Michael Lemonick

Transcript

• 00:10Hello and welcome to Science et al.
• 00:12podcasts about everything science
• 00:13sponsored by the Yale School of Medicine.
• 00:15I'm your host Daniel Barron and in this
• 00:17episode I'm speaking with Michael Lemonick,
• 00:20or, as I called him, Mike.
• 00:22Mike is the chief opinion editor at
• 00:24Scientific American and previously he
• 00:26was a senior writer at Time magazine,
• 00:29during which period he wrote
• 00:30more than 50 cover stories on a
• 00:33wide range of science topics.
• 00:3550 cover stories. You heard that right?
• 00:37He's also written cover stories
• 00:39for National Geographic,
• 00:40Scientific American, Discover magazines,
• 00:42and is written for The New Yorker.
• 00:44Mike is also authored seven books,
• 00:46the most recent of which
• 00:48he called the Perpetual.
• 00:49Now the story of amnesia,
• 00:51memory and love,
• 00:52which was published in 2017 in which
• 00:55we discussed briefly in this podcast.
• 00:58I wanted to speak with Mike
• 01:00for somewhat personal reasons.
• 01:01He had been my editor for over
• 01:034 years at Scientific American,
• 01:05an I really gotten to enjoy Mike in
• 01:07the way he thinks about the world
• 01:09and and in particular the way he
• 01:12thinks about kind of silly things
• 01:14that I write that don't make sense.
• 01:16And my kids are very no nonsense way of
• 01:19helping me improve whatever I'm working on.
• 01:21And so I really wanted to sit down with them
• 01:24for this podcast and he was very generous,
• 01:27allowing me to be.
• 01:28Actually,
• 01:29the first episode that we recorded,
• 01:31and so he kind of gave himself
• 01:33up to be a Guinea pig here.
• 01:36But even though I sounded very nervous and
• 01:38indeed was very nervous at the beginning,
• 01:41microsys typical cool and collected
• 01:43self and kind of centered man really
• 01:45got episodes off to a good start.
• 01:48So here we go.
• 01:49Mike lemonick.
• 02:00So what I've come to understand
• 02:02is I'm a science journalist,
• 02:04as you say. I've written for Time magazine.
• 02:06For most of my career,
• 02:08but now I'm in Scientific American,
• 02:10another generally popular magazine, and.
• 02:13I've come to really understand that
• 02:15the whole model of journalism is not
• 02:18well suited to talking about science.
• 02:21And the reason is that in science
• 02:23when it works as it should,
• 02:25we're not talking about fraud or,
• 02:28you know, hype. Things like that.
• 02:30But in science, the latest publication,
• 02:32the latest paper,
• 02:33The latest observation through a telescope,
• 02:35is the most tenuous, the most tentative.
• 02:37It's you know, it's a new idea.
• 02:40That's out there, a new discovery.
• 02:42And in order for it to become part of
• 02:44the accepted scientific understanding,
• 02:46it has to be reviewed by other scientists.
• 02:49Other scientists have to
• 02:51try and reproduce it.
• 02:52You know, 'cause, if you.
• 02:54You know you see something up in
• 02:56the Sky and nobody else can see
• 02:58it and you don't get to call it a
• 03:01discovery or you don't for long.
• 03:03And so so the way science works optimally
• 03:05is that you know somebody comes up with
• 03:08a paper saying I have discovered this
• 03:10new enzyme that does such and such.
• 03:12I'm making this up because
• 03:15biology is not my specialty.
• 03:17And if you know if it works
• 03:19as I think it does,
• 03:21we could have a new cure for so and so.
• 03:24Someday Alzheimer's, you know,
• 03:25this is very promising, but.
• 03:27If nobody else can reproduce it,
• 03:29or if it turns out that you made a mistake,
• 03:31which is.
• 03:33Possible cause scientists are human.
• 03:36Six months later, we may discover,
• 03:38or a year later, we may discover,
• 03:40no, actually not true after all.
• 03:42Reasonable reasonable claim
• 03:44turns out not to be true.
• 03:46And that even the newest thing which
• 03:49is not necessarily based on a deep
• 03:53background of previous research.
• 03:55Is most prone to that.
• 03:57So scientists scientific discoveries
• 03:59are claimed and legitimately put
• 04:01forward and eventually they turned
• 04:02out not to really be true, but one.
• 04:05I'm sorry I keep talking,
• 04:07which one could say is the
• 04:09vast majority of science right?
• 04:11The vast majority
• 04:12of science, but over over a long
• 04:14period you build up this body
• 04:16of consistent knowledge that
• 04:18helps you understand something.
• 04:20The thing I and in health reporting.
• 04:22It's kind of the most acute
• 04:24because it makes a difference.
• 04:27So if I say I've discovered the most
• 04:29distant quasar in the universe,
• 04:31and it turns out six months later,
• 04:33I don't know.
• 04:34That was actually a plane going
• 04:36overhead and I was confused. And
• 04:38So what the new ones really
• 04:40changed their diet routine
• 04:41as result. But I remember in the 90s there
• 04:44was an understanding that people who ate
• 04:46a lot of green leafy vegetables had lower
• 04:49incidence of certain kinds of cancer,
• 04:51and the best guess that scientists
• 04:53had was there was a compound in
• 04:55these in these vegetables.
• 04:57Called beta carotene,
• 04:58which was most likely the protective
• 05:00agent and so people and you
• 05:02know every story you read said.
• 05:05You know more research is needed,
• 05:07but nobody listens to that so.
• 05:11So people started taking beta carotene
• 05:13supplements because who wants to get cancer?
• 05:16I'm pretty sure my parents
• 05:18started taking Medicare.
• 05:19Yeah, everybody was doing
• 05:20it and there's Atkins diet.
• 05:22Then there's right,
• 05:23but with the beta carotene,
• 05:25somebody finally did a really exhaustive
• 05:27study over a significant period of
• 05:30time with a large group of people.
• 05:32It's done in Finland.
• 05:33I think an the ultimate conclusion
• 05:35was beta carotene.
• 05:37Not only doesn't prevent cancer,
• 05:38but it actually.
• 05:41Raises the likelihood that you
• 05:43will get certain kinds of cancer.
• 05:45It was not an illegitimate claim.
• 05:47Early on that it might be
• 05:49protective turned out to be wrong.
• 05:51But in the intervening 10 years,
• 05:53people took a lot of beta carotene.
• 05:58And so yes,
• 05:59so I have a question about this then.
• 06:01So if I had been a journalist
• 06:03in that time period,
• 06:05you know I'm seeing these reports
• 06:07come out about beta carotene.
• 06:08How could be this great like Health
• 06:11had this great health benefit?
• 06:14If I was a journalist,
• 06:15that sounds interesting.
• 06:16I wouldn't say sensational,
• 06:18but useful in something that
• 06:19would attract attention,
• 06:20something that people might want to read,
• 06:22and therefore I probably would
• 06:24have written about it. However,
• 06:25if I'd been a scientist at that time.
• 06:28I might have looked very
• 06:30carefully at the methods you know,
• 06:32looked at the surrounding literature.
• 06:34You know, maybe even looked at
• 06:36molecular biology, you know,
• 06:37see if there's a reason that you know.
• 06:40Maybe better,
• 06:40carotene has a particular structure or
• 06:43whatever that might be helpful in DNA, right?
• 06:45I don't know.
• 06:46I've never done this research,
• 06:48but so there would be a lot
• 06:50more landscape discovery.
• 06:51So how would this fit into what we
• 06:53know of health generally and about
• 06:55nutritional supplements generally?
• 06:57And then I would have made my decision about.
• 07:00Whether I wanted to study beta
• 07:02carotene or recommend beta
• 07:04carotene in clinic or something,
• 07:06so is there a similar?
• 07:10Longitudinal like horizontal analysis
• 07:12for a journalist who is trying to decide
• 07:16whether to report on beta carotene.
• 07:21Essentially no, with with this caveat.
• 07:23So I was saying initially that
• 07:26the the model of journalism in the
• 07:30model science are very different.
• 07:33The point is that in journalism,
• 07:35traditionally, when you're writing about
• 07:36politics or world events, or you know so so.
• 07:41In contrast to science,
• 07:43where the newest thing is often
• 07:45the least well established.
• 07:46In politics.
• 07:47The latest thing is sort of erases
• 07:50everything that goes before it.
• 07:52So so if tomorrow Trump says I withdraw the
• 07:55candidacy of Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court,
• 07:58that's it. We forget about him.
• 08:00Well, we don't.
• 08:01It's not that we forget about him,
• 08:03but everything that went
• 08:05before is subsidiary to that.
• 08:06That's the most important
• 08:08thing you should know.
• 08:09This guy is not going to be
• 08:11on the same Supreme Court.
• 08:13Last week, we didn't know,
• 08:15and so the most recent thing, or,
• 08:17you know, Trump was elected or.
• 08:19The German finance minister declared
• 08:21they would no longer support the euro.
• 08:23This is the new state of affairs that
• 08:26everybody now has to deal with and it
• 08:28supersedes who cares what the German
• 08:30foreign Minister said six months ago.
• 08:32Unless you're doing some,
• 08:34you know, retrospective analysis.
• 08:35The reality today is that this
• 08:38new thing is the thing that
• 08:40we have to pay attention to.
• 08:41So so fitting science into a journalism
• 08:44model where the newest thing is the
• 08:46thing you're most likely to report on.
• 08:48'cause it's the newest.
• 08:50Works sort of against the way science works,
• 08:53yeah.
• 08:54So it misleads
• 08:55people, right? So?
• 08:56The careful validation over many
• 08:59years is what we're aiming for
• 09:01science or in clinic, right?
• 09:03And so an interesting parallel
• 09:06that I was thinking about.
• 09:09Related to this topic is
• 09:11the Framingham Heart study,
• 09:12and so there's this city in Framingham,
• 09:15MA, Massachusetts, Framingham,
• 09:16MA, Framingham, MA over decades,
• 09:18and they studied an entire city following
• 09:21the death of FDR after World War Two.
• 09:24So he died of malignant hypertension.
• 09:27So an entire city steps
• 09:29up and they have fees.
• 09:31Physical exams, like a bunch of data,
• 09:33gathering them twice a year for well,
• 09:36it's still ongoing the entire city.
• 09:39And as a result of this kind of very slow,
• 09:43very methodical nothings exciting, you know,
• 09:45over decades we now know stuff like.
• 09:49Blood pressure.
• 09:52Cholesterol levels and smoking
• 09:54are risk factors,
• 09:55and so that seems very.
• 09:58Different than the beta care.
• 10:0010 assertion and so as a
• 10:02scientist or clinician,
• 10:03I think the Framingham Heart
• 10:05study is so essential to what we
• 10:07understand about heart disease today.
• 10:09But how to make that entertaining or
• 10:11interesting enough for journalism.
• 10:13I don't know how to do that, right?
• 10:15Well,
• 10:16there every time the
• 10:17Framingham study comes out with
• 10:19the result, people do cover it.
• 10:21You know, it's the latest news out
• 10:23of the Framingham Heart Study and.
• 10:26You are a. You're more you're safer
• 10:29reporting on that 'cause it is.
• 10:32It is such a long duration study and
• 10:34looks at so many different people is the
• 10:38public is interested in something like that.
• 10:40The public is interested in.
• 10:43A paper that was just published
• 10:45saying that we've we have definitely
• 10:47definitively learned that hypertension,
• 10:49or we know now better
• 10:51than we ever did before.
• 10:53That hypertension is a risk
• 10:55factor for for heart disease.
• 10:57Public is very interested in that.
• 11:00They're not really interested in.
• 11:05You know hearing every week
• 11:07about, well, Framingham
• 11:08study is one week older, #2045
• 11:10right? But major results.
• 11:12Yeah, they are absolutely
• 11:14interested in in contrast to
• 11:15what I was talking about before,
• 11:17those results are.
• 11:20I actually do mean something
• 11:22because they are based on on a
• 11:25very large and very long study. So
• 11:27is that valued? So I'm imagining
• 11:30a weighting algorithm right?
• 11:31So imagine I want to produce an essay
• 11:34or some piece of work that will
• 11:37engage the public as a journalist.
• 11:40Would the validity or the quality of this
• 11:42study be weighted highly by the public?
• 11:46Like if I was able to write like this,
• 11:49is the longest standing?
• 11:51Best funded blah blah blah study
• 11:53that we have in cardiology.
• 11:55Therefore X you should be
• 11:58interested in X like would that be?
• 12:01More engaging for an
• 12:03audience, it may mean.
• 12:06To a small degree, probably
• 12:09I see your eyebrows moving. Yeah, so
• 12:12so I think I think.
• 12:15I think an equally important factor,
• 12:17if not a more important factor, is how.
• 12:21Surprising or a result is or.
• 12:26How are you alluding to this earlier?
• 12:30How people really want to live
• 12:32a long time and be very healthy
• 12:34with as little effort as possible.
• 12:37So if you know if somebody's been
• 12:39telling me you gotta go out and do
• 12:42vigorous exercise 10 miles a day,
• 12:4510 miles a day, run 10 miles a day.
• 12:49Well, yeah, it's a nice idea, but.
• 12:52Probably not going to happen
• 12:54if somebody fit analysis right
• 12:57and with failure to weigh things that will
• 13:00happen in the far future sufficiently,
• 13:03but I remember at one point.
• 13:071520 years ago somebody came
• 13:08out with a study saying, well,
• 13:10actually we are now showing
• 13:11that if you just go gardening,
• 13:13you know three days a week.
• 13:15That's just as good that.
• 13:18Gets a lot of attention
• 13:20because it's sounds easy,
• 13:21or if you take a pill that
• 13:23will prevent cancer.
• 13:24So easy so that has more salience.
• 13:28Perhaps then,
• 13:29the length of the study or the you
• 13:32know the number of participants you
• 13:34know people are not people are not as.
• 13:38Interested in nobody's going to write
• 13:39a story about the beta carotene pills?
• 13:42Saying this was only study of seven
• 13:45people don't pay any attention
• 13:47to what I've just told you.
• 13:49Why would you do that?
• 13:51Or is
• 13:52there a type of journalism
• 13:54like could you call it a?
• 13:57Why maybe I'm answering my own question.
• 14:00Defamatory journalism, like, seems like.
• 14:03Obviously that happens
• 14:04with political figures,
• 14:05but in terms of correcting almost
• 14:08like inner correction to the way
• 14:11something was previously published,
• 14:13like, for example,
• 14:14I could imagine Breaking Article
• 14:17beta carotene is not associated
• 14:19with immortality or something
• 14:21like that as previously believed.
• 14:24That seems like a way of
• 14:26correcting the cycle if an error is
• 14:28made so sure people don't take
• 14:29beta carotene anymore, right?
• 14:30'cause that other study came out?
• 14:32Yeah, yeah yeah, something that overturns.
• 14:34The wisdom that you thought was
• 14:37the conventional wisdom, but that's
• 14:39another problem with the reporting of.
• 14:42Medical and health news. Look,
• 14:45I fact I can give you a perfect example.
• 14:48I'm sitting in the offices of Time
• 14:50magazine at the big conference table
• 14:52and the editor in Chief looks at me.
• 14:54'cause I'm the science guy and says,
• 14:56you know, here's something like this.
• 14:58Driving me crazy feels like every
• 15:00other week we're getting different
• 15:02health news then we, you know.
• 15:03So we used to say don't eat
• 15:05eggs now it's OK to eat eggs.
• 15:08We used to say don't eat butter,
• 15:10have margarine and said no.
• 15:11Now go back to butter that's even better.
• 15:14Get run 10 miles a week or 10 miles a day.
• 15:17No no gardening.
• 15:19I want a story,
• 15:21a big story that says definitively how
• 15:24you should live your life to be healthy.
• 15:27I said, well,
• 15:28you know that the problem with that is.
• 15:31It's only definitive as far as we
• 15:33know for now, and it could change,
• 15:34and that's why you keep getting
• 15:36different news 'cause we learn more,
• 15:38he said, well,
• 15:38I just want just I just want to know.
• 15:41What's the answer?
• 15:43You know he wanted the answer,
• 15:44and so I had to do a story that.
• 15:47Looked at our best understanding
• 15:49of all of these different factors.
• 15:51Risk factors for disease,
• 15:52but I had to put in there.
• 15:55This could change and it has changed.
• 15:57And then I did something that drove him
• 16:00crazy at the end of the story I said,
• 16:03you know, the truth is that all of these.
• 16:07Things are worth knowing about,
• 16:09but you could drive yourself crazy.
• 16:12And I said the truth is that
• 16:16if everybody just.
• 16:17Did what your mother told you.
• 16:19Don't smoke, get a little exercise.
• 16:21Eat your vegetables the the overall
• 16:23health of America would improve
• 16:25drastically without worrying
• 16:26about all this other stuff.
• 16:28This blood thing in that he hated it.
• 16:31It's like but I don't want to.
• 16:34Do what your mother said I want I want
• 16:37something definitive and authoritative,
• 16:39so did it
• 16:41run a brand Iran's undercover? Yeah,
• 16:43I'm also made enough of an impact. I guess
• 16:47I guess I well so this
• 16:49is interesting then.
• 16:50So and one thing by itself is unlikely
• 16:54to change the course of someone's health.
• 16:58You know you could argue that
• 16:59maybe smoking is so heavily
• 17:01associated with lung cancer, but.
• 17:03Maybe something like that,
• 17:05but the way I'm thinking is more
• 17:07in probabilistic terms and so a
• 17:09conversation that we've had before
• 17:11is like how do you get people to
• 17:14understand uncertainty and so?
• 17:15Is there a way to get people to
• 17:18appreciate the benefits of doing a
• 17:20lot of good things as if they're all
• 17:22adding some positive probability
• 17:24to a larger distribution?
• 17:26Kind of nudging them towards the
• 17:28healthier side of the curve.
• 17:30Is that essentially you're arguing
• 17:31that piece or?
• 17:34Yeah, yeah, I guess that's true.
• 17:35I didn't think about it that way,
• 17:37but the problem is.
• 17:39The other problem is that with
• 17:41the way that people read average,
• 17:44people read scientific articles
• 17:46or cite articles in the popular
• 17:49press about science and.
• 17:51You know we we put in caveats.
• 17:53We put in explanations where
• 17:55you say you talk to say this is
• 17:58how you should think about it.
• 17:59And my sense is that while people
• 18:02are actually reading the stories,
• 18:03they kind of, they get it.
• 18:05And it's like Oh yeah, yeah,
• 18:07I see I see what you mean,
• 18:09statistical, whatever.
• 18:13But then they finish the story and then go
• 18:15back to their regular lives a day later.
• 18:18Do they remember any of this stuff?
• 18:20Have you made a permanent change in
• 18:22their understanding? I kind of think.
• 18:25Maybe not, I think, maybe not,
• 18:27and and be 'cause this is,
• 18:29you know this is for a scientist.
• 18:31This is. This is really important.
• 18:33This is what we do.
• 18:34And for journalist we're telling
• 18:36you about this important stuff.
• 18:38But but science?
• 18:40Understanding of how science works
• 18:42and what claims mean is just not.
• 18:45Something people have internalized,
• 18:47and it's the kind of thing
• 18:49it's very difficult.
• 18:50I think,
• 18:51to force them to internalize.
• 18:54Also, in the way that you persuade
• 18:56an audience to read a piece like
• 18:58you kind of learn them in with the
• 19:01arc of the story with you know the
• 19:03writing itself, the style maybe.
• 19:06I wonder if that's a way of
• 19:09passively like teaching. I have to.
• 19:10I have to believe that people who
• 19:13are more likely to read a story about
• 19:15the health benefits of you know what
• 19:18you should do to be healthy are also
• 19:21more likely to do healthy things.
• 19:24Am I wrong? I don't know.
• 19:25I don't know either I. I
• 19:28think they are more likely to feel like
• 19:31they should be doing healthier things,
• 19:33but that doesn't mean they're more
• 19:36likely to do healthier things.
• 19:37You know, it's you think about
• 19:40something like climate change.
• 19:42I think there are a lot of people
• 19:45out there who know that this is
• 19:47sort of a problem down the line,
• 19:49although right now I look around
• 19:51things feel pretty normal,
• 19:53so it's hard to have a visceral
• 19:54sense of the climate changing.
• 19:56But yeah, I should probably drive
• 19:58a car with lower emissions and.
• 20:00I should, you know, recycle more.
• 20:02I should do all this stuff.
• 20:05But when it comes to.
• 20:09Actually living their lives,
• 20:10it takes a lot more commitment
• 20:12than most people have.
• 20:14The mental energy.
• 20:17To invest, and so I think you know,
• 20:19I think there's a lot of people who are
• 20:22interested in hearing about these things,
• 20:24but they don't really have a place
• 20:27to store them in their minds and.
• 20:31To change their behaviors in a
• 20:33significant way. Well,
• 20:34so in terms of changing someone's mind,
• 20:37I think that well,
• 20:38let me ask you about your pieces
• 20:41that you've written about addiction,
• 20:43and so there is this distinction between
• 20:46you know the medical model of addiction,
• 20:49wherein addiction is result of the brain
• 20:52of some imbalance in neurotransmitters
• 20:54of this lack of like true choices.
• 20:56Even though I've heard some people
• 20:59put it with from the medical model,
• 21:02like someone who is addicted
• 21:04to a substance doesn't choose.
• 21:06Either to use this substance in the same
• 21:08way someone who isn't addicted does,
• 21:10so that's that's the philosophy that's
• 21:12a way of thinking about a problem.
• 21:15And so when you've written about it,
• 21:17you write very elegantly about.
• 21:20What it is to feel that lack of choice
• 21:23and then you tie that into research
• 21:26that shows like there's brain imaging
• 21:28research showing differences and brain
• 21:31function and so it's almost as if,
• 21:34passively,
• 21:34what you're persuading of is
• 21:36the medical model as opposed to
• 21:38the opposite view that you know
• 21:41everyone chooses for themselves,
• 21:43and every choice is a genuine choice option.
• 21:46And so I'm curious if that
• 21:48is is a deliberate shift.
• 21:50Like in order to persuade of the medical
• 21:53model or if that is just something
• 21:56that you're very interested in and
• 21:58therefore kind of align with personally.
• 22:02So the way I go about.
• 22:05Reporting on anything in science,
• 22:06whether it's addiction or anything else,
• 22:08is I. I go out and.
• 22:12Talked to scientists and and I asked them,
• 22:15you know what is what is
• 22:16your take on this issue?
• 22:18What is your take on addiction but you know?
• 22:22Is it a disease?
• 22:23Is it a form of mental illness?
• 22:26What is it?
• 22:27What's going on in the brain?
• 22:30But but but is it?
• 22:31Is it you know what's caused?
• 22:33What's effect?
• 22:34Is it that you are born with a brain
• 22:37that's more suseptable set up for it?
• 22:40Or you know,
• 22:41just explain your understanding
• 22:42of it and what your evidence
• 22:44is for that understanding.
• 22:46And based on what they tell me and
• 22:48I talked to a lot of different
• 22:51people have different ideas.
• 22:52I come away, you know,
• 22:54I use my brain to kind of.
• 22:57Evaluate.
• 22:57What they're saying,
• 22:59and I sort of I come to a conclusion I
• 23:03end up feeling a certain way about something,
• 23:07so I'm not an expert,
• 23:08but I'm reasonably intelligent person and I,
• 23:11you know I can listen to
• 23:13evidence and I come away.
• 23:15Saying it looks increasingly like this
• 23:20is a medical condition of some kind,
• 23:23or you know,
• 23:24a mental mental disease factor.
• 23:26The National Institute of Drug
• 23:29and Alcohol Abuse is that it nada.
• 23:35The director says frequently, you know,
• 23:38addiction is a brain disease and she
• 23:41really is flogging that idea and.
• 23:47There seems to be pretty good
• 23:49evidence that that this is true,
• 23:51and so that's what I tell people.
• 23:54And you know, certainly the idea
• 23:56that it's a moral failing has fallen
• 23:58out of favor with most clinicians.
• 24:01As far as I know. Definitely
• 24:03in fact, I don't know any, at least not yell.
• 24:06Any clinicians who would argue that.
• 24:11Yeah, I think it's very much in the
• 24:13mainstream and however there are many
• 24:16people who don't think that way, right?
• 24:18So those are readers that I think you could
• 24:21educate very significant way or persuade,
• 24:24like maybe even passively by
• 24:26not stating it explicitly.
• 24:27This is the medical model for addiction
• 24:30and then they would come away from that.
• 24:32With this realization. That huh?
• 24:35So that's the that is the crucial
• 24:38step where I'm not sure I agree.
• 24:40Yes, I present what I understand to
• 24:42be the best evidence and the best
• 24:45evidence is that there is something
• 24:47physically wrong with people's brains,
• 24:49and whether it's they're born
• 24:51with it or whether it can be.
• 24:54You know whether the substances you
• 24:56you ingest and the circumstances
• 24:58under which you ingest them.
• 25:00Sensitizes your brain and makes you
• 25:02know changes it to be a diseased brain.
• 25:05Maybe it's a little of both.
• 25:08But yeah, I saw you.
• 25:10So I come to the conclusion.
• 25:13It is arguably a disease and treatments.
• 25:18Are most likely to come from neuroscience
• 25:20research and neuropharmacology,
• 25:21and you know,
• 25:22as we understand better what's
• 25:24going wrong in the brain.
• 25:26We can try and and correct it.
• 25:31So I may call that case and it
• 25:33may be that people are reading,
• 25:34so this is kind of interesting,
• 25:36But again, a day later.
• 25:39Do they fall back to their
• 25:40old thinking that now,
• 25:41but you know, but Uncle Charlie,
• 25:42he could stop if he wanted to.
• 25:44And you know what's the matter with him?
• 25:46It's very hard.
• 25:47I have an Uncle Charlie.
• 25:48Oh well, I hope he's
• 25:49getting he could he could.
• 25:52So so. One of the things that.
• 25:58If you ask science Reporter or any Reporter.
• 26:03Do you consider yourself your
• 26:04job to be an educational one?
• 26:06You are you educating people
• 26:08and we say no, no. I'm not.
• 26:10Educating people were very resistant to that.
• 26:13What I'm doing is informing people the idea.
• 26:17Being, I guess that we have no stake.
• 26:22We are agnostic about
• 26:23whether people absorb an.
• 26:25And adopt these ideas because that would.
• 26:30That would make us manipulators or something.
• 26:32I'm not sure what that
• 26:34is but but but in fact.
• 26:36The way that we are clearly not educators is
• 26:40that in education you present information.
• 26:44And then you test the students knowledge.
• 26:46The student has not absorbed and
• 26:48retained the knowledge at least long
• 26:50enough for the exam that student fails.
• 26:52And we have no such.
• 26:56No, no such follow-up.
• 26:58No such measurements we.
• 27:03Both practically and sort of professionally.
• 27:07Take no position on whether people remember
• 27:10anything we've written a week later. Well,
• 27:12I can imagine. I mean,
• 27:14this is segue from a conversation we
• 27:16had earlier about climate control.
• 27:18I can imagine that there could exist
• 27:21this League of Journalists who report on
• 27:23climate control that could measure their
• 27:26efficacy based on public opinion polls,
• 27:28like maybe question would be,
• 27:30what is climate control?
• 27:31And then question two or
• 27:33what are we doing about it?
• 27:35You know that sort of thing? Right,
• 27:38so so there are people there.
• 27:40In fact there are people at Yale who
• 27:43do studies on that very question.
• 27:45What do people actually
• 27:47think about climate change?
• 27:48What do they know about it?
• 27:50You know, as their knowledge,
• 27:52how concerned are they?
• 27:54How much action do they take
• 27:56to try and counteract it?
• 27:58So there are people who do that,
• 28:00but they're mostly not journalists,
• 28:02journalists, our professional stance
• 28:04is we present the information.
• 28:05It's like the Fox News slogan we report.
• 28:09You decide which is bogus in the boxes down.
• 28:12Interesting but but but that sort of Co.
• 28:15Opting of the basic attitude of journalists,
• 28:18we present you the information
• 28:21as best we understand it.
• 28:23What you do with it? We are not.
• 28:25We don't check on you,
• 28:27we don't.
• 28:27We wash our hands of it we do the best
• 28:30job we can to give you accurate information.
• 28:33The rest is.
• 28:34You know we're onto the
• 28:36next story. There are many assumptions
• 28:38about what it is to have a brain,
• 28:40what it is to put substances into your body.
• 28:43How does the brain and the
• 28:45physical world interact?
• 28:46Can I actually change my outcome or
• 28:48is it like due to chance or whatever?
• 28:51So those are a lot of very complex,
• 28:54more philosophical,
• 28:54maybe even intuitive assumptions that
• 28:56your reader in order to go on that
• 28:59journey of learning about addiction.
• 29:00We're learning about psychiatry,
• 29:02mental health, they would follow
• 29:03with you and agree with you.
• 29:06And so it's almost as if you
• 29:08develop this body of knowledge.
• 29:10This literacy for scientific reading
• 29:12as you go along, and so is there.
• 29:15Well, you not it right there.
• 29:18I'm curious what you were thinking.
• 29:21Well, I don't. I don't know if you're
• 29:23talking about cumulatively over several
• 29:25articles or within an article itself,
• 29:28even maybe within a domain, right?
• 29:30So science writers write about science
• 29:32and then so say I wanted to go back
• 29:35and read all of Michael Lemonick,
• 29:38Spieces and Scientific American, right?
• 29:39So there's no question that after I'm
• 29:42done with that, I would have seen,
• 29:44like a string of ideas over a long
• 29:47period of time that are connected
• 29:49with ideas of like causality.
• 29:51You would learn some statistics.
• 29:53I would learn some about Physiology.
• 29:55Astronomy, like how mathematics can
• 29:57teach us about the world and those.
• 30:00Our assumptions that I think people have
• 30:03intuitively those are taught assumptions,
• 30:05and so I'm wondering how journalists
• 30:07try to persuade in that sense,
• 30:09not specifically of an issue,
• 30:11but more of a model or thinking.
• 30:15Well, again, we don't. We don't.
• 30:17Unless we're writing editorials we don't
• 30:19try to persuade now. First we tried,
• 30:21we tried to inform and so in.
• 30:25In most articles I write,
• 30:27especially longer ones,
• 30:28I do have to layout evidence.
• 30:30I do talk about how scientists
• 30:32think about evidence.
• 30:33I do talk about statistics.
• 30:35I do talk about we were
• 30:37talking earlier about my.
• 30:38My one of my favorite quotes from
• 30:40the physicist Richard Feynman,
• 30:42who said in a talk once the most
• 30:45important job a scientist has is not
• 30:47to fool himself and you as a scientist
• 30:50with the easiest person to fool
• 30:52'cause you care about your result,
• 30:54you think you're onto something.
• 30:57It's very easy to overlook
• 30:58some dumb mistake you made,
• 31:00and so I've brought that.
• 31:03Concept into many many different stories
• 31:05about many different topics and retry.
• 31:07You know not because I want my readers to.
• 31:11Written have it reinforced becausw.
• 31:12I think it's a really important point
• 31:15that people don't understand about
• 31:16scientists in about sort of the ethic of,
• 31:19or at least the aspirational ethic
• 31:21of science and the I don't do it.
• 31:24I don't say, oh, you know,
• 31:26I should mention this again.
• 31:28'cause maybe people will you know
• 31:30if I'm working on this theory for 10
• 31:32years, he can't stop now or
• 31:34something like that, right? No
• 31:36no, no. But I mean I mean, just just that.
• 31:41It comes up so often in science when
• 31:43people do make mistakes that when it does,
• 31:46and I write about it, you know, I reinforce.
• 31:49I talk about that idea, so I'm just a human.
• 31:52They make mistakes, they get too excited.
• 31:54You know, they they overlook evidence.
• 31:57Only because it's such an important
• 31:59part of the scientific process.
• 32:01Not because I want.
• 32:02I'm hoping that readers will over the years,
• 32:04have it ingrained in their brains.
• 32:06It's important to this particular story,
• 32:07but the things that are important too.
• 32:10Particular stories.
• 32:12Come up again and again in science and so.
• 32:17You know the idea that well,
• 32:19you saw this affect? How did?
• 32:20How do you know it wasn't something else and.
• 32:24Good scientist.
• 32:24I thought of that and they said,
• 32:27well, here's how I I convinced
• 32:29myself it wasn't something else.
• 32:30So you know.
• 32:31So it's not a cumulative thing
• 32:33over my great works over the years,
• 32:36it's just something it's a theme
• 32:38that is recurring because it
• 32:39recurring in science itself.
• 32:41That's just part of the writing process,
• 32:43just part
• 32:44of the writing process, because each
• 32:46story I cannot ever assume that
• 32:48people have read anything I've ever
• 32:51written before or will read anything
• 32:53I've ever I ever write again.
• 32:55I have to give them what they need to
• 32:59understand. This story in in whatever
• 33:02complexity I have the space for an.
• 33:05And that's it. That's what I'm.
• 33:07That's what I'm worried about,
• 33:08and if they need context, well,
• 33:09this is what we used to think.
• 33:11Now here's this experiment
• 33:12that shows us it's different.
• 33:13That's really important.
• 33:14And I put that in.
• 33:16If you know if the process by which the
• 33:19scientists made the discovery is important,
• 33:21I put that in,
• 33:22but it's all self contained,
• 33:24it doesn't.
• 33:26He doesn't refer back to or
• 33:29forward toward anything else I do.
• 33:32Well, so how does that change
• 33:34then? Say you are too.
• 33:38No worries, I'm at the Framingham heart.
• 33:40Study right. So to understand the results
• 33:43of the 1995 Framingham Heart Press release,
• 33:46you would have to understand the
• 33:49results of 1985's press release.
• 33:51And so that's kind of a longitudinal body
• 33:54of knowledge that you've built right.
• 33:57I'm curious how you keep an audience
• 34:00entertained like that like.
• 34:02Would they just come back for the next?
• 34:06Addition or it's always new and that is
• 34:09self contained way it's always new in
• 34:11that self contained way and they
• 34:13probably don't remember that they
• 34:14read a story about this in 1985.
• 34:16They just sort of vaguely remember.
• 34:18Oh yeah, at some point they told me to
• 34:20stop eating butter and starting the merger
• 34:23and they don't know where they read it.
• 34:25Or you know what study it was but in if
• 34:28I'm writing about the frame heart study,
• 34:30I say you know this has been going
• 34:32on for however many years with this
• 34:35many people and it's produced.
• 34:36Many important results,
• 34:38and here's the latest one.
• 34:40I give them it's.
• 34:41It's almost like it's almost like
• 34:43something I can't think of what but
• 34:46but it's it's sort of it's sort of
• 34:48like having Cliff notes version.
• 34:50Or yeah, yeah it's like it's it's
• 34:52like I presume that I was writing
• 34:55this story about amnesia.
• 34:56I talked to people in Toronto who we're
• 34:59finding that smartphones or can be really,
• 35:01really effective memory aids for
• 35:03people with dementia of various kinds.
• 35:05So, so if you're carrying the
• 35:07phone around with you,
• 35:08and it's pretty simple to operate
• 35:11so you can remember that.
• 35:13You know, if you don't know where you are,
• 35:16you can maybe take a picture
• 35:18and it's and it tells you, oh,
• 35:20you are in such and such a place.
• 35:23Or if you're lossed,
• 35:24Google Maps can tell you you're here,
• 35:26so it's like it's not your own memory.
• 35:29It's not your own information,
• 35:30it's an external thing that brings
• 35:32you up to speed for the moment
• 35:34while you need to be up to speed on
• 35:37some particular thing like tattoos
• 35:39in Momento is exact reason Momento
• 35:40exactly and that's what your arm.
• 35:42That's what. That's what my stories are.
• 35:45I don't expect you to remember
• 35:47anything you've ever read about this.
• 35:49Before so I give you a little external.
• 35:54A rundown of where we stand, what we know,
• 35:58and how this changes it so so.
• 36:01This is another distinction
• 36:02between science and journalism.
• 36:04I think, because I'm I'm in the process
• 36:07of writing a manuscript right now,
• 36:09and so a large part of my
• 36:12introduction is just a summary of
• 36:15all of the research and I'm serving.
• 36:17It won't even call it cherry picking cherry,
• 36:20picking it to essentially frame
• 36:22why my results are interesting.
• 36:24Why did the analysis?
• 36:26Like motivated, this study,
• 36:27and so I would say it's a
• 36:30pretty biased summary of a very,
• 36:32very, very large literature,
• 36:33and I think every papers
• 36:35like that where you know.
• 36:37Obviously you don't want to
• 36:39talk about some random fact.
• 36:40It's very directed.
• 36:43And then.
• 36:44It's not self contained like it assumes
• 36:47a large deal of knowledge that the
• 36:50reader has to have in order to do it.
• 36:53In order to make sense of the paper.
• 36:56And so maybe that's one reason
• 36:58why scientists have trouble trans
• 36:59transitioning or writing for
• 37:01these self contained mementoes,
• 37:03right, but but you know,
• 37:05I make assumptions too about what
• 37:07the reader knowledge already is,
• 37:09not the specific knowledge of what's
• 37:11in this story, but you know if I
• 37:14say I'm writing about astronomy.
• 37:16And I say we've discovered a new planet.
• 37:18I don't have to explain to
• 37:20them what a planet is.
• 37:21I assume they know that I assume
• 37:23they they sort of know that
• 37:25DNA is the thing that that.
• 37:29That we pass along that
• 37:30with characteristics about.
• 37:31You know what we look like in and
• 37:34so there's some basic assumptions
• 37:36about people who are in the world.
• 37:39And the things that they know,
• 37:41and that's actually that's
• 37:42the problem for scientists,
• 37:43they've kind of glossed.
• 37:44Because they are in a very specialized world,
• 37:47most of the time they have in
• 37:50some sense lost touch in many
• 37:52cases with what the average person
• 37:54carries around as a kind of a
• 37:57general knowledge based maybe when they
• 37:59care about, certainly
• 38:00certainly what they care about.
• 38:01That's that can be difficult
• 38:03to try and anticipate, I think.
• 38:07Alright, so I so I assume my
• 38:09readers know that there's this
• 38:11thing called climate change and
• 38:12the world is going to get hotter,
• 38:15and because of you know pollution
• 38:16from coal stacks, I don't have to.
• 38:19I don't give them, you know,
• 38:21the basics of climate change.
• 38:22I assume they've heard enough about it,
• 38:24so they've retained that. At least.
• 38:26I assume they know that getting
• 38:28exercise is good for you.
• 38:30I assume you soon.
• 38:32Prior knowledge of a non specialized kind,
• 38:35just sort of a general what you might
• 38:38in the in the world of memory research call.
• 38:42Semantic memory, you know,
• 38:43I know what the capital of France is.
• 38:46I don't probably don't have to tell
• 38:49people I they probably don't know
• 38:51what the capital of Mongolia is.
• 38:53Well, so to get someone to
• 38:56engage in a piece assumes that.
• 38:59You know they're they're interested in it,
• 39:00or they have some baseline knowledge.
• 39:02Like if you're writing about him.
• 39:05You know new planets.
• 39:06You have to assume that someone's curious
• 39:09whether there's a new planet out there or
• 39:12a mirror to our planet Earth or something.
• 39:15And so I see a correlation with some
• 39:18forms of academic writing where.
• 39:21Or maybe this is Darren.
• 39:23I mean, let me let me explain my
• 39:26thought first so mental health
• 39:27is a very complex problem, right?
• 39:30And so it's resolution or the
• 39:32resolution of the problem like to
• 39:34be able to diagnose and treat has
• 39:36been in the works for a long time,
• 39:39and so every five or ten years you'll
• 39:41have this paper come out an academic
• 39:43Journal saying it's right around the corner,
• 39:46right?
• 39:46Like whatever discovery,
• 39:47whatever things really confused
• 39:49right around the corner,
• 39:50it's the Golden age of psychiatry.
• 39:53About to descend upon us and so.
• 39:58Perhaps this is genuine, probably is Jenny.
• 40:00Sentiment of whoever wrote it,
• 40:02but at the same time you know,
• 40:04I think it's a form of marketing, sort of.
• 40:08Stay tuned.
• 40:08We have more coming down the
• 40:11pipeline and so given.
• 40:12You know the many papers and the
• 40:15millions of dollars spent invested in
• 40:17mental health research or just research.
• 40:19Generally it makes sense that
• 40:21people would want to pitch that
• 40:23because that's their funding.
• 40:25That's their livelihood.
• 40:27And so that's the science side,
• 40:29and so science writing is
• 40:31covering all of this,
• 40:33and so I'm curious how a journalist
• 40:36approaches their topic of interest.
• 40:38Like for example,
• 40:39if I'm right,
• 40:40if I as a scientist I'm writing a grant for.
• 40:45Whatever new research topic I'm thinking,
• 40:47I'm going to be very excited about
• 40:49it because I'm about to devote
• 40:51a large part of my life to it.
• 40:54And so is the same thing present
• 40:56in journalism to where, like,
• 40:58for instance, as a science writer,
• 41:00you must like science and have hope
• 41:02for science. Otherwise, why would you?
• 41:07That is true of many
• 41:09science writers, not all.
• 41:10So there's a guy named Gary Taubes.
• 41:14If you have him, he is his.
• 41:17He's been very successful as
• 41:19a harsh critic of science.
• 41:21So he wrote a book about.
• 41:24The this Nobel Prize winner who
• 41:27ran the particle lab in Europe,
• 41:29the CERN particle physics lab and this
• 41:33was an exposee he this guy is a jerk.
• 41:36He's mean he's nasty.
• 41:38He he's, you know he's a bully he's
• 41:41he didn't really make the discoveries
• 41:43you know with his subordinates.
• 41:46So it was a takedown so he
• 41:48doesn't love science as it's done.
• 41:51His next thing that I can remember was.
• 41:55A book about the cold Fusion
• 41:56episode of the late 80s,
• 41:58where some scientists made a claim
• 42:00that they'd found a way to do nuclear
• 42:02Fusion and produce energy far more
• 42:04cheaply than anyone could have imagined,
• 42:07and was going to revolutionize the world.
• 42:09Well, he did a thief analysis of
• 42:11of the fraud and the you know,
• 42:13the the missteps.
• 42:15Along the way,
• 42:16then he turned his attention to nutrition.
• 42:19And he developed the idea.
• 42:21So in the again in the 90s there was
• 42:24a very strong narrative that fat
• 42:27was the evil thing in our diets,
• 42:31and that super low fat diets.
• 42:34Work miracles, you know.
• 42:35You could reverse heart disease.
• 42:37You could you know everything would
• 42:39get better if you ate low fat diet
• 42:42relatively high in carbohydrates.
• 42:44He, for whatever reason,
• 42:46and I'm not sure how he got onto this,
• 42:49he became a zealot for the idea
• 42:52that this is exactly wrong,
• 42:54that that carbohydrates and sugars are
• 42:57the cause of most of our illnesses that.
• 43:01The Atkins diet where you basically
• 43:03eat just carves.
• 43:04No, no,
• 43:05the opposite just go Cubs on just protein.
• 43:08Fat is great.
• 43:09You know the more bacon you eat,
• 43:12the healthier you will be and
• 43:14he you know thousand page book
• 43:16expounding on these ideas.
• 43:18So there are people who.
• 43:20Who are get the most joy about taking
• 43:24mainstream ideas in science and
• 43:26tearing them apart and tearing apart?
• 43:28Well,
• 43:29I think
• 43:29that's actually fairly cyantific,
• 43:31right? So yeah, yeah yeah.
• 43:33To be able to take some work and
• 43:37ask very critical questions of it.
• 43:39So the fellow is acting as a.
• 43:43Somewhat of a scientist.
• 43:44I mean it doesn't have like distributions
• 43:47and T test Z scores or whatever,
• 43:49but right?
• 43:50But the difference is that a journalist.
• 43:53Is taking information and synthesizing
• 43:55it into a story and narrative.
• 43:57I'm going to tell you a story about.
• 44:01You know how to eat healthy and
• 44:04by necessity you you look at
• 44:07the information and you kind of
• 44:10synthesize it and you and you.
• 44:12Come to a conclusion about what
• 44:14seems to be the correct story,
• 44:16and you write that story and.
• 44:20And. The same is true with takedowns,
• 44:24so you you come to a
• 44:27conclusion and if you have.
• 44:29A predilection of.
• 44:33Adelite in takedowns.
• 44:36It's possible that you will ignore evidence,
• 44:38doesn't support your narrative,
• 44:39and favor the evidence that does
• 44:42and is that what's called activist
• 44:43journalism. I heard that term on a podcast,
• 44:46no, no, not, not particularly. I mean,
• 44:48you, you come to it.
• 44:50So you were saying that
• 44:52as a science journalist,
• 44:53I predict presumably likes I like
• 44:55science or have someone that's
• 44:57already that's already prejudice.
• 44:58That leads me to be less.
• 45:00I'm sorry I
• 45:01didn't mean to be prejudice.
• 45:05But it's true. It's true.
• 45:07You know. I'm inclined to
• 45:09like science and and 'cause.
• 45:10I'm really interested in.
• 45:12All the extraordinary things we've
• 45:14discovered about the natural world,
• 45:15which are legitimate.
• 45:16You know, we actually have discovered
• 45:17planets around other stars.
• 45:18That's a good thing.
• 45:22Well, so do you find it's difficult?
• 45:25So say as a science enthusiast,
• 45:27I right when I said that I had Neil deGrasse
• 45:31Tyson like picture pop up in my mind,
• 45:34science enthusiast, ivest whatever.
• 45:37I wonder if it's more difficult to.
• 45:40Report on the falsification of
• 45:42studies and so that's something
• 45:44scientists struggle with, right?
• 45:45So for example,
• 45:47when things turned out not to be the
• 45:50way we expected or hoped they would be,
• 45:53they tend to be swept under the carpet,
• 45:56not published, and not truly
• 45:57falsified in a public way anyway.
• 46:00And so I'm curious how that works
• 46:02like emotionally or cognitively,
• 46:04for journalists.
• 46:06Well, for me that's a part of
• 46:08science that I really like as well.
• 46:11The fact that things that we,
• 46:14I mean this, is actually a classic. Um?
• 46:19Theme for science journalist so so.
• 46:24Will not infrequently see a headline
• 46:26or something that says everything
• 46:28you thought about X is wrong,
• 46:30is crap is crap and here is, you know,
• 46:34we've now we now know it's it's bogus,
• 46:37so that's why we love stories like that.
• 46:40Becausw overturning the
• 46:42conventional wisdom is.
• 46:44In some ways, even more fun.
• 46:46Then just reporting on it, but.
• 46:51But the the mindset that it's
• 46:52mostly a scam and they're really
• 46:54you shouldn't believe anything.
• 46:56They say that I don't go that far,
• 46:58and I think some journalists.
• 47:00That's their mindset.
• 47:01You know,
• 47:01I'm going to get the goods
• 47:03on these people 'cause.
• 47:05They're playing fast and
• 47:06loose with the truth.
• 47:08At the same time, I mean,
• 47:10perhaps are people like that,
• 47:11but I find that there would be this.
• 47:16You have an understanding
• 47:17of the process I guess.
• 47:19Like most of the analysis that
• 47:21we do aren't going to pan out
• 47:23because they have samples, right?
• 47:25Not of the population at large,
• 47:27and so even though in analysis may
• 47:29be true and one subset of a larger
• 47:32population that might not replicate an.
• 47:34That's why reproducibility is important.
• 47:36One of the reasons why there's a big
• 47:38problem now is that maybe our tools
• 47:41just aren't good enough, right?
• 47:43Interesting, but again so so so I'm
• 47:46really interested in the outcome of
• 47:48scientific research of the things we've
• 47:51learned that we didn't know before,
• 47:53and that are really interesting
• 47:55or important or or whatever.
• 47:57So that's part of it.
• 47:59But I'm also really interested
• 48:00in the process of science,
• 48:02as it's actually practiced and
• 48:04and interested in time in ways
• 48:07where it goes wrong, but I don't.
• 48:12I don't think I have the mindset.
• 48:15That says be 'cause I kind of clasts
• 48:18have been correct in the past.
• 48:19I will assume that an iconoclast
• 48:21is probably right and that
• 48:22they're trying to cover you.
• 48:24Know the mainstream is trying
• 48:25to cover it up well, so
• 48:27you still think critically of every.
• 48:29I tried to. Yes, that's right.
• 48:32But there are people who who.
• 48:35Flock to the, you know,
• 48:37to the Outsiders and say, well,
• 48:39you know they laughed at Einstein
• 48:41and now they're laughing at this
• 48:43guy who says he's from Mars?
• 48:45Well, you do the math.
• 48:46Yeah, sure, and that's an
• 48:48extreme that I doesn't appeal
• 48:50to me. Thank you for coming to
• 48:52accept the Pointer fellowship word.
• 49:06We hope you enjoyed that episode.
• 49:08Thanks again to Mike for making the trip
• 49:10to New Haven and for being on the podcast,
• 49:14you can find Mike on Twitter at M Lemonick.
• 49:17Again, that's at M lemonick.
• 49:18You can also purchase Mike's most
• 49:20recent book, The Perpetual, Now.
• 49:22A story of amnesia, memory,
• 49:24love, wherever books are sold.
• 49:26Thanks to the Yale School of Medicine
• 49:28for sponsoring the podcast to Adrian
• 49:30Bonding Burger for producing the podcast
• 49:32and to Ryan McEvoy for sound editing.
• 49:34Special thanks to you as
• 49:36well for listening junian.
• 49:37Again, my name is Daniel Baron and
• 49:39I've been your host and I'll see you
• 49:42next time here on science at all.