Category: science

I predict a “Mobile phone causes radiation” story this Sunday

Those who work with me will know one of my pet hates is dodgy science dressed up as news. There might be some who question how I can work in PR, an industry that has also been guilty of such practices.  I believe there is a difference between presenting information it a positive light to promote a product or service and actively looking for validation for a story or myth that has no scientific or statistically backing. Which brings me on to this request from the Mail on Sunday:

Screen shot 2009-11-02 at 15.34.37I might be wrong but how can this be anything but a story designed to scare and misinform people? Surely the request should be for anyone experts with new research on the link between mobile phones and brain tumours? I hope I’m wrong (It’s the Mail so maybe not) but await Sunday to see exactly what ‘expert’ has been put forward and what the latest claim will be.

MMR frenzy 2.0?

I remember the debate vividly.

The notion that if your kids have the MMR jab, there’s a chance they get autism was being touted around by the press. They was one problem with this. It was the opinion of ONE scientist.The whole point of science is that it constantly calls into question theories which are then reviewed by other scientists. It’s only when there’s a general consensus that the theory is put forward as policy. (Kind of like the way democracy works).

It never seizes to amaze me how ignorant the press can be when it comes to understanding how science works. Roll on seven years and this ilk of debate has reared its ugly head with the dreaded swine flu and its advised treatment Tamiflu. The press once again have resorted to taking the advice of ONE paper in a journal to stoke up some public hysteria. The point of peer review is that other experts give their opinions on the research for a consensus to be reached.

But then again, I suppose that doesn’t get headlines like “Tamiflu is risk to pig virus kids”