Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 26 2018, @02:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the people-who-know-what-they-are-talking-about dept.

On March 27, 2015, astronaut Scott Kelly rode a rocket to the International Space Station. Waving up at him from Earth was Mark Kelly, his mustachioed twin brother. While they were 400 vertical kilometres apart, NASA scientists studied how the human body reacts to the stresses of long-term space travel. Scott was the test subject; Mark served as the control. Over the course of the one-year mission, NASA extensively examined the twins' physiology, gut bacteria and even their genetic code – sure enough, NASA saw the toll of space stress on Scott.

However, NASA's sloppy wording of their findings, followed by reporting from a non-critical media, beamed the research into the realm of science fiction. "Space travel changes our genes" said one news report in March. "NASA astronaut's DNA no longer matches his twin" reported another.

These articles quoted NASA's January 2018 report which stated Scott's genetic code differed from Mark's by 7 per cent. That's not just an improbably claim – it's an impossible one, with identical twins. In anyone, twin or sibling or unrelated human, a 7-per-cent change in genetic code would mutate that person into something not human-like. "What NASA meant by genetic code was, in fact, gene expression," Smith said. "If only the journalists had quoted scientists, this incident of fake science could have been averted."

So what is the difference between genetic code and gene expression? Your genetic code is a blueprint for your body's functioning. The cells in your liver and heart contain the same code. Yet, these cells differ in their functioning because of differences in the deployment – the active expression – of the cell's genetic code. "If every gene in your cells were being actively expressed, your kidneys would be growing eyes," Smith joked.

[...] With manned missions costing taxpayers millions of dollars, the public trusts NASA. That two-way channel of trust is mediated by journalists. Scientists who convey the information in the first place need to make sure their data is sound – and their communication about it, clear.

Phys.org

[Source]: University of Western Ontario

This is an interesting take on "fake news". Do you think that scientists don't do enough to convey news accurately? Or, is the media to blame for bad/sensational reporting?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:07PM (3 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:07PM (#684540) Journal

    This is an interesting take on "fake news". Do you think that scientists don't do enough to convey news accurately? Or, is the media to blame for bad/sensational reporting?

    Scientists communicating poorly isn't a very common problem, with the caveat that they are communicating primarily for the benefit of other scientists who are mostly neither ignorant nor idiots. But it happens.

    The media taking part in bad or sensational reporting, not especially caring what's happened so much as what they can make out of it, on the other hand, is pretty much the job description of many of them.

    The areas in which this is more accurate or less accurate have shifted over time with cultures, but the statement is pretty much a constant.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:19PM (1 child)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:19PM (#684594) Journal

    And also,

    Scientists Hold Key to Winning Fight Against 'Fake News'

    No, they probably don't. Even if they do, this article doesn't present any evidence in that direction. (Speaking slowly and clearly to someone with a notepad, an agenda, and preconceived notions does not help them to understand.)

    Unless scientists have both an incredible ability to manipulate and a tremendously cross-cultural charismatic emotional-demigogue-zeitgeist-leading effect (think the "Steve Jobs Evil Distortion Field" on a global scale), while simultaneously possessed of a do-gooder desire to right the wrongs of faux-journalistic mankind, then scientists aren't the answer here. And if they did, then "scientists" probably isn't what they'd be known as, because that would be only a secondary function at that point.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:35PM (#684670) Journal

    Scientists communicating poorly isn't a very common problem

    Near universal maybe, but yes, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is merely a very common problem.