Reporting on science

"Every day, science journalists head into the field to report, record and publish the slow progress of human knowledge... Imagine if you read tomorrow’s headline about the ongoing plane crash investigation."

This statement from blogger Drake Martinet reveals in a striking manner my main gripe about science reporting today. What you would read in the health and science pages of your newspaper is often minute details of a long process. Real breakthroughs take time and before reaching them there are often dead ends along the way. Each research that make it to mainstream is but a piece of a giant puzzle and we can all understand that a blue piece doesn't dictate that the whole puzzle represents a scene under the sea.

I think most science journalists realize that there is a need for proper training in understanding what they are being told. This is essential if we want to make better assessments of the impact a paper will have on its field. In fact, I would go as far as saying that no single paper can revolutionize a field on its own.

From now on, take everything you hear with a grain of salt. research papers are the arguments in the debates between scientists. They are like replies in an ongoing conversation and unless you've been following from the beginning or you've been provided with a context, there are chances you will misinterpret the statement you've just heard.