Briefly, I just wanted to share a very thoughtful article from The Escapist that would be enjoyable to anyone with an interest in videogame research or science reporting. Using research on videogames as a platform, the author explains how and why journalists tend to oversimplify social science research in their reports. One problem that the article discusses is journalists’ overreliance on university press releases at the expense of gathering information from other sources that could potentially provide them with more details about the studies’ accuracy, context, and generalizability. It’s a very unfortunate though somewhat understandable practice. And assuming that science reporters continue to take most of their lines from press releases, the article is a good reminder for researchers to make sure the details in the press releases about their own research is as accurate and as difficult to misconstrue as possible.

In a related note, The Wire had a very good article featuring one of the studies on videogame violence referenced the Escapist article. It’s a great piece of social science journalism and also a good read.

Nevermind the fact that Marano is using public opinion as a substitute for expert opinion (public skepticism of climate change coverage is a very important issue that should be addressed, but certainly not because it indicates that global warming or its media coverage is not actually true), I note this case becuase it shows how easily public opinion data can be manipulated to suit some political end. But, this story does have a happy ending; Dykstra’s report illustrates that just as research results are conveniently taken out of context, they can just as conveniently be repositioned by educated readers. Dykstra will probably not undo the damage done by Marano’s twisted interpretation, but it’s a start. Overall, the lesson is that it is both possible and wise to examine original reports of research when something smells fishy.

To be fair, I will be the first to admit that research in the area of the psychological effects of new media use on children is sorely lacking. There is no question that we need to do more, and I am sure that when we do, the news won’t be completely positive. But in the mean time, I think that it is nothing less than irresponsible for a scientist to use these sorts of alarmist tactics in order to accomplish a political agenda, with no emperical support for the claims. I believe that this is an abuse of Greenfield’s credentials and scientific language. Things like this give scientists in general a bad name.

“I’m puzzled why the public in general ignores the results of well-done trials,” said Dr. Eric Klein, national study coordinator for the prostate cancer trial and chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute. “The public’s belief in the benefits of vitamins and nutrients is not supported by the available scientific data.”

Really, Dr. Klein? You’re surprised that the public doesn’t pay attention to “well-done trials”? How long have you been in this business?

Pardon me for not sharing Dr. Klein’s incredulity, but I don’t think the phrase “clinically tested” means much of anything to the public unless it’s part of a commercial for male enhancement drugs they’re watching at 3:00am. And even then I doubt they know the phrase actually means.

And the media doesn’t exactly help to enhance the importance of clinical trials. I’ll spare my readers the montague of Today Show clips that feature nurtirionists raving about the miracle of dietary supplements like blueberry extract which are no doubt “associated” with lower ankle cancer risks (or whatever). Instead, I’ll ask that you just take my word for it that these types of research reporting spectacles which drive the lastest health food trends are much more entertaining to watch than reports on how ineffective supplements might actually be.

The article is very enjoyable, and Pennebaker’s work, I think, is of interest to anyone who likes to observe patterns in the media, even casually. Yet, despite my fuzzy feelings for the article, I need to warn you that the innovation of the method might be a tad overstated. In reference to Pennebaker, the author comments that “by counting the different kinds of words a person says, he is breaking new linguistic ground and leading a resurgent interest in text analysis.” This sounds like a comment made by someone who hasn’t been following word-counting content analyses in the past 20 years. Of course, I don’t mean to be little the role of content analysis. Knowing what the media is saying and how often it is saying it is of great importance, and, as Pennebacker’s studies show, this type of information can also be quite fun to learn.  And it’s also true that content analysis is becoming more refined, reputible, and common. But while we’re getting better at analyzing communication content we should also remember the limitations of this type of analysis: knowing intricate details about a person or text’s content is not the same as knowing why it is what it is, or understanding how the audience receive the messages. With any luck, there’ll also be a “resugrent interest” methodologies that could fill this gap. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll open the NY Times and see coverage of media psychology, rhetorical criticism, and critical cultural research too.

I also wanted to point out another very good article in this particular section that covers the differences between clinical studies and other types of methodologies that are commonly reported on in science news. For anyone who wants to have better understanding of why the words “clinically proven” carry so much weight, this provides a good reference.

For several months now, I’ve been following poll reports related to the presidential election fairly closely. Polls are important to presidential elections!  Not only do they give the media for something to talk about but the campaigns use them as a barometer for the success of different tactics.  I’m less clear about how the polls influence public perceptions and behavior, but in this election I have first-hand knowledge of people making donations to the Obama campaign when they they heard that McCain got a bump in the polls. I would also imagine that polling may also play a role in many voters’ decisions. My own mother has confessed that she has a soft place in her heart for political underdogs.  And more than one of Bob Barr’s many Libertarian supporters in Georgia has told me that they will refrain from voting for Barr if they think that the election is so close that their “alternative candidate” will need their vote to help tip the scales.

But given the importance of polls and their prominence in election news coverage, I’m always amazed by how little journalists discuss the complications that are associated with these polls, even when they are faced with conflicting results.  As I type this, 4 different polls are being reported on the news that show Obama having anywhere from a 4 to an 11 point lead over McCain. But no one is discussing the possible reasons for these differences. It’s surprising that even after a bad polling methodology led a news paper to falsely declare that “Dewey Defeats Truman” in the 1948 election, and even though the most recent presidential elections have been decided within the poll’s margin of error, I rarely hear journalists discuss the complications that can arise from sampling techniques, response bias and reactance, and statistical certainty.

And as an article published this weekend in the New York Times reports, poll methodology might play a particularly important role in the current election because an African-American candidate is running. For a variety of reasons discussed in the article, there is evidence to suggest that poll respondents tend to be less honest about their true intentions to vote for or against African-Americans. This, by the way, is just one potential complication with the polls, aside from other factors like the methods use to poll mobile phone users or the treatment of “likely-voter” data.

Certainly, no methodology is perfect and I don’t necessarily believe that the flaws with polling should diminish their importance (at least not much). I’d simply advocate for a more thorough analysis of these polls by those who present their data.  In the mean time, if you’re like my mother and looking for the underdog, just keep in mind that there might be more than meets the eye in the public opinion polls.

During my search, I came across a summary of the disease and its history that included a link to the House Finch Disease Survey, conducted by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. This is a project that allows people who have seen a bird with the eye disease to report it. Now that I’ve signed up, I should be receiving information about becoming an ongoing participant in the lab’s research, able to contribute data as I come across it.  Apparently, this project has allowed researchers to follow the spread of the disease and learn more about it.

With further searching I found out that this method of data collection isn’t exactly rare. Apparently the area of citizen science is fairly diverse, empowering people to contribute their own observations on a variety of activities that they do everyday to advance scientific knowledge. I can’t think of a more symbiotic relationship between the public and science. 

I bring this up to make a more general comment on the role of science in the public under a conservative administration.  The Bush administration has consistently demonstrated a disregard for science. Funding for everything from stem cell research and safe sex education has been cut under the directive of President Bush. And don’t even get me started on the president’s response to the Kyoto Protocol.  And while all these issues have baring on the progress of science and human well-being and development, I would like to pose a question about how this treatment of knowledge might also have a negative effect on the public’s reception of science. Isn’t it possible that the executive office’s example of science skepticism and its justification sets a tone for the entire country?  Perhaps, not only does the rest of the world see us as backward, uncooperative, and fundamentalist, but we too begin to see ourselves as such.  And call me paranoid, but I think many might internalize it with a sense of pride. This would explain why academic research is frequently dismissed as “elitist” (which, no doubt, it has always been), which seems to be positioned as a polar opposite to patriotism in this election. How different would the tone be in the country if the executive power, our world representative, regularly embraced knowledge as grounds for policy?  I’m sure the far right will always object to scientific recommendations that they find offensive, but maybe at least, these recommendations won’t be seen as being anti-American.

Now notably, this AP report demonstrates that the “liberal media” is wrong.  Sara Palin clearly does have a record, and it is one that is in opposition to science.  While this report details her anti-conservationist tendencies and global warming denial while another makes it clear that she would gladly see creationism added to the public school curriculum. And, although it’s not officially on the record, something tells me that she, like Bush, is probably not interested in giving credence to social science findings that point to the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only educational programs, compared to ones that educate teens on safe sex.

But truly, I see the most dangerous part of all this being how she justifies her stances. Teaching creationism next to evolution, she says, will foster “healthy debate.”  And in response to a bill that would prohibit shooting wolves from private aircraft  she claims that it is out of touch with Alaska.  Specifically, she says that the representative supporting the bill  “doesn’t understand rural Alaska, doesn’t comprehend wildlife management in the North, and doesn’t appreciate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that gives states the right to manage their own affairs.”  Statements such as these illustrate how science can be pitted against patriotism. We should watch out for that.