Hidden Agendas: The Media & Science

Over a conversation about the decline of paleontology versus the rise of fossils in the media, my mate and colleague Tony Gill pointed out several interesting points. The hype and media attention surrounding Jurassic Park, Tiktaalik roseae the 'fish-to-tetrapod' transition and most recently, Ida the lemur-like fossil, all misrepresent paleontology. Furthermore, the medias handling of fossil ‘news’ is indicative of the decline of paleontology overall. This ‘hidden agenda’ namely, promoting a cheap technology or highly applied field at the expense of a scientific scholarship and endeavor, is endemic to current science reporting.

At first glance, Jurassic Park is an adventure movie about dinosaurs. A dinosaur expert gets to do what most paleontologists only dream of – walking with living fossils. Add a little romance and adventure into the script and "Hey Presto!" you have the kids hooked. Dinosaur figurine sales go up and you need to queue to get into your local museum. All a perfect recipe for promoting paleontology and getting the message that what paleontologist do is 'cool'. Think again: "What is Jurassic Park actually about?"

The answer, quite rightly is genetics, more accurately genetic engineering. Jurassic Park may show off some stunning (albeit incorrect) CGI reconstructions of dinosaurs, but mostly it is about how modern technology can progress science to unbelievable heights. What most people remember from the script is how dinosaur DNA can be extracted from fossil blood-sucking insects trapped in amber. Jurassic Park did more for genetics than it did for paleontology. For example, the "National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, and by the Ben F. Love Endowment, the ARC Federation Fellowship and the NHMRC C.J. Martin and R. Douglas Wright Research Fellowships" (Choi, 2008) supported a project to resurrect the extinct Tasmanian Tiger from DNA retrieved from a preserved fetus. Paleontology got peanuts.

Before I continue with more examples, I want to quickly explain what I mean by paleontological research. The majority of paleontologists are taxonomists and systematists. Many expand their research to include stratigraphy, paleoecology, taphonomy and functional morphology. Taxonomy however is essential in paleontology. Without it we are describing bits of shell and pieces of bones. Taxonomy gives us a name a diagnosis and most importantly a classification. Systematics helps us to establish evolutionary relationships. Equally important are the circumstances in which the fossil was preserved (taphonomy), it age (stratigraphy), the depositional environment (paleoecology) and what sort of life the organism led (functional morphology). Together they form a well rounded paleontologist and a paleontological project. For the media, paleontology as a scholarly endeavor, sells few magazines and doesn't cover the cost for airtime. Many people share a passion for paleontology, but what sells tons of plastic stegosaurus in museums could never satisfy the public's hunger for sensationalism.

In the same way that Jurassic Park appeals to our belief in modern technology, the hype around Tiktaalik roseaeand Ida ( Darwinius masillae) is our human desire to find out who we are and where we come from. The desire to know our own family genealogies is transposed onto evolutionary biology as the search for ancestors and origins – different concepts all together.

Ancestors and centers of origins are only place-holders to make statements about ancestor-descendants and dispersal. In order to propose evolutionary scenarios about individual taxa, say hominids or just humans, we need the evolutionary equivalent of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. As systematists, however, we don’t need either. Taxa are related in some way based on their 'derived' characters so too are biotic areas. Stating a new discovery, such as Harpetidae are more closely related to Harpididae than they are to Entomaspidae, require no ancestors, only homologies. Therefore, homologies are necessary evidence in discovering evolution, where ancestors may be used in explaining evolutionary scenarios – they are not essential. The aim of any field, be it paleontology or entomology, is to find homologies and natural classifications first before we can even entertain the idea of ancestors and their centers of origin. Hence systematics lies outside evolutionary biology or, in other words, evolutionary biology depends on systematics.

The media however are unaware of this process of discovery and explanation. We have no way of knowing whether Tiktaalik roseaeand Ida are our ancestors or not. All we can discover are their systematic relationships. Anything beyond that is simply speculation and lies outside the realm of empiricism. The media’s hidden agenda feeds off the latter.

If paleontology were to be promoted responsibly by the popular media, more is to be done about reporting about systematic relationships. The media’s hidden agenda however is to personify these discoveries in the context of human genealogy. For example:

"Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land" (Wilford, 2006: Online).

"Meet your ancestor – the fish that crawled" (Holmes, 2006: Online).

"In the PLoS paper itself, the scientists do not actually claim the specimen represents a direct ancestor to us. But Dr Hurum believes that is exactly what Ida is" (BBC Online 19 May, 2009).

"Fossil Ida: extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution" (Randerson 2009: Online).

The media are excited about a "missing link" (read "ancestor") rather than a new systematic discovery. For instance neither article tells us what has been discovered. Ida is a "47m-year-old primate" that is "not on the lemur line because she lacks two key characteristics shared by lemurs" (Randerson, 2009) or "She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line" (BBC Online 19th May, 2009). Neither report states what Ida is or who she is related to. Rather we are told what she isn’t. The same is true for Tiktaalik roseae, a "375-million-year-old fish" that "… is significantly closer to the midpoint of the transition than Panderichthys," says Per Ahlberg, a palaeontologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. "Panderichthys is clearly a fish. With Tiktaalik, you're not entirely certain what to call the thing" (Holmes, 2006: Online).

What then, reading these media reports, do we know about either of these fossils from a systematic or classificatory stand-point? Not much, other than what they represent within an evolutionary scenario – a ‘missing link’, a transition from sea to land or a potential ancestor. In effect, the media has used the discoveries of fossils, and not classifications, to push evolutionary scenarios. The discoveries that were made are not reported or at best briefly covered. Tiktaalik roseae and is closely related to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega and belongs in the family Elpistostegidae. Ida, or Darwinius masillae belongs to the subfamily Cercamoniinae; however, their systematic relationship within that group is currently unknown. These two taxonomic and systematic discoveries represent scholarship within paleontology, a field that is slowly declining in importance and prominence. The evolutionary scenarios are merely speculations, guess-work based on little empirical evidence. The media, as well as the science community, need to decide which deserves greater recognition. The future of paleontology is at stake.

Media Watch: Sponges

Surfing the web I came across several news articles reporting on a recent comment in Nature by Brocks & Butterfield (2009). I wondered if I could get an idea of their research (or discovery) just through reading what the average punter would read in the newspapers or online. Would the news coverage be fair or sensationalist? Here is what I found.

This, from the free daily UK paper called the Metro:

"If you felt a bit soggy while walking through the snow this week, it's because your relatives were sponges. Well, your ancestors who lived 635 million years ago were.
Mankind is thought to have evolved from primitive sea sponges, according to a study of fossils found in rocks in Oman.
They are thought to date to the last ice age, according to the US research in Nature journal."

The Daily Mail decided to run with:

Meet the ancestors: Earliest evidence of life suggests humans descended from sponges 635 million years ago

The Scotsman leads with this perplexing title: In the beginning God created the sponge. The article continues:

"Now scientists say they have discovered the missing link in the chain of evolution. They have found evidence of the oldest animal life yet discovered on Earth – ancient sponges that lived 635 million years ago".

The Telegraph seems to have passed on the 'Sponge Ancestor', sticking with their earlier (March 5, 2008) story Comb jellies were our first ancestor instead.

Anyone reading this on the 8.20 tube from Cockfosters would understand that the research is about discovering ancestors (i.e., missing links, a poriferan Adam & Eve). I had to see what Brocks & Butterfield (2009) wrote about 'ancestors':

"So, what exactly were the organisms that produced these biomarkers? The most obvious answer, and the one that the authors plump for, is that demosponges had evolved and become ecologically prominent by at least the late Cryogenian. But this conclusion overlooks the evolutionary nature of biological taxa and the incremental assembly of defining characteristics along (now-extinct) 'stem lineages'. It is only with a full complement of such characteristics — in the last common ancestor of the extant 'crown group' — that modern taxonomic boundaries apply (...) Combined with new biomarker data and molecular phylo genomics, the identification of such signals promises to pinpoint the first appearance of our earliest animal ancestors." (Brocks and Butterfield, 2009: 673).

The press, again, have missed the point. Mankind did not evolve from primitive sea sponges - something the study by Brocks & Butterfield (2009) did not state. Moreover, the Metro makes the mistake of stating that "...your relatives were sponges". In fact all life is related (and in the presence tense - our relatives were and still are sponges. Same is true for trilobites and nudibranchs). Surprizingly however, the BBC News online managed not to bungle it and grab a relevant sound bite: "We're not saying we captured the first animal; we're saying they're an early animal phylum and we're capturing them when their biomass was significant" - a departure from their normal misquotes and stories invariably taken out of context.

The Daily Mail Online however, do go on to publish a Reuters report by Michael Kahn that best summaries the research: "Chemical traces left in 635 million-year-old rocks in Oman provide the earliest evidence so far of animal life, researchers said Wednesday". Why the Mail didn't go with Reuter's original title Scientists find earliest evidence of animal life has more to do with sensationalism than with science journalism.

References
Jochen J. Brocks, Nicholas J. Butterfield (2009). Biogeochemistry: Early animals out in the cold Nature, 457 (7230), 672-673 DOI: 10.1038/457672a

Investigative Science Journalism: Who Guards the Guards?

Plato’s reaction was simple: they will guard themselves. Distaste for power and a desire for righteousness will prevent them from taking advantage of their position. This is Plato’s Noble Lie – a valiant failure at best.

The media, journalists, editors and reporters, are also the guardians or watchmen of science. Not only do they report news and events, but they also keep politicians or spheres of power in check by questioning their actions and reasoning. Such is the power of the media in Britain that is can (almost) topple politicians and governments.

The same media also cover scientific discoveries and events, but there is a catch. Unlike politicians and government officials, scientists are not subject to critical questioning by the media. Whereas politicians acquire their positions through elections, scientists are assumed get to where they are through expertise and merit.

Any form of expertise may separate one field or profession from another. Take chamber music for example. It takes a typical violinist many years to reach a level of expertise required to perform in a chamber ensemble or symphony orchestra. In addition to other than the extracurricular training they receive as children, their university degrees and auditions, musicians are always open to scrutiny and also in their performances by the media. Newspapers dedicate columns to either praise or rubbish performances. Medical doctors and dentists are also open to scrutiny. Malpractice is often exposed first in a newspaper before it is reported elsewhere. The media also seem to find space to criticize new alternative medicines, the forms of chemicals used in chemotherapy, which diet is best, which isn’t and so on. This aside, scientists appear to be all but immune from critical scrutiny any from of questioning by journalists.

One reason maybe that much scientific expertise differs from other forms in that it does not seem to directly affect our day-to-day lives. While many people have a favorite recording of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, their own opinions on dieting and whether smoking or drinking too much is harmful. However, the average person’s opinion on evolutionary biology for example, is often no more than received wisdom, given little personal reflection. In fact the science press, that is the popular media who report on science, struggle to correctly interpret the scientists message and to attract the attention of the average reader. The recent debate in Framing Science (Nesbit & Mooney, 2007) addresses how scientists and the media can work together to express a scientific idea or discovery in such a way that it informs the public in a clear and engaging manner. The article draws much needed attention to the still burning question: who watches the watchmen?

Recently the popular press reported the discovery of a new fossil 'amphibian' nicknamed the 'frogamander' (Gerobatrachus hottoni). The article went on to state:

"The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry … Modern amphibians -- frogs, salamanders and earthworm-like caecilians -- have been a bit slippery about divulging their evolutionary ancestry. Gaps in the fossil record showing the transformation of one form into another have led to a lot of scientific debate." (Reuters)

The press, keen to promote science, clearly do not question what they are being told. In this case the "showing the transformation of one form into another" is impossible without the aid of a time machine. The media did not concoct the story, they simply translated what the scientists said:

"It's a missing link that falls right between where the fossil record of the extinct form and the fossil record for the modern form begins,' said Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary, who led the study" (Reuters).

This is not a problem of framing, but that of the media blindly accepting a "story".

The science media rarely question the scientist. The level of expertise that separates the scientist and the reporter is the same between that of the violin soloist, general practitioner, attorney general, civil service account and engineer. If a politician clearly fabricates a story in order to win favor with voters prior to an election or, a police commissioner justifying the arrest of a member of a suspects family under dubious terrorism charges, the media wouldn't think twice of questioning their reasoning. If a geneticist however states that the platypus is "...the semi-aquatic animal is a genetic potpourri - part bird, part reptile and part lactating mammal" (ABC News), no one questions their poor reasoning or understanding. Clearly the platypus is a mammal (along with the fish-like dolphin and bird-like bat). This distinction was made in the 19th century and every school child would be able to pick this out at once (except perhaps science journalists).

The problem is not one of not understanding the technical nature of science or the way scientist "frame" their arguments. Scientists can be just as uninformed as the rest of us. The media do question the expertise of professionals from other fields excepting that of science. What is needed is investigative science journalism, not glossy parroting. By investigative science journalism, I do not mean exposing practices outside of mainstream science such as anti-science (e.g., creationism), pseudo-science (e.g., homeopathy) or malpractice (e.g., evangelical healing). Neither do I mean exposing scientific fraud (e.g., cloning) or moral issues (e.g., stem cell research) (see Knight Fellowships). Investigative scientific journal would be far more effective in keeping science in check if it uncovers its inner workings, including the politics behind certain ideas and the funding supporting one method or theory over another as well as simple misinterpretations or downright untruths that scientists make which enter the mainstream media as "facts". Through exposing the malpractice of scientists, investigative science journalism can inform the public where their money goes and how it is at times misused. So far there is no such caliber of journalism in science has not been equal to the challenge. Presently, many biologists, geologists, geneticists and astronomers have no representation in the media and no voice. To let them suffer in silence seems unjust when experts in most other fields enjoy the guardianship of investigative journalism and the attention of the public.

Reference

Nesbit, M.C. & Mooney, C. 2007. Framing Science. Science 316: 56.