, or are they just rephrasing a press release? Look for quotes from the actual researchers and other experts. This adds depth and credibility to the article, helping you understand complex topics better.
Be skeptical of stories claiming new breakthroughs or trying to scare you. Breakthroughs are rare, and many “scary” stories are exaggerated. For example, curing cancer in mice doesn’t mean we’ve found a cure for humans. Always weigh the hype against the reality.
Does the story fit too neatly into common beliefs or stereotypes? Be cautious of research that reinforces social constructs without solid evidence. Science should challenge assumptions, not just confirm them.
Approach every story with a balance of curiosity and skepticism. As Michael Shermer says, “You should have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.” The internet offers vast information, but it’s up to us to discern what’s accurate.
Misinformation can erode trust in science, much like the boy who cried wolf. Journalists aren’t always experts, but good ones strive to become temporary experts and consult real experts when needed. Some do this better than others, and it’s worth following those who get it right.
Remember, science is a journey of discovery. Each story adds a bit more to our understanding, but it’s essential to keep experimenting and questioning. Enjoy the process, and don’t rush to draw life-changing conclusions. Let’s embrace the adventure of learning!
Choose five recent science headlines from various news sources. Analyze each headline to determine if it poses a question, uses quotation marks, or includes “warning words.” Discuss with your classmates whether these headlines might be misleading and why.
Find a press release and a news article on the same scientific topic. Compare the two, focusing on how each presents the information. Identify any biases or differences in depth and accuracy. Share your findings with the class.
Work in groups to simulate the peer review process. Each group will write a short scientific article on a given topic. Exchange articles with another group and provide constructive feedback, focusing on clarity, evidence, and scientific accuracy.
Research a recent scientific article and investigate any potential financial interests behind it. Consider who funded the research and whether the publication has commercial ties. Present your analysis to the class, discussing how financial interests might affect the article’s credibility.
Participate in a class debate on a recent scientific “breakthrough” or “scare story.” One side will argue for the validity and importance of the story, while the other will present skepticism and caution. Use evidence from the article and other sources to support your arguments.
Sure! Here’s a sanitized version of the transcript:
—
Whoa, everyone! I was just reading the news, and did you know the universe might be a hologram? Humans originated as a hybrid between chimps and pigs? Everything you need to know about popcorn but were afraid to find out? Could the Large Hadron Collider spawn a planet-devouring black hole? Squeezing breasts can prevent cancer? Alcohol is more harmful than heroin? A woman becomes pregnant in the mouth with a baby squid after eating calamari? Living near freeways linked to autism? Science figures out how cats drink. Semen is an antidepressant? Oh, quantum physics proves there is an afterlife.
I know what you’re thinking; those sound like something out of a satirical news site, but unfortunately, those are all real science headlines that I found, and I didn’t have to look that hard. Some of them are a bit overblown, some are pushing an agenda, and some are actually just misleading. Figuring out what’s good science and what’s bad science when you’re reading science news is one of the best skills you can develop. It will serve you for your whole life.
With that in mind, I’d like to give you my tips for how to read science news.
**Is the headline of the article a question?** This one really bothers me for some reason. Although, it occurs to me that sometimes we do it for videos, but it’s different for the news! Don’t start your article off with a question. I’m here to ask you questions; you are the one who is going to give me the information. It’s really a very simple deal. When you start your article with a question, it makes me wonder if you even know what you’re talking about.
**What’s with all those weird quotes people use in the headlines?** For example, “Zebra stripes mystery ‘explained’.” Was it actually explained, or was it just a misleading explanation? I don’t understand the quotes.
After considering the first point, maybe it’s just best if we skip the headline altogether.
**Do you know the difference between a press release and journalism?** Really, do you? One is hopefully fact-checked, balanced, and analyzes both sides of the story, and the other is marketing material. There are a lot of websites out there that package press releases to look like real news, and it’s important that you know the difference. Press releases aren’t untrue by design, but it’s important that you take them with a grain of salt. I mean, you wouldn’t go to a car dealership and take the salesman’s word for everything. You’ve got to go home and do your research.
I just want to reiterate, because I see this stuff shared all the time: press releases are not news!
**Look for “warning words.”** These are words that indicate uncertainty in the article or suggest that they don’t know quite as much as they’re letting on. Words like “link,” “correlation,” “possible,” “study suggests,” or my favorite, “scientists were baffled.” Scientists are baffled all the time, but they don’t write research papers about it, and they certainly don’t sit around with reporters saying, “You know, I was just totally baffled right now; do you want to write an article about it?”
**Is the scientific method being applied?** Take time to check if what you’re reading has been peer-reviewed. Was it presented at a conference, or is this just some scientist talking on a street corner? While far from perfect, our peer review system for publishing science has worked out pretty well. Good journalists and writers treat research findings like hypotheses and scour that work and the work of others for data that supports or refutes it. They look to outside sources as controls. Good science writing applies the scientific method.
**Ask yourself, does someone stand to gain financially from me reading this article?** If you’re reading that news on any commercial news website with advertising or subscriptions, then the answer is yes; somebody wants you to read that. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; people need to make money to support their operations and pay their writers, but that desire should be outweighed by the desire to inform you.
**Did the person who wrote the article actually do any research of their own?** Are there quotes from the actual researcher? Or did it say something like “according to the press release”? More importantly, are there quotes from someone besides the researcher? Some science is so complicated that it can help to have someone explain it to you, and that’s actually my favorite kind of science to read about and write about. But that should never be all they do; they should still apply a critical eye. Honestly, if someone just rewords the press release, they are not doing a good job.
**Is the story about a new breakthrough, or is it trying to scare you?** The media has always been obsessed with these kinds of stories because they know you’re going to click on them. But their ratio of truth to hype sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly, most stuff isn’t as scary as it’s made out to be. But some stuff is scary, like antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Knowing how to tell the difference between hype and reality is pretty hard.
On the other hand, breakthroughs are pretty rare, which is why we give big awards for them. Here’s one: “Possible cure for cancer found in mice.” Now, curing cancer in mice isn’t the same as curing cancer in humans, so is that a breakthrough? Maybe not. We’ve cured a lot of cancers in mice, and unfortunately, not so many in humans. Now maybe one day one will lead to the other, but for a lot of cancers, your best bet is to turn into a small furry creature.
Remember, when it comes to scare stories and breakthrough stories, just because a lot of people have read something doesn’t make it any more true.
**Does this story fit in nicely with commonly held beliefs or stereotypes?** That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but does it fit in a little too well with commonly held beliefs and stereotypes? Recently, a paper came out about mapping brain connections in male and female brains. They found some differences, which is fine, but then they applied those differences to things like men being better at reading maps or women being better at organizing the house. Be wary of papers that want to fit a scientific story into a neat social construct because that’s not how science works.
This also applies to science that challenges previously held beliefs and stereotypes, because a lot of times, controversy can make an easy substitute for accuracy. It’s like that old saying, “Does this sound too good to be true?” because a lot of times, well, it is too good to be true. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true.
You should approach every story with a balance of curiosity and skepticism. As Michael Shermer says, “You should have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”
The internet is vast and accessible, giving us access to more information than we ever thought possible, and that’s clearly a good thing. But it also means that anyone who wants to contribute can do so. As traditional media continues to cover less science than ever before, this can be both a good and a bad thing.
Unfortunately, misinformation can lead to a loss of trust in science as a whole, similar to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Chances are, you’re not an expert, and journalists aren’t experts either. It’s just that the good ones operate under a set of guiding principles that allow them to become temporary experts and find real experts when needed.
Some people are way better at this than others. I’m going to put a list of my favorites down in the description—people who are good at getting things right, pointing out what’s wrong, and being entertaining while they do it. Please feel free to leave your favorites in the comments.
You know, every science story should really end with something like, “Now we just have a tiny bit more information about science, but we’re going to have to do a lot more experiments to figure out if any of it’s really true. And come to think of it, nothing in science is ever really proven true; it’s just continually supported by new evidence. Actually, maybe it’s best that we don’t draw any life-changing conclusions from all this, and we just enjoy the process. Yeah, let’s do that.”
—
This version removes any inappropriate language and maintains a respectful tone throughout.
Science – The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. – Science has led to groundbreaking discoveries that have transformed our understanding of the universe.
Headlines – The main titles of news articles that summarize the most important information. – The headlines in the science section of the newspaper highlighted the latest advancements in renewable energy technology.
Critical – Involving careful judgment or evaluation, especially in the context of analyzing information or arguments. – Critical thinking is essential in science to assess the validity of experimental results and conclusions.
Analysis – The detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation. – The analysis of the data revealed significant correlations between the variables studied in the experiment.
Research – The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. – Research in genetics has opened new possibilities for understanding hereditary diseases.
Skepticism – An attitude of doubting the truth of something, such as a claim or statement, often requiring evidence before accepting it as true. – Healthy skepticism is important in science to ensure that claims are supported by empirical evidence.
Method – A systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art. – The scientific method involves making observations, forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions.
Journalism – The activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast. – Science journalism plays a crucial role in communicating complex scientific ideas to the general public.
Misinformation – False or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive. – Misinformation about climate change can hinder efforts to address environmental challenges effectively.
Curiosity – A strong desire to know or learn something, often driving scientific inquiry and discovery. – Curiosity about the natural world has led scientists to explore the deepest oceans and the farthest reaches of space.
