Analysis: Most research on PFAS harms is unpublicized (www.eurekalert.org)

submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science@mander.xyz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

As a chemist scary terms like "forever chemicals" rub me the wrong way. Just speak openly about what the research says.

The vast majority of research gets zero press coverage, regardless of how relevant it may be to the public. Even within science you're rolling the dice whether you'll get any citations 5 years down the line.

The current media machine is only able to sustain headlines that exaggerate or "overhype" the findings of studies anyway. Let alone the amount of research out there that can't be reproduced, or has falsified data, or itself is exaggerated in its significance. In my opinion the only time research should make it to the undiscerning public is when a wealth of studies have been done independently, in agreement with one another.

[-] verdeviento@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I would offer a different perspective, though it could be that I'm misreading your intention in the last sentence. Scientific findings should all be available to the public, which is the ultimate source of most research funding through taxation or through product pricing. Misunderstanding should be addressed through education, not restricting access to knowledge.

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Right. Open access to the papers themselves is good. But they shouldn't be pushed into normal news feeds without more careful consideration.

[-] MrSpectroscopy@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Absolutely. Press releases will always overhype research to make it interesting to read. It is unfortunate those in the scientific community feel they need to do this. Many institutions pressure their researchers to submit these press releases so they can show off what they do to the public. As I type this, I realize how the institutions themselves feel they need these public summaries for their survival. Would taxpayers ever support research if they don't understand it??

Perhaps what is most needed is to drop the spin and hype while still informing the public about the scientific process and results!

[-] Francisco@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

What would you consider as okay to mention as 'forever chemicals'?

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

None, it's a stupid term. Reminds me of sensationalist buzzwords they like to use on cable news and clickbait headlines.

[-] Francisco@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

You feel free to use expressions and terms as "rub me the wrong way", "buzzwords", and "clickbait". In those cases you are okay with the listener/reader interpreting the implicit meaning over their explicit wording. Why is "forever chemicals" different? Specially in an informal communication setting.

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Those are purely linguistic constructions. I take issue with these nicknames for real substances, which already have shortened names that are easy to pronounce (PFAs). This is giving something that's already established, a new nickname, with the addition of your own emotional manipulation. I would say one of the reasons this is getting so much attention is because of their clever wording. I can't say whether this is an important issue, because I don't have any experience in this area.

I'll provide an example. So currently "Russia" is the normal term for that country west from Alaska. But you could also say "Communist Russia", "Red Menace", "Mother Russia", and apparently some people call it "Mordor" lol. Even for informal communications you should avoid these sort of alternate terms. It's unprofessional. If you have a strong argument or message it will stand on its own.

[-] Francisco@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Thanks for your answers and perspective, trully. Even if none of us have changed their opinion.

I see adjectivation and categorization as parts of reasoning. I think you used a red herring in order to have a strong opinion about it. With the same cheakyness, I'll quote yourself