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: 2, Insightful) by unauthorized on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM (3 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM (#684604)

    Fake news is also whenever you report the objective truth about people SJW don't like, incels for being a good recent example.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Disagree=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:51PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:51PM (#684610)

    Nah, that is propaganda, the Narrative, spin and blatant editorializing. Fakenews is when it is entirely bullcrap. Russia! Russia! Russia! for example qualifies because there appears to literally be nothing real there other than projection, deflection and maybe a bit of wish casting. Stormy Daniels' lawyer being camped on CNN multiple times a day isn't even FakeNews, that is just the Narrative flogging a story nobody cares about to avoid covering stories people outside DC do care about.

  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday May 27 2018, @02:15PM (1 child)

    by fritsd (4586) on Sunday May 27 2018, @02:15PM (#684818) Journal

    unauthorized wrote:

    Fake news is also whenever you report the objective truth (...)

    How about if *you* choose a different word for that, hmm? like: "news", for example.

    You're muddying the waters, and it doesn't help.

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday May 28 2018, @01:40AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday May 28 2018, @01:40AM (#684968)

      I'm really not really, this comment is meant to satirize the propensity of people calling "fake news" when they are the one being deluded by their social media bubbles.