Genotype or Geno-hype?
Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 19, 2004

Is science news in the popular media over-simplified?

Journalists and scientists inhabit different cultures. Science starts with details and leads to the larger picture. Journalism starts with the larger picture and moves towards the details. The true significance of scientific work can be lost in over-simplification.

Timothy Caulfield says simplification is necessary to engage a lay audience, but it has its dangers. Over-simplification can lead to misunderstanding. "You have to be careful about how you simplify. A tremendously complex story isn't as sexy. There's a natural desire to simplify, to say a gene for aggression, a gene for heart disease, a gene for IQ and that's wrong."

Véronique Morin says reporters are caught between two poles: the scientist's need to be precise by using complex jargon, and the public's need for plain language in order to understand. "The fear is that you're going to over-simplify the story, and the real story will get washed out in the simplicity of the words. On the other hand, if the reporter has too much of a science background then she will not speak the language of the people. There is this balance."

Alexandra Paul says over-simplification is not just a slight to the scientific community, but that sometimes we underestimate our readers and viewers as well. These days we have a more educated society. "There's no Earthly reason newspapers should have to think they're writing for grade eight readers, which is what editors tell reporters. I think, that's not the only person I'm writing for. I think our readers are more educated and smarter than a lot of media give them credit for."