The Press Sells Newspapers, We Should Not Sell Ecotoxicology

Science is the pursuit of truth and facts, which at times can require expert interpretation in their application. However, when interpretation is presented as fact, promulgated, and sensationalized, it can undermine science and the decisions and polices it informs. This phenomenon has periodically manifested in the domain of ecotoxicology, but why and how? Those are complicated questions, but have to do, at least in part, with human nature and emotion. The empirical evidence regarding how emotion, particularly negative emotion, can affect (i.e., over-ride) logic and reasoning is clear (Jung et al. 2014). Generally speaking, humans tend to tilt (i.e., bias) toward negative emotion (Soroka et al. 2019). For example, people are typically more outraged over losing a hundred dollars than they are happy about gaining same. This helps explain why the news media tends to be dominated by negative stories; negative stories invoke a more visceral and polarizing reaction than positive news stories (Soroka et al. 2019). In terms of measurable reaction, good news has in fact been found to be synonymous with the absence of news (Soroka et al. 2019). This propensity to fixate on the negative is evident in the hard sciences including ecotoxicology. Anecdotally, our proclivity for negative results in ecotox is so profound in fact that graduate students often express disappointment when finding "no effect" during their course of study, suggesting a preconceived bias or expectation for more provocative outcomes. Consequently, the challenge, as pointed out by Moore (2006), is that science is increasingly being marketed to the media as a result of sensationalism incentivization: the more sensational the claim, the greater the likely circulation and exposure. In attempting to understand why many media outlets tend to sensationalize and exaggerate research purporting adverse effects, the explanation may be that humans are attuned to negative information from an evolutionary perspective. Davis and McLeod (2003) analyzed front-page news stories over the course of a 300-yr period and found the sensational content varied little over time, suggesting the topics were not socially constructed on the basis of time or local cultural values. In contrast, evolutionary psychology was suggested as the basis for the observations (i.e., they reflect universal human behavior). The reproductive success of our ancestors was likely enhanced by gaining information about certain adverse factors such as predators, parasites, and tainted food (Davis and McLeod 2003). Consequently, millions of years later, humans are still perceptively biased toward negative information, even though the contemporary potential for such adverse factors is generally low (Davis and McLeod 2003). Is the media therefore exploiting this evolutionary human susceptibility to sensational negative news? The data tend to overwhelmingly support this in the affirmative. Based on a targeted review (see the Supplemental Data) of the 10 most accessed "news" sources in the United Kingdom/Europe (Daily Mail, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and The Independent), Canada (National Post and The Globe and Mail), and the United States (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal) over the past 10 years (2010–2020) using the search terms "atrazine" and "neonicotinoid" as a case study, we found associated headlines were overwhelmingly negative (65% on average; see the Supplemental Data). No headlines were found to be positive in orientation. This is perhaps not surprising given the policy debate over the ultimate moratorium on neonicotinoid use in Europe, and the fact that European news outlets were over-represented in terms of number of stories. The proportion of negative stories was greatest in the United States (USA Today and New York Times) and the United Kingdom (The Independent). Even though we used a limited subset of potential "anthropogenic" search terms, this analysis supports the contention of a negative spin in news coverage as it relates to ecotoxicology topics. If we are hardwired to respond acutely to negative information, and presuming the popular press orients media coverage accordingly, does this influence our conduct, behaviorally, as individuals as well as scientists? Purists would emphatically answer in the negative, but the influence may be more salient than we realize. More than 60% percent of adults in the United States now obtain news from social media outlets (Gottfried and Shearer 2016), which has dramatically increased the efficiency and efficacy of news transmission. However, the potential downside has been a concomitant rise in the propagation of "fake news" or misinformation (Gottfried and Shearer 2016), which has been exacerbated by the impulsive nature of platforms such as blogs, posts, Tweets, and so on, where content is often relayed without meaningful or consequential (i.e., effective) third-party filtering, fact-checking, or editorial judgment. Herein lies a significant problem—popular media can now be used as a tool (to great effect) for disseminating, influencing, inspiring, and potentially even incentivizing perspective or opinion rather than fact. What is the potential downside? To put it bluntly, fake news (or misinformation) tends to make you less knowledgeable and more misinformed, biased, and/or polarized (Mitchell et al. 2020). Moreover, our propensity for sensationalism, catalyzed by our predisposition toward negative information, can undermine the objectivity of peer review (Campbell 2014). These are decidedly unvirtuous attributes in the pursuit of truth and fact. Thus, assuming we are evolutionarily predisposed toward viewing the world through a negative emotional lens, how do we transcend our susceptibility to sensationalism? In a word, think. Always question what you are being told, weigh the facts, and consider the evidence. However, you must be willing to put in the time and effort to gather, review, and interpret the facts as a fundamental prerequisite to freethinking. To advance fact over narrative in scientific discourse we need to promote logic over emotion. That is not to confuse emotion with passion; the latter is essential to pursuing something meaningful, but the former can undermine the pursuit of truth and fact. Therefore, we suggest being passionate about the following: Be an independent thinker of media reports. Do not overtly believe anything that you are being told. Be suspicious and skeptical, take under consideration what you see and hear, weigh it against the evidence, and decide for yourself. Your mind is essentially a court, your conscience the jury, and the collective evidence the case. Seek truth in debate, disagreement, and discourse because knowledge is power, and ignorance is weakness. Be your own worst/harshest critic. If you believe something to be true, systematically evaluate your position. If the evidence does not support your position, you should re-evaluate and/or reconsider your interpretation. Acknowledge that it is perfectly OK to be wrong. If the experiment was poorly conceived and/or executed, then repeat it. If the evidence is contradictory, perform additional studies, but if the opposing evidence is overwhelming, reconsider your hypothesis. Resist the temptation to sensationalize or overinterpret your results with the media. Observing or concluding that no significant effect(s) were found should not be considered unwelcome or inconsequential news. Maintain your objectivity without anticipation or expectation of negative results. Sensationalism may sell, but truth, fact, and integrity are more valuable commodities. Confront chaos and uncertainty with truth and virtue. As Moore (2006) points out "although it is easy to blame sensationalism and scandal-mongering by the media, the scientific world, including scientific journals, are willing accomplices in many cases." Unfortunately, in life, and by extension, in science, the potential for misinformation is omnipresent, and we are foolish and/or naïve to think otherwise. Thankfully, curiosity and skepticism are integral to the human condition, and that is a good thing. Don't be afraid to ask questions and challenge prevailing narratives, especially those willfully emphasized over fact. To quote Bertrand Russell, "one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." Let doubt continue to serve as our collective motivation to pursue truth and virtue. The Supplemental Data are available on the Wiley Online Library at https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5003. No funding was provided for the present opinion piece. R.A. Brain is an employee of Syngenta Crop Protection, and M.L. Hanson was not compensated financially. We thank Kathryn Schlee for compiling the Supplemental Data. This article contains online-only Supplemental Data. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.