[m-ee]

They go on to say that in this case it's probably the opposite, scientists calling up journalists. Which seems relevant given the OP in this thread linking to a scientist making a number of statements based on unproven hypotheses.

[deet]

Seems as though it would go both ways.

Scientists have career-advancing reasons to have their opinions and research--whether confirmed by evidence and peer reviewed or not--distributed by the media. And the media has incentive to amplify concerning or controversial information.

What's tragic is that these hypotheses or conjectures are being used to make public policy decisions that affect millions or billions of people. And it seems that public servants and officials lack the scientific aptitude or inclination to truly understand how solid the data and conclusions are before acting on them. Or, perhaps more cynically, the officials know the conjecture is unverified but--being accountable to a public who will likely not read beyond the headlines and who will believe any article that starts with "Scientists find ..."--are forced to take action purely to hold the appearance of doing something.

Regardless of the directionality, I agree with the parent that 2020 is demonstrating serious flaws in the relationships between the scientific community, journalism, public policy makers, and the public.

[m-ee]

Yes I agree completely. The recent TWiV has some great discussion on this between this new variant and that ridiculous "sars-cov-2 is reverse transcribing into the human genome" preprint. The scientific publication process and science journalism has always been somewhat broken it just rarely had serious consequences, now it's another broken system the pandemic is shining a light on.

I think the media has a real problem with reporting uncertainty. What's interesting is that there was a collective effort not to jump to conclusions and be careful when reporting on the presidential election. They showed they're capable of restraint when they think it's warranted, but with the pandemic they can't help but reach for the "Because of [unproven report] [consequence] is very likely" formula.

[Exmoor]

>Scientists have career-advancing reasons to have their opinions and research--whether confirmed by evidence and peer reviewed or not--distributed by the media.

Couldn't agree with this more. The number of ill-conceived pre-print "studies" I've seen get released this year is disappointing. Tons of studies with either a tiny sample size and questionable methods (medicines given very late in the progression of the disease, control groups whose demographics don't remotely match the test group, etc.). And of course those studies get reported on with no indication they were poorly done.