In the course of your reporting, you may encounter scientific claims coming from university press releases, companies, or government officials. Don’t take these at face value just because they’re framed as science! As with any sort of journalism, be curious but skeptical, and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Look for the evidence.
When you come across a scientific claim outside the context of a peer-reviewed research article, look for references to studies or data supporting that claim. If these are lacking, that’s a major cause for concern.
Sometimes it may be hard to access data, even when you know they exist. Companies’ data are often proprietary and hard to obtain, and they may not publish peer-reviewed studies at the same time as a press release.
Government data may or may not be more accessible. To find deleted or otherwise inaccessible data, see if you can find an archived version.
Read any studies cited alongside a claim and interview the researchers Ask how they designed and conducted their study, how they analyzed their data, and whether there are any notable limitations.
Experts who weren’t involved in the study can evaluate the meaning behind numbers, methods, and statistical tests. They can also provide broader context and alternative interpretations of findings, events, or trends.
Two great questions to ask outside experts: “Are people in the field calling this work important?” and “Will this claim stand the test of time?”
Be extra skeptical if a claim diverges strongly from most other perspectives in the field.
Don’t be afraid to ask whether the claim is even worth covering at all.
Be on the lookout for red-flag terms—they may signal a questionable claim.
Science is an iterative process, so true “breakthroughs” are rare. Beware of this and other often hyperbolic words like “first of its kind,” “groundbreaking,” and “cure.”
Make sure the claims can be supported by the type of research that was done. Studies in cells and animals shouldn’t be generalized to humans, and observational studies can’t lead to causal conclusions.
Be aware of language that elicits an emotional response, which can be a tactic designed to overplay results or dissuade critical thinking.
Look for fear-mongering. Is the claim promoting a solution for a non-existent problem? For example, wellness influencers may endorse detoxifying treatments when in reality most people’s bodies do that naturally.
Keep absolute and raw numbers in mind. For example, if a health report states that an infectious disease has had a 300 percent increase in prevalence from one year to the next, that sounds scary. But if only 10 people nationally were diagnosed in the first year, that means the next year saw a jump to just 40 cases.
Is the claim centered on a single person’s story or an event in a single community? Focusing on individuals is an effective way to tell a story, but putting a face to something can also stir emotions and lead people to think something is more common or dangerous than it is.
