Suspensiones de proteína del suero que contienen

Science is reported in the media by science journalists and scientists themselves. Scientists contest the way the media report science news for several reasons, but mainly because the media emphasise the “sensationalization” of scientific events and discoveries. Such a focus

19

affects the accuracy of information and leads to misreporting scientific results and findings. It has been argued that such a biased reporting of science can mislead the general public and generate negative feelings and actions/reactions toward scientific issues (Maillé et al., 2009).

Maillé et al., (2009) report that journalistic reports of science are characterised by inaccuracy in reporting scientific cases. This is thought to be engendered by the time constraints media journalists face. According to Maillé et al., (2009), in media reports of science, journalists omit methodology, which is considered as a central part of scientific research by scientists and hence, is a source of disappointment and disapproval not to say condemnation of the way the media report scientific issues. Nowadays, science journalists are increasingly aware of challenges that arise when reporting science in media, and how it can mislead public opinion about different scientific issues. In an interview2, Ben Goldacre, a qualified medical doctor and reporter for the Guardian, talks about sensationalised reporting of science and gives an example of how journalists misrepresent science by manipulating data in order to write their stories. Another example is a study conducted by Social Market Foundation (SMF), about the reasons that led to the reduction of MMR vaccines being administered. Ann Rossister, director of SMF, is quoted saying:

The public's inherent mistrust of government and its motives is exacerbated by the media's sensationalist treatment of scientific stories (…) such misreporting can have fatal consequences: in 1998, the Daily Mail devoted some 700 stories to MMR creating the erroneous impression that the vaccine was dangerous. Following this, the number of people being inoculated against MMR fell by 20%, increasing the danger of these life-threatening diseases (BBC, 2006)3_.

These examples demonstrate that the task of writing science for a general audience can be a real challenge and can sometimes have negative consequences. However, the role of media in popularising science cannot always be perceived negatively. Miller (2009) argues that the media report not only scientific knowledge that is validated by the scientific community but also presents new discoveries and new knowledge that may be still in

2 The full video is available at http://www.knowtex.com/posts/sensationalised-science- reporting_3729/comments [Last accessed 22/10/2014].

3 BBC news, ‘Media sensationalising science’, 3 March 2006, (available at

20

debate in scientific circles. In the case of controversial issues such as genetically modified molecules and the effect of greenhouse gases, popular science articles can become an arena for scientific debate where both scientists and public interact. Calsamiglia and Van Dijk (2004) explore the role media in broadcasting a new image of science where “old” knowledge interact with “new” knowledge. The two others investigate various discursive strategies implemented to make specialised knowledge accessible to public taking into consideration the constraint of the newspaper as a medium. They have identified various strategies of explanation, among which metaphor (2004:370).

In addition to media articles about science, there is another kind of reporting science to a general audience, which is popular science magazines. Magazines such as Scientific American are devoted to scientific issues and target an “educated readership with an interest in science” (Olohan: 2016:174). Some scholars such as Rey (2000, 2007) and Rey and Tricás (2006) argue that the targeted audience has more than interest in science and is more an audience with some level of specialisation. Rey (2007), for instance, argues that Scientific American magazine belongs to what she calls “articles de semi-vulgarisation” that are midway between research articles and media articles about science. However, the view where popular science articles are seen as written by scientists addressing a heterogeneous audience of non-specialist readers is generally accepted. By “non- specialised reader”, it is meant, readers who are not specialists in the field being popularised. Specialists from other fields other than the one being popularised can also be included in this description.

Compared to media articles about science, popular science articles published in magazines can be said to be more reliable regarding their contents. This might be because they address an audience with a certain level of scientific awareness. It can also be argued that journalists and scientists publishing in magazines do not have to contend with the time and the space constraints as journalists when publishing in newspapers, as the magazines are published periodically and not daily. Their content is also devoted to scientific issues and not ‘diluted’ in a mass of other news.

Yarden (2009) compares scientific texts to popular science texts and educational texts (textbooks) and argues that while scientific texts are primarily expository and

21

argumentative, popular science texts are hybrid: expository, narrative and argumentative at the same time.

In the case of Astronomy and Astrophysics, there are few reports in the media about current research in this field apart from the news related to particular events. The way in which Astronomy and Astrophysics are popularised by researchers working in the field is either in the form of popular astronomy books or science fiction novels or magazines such as Scientific American that is translated into several languages. Astronomy & Astrophysics as a field is also argued to have a special role in the public communication of science as it acts as a “science catcher” (Madsen, 2003). It attracts the interest of large audiences as it is linked to different scientific disciplines: mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, atmosphere sciences and biology and different technological applications like optics and remote sensing. Astronomy & Astrophysics is also linked to the humanities; its subject is shared with philosophy and religion. It is also the subject of interest of some pseudo- sciences (astrology is an example). Fiction, which has space and the universe as its subject, is also used successfully as a means of science communication (Madsen and West 2000). It is also worth mentioning that the dissemination of astronomy and astrophysics as well as other scientific fields is done in a global context where English is not only the global lingual lingua franca of science communication but is also adopted as a global corporate lingua franca (Blenkinsopp and Shademan Pajouh, 2010). Scientific content is first produced in English and then disseminated into other languages mainly via translation (Mary Snell- Hornby, 2000; O’hagan and Ashworth, 2002

Few researchers have highlighted the role of similes and metaphors in popular science articles, especially in highly abstract scientific fields such as A&A despite the key role they play in explaining scientific concepts as will be seen in the next chapter.