What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths • Hacker News Board

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#21

Post by carbocation » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 4:12 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #5

If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…

I feel that your criticism is off base. The author of the story was right to focus only on the facts: specifically, the scientist's funding sources and the pattern of behavior that occurred with regards to funding and testimony.

Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating what you are claiming.

Yes, the implication is that the scientist is not to be trusted and that, by connection, his work should not be. But that is intentionally left to the reader to conclude. It allows for the possibility that the scientist does questionable science but that his conclusions might be proven correct by others, even. This is very good investigative scientific journalism.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#22

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 4:16 PM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #17

eitland wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe it's supposed to be good news-article-writing style to put the most important facts and overview first. The way I read the article, the most important fact was that he was paid by Bayer.

I'm not surprised in the least. Bayer has a huge cropscience division, and bees are integral to them selling crops and seed. Seems more like an oversight than "nefarious pan-government cum dystopian corporate plot".

Hmm.. I do have to amend my statement. Evidently, Bayer was caught with their pants down in Europe and Japan after their non-certified-edible GM rice was found in our food supply for export.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1605.cfm

So the jury could still be out: Is Bayer corrupting science to lead away from the idea of GM food is causing bee deaths? Ugly, to say the least.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#23

Post by slantyyz » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 4:20 PM UTC

This article makes me think of Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis), who wrote this book called "Dancing in a Mind Field" years ago, and it brought up some interesting points when talking about "scientific research" and the reporting behind it.

The one takeaway from the book.. "follow the money". Fact checking, of course, is much harder than it sounds, which is probably why a lot of news organizations don't do as much as they should when reporting stuff like the bee colony collapses, etc.

Mullis has some interesting (almost conspiracy theory-esque) ideas about AIDS research, etc. One of the more memorable anecdotes in this book - he found it amusingly coincidental that there was a huge movement to ban Freon for environmental reasons right before Dupont's patents were about to expire.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#24

Post by slantyyz » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 4:33 PM UTC

araneae wrote: post #19

Oh, whatever. a) He didn't use the funding for this study. b) Science papers aren't opinion articles. Nowhere in the study did he say that the virus and the fungus are exclusively the cause of the epidemic. If you got that impression, that was the media editorializing the study. If he falsified or omitted data, then he's guilty. But all he did was show that these two pathogens are present in collapsed colonies. You c…

A Even if he didn't use the funding for the study, he should have at least disclosed it. His research is going to now be perceived (right or wrong) as a lot shadier now that this CNN article came out than it would have if he just made his disclosure in the first place.

B Well, I don't know if I agree with you there. There's a fine line between opinion and theory in scientific papers, especially when you're trying to prove (or disprove) causation. You don't find it interesting that, say, the tobacco industry manages to find scientists to refute links between use of their products and cancer? Or what about the division between the "global warming" debate. There's a reason for peer review in scientific publications, and even the peer review process can occasionally break down.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#25

Post by slantyyz » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 4:37 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #10

code_duck wrote: post #6

It seemed rather apparent to me that something was missing from that other article - like more insight into the underlying causes. Its reaffirming to see that Dr. Jennifer Sass asks the same questions I was asking (which, incidentally I was downvoted for and 'corrected' about here on HN).

I think you're referring to this bit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1767170 Finding the root cause is certainly interesting, but finding intermediary steps on the road to finding a root cause is also important. The press is notorious for being unable to represent scientific findings in a proper light. I don't know how many times I've read about 'possible cures for cancer' HIV and a whole series of other disease…

Just as some of us are annoyed by the scientist for not talking about the funding, we also have to remember that newspapers have funding too. Advertisers and eyeballs.

The linkbait-y headlines are all about helping the newspapers make money.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#26

Post by carbocation » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 5:15 PM UTC

slantyyz wrote: post #23

This article makes me think of Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis ), who wrote this book called "Dancing in a Mind Field" years ago, and it brought up some interesting points when talking about "scientific research" and the reporting behind it. The one takeaway from the book.. "follow the money". Fact checking, of course, is much harder than it sounds, which is probably why a lo…

Kary Mullis is a great example of why you should only consider scientists to be experts in their specific, narrow domain.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#27

Post by dspeyer » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 5:20 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #21

waterhouse wrote: post #5

If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…

I feel that your criticism is off base. The author of the story was right to focus only on the facts: specifically, the scientist's funding sources and the pattern of behavior that occurred with regards to funding and testimony. Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating w…

That pattern of behavior is treated unfairly, though. He argued for one theory, did a study, and then published a paper with a very different direction. That's how it's supposed to work. You change your mind as the facts come in. The article treats this as a betrayal.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#28

Post by carbocation » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 5:24 PM UTC

dspeyer wrote: post #27

carbocation wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that your criticism is off base. The author of the story was right to focus only on the facts: specifically, the scientist's funding sources and the pattern of behavior that occurred with regards to funding and testimony. Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating w…

That pattern of behavior is treated unfairly, though. He argued for one theory, did a study, and then published a paper with a very different direction. That's how it's supposed to work. You change your mind as the facts come in. The article treats this as a betrayal.

That is how the pattern is supposed to work (opinion informed by data), I agree. However, credibility can be called into question by the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps one could say that the appearance of impropriety increases the prior likelihood of actual impropriety, but it's not black and white.

This article is serving as a counterbalance to a NYT article that failed to disclose this author's relationship with industry. That is usually a prominent disclosure; I've had to be very clear about my funding in every paper I've submitted, and if it's of high interest to those in the field, one can imagine that the public has an interest in this knowledge as well.

I really felt that this was an article written to draw attention to the scientist's funding, and I don't think it was done badly. When doctors fail to disclose funding in situations like this, they rightly get slammed. This strikes me as no different.

Like I said, it is quite possible that this scientist's conclusions are correct, but it is always important to have independent validation, where independent != funded by the company that benefits from your stated results.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#29

Post by slantyyz » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 5:47 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #26

slantyyz wrote: post #23

This article makes me think of Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis ), who wrote this book called "Dancing in a Mind Field" years ago, and it brought up some interesting points when talking about "scientific research" and the reporting behind it. The one takeaway from the book.. "follow the money". Fact checking, of course, is much harder than it sounds, which is probably why a lo…

Kary Mullis is a great example of why you should only consider scientists to be experts in their specific, narrow domain.

You definitely have to take him, and anyone proclaiming to be an expert or analyst, for that matter, with a grain of salt.

Re: What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths

#30

Post by hugh3 » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 5:57 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #21

waterhouse wrote: post #5

If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…

I feel that your criticism is off base. The author of the story was right to focus only on the facts: specifically, the scientist's funding sources and the pattern of behavior that occurred with regards to funding and testimony. Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating w…

Yes, the implication is that the scientist is not to be trusted and that, by connection, his work should not be. But that is intentionally left to the reader to conclude....This is very good investigative scientific journalism.

Really? It just sounds to me like insinuation.