Hacker News Reader

It's too bad the article didn't touch on the adverse effect science journalists are having on science journalism. Every day we see another "breakthrough" that isn't a breakthrough, a correlation reported as a cause-effect relationship, or a premature conclusion based on one unreplicated study.

View on HN

Well said - so much of science journalism and even academic publications are attempts at career-advancement more than scientific advancement.

In many countries, the amount of government money spent on scientific research is rather low. Therefore a lot of researchers have to attract interest from companies willing to fund them, otherwise they can't afford to do any research at all. Unfortunately, even if the researcher is a good scientist and the data is valid, they won't be able to continue in their field unless they dress it up as the latest great breakthrough and hint that it will enable lots of profitable new technology.

I would say it's the "everyday" part that is the main cause of that problem - if it weren't for the 24 hour news cycle model, journalists wouldn't be trying to grab attention with hyperbole as much.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer magazines like Scientific American and New Scientist - because they come out once per month/week this is less of an issue, and the main articles are not so much about breaking news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com