Understanding that "Gut Feeling"

         I think that there’s definitely something to be said for intuition.  When presented in a dry or unappealing way, science can be, as Colbert says, “all fact and no heart”.  It’s sometimes tough to connect with something when you feel it is not accessible or compelling, especially when making important decisions—whether about health, diet, mental state, or purchasing. When we have gaps in our knowledge about a concept related to science, it’s often easier to go with our “gut feeling” rather than spend time researching, evaluating, and interpreting information with which we’re not familiar. We often rely on the interpretations of doctors, mental health professionals, journalists, and yes, even celebrities when something is frightening or foreign to us.  Our propensity to allow others to interpret scientific findings can be helpful, but also presents the danger of receiving biased information. Bias, whether intentional (and, consequently well-intentioned or ill intentioned) or unintentional, is impossible to avoid.  When we process information, we bring out past experiences, beliefs, and relevant knowledge to our interpretation.  This is almost impossible to avoid in some degree. 

            That being said, I think there’s a difference between being sensitive to your audience and understanding bias versus reporting something that is “truthy”.  I think that science writers can report a story is a manner that is sensitive and has a combination of “heart and brain” without omitting or overly biasing the material.  Sometimes, it is the science writers’ job to interpret sensitive or confusing material and we must take it as our responsibility to present the material in the clearest and most accessible way, while still preserving most of the science behind a concept.  I think that it might be appropriate at times to insert a point of view into a piece, but there is a difference between a point of view and “truthiness”.  Substituting “truthiness” for truth in the media can prevent individuals, corporations, and policy makers from accessing the most meaningful and scientifically sound material, which can affect the decisions that entities of all levels (individual, corporate, industrial, etc) make.  Reporting the “truthy” story may lead to misinformation and misconception, so as science writers, we must walk a fine line between being sensitive to our readers’ needs and aware of bias and reporting material that is less than truthful.  It is important to ensure that we’re reporting science news with the most attention to integrity and a keen eye towards avoiding the pitfalls of “truthiness”.