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 jmorris on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM (2 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday May 26 2018, @05:42PM (#684606)

    There is a name for this. Dunning-Kruger [infogalactic.com]

    Look at who makes up the vast bulk of the MSM and it is clear thevery best of them are midwits. Expecting them to understand the topics they report on would be foolish. Yet billion dollar industries do exactly that, send people of barely average intellectual capability (or often worse) out to "report" on subjects they have no reasonable expectation of understanding and other billion dollar industries actually depend on that content to make billion dollar decisions. Fascinating.

    But the real "woke" take is journalism is a tactic. Events and raw reports of them are just the feed stock thrown into a grinder daily to spin the Narrative from. If an event is useful to that greater purpose it will be covered to death, if not crickets. But the coverage may or may not bear much correspondence to the actual event and the conclusions drawn almost never make sense in the context of that event, only from the point of view of driving the Narrative.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:26PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:26PM (#684619)

    Its called the Gell-man amnesia effect. Michael Chrichton (of Jurrassic Park, Westworld, etc fame) popularized it: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=450584&sid=17334 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:45PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday May 26 2018, @06:45PM (#684624)

      Look down, I note the error. However both do apply. The media itself suffers Dunning-Kruger in that they convince themselves they are competent. WE suffer Gell-Mann when we notice how subjects we understand get covered incompetently and then listen to the same people bloviate about the problems in the Middle-East or tax policy.