We’re all going to die!
Trevor Butterworth
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
George Mason University, Virginia
www.stats.org
“A journalist is a lookout on the
bridge of the ship of state”
— Joseph Pulitzer
Sounding the alarm at Starbucks
An everyday story of risk…
And the serious health problems are:
“Pesticides in food have been linked to
ADHD and other childhood health
problems. And it's not just on the food,
either. Scientists have found that
systemic pesticides are taken up inside
of the plants that we eat. Gross!”
It’s a bug’s life…
“ Many bug killers work because they
screw with a bug's nerves. But those
same chemical controls could be
messing with children's health, too.”
Killer plastic…
“Sure, we've known for a few years now that
Nos. 3 and 6 plastic and BPA are
particularly bad for you. But a recent study
published in the journal of Environmental
Health Perspectives found that all plastic is
bad for you.”
And so on…
Toxic toys
 Unsafe soap
 “Harsh” disinfectants
 Scented candles
 Air fresheners

But…



374
2
1,282,635
Top substances in pediatric exposures (age 0-5)





1 Cosmetics / personal care products
2 Analgesics
3 Cleaning substances (household)
4 Foreign bodies / toys/ misc.
5 Topical preparations
174,073
130,213
125,394
93,574
91,127
Innumerate
“Generally I will try not to let two
paragraphs with numbers bump
against each other — ever. Because I
think numbers are absolutely deadly.”
— Best Newspaper Writing, 1982
“Most journalists seem unable to judge
whether numbers are really meaningful or
accurate. Consequently, they either trust all
figures or they trust none; and they tend to
focus exclusively on a report writer's
conclusions, while ignoring specific
numbers and data collection techniques.”
— Tankard and Ryan
A history of inaccuracy





8.8% science stories judged error free by
scientists
40-59% for other subjects
42 “types” of error
Lack of methodological detail worst error
Lack of context – earlier research on issue
ignored
— Tankard and Ryan, 1974
“…a lot of scientists distrust the press. They
have good cause for this. Some of the things
the press has done to science are horrible to
contemplate.”
— Ralph Coghlan, St. Louis Post Dispatch,
writing in The Scientific Monthly on “The
need for science writing in the press.” 1946
Have things improved or worsened?
How SOT Members Rate the Accuracy of the Media's Reporting on Certain
Scientific Issues and Principles
Percentage Rating Poorly/Well
100%
90%
97%
96%
96%
95%
97%
96%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
8%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
0%
In providing
diverse view s &
balance
Explaining
risk/benefit
tradeoffs
Explaining that Distinguishing Distinguishing
"dose makes correlation from
betw een
the poison"
causation
absolute &
relative risk
Distinguishing
good & bad
studies
Explaining odds
ratios
STATS at George Mason University
POORLY
WELL
How SOT Members Rate the Weight the Media Gives to Various Studies
100%
18%
90%
27%
80%
70%
60%
21%
68%
73%
74%
36%
50%
40%
30%
48%
20%
6%
9%
13%
10%
14%
12%
10%
28%
0%
Individual
studies relative
to overall
evidence
Individual
scientists
relative to
scientific
community
Studies by
environmental
group
scientists
Studies by
government
scientists
Studies by
private sector
scientists
STATS at George Mason University
TOO LITTLE
RIGHT
TOO MUCH
Consequences?
So what happens when you take an
innumerate watchdog that’s always
on the lookout for new threats, and
subject it to a relentless assault of
novel, alarming studies?
Always the deadliest context?
Two years later…
“For farmed salmon, the cardiovascular
benefits are greater than the cancer risks by
a factor of at least 300:1. With the exception
of some locally caught sport fish from
contaminated inland waters, the levels of
PCBs and dioxins in fish should not
influence decisions about fish intake.”
— Dariush Mozaffarian, Dept of Epidemiology,
Harvard School of Public Health
“ Unfortunately, the media and others may
have contributed to this confusion by greatly
exaggerating the unsubstantiated claim of a
health risk from fish.”
— Erich Rimm, Dept of Epidemiology,
Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health
Barking mad
“ Journalists are, in the very nature of their
calling, alarmists; and this is their way if
giving interest to what they write. Herein
they are like little dogs, if anything stirs,
they immediately set up a shrill bark. ”
— Arthur Schopenhauer
Is the public credulous?



29% believe news organizations get their
facts straight
63% say stories are inaccurate (up from 34%
in 1985)
70% believe news orgs try to cover up
mistakes
- Pew Research Center for the
People and the , 2009
Is schmexpertise driving expertise
out of circulation?
Who do you trust?
Gisele?
“Are you going to give chemical food to
your child, when they are so little?”
“I cannot put this poison on my skin.
I do not use anything synthetic.”
Bruce?
“We have estimated that 99.9% of the
chemicals humans are exposed to are
natural, and we find that they are as
frequently positive in rodent cancer tests as
synthetic chemicals… Many ordinary foods
would not pass the health criteria that have
been used to regulate human exposures to
synthetic chemicals based on results of
animal cancer tests.”
Not a fair fight…

Bruce Ames may be one of the most cited
scientists in the world, but his views on
chemophobia have rarely made the media –
perhaps 10-15 citations in past decade.

Gisele Bundchen has approximately 300
news citations on chemical issues in past
two years (not all favorable, mind you).
5,790,000 web citations according to Google

Visible risks, invisible risk assessment
49:1
Error rates
What is the likelihood that one new study
with a novel or alarming conclusion can
overturn the weight of evidence?
For scientists, the likelihood is directly in
relation to study method and replication,
which is why they are, generally, suspicious
of novelty
Journalism’s
precautionary principle
For journalists, the risk of being
wrong about something going
wrong is vastly greater than the risk
of being wrong about something
that is right.
Which is a truer picture of reality?
Conclusions

Journalism is intellectually and
emotionally invested in reporting risk.

Journalism about risk gives the audience
an emotional experience, generally using
selective data for intellectual support.
Risk assessment gives people an
intellectual experience but little
emotional connection to the weight of
evidence.
 The emotional experience is much
more likely to move people towards
action unless that action is so
engrained in normal life the risk
becomes acceptable.

It all comes down to storytelling
“If you can succeed in telling a story that
makes your audience feel as if this
heart is beating for them… they will
buy your product in order to own the
story.”
— Lynda Resnick (Fiji water etc) to
Peter Guber, in Tell to Win.
A call to action?
“The life of academic quietism is over.
The man of learning, however well
equipped he may be, must learn to
become a man of action, a politician, a
man of the people, speaking for people,
leading people…”
— Joseph Brandt, Harpers, March 1946