#8

In a sense, Mooney is correct; when two sides of a scientific issue do not have equal scientific evidence to support them, they do not deserve equal exposure or respect. However, that is not to say that both sides shouldn’t appear in science journalism.

            If science writing was only to inform and sway people who are already informed and swayed to the more scientifically supported side, it would be pointless. Instead, science writing is also geared at people who are ignorant in hopes of opening up their minds to what is right in front of them. In order to do this, you have to appeal to them and treat their viewpoints like they at least deserve as much dignity as to be mentioned and disproven rather than simply dismissed as wrong.

            Articles do not necessarily need to be ‘balanced,’ but they do need to mention all prominent viewpoints on a scientific issue and the evidence both for and against those arguments. If some views have less support and more opposition than others, that should come out in the writing. This way, a science writer can be completely objective and still demonstrate how one side is more supported in the scientific community.

            In my last article, I wrote about the conflicting sides surrounding whether Burmese pythons that are invasive to the Florida Everglades will be able to expand beyond the Everglades or not. There is more scientific evidence denying their expansion than supporting it. The side that asserts that the pythons will expand also claims that global warming will further enable them to do so. Most scientists really do not believe that global warming would help any species expand, but rather undermine all species by destroying habitat.

            I explained both viewpoints and some literature supporting each. However, when I interviewed both student and faculty experts on the matter, all of them supported the side which stated that the pythons would not expand and explained why they scientifically subscribed to this side. Although I did not take a particular stance in my article, the overwhelming, compelling evidence that I presented for one side did end up overshadowing the other simply because it was more available for that side.