SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
[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?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:31PM (1 child)
I remember this same debate wrt free software vs. open source software. It was a vigorous debate, and it was lost.
Free software, software which respects freedom (usually expressed as Stallman's four freedoms), was being called by some (notably Eric Raymond) as "open source" despite that term referring to a range of things including software which was nonfree (proprietary) but incidentally had source code available for viewing.
So, in great "how are we going to lie and spin this" fashion, the idea was "I know! We'll just say* that to be open source, it has to
be free softwaregrant certain conditions that have no special connection to freedom but are just randomly in our definition! That'll answer that objection!"Sort of the same has happened with fake news (fiction or hoax purported falsely to be truth).
Even though that phrase has a definition, many have decided "we'll just say fake news is ........." followed by whatever is convenient/inconvenient for them.
I catch a lot of flack here for pointing out that words mean things. The flackers usually say "language evolves! get with the times!" as if all changes were good ones. They aren't all good changes.
"Fake news" is a phrase with a meaning (see above). However, given current idiotic cultural trends, it is more common to see someone use that phrase to mean something entirely different. Because you are not using the words with any specific meaning intended, it's impossible to use words to talk rationally about the issue.
Since that subversion is so handy for many, and they're getting away with it (aided and abetted by the "language evolves!" flackers), it's unlikely that we will be calling things by their truthful names (lies, etc.) anytime soon.
----------------
* "We'll just say" is a time honored phrase used to both justify and plan lying.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday May 27 2018, @05:27AM
Thanks for saying this. I'll just note my journal entry [soylentnews.org] that says similar things in more detail, because I got tired of pointing out that words mean things in this instance.