As somebody who loves science and who is a passionate advocate for
the credible advancement of human knowledge and education, I would like to say this as an
opening salvo to my new blog:
Science is pure knowledge that should not,
in any way, be used to manipulate, discourage or mislead people; it should not
be used for political gain and should definitely not be used to provide an
artificial stimulant for people's well-being—science is not Soma; it is not an
artificial drug for a brave new world (Huxley 1932). Science is above all of
these things; it transcends everyday human behaviour; it is objective truth.
This is why science should be protected against any cynical devaluation that I
commonly, and more frequently, see these days—particularly on the internet.
I was involved in a situation recently
that has made me feel compelled to write this post.
To explain, I quite often write for a
science website, in a voluntary capacity, volunteering up my passion and the small
amount of scientific knowledge I have worked hard to obtain. The aim of this is
to hopefully educate inquisitive young people—and adults— with a similar love
of science, and to hopefully inspire them to follow science as a subject to
explore and study. I try to do this in a way that is informative, factually
correct, fun, and enjoyable to read. It is free-thought within the credible
constraints of scientific protocol.
To expand on my science communication
experience I recently applied for a position writing for an up and coming news
publication which has approximately 5000 online followers and links to certain already established news outlets. This involved
submitting an article I had already composed, edited and published in the past,
describing the development of a new type of medical device. Currently, this publication is purely an online enterprise, although it has plans to progress
into print media, supplying London with up to date information regarding a
multitude of different topical subjects, including science.
The new media service has an overriding concept based around the philosophy of, 'positivity.' The premise of this
philosophy is to provide and 'educate' Londoners with the latest 'positive' news to
make everyone feel good about themselves, their direct environment, and the world
in general.
What's wrong with that, you're probably
saying. Nothing, in general, I only have a problem when it comes to providing
'positive' news for 'positive' news' sake; when that very ideal becomes like a
modern crusade, delivered with unthinking(?) zeal; when the concept
becomes more important than the facts.
For instance, if I was an editor working
for a newspaper and I had, say, ten articles for publishing: Five of those
articles where deemed negative (corruption, violence, politics, etc) and five
where deemed 'positive' (charity, sporting achievements, cures for disease,
etc), as the editor, and as a right minded and balanced person, I would make
sure there was a healthy mix of the two—because let’s face it, life consists of
both good and bad in equal measure. Unfortunately, life is not made up of good 'positive' things all of the
time. Granted, I wish it were, but to convince myself that life was so is just
plain delusional, it's unhealthy, and is, quite frankly, a little bit insane—and
when used for political or ideological capital, slightly odious too.
To progress my recent experience: after
submitting my article I had a reply from the recruiting person indicating that
two of the paragraphs were not 'positive' and should be removed from the
article. The person, whose name was not revealed, also inserted a diatribe
about how the main stream media commonly publish material that is subjective, negative and sensationalist in nature. Is that the same MSM outlets that provide encouraging reviews on their website? Hmm, I suspect not. The mystery person, or was
it a collective I'm not too sure, asked me, 'if you [me] would like to challenge your [mine] writing style then please re-write your [my] article but in a more positive manner
and re-submit.' I.E. Lose the information that we don't agree with and doesn't suit the message we want to send to our readers. What type of message do they want to send to their readers?
Now, does that mean 'challenge' my writing style or does it mean 'challenge' my thoughts? Hmmm, investigating their website further revealed dubious language like, 're-programme,' 're-assess' and 're-educate,' so I suspect they mean the latter.
Agreed, the MSM do tend to overload their delivery
channels with negative news, but the two paragraphs that were highlighted were
none of the above, they described the failures of current techniques which I had
obtained from the researcher's website and backed up by further peer-reviewed sources—they were not based upon personal opinion or supposition, but upon scientific facts, critical to the coherence of a genuinely
'positive' article. If I decided to miss out that particular information the reader
would have been left confused as to how the new device was indeed an
improvement. The information was integral to the piece, removing—or censoring—it would not
be educating people fully, and as a science communicator, to me, that would be
totally unacceptable. It would be a betrayal to both, the reader and to the
integrity of science.
The website informs the world that their readers are mature and intelligent. Really? Obviously, they're readership aren't that intelligent—in their eyes—otherwise they
would not be censoring articles to suit their childish agenda.
People are able to decide for themselves given the right information.
So why did they ask me to remove the said
paragraphs? I'm not entirely sure, but I have a theory—or a suspicion—and I
suspect it is down to an ideological/political stance the website quite
clearly has on closer inspection. I wonder if they have an opinion on the
removal of specific words from the English language that do not suit their
political or ideological leanings. I suspect they do and I think I know what
the answer would be. The whole episode reminded me of Orwell's novel '1984,'
where the 'ministry of truth' would remove, redact or manipulate information
for their nefarious political aims.
Like I said this is only a suspicion,
although it seems very fishy to me—I find this kind of project deeply
worrying. What other information have they removed? Is 'positive' the new religion? Does 'positive' fill a void in our
post religious, secular societies?
I hope they are well meaning, but to
manipulate the passage of scientific information in a way that ensures people remain in a
state of blissful ignorance is, I find, morally reprehensible and is a far away
from 'positive' as I could possibly imagine. As a reader I would be greatly disappointed/angered if I found out that vital information was being withheld from me because it might
upset my mood—who are people to decide that?
Again, quoting '1984,' it seems to me
almost like an exercise in 'doublethink': 'war is peace,' 'freedom is slavery,'
and in this instance, negative is positive. Because, let's face it, removing scientific
facts is a profoundly negative(!) act to produce what they think is a perceived positive outcome. This is nonsense and shows complete contempt towards the general public; it treats us all like mere automatons, only fit to be fed titbits that our self-styled, self-aggrandising, 'intellectual'
superiors deem suitable.
Needless to say, I did not 'challenge
my writing style' and I withdrew immediately from the recruitment process. I will also be avoiding their brand of journalism like the plague. I
understand the need for more positive news within the media today, as it generally
controls us and holds us in fear, but I think manipulating science communication in
this way is a step too far.
Science is pure objective fact that transcends
both politics and religion—it is not 'Soma' for the masses! I would rather people were informed correctly in a fair and balanced way rather than drip fed selected facts to produce a depressingly deluded supine population, only fit for manipulation. That most definitely is not 'positive,' that is decidedly totalitarian.
