Dumbing It Down | Illumination

As for journalists simplifying stories for generalist readers, Logan says this is logical, because audience members want to digest a study's major findings and the implications for day-to-day living. "Overall, this decision makes sense and I defend journalists for leaning in this direction," Logan says.

Nevertheless, the practice can cause problems. "The public does not learn how science works," Logan says. "Over time, people are unable to judge how the weight of the evidence in science is advanced and why some research is seen as more definitive or comprehensive than other studies about the same topic. This creates a vicious cycle that means citizens often lack the skills or tools to weigh in authoritatively on science issues, such as genetically modified crops, or to determine if the evidence merits the accompanying hyperbole."

Logan worries that the exclusion of the public from judging evidence is unhealthy, leaving decisions to science elites and political spin doctors. As a result, Logan advocates teaching both kinds of story development in journalism classrooms: the relatively superficial stories that present major findings and the in-depth stories that examine the evidence itself.

Publishing the most informative science stories possible can prove difficult if everything must fit into the sort of conflict frame mentioned in the Cameron-Geana survey, Logan says. The conflict frame is especially problematic when a science journalist feels privately that a particular line of research holds promise for improving day-to-day living.

Logan says an emphasis on conflict within science is sometimes merited "if there really are arguments over evidence, or if the topic at hand is about policy or socioeconomic implications of aggregate results rather than the findings per se." At MU, Logan says, "I trained students not to contrive the introduction of a contrary opinion about research or findings." If ferment exists in a field of science -- ferment not created by a journalist seeking editorial "balance" -- Logan says it should be reported, but in a separate story, when practical.

To illustrate, Logan provides an example involving Gordon Sharp, a physician and professor at MU's School of Medicine. Sharp has published extensively about mixed tissue connective disease, an autoimmune disorder that he suspects might provide an underlying mechanism for the occurrence of arthritis in the human body.

Logan says that numerous scientists around the world agree with Sharp's findings. "But there are other good explanations about how and why the immune system attacks itself, causing arthritis," he says. "Mixed tissue connective disease is one of a few plausible explanations. The definitive account with compelling evidence for its superiority is yet to be determined."

While teaching at MU, Logan turned to this close-to-home controversy to help journalism students explore two tracks -- a straightforward account of Sharp's research and a more contextual story. For the straightforward account, Logan did not ask students to contact other rheumatologists "who may be skeptical about mixed tissue connective disease because their work reflects a different approach."

Published by the Office of Research.