Science and media must meet in the middle

We’re fighting a terrible war, and right now, we’re losing.

No, I’m not talking about the war on terrorism, the war on drugs or any human conflict. This enemy of ours isn’t even alive, but it’s ravaging an entire region, mercilessly hurting our children and spreading quickly. It’s making its way through South America, coursing through the veins of a tiny mosquito.

Its name is Zika virus.

Zika virus has only gained media attention this past year, and the media is having a heydey with sensationalist headlines. While the academic microbiology community is surprised with the particle’s behavior, their findings are absent in the mainstream media.

But we can’t expect people to understand the latest developments in medicine and science when we use the same terminology and language as dense medicial reports. In order to avoid mass pandemonium, people also need a lesson in the basics of science. 

On April 10, the academic journal Science published a report stating, “Zika virus impairs growth in human neurospheres and brain organoids.” To a scientist, that statement is intriguing.

But to anyone who doesn’t understand the language — or doesn’t spend their time browsing dry, jargon-filled academic journals — that statement may be either boring or panic-inducing.

In layman’s terms, scientists found that the virus specifically targets brain cells and prevents them from growing. And for a flavivirus — the family of viruses that Zika is a part of — that’s strange.

Would someone in the general public care to know that? I think so. But how could they fully understand that information without an intimate knowledge of the virus and microbiology? And more importantly, would the reader panic upon reading that information?

The scientific community and general public need stronger communication to increase awareness of this potentially life-changing virus. Even if links are not yet deemed statistically significant, the results are inconclusive or research is still in progress, informing the general public is worth the effort.

Last week, the first case of Zika virus was reported in Allegheny county. It is the 12th case reported in Pennsylvania.

The approach of this virus so close to home is chilling. As the Aedes mosquito doesn’t normally thrive in temperate environments like North America’s, the Zika outbreak has seemed far away.

Many women who have been infected with Zika virus aren’t aware of it. On Wednesday, federal health officials confirmed that Zika virus causes a rare birth defect and other severe fetal abnormalities, the most notable being microcephaly — an abnormally small head and underdeveloped brain.

Humans have been battling the various microorganisms with potential health hazards since the dawn of our existence. For centuries now, microbiologists have been researching, experimenting, meticulously documenting and sharing their hypotheses and findings to bolster human defenses against these microscopic foes.

Scientists have struggled to maintain a balance in terms of sharing information. We can either share everything we know and risk causing mass panic, or not give enough information to the citizens for them to make informed decisions.

For example, the next Olympic Games will be held in Rio de Janeiro this summer. Citizens need to understand Zika virus — not just read a headline about it — and what scientists are learning and what that could mean for their own safety and travel plans.

But simply sharing more information won’t fix the problem. We need an entire cultural revolution.

The media has to bind the scientific community to the public. But people want to read articles they can understand and that are engaging and relevant. We can help reduce this miscommunication by increasing citizens’ knowledge of science and disease and breaking down the barrier set up by scientists’ intimidating language.

To do this, the media needs to stop relaying the same information to viewers and readers repeatedly. They need to worry less about eliciting an emotional response, and more about informing the public about the science behind the latest disease or illness.

Some may argue that increasing public awareness of scientific knowledge could create unwarranted panic or worry without basis. The media is already similarly flawed, however.

News stories are run and rerun again for their fear factors — the potential to make readers scared of, and therefore interested in the story.

Secondly, the mainstream media often publishes scientific news that becomes sensationalized. News oulets splatter words like “revolutionary” and “horrifying” across headlines.

For example, when swine flu was the popular epidemic, headlines would feature “outbreak” in all capital letters. News outlets wrote the articles to cater to readers who can’t understand scientific language.

It isn’t the readers’ faults. Unless we go on to study microbiology or take biochemistry classes in college, knowing the anatomy of a virus isn’t common knowledge, and it’s often difficult to recall that information from our 9th grade biology classes.

Because academics at large use foreign-sounding, specialty-specific words to give credibility to their roles as researchers, the public isn’t very interested in putting effort into learning about a field that seems difficult and removed from everyday life. 

Right now, the relationship between the media and scientific academia is terrible.

“Serious scientists” do not publicize their findings to the general public for fear of misunderstanding and panic because they know our understading of science often isn’t comparable to theirs, as well as to maintain a separation between academia and the public for the sake of status and pride.

Scientists’ leeriness of the media isn’t unfounded either. In 1998, a physician named Andrew Wakefield published a scientific article claiming that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine causes autism. He held a press conference to publicize his news, and the vaccine usage fell drastically. Measles, which was close to being eradicated, made a huge comeback.

The problem was, Wakefield’s article was a hoax. The media had sensationalized it because they knew that fear sells, and the public — not knowing any better — panicked.

To this day, many parents are still skeptical of vaccinations for fear of their child developing autism, despite this evidence being completely fabricated.

It doesn’t have to be like this. The average citizen should have access to accurate, comprehensive medical information, and the ability to comprehend it.

If we really want to understand the implications of Zika, the media needs to start telling us more about the virus itself.

Mariam Shalaby primarily writes on social change and foreign culture for The Pitt News.

Write to her at mas561@pitt.edu.