We are warned
that at least one of these global catastrophes surely will get
us. Likely both. On this, we have the word of the infallible:
scientists, journalists and activists whose jobs are to knock
ignorance and complacency out of us. The only question is which
threat will get us first: a worldwide influenza pandemic spread
by birds, or Earth flambe brought on by America's greedy refusal
to cut greenhouse gases.
Maybe the
flu and global warming alarms are warranted. But notwithstanding
claims of certitude by our minders, how is a public, made skeptical
by so many false warnings and promises, to know if they are right?
Can we trust every warning, or promise of a cure, that's made?
Let's ask
the renowned South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk, who created,
with a hyperventilating media, a worldwide sensation by fabricating
tailored embryonic stem cells that were supposed to cure, well,
just about everything. Or maybe we shouldn't bother him; he's
momentarily busy dodging convincing charges that his pioneering
"successes" were fake.
This one
is on science, because Hwang's work was "peer reviewed,"
giving it the scientific stamp of approval. But the media don't
entirely escape blame; they went wild publishing the claims, as
they have typically hyped every supposed "advance" in
embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are few of them and,
worse, the media have more or less irresponsibly ignored the more
tangible and substantial advances by less controversial "adult"
stem cell therapy.
So whom can
we trust?
Maybe this
can help. It's time for 2005's "Biggest Science Reporting
Flubs," awarded by the Statistical Assessment Service at
George Mason University. STATS is a Washington-based think tank
that tracks scientifically misleading myths and rumors and annually
highlights the worst examples the media inflict on the public.
They are:
1. Meth mania:
The media's flipping out over "America's most dangerous drug"
is challenged by research showing that methamphetamine use among
high school students has declined 28 percent in the last five
years, that meth users only slightly outnumber crack users and
that meth addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts.
2. Poison
popcorn: ABC's "Good Morning America" blew it with its
"exclusive" investigation claiming that the Food and
Drug Administration has opened a probe into the supposed cancer
risks of a chemical whose presence is three times the recommended
FDA levels in popcorn bags, fast-food boxes and candy wrappers.
But there's no FDA investigation, the agency doesn't have recommended
levels and such chemicals are not considered unsafe. Oops.
3. Gender-bending
babies: USA Today reported a study that allegedly linked
phthalates--a family of chemicals that make plastic flexible--to
deformities in male infants. After the report panicked parents
nationwide, an expert government panel was unable to validate
the "findings." The media, of course, ignored the report.
4. Dazed
and confused teens: A new "identity disorder" has descended
on teens increasingly using drugs, booze and sex to escape reality,
proclaimed The New York Times. Except that a University
of Michigan long-term study found teens actually are doing less
of the bad behaviors.
5. French
fry fright: A California lawsuit demanding McDonald's and Frito-Lay
warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, allegedly
linked to cancer and birth defects, inspired a wave of media hysteria.
Which overlooked a major study that found that acrylamide might
lower, not raise, cancer rates.
6. Toothpaste
terror: Supermarkets began pulling toothpaste off their shelves
after panicky reports that an anti-bacterial ingredient in it
could lead to depression, liver problems and cancer. The American
Dental Society responded that the effect occurred experimentally
only when the ingredient was placed in pure form in very hot and
heavily chlorinated water.
7. Media
gorge on obesity. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a report suggesting that a little extra weight may not
always be dangerous--which the media trumpeted as proof that the
`food police' were dieting us to death. But some of the results
were statistically insignificant, and even the CDC didn't claim
they were conclusive."
It's not
my contention that the number of misreported or overly hyped warnings
outnumber the legitimate ones. But how many are too many?
