is today's science just corporate advertising?

[pinchot]

butter in coffee

pinchot

i just attended a lecture concerning the issue of science in journalism.

well, i attended it a few hours ago. my professor, an ornithology and biologist by study, approached this issue... somewhat.

there is a push in science to make the scientist, the journalist.

i'm extremely excited for this push. this has been something i've advocated for a few years now and it's finally catching on with more prominent scientists. they want to make it PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS that you must do a social outreach and make it known publicly, what you discovered, and how. as we've seen so many journalists fail to express science correctly or accurately, it may soon be part of the scientists job to publish a 'public version' for everyone to read.

this summer i will also be making this push with the conservation and forestry department of the local university. for those interested in natural science, PM me, i will keep you updated. the site i will be working on should include publishing accurate article from researchers or their technicians about their studies. grant it, since i am connected to a university, it will emphasize how cool the school is for doing all this and being so connected... but it will not change the information we get.

Does he have owls?

personally? i don't believe he does. his current area of focus is with wildfires and how high-intensity fires are needed ecologically.

[Mynolis]

butter in coffee

Maple Syrup has more fructose than both High Fructose Corn Syrup and Cane Sugar.
It should be the last sweetener you use, you know, other than pure fructose.
My corn syrup is a mix of glucose corn syrup and HFCS.

Also, I knew about the Vitamin C. I eat a lot of citrus, so not an issue for me.

Hm, interesting. Never knew about that. However so, I think it's unlikely that they paid people to do indirect advertising through that article. The sugar industry is rather big.

[Robotic Fred27]

I don't know but there's something with lies that makes it more powerful than the truth. In fact FALSE science can kill anybody. That's how dangerous it is, so we must be vigilant!

[Doubtful Dreamer]

butter in coffee

Doubtful Dreamer

For popular science magazines and science journalism in general, there is a series of things which go into it which makes it progressively worse. Generally, this starts with some actual discovery. In the case of the OP's example, it may have been a correlation between fructose consumption and some forms of cancer or some other health problem. If the university [or other generally non-industry institution] press office thinks the discovery would garner public attention to the university, they make up a press release, written by a journalist talking with the original researcher. Te press release is then picked up by news outlets and magazines which then have their journalists write a story off of the press release. Since journalists tend to not really understand the science, the correlation becomes causative and so fructose consumption now causes all of those bad things rather than it being a possibly unimportant correlation [just as how all murders consuming water is an unimportant correlation]. Next, the journalist fleshes out the article and since they are not an expert in the field, they cannot meaningful determine if their source material is true or not [such as whether or not maple syrup contains fructose]. You then get the "fructose causes bad things so eat this stuff instead" article that you read. It is essentially the problems you get with a game of telephone: too many people unable to identify the actual result and other associated information meaningfully results in a highly distorted version making its way to the public.

So basically, you're saying there was a study done and gives bad effects of fructose, but then the article was written by a journalist, not a scientist. So she sums up the effects of fructose, and then, since she isn't an expert, assumes fructose is an unnatural sugar and offers Maple Syrup as a solution, not knowing Maple Syrup has one of the highest fructose contents of anything?

That actually makes a lot of sense.

Generally, this is how it works for things in the newspaper or in various science magazines. They tend to be over-sensationalized and alarmist not just to push sales, but also because the authors of those articles don't really know the science behind the story they are writing in the first place and are fleshing out a rather bare bones statement with their own research. I can't speak of any articles written in biology, but I can speak with some authority that most articles [or even popular books] written on quantum physics are often riddled with glaring flaws in the basic science and blatant misrepresentations of the conclusions.

[butter in coffee]

Mynolis

butter in coffee

Maple Syrup has more fructose than both High Fructose Corn Syrup and Cane Sugar.
It should be the last sweetener you use, you know, other than pure fructose.
My corn syrup is a mix of glucose corn syrup and HFCS.

Also, I knew about the Vitamin C. I eat a lot of citrus, so not an issue for me.

Hm, interesting. Never knew about that. However so, I think it's unlikely that they paid people to do indirect advertising through that article. The sugar industry is rather big.

Could have been the Maple Syrup people. . .although most of those are Quebec farmers. . .
Maple Syrup is expensive though. It's like 10$ for 2 cups, and I can get it straight from the people making it where I am.