No Fake Science

We, scientists, journalists, and concerned citizens, are issuing a wake-up call on the treatment of scientific information in the French speaking media, and on its importance in social debates. At a time when suspicion of media and institutions is at a peak, we call for a new in-depth look at the entire information pipeline. Scientific topics must be shared with everyone without sensationalism or ideological bias, so that trust can be re-established on a long term basis between scientists, media, and citizens.

In a democracy, journalists carry a heavy responsibility. The quality of public debate depends on the freedom which journalists enjoy, and on the quality of information which they provide; this also affects decision making. The scientific method offers a reliable base of knowledge that can be used as a basis to formulate public policies on complex issues such as food, health or ecology [1]. Therefore it seems logical for scientists and journalists to work together. Scientists should not shun the media for fear of misrepresentation of their work; journalists should report scientific facts and studies with no distortion.

We want to alert media professionals concerning this latter point. Today, we see an increasing misrepresentation of scientific results. These are often recognized only if they comfort pre-existing opinions. In the opposite case, the implication is that such research is funded by an evil lobby. Let’s be clear: scientific knowledge is not a supermarket in which one can choose what one likes and leave what goes against one’s opinions. Indeed, there exists a scientific consensus on topics as diverse as:

  • Health:
    • The risk/benefit ratio of the main vaccines is clearly in favor of vaccination [2,3].
    • There is no proof of the inherent efficacy of homeopathic products [4].
  • Agriculture:
    • At standard professional and food exposure levels, the different agencies in charge of glyphosate risk evaluation consider it unlikely that it presents a carcinogenic risk for humans [5,6,7].
    • The fact that a plant is genetically modified (GMO) does not in itself pose any risk for health [8].
  • Climate change:
    • Climate change is a fact and it is mainly due to human activity [9].
    • Nuclear energy is a low CO2 emission technology and can contribute to fighting climate change [10].

These are not simply opinions. They are conclusions drawn from scientific studies, supported by reliable scientific institutions such as the WHO, the European Academy of Sciences, the French National Academy of Medicine, the French Academy of Agriculture, or the IPCC.

Of course, science cannot provide all the answers. Some questions have not led to a clear consensus, some remain unanswered. It is then completely legitimate for the media to present and explain the ongoing debate. However, if a consensus does exist, journalists must be able to identify it, and must try to understand and report it. It is not desirable to give the same weight to a well-established scientific fact and to its denial. For example, it would be inconceivable to follow 15 minutes of coverage of the International Space Station by 15 minutes given to a flat-earther.

We are aware that “merchants of doubt”, including some scientists, have tried and are still trying to misrepresent the consensus. Yet journalists are missing their target if they believe that scientists are their enemies. This may have the adverse effect of pushing scientists and journalists apart even further. We would also like to point out the important difference between the time scales of science and those of the media. The over-interpretation of preliminary results or of small scientific advances, immediately contradicted or qualified, clouds the message conveyed to the public. While it is legitimate to try to report scientific news as soon as possible, short reaction times can be counter-productive, especially in the absence of any keys to understand them.

It is urgent to reconsider the place of scientific information in our media and in the public debate, to avoid widening the gap between scientists and journalists. Together let’s find a way to give science the place it deserves. For a calm and rational public debate, for the good of our political life, and for our fellow citizens. “Science knows no country,” said Louis Pasteur. We add that it must know no ideology.

[1] Assemblée Nationale
Résolution sur les sciences et le progrès dans la République. Regular Session of Assemblée National, february 21st, 2017.

[2] Académie nationale de Médecine, Académie des Sciences
Les difficultés de l’information du public sur les vaccinations. Académie nationale de médecine - Académie des Sciences. Novembre 2011.

[3] WHO
10 threads to global health in 2019. World Health Organisation. Accessed february 20th, 2019.

Homeopathy: harmful or helpful? European scientists recommend an evidence-based approach. European Academies Science Advisory Council. Press release, September 20th, 2017.

[5] EFSA Journal
Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). EFSA Journal, november 12th, 2015.

[6] FAO
FAO specifications and evaluations for agricultural pesticides - Glyphosate. Accessed february 20th, 2019.

Avis de l’Anses sur le caractère cancérogène pour l’homme du glyphosate. Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire alimentation, environnement, travail. February 12th, 2016.

[8] WHO
Food Safety – Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. World Health Organisation. May, 2014.

[9] IPCC
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013.

[10] IPCC
An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Chapter 2 : Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. International Panel on Climate Change. Accessed february 20th, 2019.

Copyright : this text is under Creative Commons attribution CC BY-ND 4.0 licence; more details here