Sensationalism in Science: Is this for real?
For some people, reading over science headlines in your local paper or favorite website can be a little scary. With articles talking about "3 parent babies" and the emergency of a new "stupidity virus" infecting half of our population, it's easy to think that we have entered bizarre futuristic world where mad science runs unabated. Is this really what's going on? Today, we're going to talk a little about journalistic sensationalism and why it harms the conversation gaps that we're trying to bridge between scientists and the general public. I'm not saying there isn't any truth to some of these crazy titles. 3 parent babies do technically have genetic material from three people. The so-called stupidity virus does slightly reduce some aspects of cognitive function in humans. These two stories, however, are much more complicated than their headlines may have you believe. I'll talk more about the above two stories in more detail in a future post, but the point is that you can't really convey the subtleties of a new technologies or discoveries in a sentence. In reality, you should be prepared to critically evaluate and engage every headline you see, science or not. There is usually much more than meets the eye!
A few days ago, I saw a post entitled the "9 Disgusting Things the FDA is Letting You Eat" pop up on my Facebook feed. What scandal! If we can't trust the FDA to keep crazy things out of our food supply, how can we trust going to the grocery store ever again? As with most posts of this nature, the truth is really that frightening. Let's dive into a few examples.
Figure 1: Keep out of my pantry, big scary government!
The very entry lists "sawdust" as the first FDA approved disgusting additive. It then goes on to talk about how the actual additive is known as cellulose, which is derived from wood when used in food. So why isn't this a bad thing? Cellulose is an incredibly important polymer that makes up the cell walls of plants. What else has cellulose besides wood? Every plant on Earth. Whether your body receives cellulose derived from wood or from celery is moot, as your cells cannot tell the difference between the two. Harmful? Hardly.
Another post lists "human hair and duck feathers", which probably just sparked horrific memories of you finding a hair in your lunch back in middle school. The post goes on to talk about how the real additive is L-cysteine, which is removed from hair and feathers. Here's an image of what L-cysteine looks like, and what your body sees when it is added to your food:
Figure : The ever terrifying L-cysteine. Gross, right?
L-cysteine is an incredibly important and common amino acid in the human body and is present in a wide variety of things. As with the "sawdust above", we arrive at a common theme that characterizes many food-based science articles. Regardless of where the L-cysteine came from, your body won't be able to tell the difference. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, any way you slice it. Harmful? Of course not!
Another axiom to keep in mind (especially important in food science) is that disgusting doesn't mean harmful. Just because the source of a particular amino acid or vitamin may sound gross doesn't mean it's bad for you!
In the end, many of these articles aren't really so scary after all. Sensationalism is used to grab a reader's attention, but it's usually very misleading and in the case of articles about scientific information, reckless. It's the responsibility of both journalists and scientists to make sure that any discussion we have with a reader is frank and honest. Until we get to that point, expect plenty of misleading articles and topics to gain a lot of attention and traction in the coming years. So the next time you pick up your paper or open your favorite website, make sure you ask yourself:
Is this for real?