Maybe every paper abstract should have a mandatory field of what the limitations of the proposed approach are. That way some of the science miscommunications and hypes could maybe be avoided. — Sebastian Risi (@risi1979) October 28, 2019 The media is often tempted to report each tiny new advance in

I’ve seen plenty of science reporters directly contradict what’s spelled out in the study they are reporting on. Sadly the highlighted quote at the top wouldn’t be enough to ensure accurate reporting or interpretation of science. This is why we ‘solve cancer’ multiple times every year. It would be awfully nice, however, if there were more institutions devoted to precise and accurate reporting on science, as my default behavior nowadays is to more or less ignore the reporting and go straight to the source. In many cases the abstract of the paper is enough to understand the real findings, but more information is available if I feel the desire to dig further.


I’ve seen this so many times. It’s usually the fault of the journalist who either does not understand the subject, or has a narrative to spin.

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage

  • 0 users online
  • 38 users / day
  • 71 users / week
  • 162 users / month
  • 504 users / 6 months
  • 4.47K subscribers
  • 1.93K Posts
  • Modlog