JANUARY 23, 2009

Bridging The Gap Between Journalism And Science

American journalist H.L. Mencken once wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”  A cunning satirist and acerbic critic of American life and culture, Mencken is regarded as one of the most influential American writers of the first half of the 20th century.

If only Mencken were still around to read the 2008 edition of the “Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares,” published annually by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).  I wonder: what would Mencken have to say about the “imaginary hobgoblins” – or unfounded health scares – that are menacing our population today?

Since its founding in 1978, the ACSH has been dedicated to separating real, proven health risks – such as smoking cigarettes – from unfounded health “scares” based on questionable, hypothetical, or even nonexistent scientific evidence.  In each case, the ACSH says its researchers review the charges made against a given product or substance, or even against an entire community.  They then discuss the basis for the charges, the reactions of the public and the media, and the actual facts relevant to what risk (if any) ever existed.

In its introduction to the “Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2008,” the ACSH boldly asserts, “The following list of scares is meant to reassure Americans that our health and well-being, and that of our children, is not really under attack by insidious exposures to disease-causing chemicals.”

Although widespread public fears and concerns over matters of health and safety are not new to our time, many of them have curiously emerged in this era when Americans enjoy better health, an ever-increasing life span, a higher standard of living, and a greater scientific understanding of the causes of human death and disease than ever before.

To that end, in the article “10 Ways We Get the Odds Wrong,” Psychology Today’s Maia Szalavitz explains why our brains are “terrible at assessing modern risks.”  Among the reasons: risk and emotion are inseparable; fear skews risk analysis in predictable ways; we underestimate threats that creep up on us; and we prefer that which (we think) we can control.

But it’s not always our fault for misunderstanding modern risks.  Every day, we face a barrage of statistics, media coverage, and fear-mongering politicians, many of whom provide us with conflicting information.  What we need, argues the ACSH and others, is responsible, balanced, scientific reporting – a united effort to bridge the gap between journalism and science.  As a member of TMG Strategies’ New Persuasion and Risk Teams, I am proud to say that we joined this effort long ago!