Reporting science

Listen to article

One can scan the pages of any major national newspaper - should we be among those who still get it in a printed form - or scroll the news, and we are unlikely to find any story related to science or the process of discovery. In the pecking order of news that includes politics, sports, scandals and celebrity gossip, science is not even on the list. Science and technology, if presented, is talked about as if it is unbelievable, a fantastical story of sorts. Or it is presented in terms of doom, dystopia, or something that can only happen in fantasy fiction. This is particularly true in Urdu newspapers where stories related to science are often presented with an underlying tone of shock or with an air of disbelief. In such stories, sources are rarely mentioned, and many turn out to be far from what they are presented.

The idea that because our research footprint is small, there is not much to talk about in the domain of science in newspapers is simply not true. From climate change to pollution, disease outbreaks to digital technologies, the topics are aplenty. It is simply that we choose to discuss these stories about environment, health or technology (when we do discuss them) from the lens of politics or policy, not science and technology. Stories on issues that have a scientific component rarely quote local researchers, who often have deep knowledge and expertise. Instead, those quoted in the stories are either bureaucrats or policymakers, who may or may not be able to talk about the scientific issues at the core of these problems. There are few, if any, dedicated reporters on science in our newspapers, and most newspapers do not report news from wire services that cover science. The problem is not simply in the print news - the TV news channels behave no differently.

The newspapers are not the only problem - but they are certainly part of the issue. The consequences of our apathy towards serious discussion of science and scientific research are aplenty. On one end, this attitude feeds into our ignorance about the world in general, and our immediate world in particular. That ignorance subsequently feeds into misinformation, scientific denialism and conspiracy theories. We make sense of things through explanations that are problematic, bizarre or fatalist. WhatsApp groups have added fuel to this fire of ignorance. But there is another problem here as well. The few science stories that are covered are presented in such a manner that it creates an inaccurate image of what scientific research, and scientific process is. These stories tend to present new findings as miraculous, random or simply serendipitous. Because we do not engage scientists to talk or comment on findings, or have them be a part of the conversation, we tend to explain all discoveries through the lens of a rich theory emerging simply because an apple fell from a tree in Cambridge. Or we imagine science as a series of events led by great people (and that too being mostly men). We fail to appreciate the rigour, the failures, the gradual success and the teamwork at the core of research. Ultimately, this leads us to imagine science as a quest to make grand discoveries, rather than a journey of the curious to understand the world around them.

This, by the way, is not normal. There are better ways to cover science news, and make it relevant for the local audience. Plenty of countries - including many low and middle income countries - have a far more robust coverage of science than we do, including countries in our geographic neighborhood. They are able to talk about findings, connect them to local issues, reach out to local researchers and get people to appreciate both the process and the implications. It can be done. With news reporting, we just tend to make other choices.