Quite often on this blog, we write about scientific research going on in important school subjects that are part of the curriculum. We act mainly as stenographers, relaying information to you about the research that has been reported elsewhere in the scientific literature and independent press reports.
The reports we rely on usually come to the Internet by way of independent reporters who have been given an advance copy of the report that’s being published so they can call other scientists in the field who can help them understand the research and its importance.
Scientific journals go through a lengthy process whereby the report is sent to several experts in the field who critique it and determine whether or not it’s fit to be published. And once that decision is made, if the report is accepted for publication—which can come even as much as two years after the report was written—reporters at a select few news organizations that have the capacity to handle the research reporting are given advance copies of it, with the understanding that they can’t publish anything about it until a certain date.
That date is known as an “embargo,” and ethical journalists usually respect the embargo, simply because they want to be trusted with advance copies of research in the future. By providing advance copies of the research, scientific journals give independent reporters time to vet the story and collect comments from other experts in the field.
The genetically modified corn study from France
A recent study, funded and conducted by people who are vehemently opposed to the genetic modification of feed crops, such as corn, was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Now, the study doesn’t seem to say much about whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous, but the findings of the research would not merit this kind of indignation from news organizations or, quite frankly, from us. The problem here is the people publicizing the research didn’t seem to want to give independent reporters time or resources to investigate the research before their publications demanded getting something about the story into print.
You see, California has a ballot proposition, No. 37, which is about a requirement that all food produced with GMOs as part of the process would have to feature that information on the label. In other words, if cows used to produce beef were fed genetically modified corn, you would have to be able to tell from the labeling of the beef that GMOs were used.
But the people publicizing the research, which is incredibly biased but accepted for publication anyway, obviously didn’t want reporters finding out about their hidden agenda. First, they didn’t provide advance copies of the research to news organizations unless the news organization signed a non-disclosure agreement. OK, if you think the embargo will be broken, I guess you can get signed agreements, which would give you the option of suing a news organization that broke the embargo. But the report would still have been published, so what good would suing the news organization really do?
It all seems to be a waste of time, although the non-disclosure agreement featured a strange provision: reporters weren’t allowed to collect comments from other scientists about the study until the embargo lifted. In other words, they were specifically barred from being independent journalists. They were turned into stenographers, kind of like us.
That’s a problem. And here’s why it’s a problem: Our society depends on a free and independent press, able to provide news and information to people in an unbiased manner. Advertising is one thing; commerce is one thing; but news should be unbiased.
If this kind of thing continues, you will soon be reading nothing but press releases from publicists. That’s fine, I suppose, if you want the latest gossip from your favorite movie star, and there’s a place for that kind of “stenography” reporting. However, one side of a story is just the one side of the story. There is always at least one other side. If reporters who aren’t loyal to any outside organization can’t dig into a story, the press as we know it will cease to exist. It will feature nothing more than ads.
Thanks to Andrew C Revkin at the “Dot Earth” blog on the New York Times for bringing this important issue to the attention of people who love science and the media.
