A friend alerted us to a "Science Daily" (where "... articles are selected from news releases ... [and] scientific credibility ... is not assessed ...") piece on a recent Ph.D. dissertation in the field of brain tractography based on diffusion tensor imaging.
In the piece, an "expert" is quoted as saying:
"You can now see for the first time the spaghetti-like structures and their connections."
You can now see for the first time?
Well. Don't take our word that the visualization of brain white-matter pathways from diffusion tensor imaging data has been going on for more than a decade. Take google's:
"For the first time", indeed. So, who is hurt by such puffery? A short list would include:
- Other workers in the field, whose contributions are slighted.
- The general public, who are misled.
- Students – potential future scientists! – who become disenchanted upon discovering the gap between what-is-"reported" and what-is-true.
Our point here is not to criticize the person who was quoted; we do not know whether they were quoted accurately. Our point is that science reporting should be done without needlessly embellishing the originality or significance of any particular contribution – out of respect for readers, researchers, and the common good. Because otherwise, science reporting risks losing its credibility, and "even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed."
No comments:
Post a Comment