PR, fraud and bullshit in the service of science. Part I. PR
“British scientists have established that whistling causes cancer,” “either rain, or snow, or will, or not, and the cause is global warming.” News from the world of science sometimes makes a strange impression. Graduate student note: I will try to briefly outline the situation for those who do not know, to give the right keys to understanding the process of the emergence of such news.
So, the financing of research projects and the career of their participants strongly depend on the project promotion, and the promotion depends on journalists. Journalists are traditionally incompetent in matters of science, as in any other narrow professional topics. Methods of working with the press are chosen accordingly, according to the type “BLOOD, CLEARED (PHOTO)”, but more culturally: “GLOBAL WARMING DESTROYS CIVILIZATION (GRAPHICS)”.
What a confusion happened to global warming - everyone remembers. From less global things, I can recall a very telling story with a balloon in the stratosphere. Namely. In the spring of 2009, a group of Spanish schoolchildren launched a balloon with a household camera into the stratosphere , which took pictures on the machine. The experiment looked impressive and the news went through the technical sites. In the autumn of the same year, I was surprised to read the news about a group of students from MIT who had done the same experiment with a big-big pomp. The launch of the MIT ball received enviable press coverage: CNN , ABC , Fox , Wired , CNET , etc., etc. - rate the quality and breadth of their connections! But the professionals became indignant - such a pump for the famous experiment of the level of young physicists! As a result, the team had great difficulties, explaining what was the novelty of their approach, in the style of "we bought a used camera, so the budget of our experiment is record-breaking - less than $ 150." As they say, the history of intelligence is the history of failures. There is reason to believe that the scheme of borrowing other people's ideas and their noisy promotion through the press is not a sad exception. By the way, afterwards, the Mitovites ’busted themselves on this experiment one more time - during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico“ photographed a spot ”. I don’t know how useful it was, but it didn’t hit the press for sure.
')
But the story with the ball is a PR leprosy of students who have a good leader. Let's look at another story, this time with a post-dock. Not so long ago, the NASA website published a very intriguing press conference announcement , from which it was easy to understand that they had found some extraterrestrial form of life. Already at this stage the story smacked slightly. As the press conference itself showed , the result was much more modest: it was claimed that a bacterium had been found that can replace phosphorus in its metabolism with arsenic. The result is certainly interesting, in its narrow area. As far as I can tell, this is why arsenic and poison, which is very similar in its properties to phosphorus (they are next to the periodic table), and intracellular mechanics easily confuse them and weave arsenic into organic molecules, which then fall apart. Even if one bacterium has learned how to somehow use arsenic - before extraterrestrial life there is like cancer before Beijing. But that's not all . A number of biologists did read the article itself and expressed their doubts that the bacterium under consideration did somehow use arsenic. What was arsenic inside the bacterium was clear, but was it used in organic molecules, incl. DNA is completely unclear from the results. The girl from NASA did not provide a response to the criticism, but she started a song that is usual in such cases that the criticism should be published, and she does not have to answer everything on the Internet (even if microbiology professors), itedo, she has something to learn from Petrik.
But the story with arsenic is also a post-dock exercise, and, moreover, ended in failure. Let us think about what a group of professors from good universities can do, with extensive connections, incl. in press. And maybe they are quite a lot. Here I already talk about the events in which he participated, and therefore there will be no names or proof links. So here. Somehow I come to the keynote of one workshop, which took place near our university. The workshop - on a rather interesting topic (DIT), which was at the height of fashion ten years ago, and on the crest of that wave brought many people to the top, who were published on this topic. Then came the criticism, sometimes deserved, sometimes not, the bubble burst, the fashion passed. In the list of participants of the workshop, I literally saw who is who of that wave - people whose articles I read as a graduate student.
So, the keynote (opening speech) was spoken by one American professor (AP), who explained the utmost practical importance and significance of the DIT. After the introductory words, the AP launched a five-seven-minute clip literally as follows:
I note that the plot was shot quite professionally - real actors, in the interior of a real news studio, speak in professional voices, show computer graphics at the level of CNN and the like. Those. everything is professional, with a good budget. After such a spectacle, I prepared for a series of publications of similar content in the press. Then the AP spoke for a long time and showed graphs, the interpretation of which at times caused me great doubt. Well, that's not the main thing. The rest of the workshop was closed - "strangers do not walk here."
In principle, there is no crime here either. All this can be called ordinary scientific marketing and PR. And this marketing, no worse than any other, is engaged in professional blowing bubbles and creating impressions. Buying Pepsi or Cocu? You know perfectly well that this is just sweetened water with a special, unforgettable taste ™. Read the news of science? As a rule, it is the same.
So, the financing of research projects and the career of their participants strongly depend on the project promotion, and the promotion depends on journalists. Journalists are traditionally incompetent in matters of science, as in any other narrow professional topics. Methods of working with the press are chosen accordingly, according to the type “BLOOD, CLEARED (PHOTO)”, but more culturally: “GLOBAL WARMING DESTROYS CIVILIZATION (GRAPHICS)”.
What a confusion happened to global warming - everyone remembers. From less global things, I can recall a very telling story with a balloon in the stratosphere. Namely. In the spring of 2009, a group of Spanish schoolchildren launched a balloon with a household camera into the stratosphere , which took pictures on the machine. The experiment looked impressive and the news went through the technical sites. In the autumn of the same year, I was surprised to read the news about a group of students from MIT who had done the same experiment with a big-big pomp. The launch of the MIT ball received enviable press coverage: CNN , ABC , Fox , Wired , CNET , etc., etc. - rate the quality and breadth of their connections! But the professionals became indignant - such a pump for the famous experiment of the level of young physicists! As a result, the team had great difficulties, explaining what was the novelty of their approach, in the style of "we bought a used camera, so the budget of our experiment is record-breaking - less than $ 150." As they say, the history of intelligence is the history of failures. There is reason to believe that the scheme of borrowing other people's ideas and their noisy promotion through the press is not a sad exception. By the way, afterwards, the Mitovites ’busted themselves on this experiment one more time - during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico“ photographed a spot ”. I don’t know how useful it was, but it didn’t hit the press for sure.
')
But the story with the ball is a PR leprosy of students who have a good leader. Let's look at another story, this time with a post-dock. Not so long ago, the NASA website published a very intriguing press conference announcement , from which it was easy to understand that they had found some extraterrestrial form of life. Already at this stage the story smacked slightly. As the press conference itself showed , the result was much more modest: it was claimed that a bacterium had been found that can replace phosphorus in its metabolism with arsenic. The result is certainly interesting, in its narrow area. As far as I can tell, this is why arsenic and poison, which is very similar in its properties to phosphorus (they are next to the periodic table), and intracellular mechanics easily confuse them and weave arsenic into organic molecules, which then fall apart. Even if one bacterium has learned how to somehow use arsenic - before extraterrestrial life there is like cancer before Beijing. But that's not all . A number of biologists did read the article itself and expressed their doubts that the bacterium under consideration did somehow use arsenic. What was arsenic inside the bacterium was clear, but was it used in organic molecules, incl. DNA is completely unclear from the results. The girl from NASA did not provide a response to the criticism, but she started a song that is usual in such cases that the criticism should be published, and she does not have to answer everything on the Internet (even if microbiology professors), itedo, she has something to learn from Petrik.
But the story with arsenic is also a post-dock exercise, and, moreover, ended in failure. Let us think about what a group of professors from good universities can do, with extensive connections, incl. in press. And maybe they are quite a lot. Here I already talk about the events in which he participated, and therefore there will be no names or proof links. So here. Somehow I come to the keynote of one workshop, which took place near our university. The workshop - on a rather interesting topic (DIT), which was at the height of fashion ten years ago, and on the crest of that wave brought many people to the top, who were published on this topic. Then came the criticism, sometimes deserved, sometimes not, the bubble burst, the fashion passed. In the list of participants of the workshop, I literally saw who is who of that wave - people whose articles I read as a graduate student.
So, the keynote (opening speech) was spoken by one American professor (AP), who explained the utmost practical importance and significance of the DIT. After the introductory words, the AP launched a five-seven-minute clip literally as follows:
The plot of the news. In America, a national disaster - communication networks disables a strange network virus. Phones do not work. The country is on the verge of collapse. Electric networks fail - they were also struck by a network virus. Infected devices show video of the Red Army parade. Are Russians involved? The source of the cyber attack is on Russian territory. The president decides whether to declare war, and if so, to whom. The value of DIT for national security is hard to overestimate The end of the plot.
I note that the plot was shot quite professionally - real actors, in the interior of a real news studio, speak in professional voices, show computer graphics at the level of CNN and the like. Those. everything is professional, with a good budget. After such a spectacle, I prepared for a series of publications of similar content in the press. Then the AP spoke for a long time and showed graphs, the interpretation of which at times caused me great doubt. Well, that's not the main thing. The rest of the workshop was closed - "strangers do not walk here."
In principle, there is no crime here either. All this can be called ordinary scientific marketing and PR. And this marketing, no worse than any other, is engaged in professional blowing bubbles and creating impressions. Buying Pepsi or Cocu? You know perfectly well that this is just sweetened water with a special, unforgettable taste ™. Read the news of science? As a rule, it is the same.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/110043/
All Articles