Disinformation, misinformation, bad science, bad reporting… the public is becoming more aware that one of the toughest challenges faced these days is sorting out what is good reporting (and good science), versus what is misleading or untruthful. It seems ironic that after my post yesterday, the following article showed up in my inbox this morning – Perspective: This pesticide ‘research’ is short on data, big on hype .

In this post, the author, farmer-agronomist Jack DeWitt, critiques a commentary in Scientific American magazine that promotes a ‘study’ conducted by the same authors of the commentary, who happen to be the director and research assistant at the non-profit Center for Biological Diversity, an organization with a stated agenda. Their ‘analysis’ published online in Frontiers in Environmental Science appears to be a legitimate review of previous scientific studies concerning the effects of ‘pesticides’ on soil organisms, again the current often-cited gauge of “soil health”, though in this case they focused only on soil invertebrates (worms and insects, basically) and ignored fungi and bacteria.

Standard scientific journal formats require ‘materials and methods’ sections so that one can read how a study was conducted and determine if the results are analyzed and conclusions drawn appropriately from the data and how that was collected. If properly reviewed in the pre-publication stage, poorly conducted studies and/or inappropriate conclusions would be cause for rejection of the manuscript, or at least would require a significant revision and/or further explanation of how the data supports the conclusions. Scientists reading articles with such flaws scratch their heads in wonder how they were published, and in very rare cases, if there is enough negative reaction citing improper methodology, analysis and/or conclusions, an article is recanted after publication. In this case, going back to the original scientific review, DeWitt illustrates how carefully selected data are misinterpreted and/or misrepresented to support the authors’ cause, er … conclusions.

Moral of the story… don’t take scientific reporting as gospel, even from respected media outlets, until you consider the source, the funding, and take a careful look at the original article, if it’s available.