Шинжлэх ухааны судалгаан дахь алдаа дутагдал, ёс зүйн зөрчлийг илрүүлдэг “хяналтын” сэтгүүл зүй нь судалгааны чанарыг сайжруулахад чухал үүрэг гүйцэтгэдэг болохыг шинэ судалгаагаар тогтоожээ.
Испанийн Барселоны бие даасан их сургуулийн судлаачид болох Микеле Катанзаро болон Луиз Перес-Нето нар Иберийн хойг болон Латин Америкийн орнуудын 15 шинжлэх ухааны сэтгүүлчтэй ярилцлага хийжээ. Тэдний судалгаагаар, сэтгүүлчид шинжлэх ухааны салбар дахь хуурамч мэдээлэл, байгууллагын ашиг сонирхлын зөрчил, ажлын байрны дарамт зэрэг асуудлыг хөндөх нь дүрэм журамд өөрчлөлт оруулах, ил тод байдлыг нэмэгдүүлэх зэрэг бодит үр дүнд хүргэдэг байна.
Судалгаанд оролцогчид Аргентины эрдэм шинжилгээний төвүүд дэх бэлгийн дарамт, эмийн үйлдвэрүүдийн нөлөөлөл, их сургуулиудын нэр хүндийг хиймлээр өсгөх оролдлого зэрэг олон ноцтой асуудлыг ил болгосон туршлагаа хуваалцжээ. Гэвч сэтгүүлчид санхүүгийн хүндрэл, цаг хугацааны шахалт, улс төрийн хөндлөнгийн оролцоо зэрэг томоохон сорилттой тулгардаг байна.
Шинжлэх ухааны сэтгүүл зүй нь судалгааны ёс зүйг сахиулах “ухамсарын манаач”-ийн үүрэг гүйцэтгэдэг ч зарим тохиолдолд судалгааны үр дүнг буруу тайлбарлах нь шинжлэх ухаанд итгэх олон нийтийн итгэлийг сулруулж болзошгүй эрсдэлтэй гэдгийг судлаачид анхааруулжээ. Иймд сэтгүүлчдэд тусгай сургалт олгох, санхүүжилтийн олон эх үүсвэрийг бий болгох, мэдээллийн ил тод байдлыг хангах нь энэхүү салбарыг бэхжүүлэхэд нэн чухал байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
Thank you for reading this article: By supporting science journalism, you’re also supporting higher standards in scientific research – which benefits us all.
A new study published in Media and Communication looks at the practice of watchdog science journalism, where journalists investigate issues such as malpractice, fraud, and corporate manipulation in scientific research.
Journalism researchers Michele Catanzaro and Luiz Peres-Neto from the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain spoke to 15 science journalists across the Ibero-American region (Spain, Portugal, and Latin America).
Journalists in the region have tended to avoid controversial issues, but not those Catanzaro and Peres-Neto interviewed for this study.
Most were able to point to positive, real-world impacts of their work, including changes in regulations, admissions of wrongdoing, organized protests, and increased transparency.
But it’s not all good news. The interviewees also talked about struggles with funding, time pressures, and political interference.
“Faced with a systemic problem, the solution also has to be systemic,” says Catanzaro.
“Watchdog science journalism is part of it, as it acts as a disincentive to bad practices.”
The new findings here chime with earlier research into the same topic that has talked about investigative journalism being a “custodian of conscience”.
Investigations were sparked by access to insider information, the 15 study participants said, as well as official documents, academic conferences and events, tips from readers, and resources such as Retraction Watch – a site that maintains a list of papers that have been published and then pulled.
Specific examples of work that the reporters referenced included sexual harassment in Argentine research centers, interference from tobacco and pharmaceutical companies in Latin America, and affiliation purchasing (to artificially boost the standing of a university) in Saudi Arabia.
“The work of these professionals points to a change in Ibero-American journalism, which historically has had weaker traditions of investigation and coverage of science compared to other regions of the world,” says Peres-Neto.
Highlighting the importance of watchdog science journalism, the study also captures the challenges journalists face in pursuing these stories. These can include psychological strain, hostility from scientists, and even censorship.
The journalists Catanzaro and Peres-Neto interviewed are also aware that criticisms of scientific research and the exposure of bad practices may erode overall confidence in science more generally – and give more credence to ‘anti-science’ viewpoints.
“While watchdog science journalism can play an essential role in tackling these issues, it also risks providing ammunition to stakeholders who promote political or corporate interests contrary to scientific evidence,” the researchers explain in their published paper.
However, the investigative science journalists interviewed for the study described strategies they use to prevent anti-science uses of their work, such as helping readers to understand how the scientific process works and making sure to properly contextualize erroneous results.
The researchers also have some suggestions about how the long-term future of watchdog science journalism can be ensured.
Giving journalists the opportunity to undertake science-specific training, for example, so they are more familiar with and can scrutinize the institutions and systems that deliver scientific research.
Catanzaro and Peres-Neto are also calling for a broader range of funding sources for this type of journalism and for improved support for staff reporters, editors, and freelancers. That might include granting journalists more time in busy newsrooms to pursue in-depth reporting that takes days, weeks, or years to complete.
Scientific data and discoveries should continue to be made more transparent and accessible, the researchers suggest, through increased accountability at multiple levels: individual researchers, academic institutions, and governments.
After all, so much research is publicly funded.
While only a small number of journalists were interviewed for the study, their experiences parallel those of investigative journalists working in the UK and Canada who, in another recent study, described the legal risks of their work.
“The feasibility of potential stories sometimes plays a bigger role in whether they are reported than their public importance, especially in resource-poor newsrooms,” that study concluded.
It’s clear that thorough and ethical journalism is vital in maintaining standards in science – something we very much believe in.
Related: These 7 Rules Could Be The Universal Moral Code Shared by Every Culture, Study Finds
“The general perception among interviewees is that their work contributes to triggering changes,” write the researchers.
“A large majority of interviewees reported practical impacts of their work, although some said these impacts were not sustained over the long term.”
The research has been published in Media and Communication.
This article was fact-checked by Rachel Garner and edited by Clare Watson. While we pride ourselves on our process, we are only human. If you spot a mistake, please let us know.
