The Problem is…

…I am a scientist, I’m trained to be hyper analytical, I’m trained to write a certain way, to select words for maximum impact, and to be precise & concise. 

… the mass public has been trained by the media to ignore the conventions of the English language, to discount poor spelling and grammatical errors, and to accept typographical missteps. 

…news outlets know that to be heard and to be read, they must write and cover stories that grab attention, often at the sake of poor reporting, promoting poor behavior, highlighting the worst in humanity or covering case studies in which the first gut reaction is “ARE YOU [expletive] KIDDING ME?”

…the public doesn’t believe it unless a well-funded laboratory runs experiments, analyzes data, and then publishes a report. If it doesn’t exist in science it cannot be true. This phenomenon is the polar opposite of religious fervor – it is scientific fanaticism. 

…both political parties love to latch on to science, politicize it and therefore fleece it of any real meaning or humanitarian gain possible.

…real science is rarely sexy. Thus why many scientists are turned off to science fiction, we see the inaccuracy of details and it often destroys the story. Michael Crichton has an essay on this and the above topic on his official site.

Here are some of my recent inspirations:

(NOTE: I have no problem with the results of the following; merely that someone funded a study to investigate concepts that otherwise are ‘no-brainers’ to the point that publishing data on them is simply dizzying, verging on idiotic.)

Smoking After Diagnosis Increases Cancer Deaths – So what you mean to tell me is that if I am a smoker, and I am diagnosed with lung cancer, I should stop smoking? Well, ‘its my life, I do what I want.’  

How walking to work could reduce your risk of diabetes (up to 40%) – Wait a minute. You mean that if I get out and walk, that is exercise as a mode of transportation, I will be healthier? Yes, someone paid a group of researchers to statistically analyze the health gap (diabetes and hypertension) between walkers and drivers. What they fail to publish is that walkers are at a greater chance of becoming a pedestrian struck by a moving vehicle than when driving. 

Here is a story where someone was paid to debunk 4 dumb experiments. Though I like the intent of this article, it falls far short of hitting its potential. The author points out the fallacies behind these investigations, but doesn’t do it in “plain English.”

THE SOLUTION: I have no clue…Education? Reinforcing higher standards for which to hold the public and the media? Using our brains? A little common sense?