"Most People Know Just Enough To Hurt Themselves."

 A Response to Jeanne Fahnestock's "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts" in Defense of Popular Science Writers and Readers

by Sawyer Vanderwerff

While the scientific process is innately rhetorical it is important to mention that most scientists themselves are often not rhetoricians, but so than neither are the majority of audiences. Though meaningful dialogue can be achieved between the mediated public sphere and the scientific sphere it is often somewhere in the transfer of thoughts that misinformation develops.

Jeanne Fahnestock suggests in her article, “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” that the breakdown of communication may be disregard for scientific discourse on the part of journalist looking for, what she calls, “the wonder” and “the application” appeals. While this notion that journalists for popular science articles are recklessly causing misinformation is debatable, it can be argued that Fahnstock makes a prudent observation concerning the change of writing style between a scientific paper and article meant for the masses.  A shift in genre between information published by scientist and by journalists can account for much of the discrepancies in scientific notions and the public’s understanding of those notions. 

 Scientific papers are largely concerned with forensic discourse and are rigidly structured to provide a logical progression of information that ultimately leads their intended audience to a justified conclusion. The justification comes from a tedious recount of the steps taken to achieve data, outlined in the “Materials and Methods” section of a scientific paper. In the “Discussion” section the acquired data is simply that; discussed. This section allows the one conducting the research to communicate their ideas on what the abstract data represents outside of the study. The information provided is meant to be only a result of that specific trial though it may imply greater significance to the overall field of science. 

It is the “Discussion” section that suffers the greatest distortion when accommodated for the general audience. Scientists write for other scientists where as a journalist for a popular science magazine writes for those who don’t have the in-depth knowledge necessary to fully derive greater meaning from a scientific paper. Fahnestock seems to imply a malicious withholding of information on the part of journalists when it comes to the misinformation transferred to audiences. Fahnestock seems convinced that the popular science journalism genre is skewed to only supply readers with information that will find hard to believe and seems somewhat fantastical, or “the wonder,” and information that will help the reader personally, or “the application.” This couldn’t be a more false assumptions about the readers of popular science. 

Certainly the information formatted in a scientific paper is beyond the understanding of the common reader interested in sciences, however, those who write for popular science stand somewhere in between those in the scientific sphere and those in the common sphere. A journalist who adapts scientific writings obviously understands at least enough of the information present in a scientific paper to change the specific information into abstract facts for a common reader unfamiliar with precise scientific terms. In this way the journalist are more like translators; changing jargon to common speech. Often, any transfer of misinformation would be a simple mistranslation. Even more frequently a reader takes the abstract “facts” that a journalist composed from scientific data as being conclusive of one idea or another. Readers in the common sphere often take a fact proven by a study to be conclusive of in ways that in ways it just is not. A study that proves mice reacted positively to, say, a research medicine, does not conclude that it is overall an effect drug. While the fault is hard to pin on the journalist or the reader, it is as Fahnestock states that a genre shift will lead to mistranslations of both readers and journalist. 

Popular science sources such as I Fucking Love Science, which has helped to reinvigorated interest in popular science for an entire internet inclined generation, understand that it is easy for readers to draw false assumptions from information that is definite fact. Often, this particular web page will point towards misconceptions that “translated” scientific information can form and tries its best to create a standard for readers and writers of popular science journalism. Most articles are even posted with a forward that reminds readers to be wary of drawing conclusions that may be sensible but are nonetheless unproven. While Fahnestock does make valid points about a sensationalist tendency in popular science journalism to only reveal the most shocking and personally relevant information to an audience, it is evident that the main motivation for reading popular science is to catch a glimpse of the truth without doing the really hard work. There is clearly a presence of writers in the field currently catering to an audience who don’t want the sensations in the science world but rather to be presented objective, scientific information on terms they can at least begin to understand. Hopefully, this is the trend that continues. Though it doesn’t solve the issues, sources like these are forming good habits for readers and writers of popular science.

 
Once again, however, misinformation happens when adapting or translating information no matter what. This is true in popular science and even in the scientific community itself. Despite best intentions communication naturally breeds gaps in understanding, even between individuals using the same language. We do our best to forgo this flaw in human communication but despite the best efforts it happens, especially the further one is removed from the original source. Even scientist can misinterpret another scientist findings or, even worse, their own information. Scientist often rely on a system of trust and coordination amongst fields in order to progress, however, it’s still difficult for a biologist to explain the true workings of mitochondria to someone who spends all their time staring through a telescope. Take the Principal Component Analysis as a conduit for misinterpretation that may encounter a scientist trying to prove his data is meaningful. This analytical program is constantly updated and used by the scientific community, however, it relies on the efforts of the community as a whole for its function. The data it produces from ones recorded procedures is objective and it’s up to the scientist to find somewhat of a narrative in the data, just as a journalist would try to adapt the “Discussion” section of a scientific study to a common audience.