Posted on by Michael Andersen

Trust the Science – NHSEB 2021-2022 Regionals Case 2 Guest Analysis

Enjoy this guest analysis by our friend Coach Michael Andersen on responsible scientific journalism – something that, as Mr. A explains, is trickier than one might assume…

Hola, filosofos.  Similar to last week’s case “Just the Facts,” this week we’re looking into the ethics of journalism with Case #2 “Trust the Science”; however, the focus will instead examine the ethical responsibilities of science reporters attempting to convey complex and evolving expert knowledge about the virus’s evolution and health advice during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Please start by reading the case and the Discussion Qs.  I’ve provided two brief Pre-Discussion videos to set the stage for our examination of this case (linked below).  Please watch these after you’ve read the case and consider the Discussion Qs—but BEFORE our meeting.

P.S.  To continue to help you use the MindMup 2.0 extension in Google Drive to map your team’s position on a case, I’ve linked below another Thinker Analytix video called “Example: Map an Argument with MindMup.”  Teacher Nate does a great job in showing you with this sample how to map out a sample argument.

Today’s Discussion Topic

⦾  What is the ethical responsibility of science reporters when discussing something like the COVID-19 pandemic? 

⦾  Is it ever ethically acceptable for science reporters to withhold information in the interest of the public good?

Pre-Discussion Resources
  • (Video) “What are Journalism Ethics?” @ National Endowment for Democracy. (12-10-2019) “Journalism ethics comprise standards and codes of conduct journalists and journalistic organizations aspire to follow.  Principles of ethical journalism vary from place to place and context to context.  The ability of journalists to adhere to ethical norms depends heavily on a constellation of often competing interests and forces they cannot control, including government interference, economic realities and technical limitations.  However, standards typically include accuracy, objectivity, transparency, accountability, comprehensiveness, fairness and diversity.” [4:34] 
  • (Video) “Ethical considerations for reporting on COVID-19” @ The International Journalists’ Network  (6-11-2020).  “Since the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic, more and more journalists around the world have been pulled in to report on the frontlines of the global crisis.  Understanding how to confront ethical considerations is important to present a balanced, fair and accurate report of what’s happening during the pandemic.” [0:58]

NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #2. Trust the Science

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case
  • What is the moral question?  What makes this an ethical issue? 

Like most Ethics Bowl cases, Case 2 “Trust the Science” may appear at first glance more simple on the surface than it actually is.  Many students might be tempted to think, “What’s the big deal?  Journalists should just report the best and most recent science available, cite their sources, and make it readable enough for the general public.  Why all the fuss?”  Yet a more nuanced picture comes into play once you study the historical, economic and psychological dynamics of journalism a bit more closely.

It would be ideal for science writers if scientific literacy in America was better than it actually is.(a)  As a result, responsible journalists are faced with the issue of translating sometimes very complex research—like the epidemiological evidence of the SARS Covid-19 virus’ rapid evolution into unique (and more virulent) strains.  This task is harder than you might imagine.  On the one hand, translate the research in an overly simplified way, and you could be accused of “dumbing down” the evidence or glossing over important details in the scientific findings; yet, on the other hand, stay more faithful to the actual complexity of the research findings and you risk losing most of your audience or sounding “elitist.”  Hitting the “sweet spot” of scientific detail in your reporting can be a formidable task, requiring a lot of back and forth with the experts whose research you cite, as well as a deep familiarity with the education levels of your reading public.  Senior Contributor Ethan Siegal of Forbes recently put it like this: “This fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be scientifically literate, and the accompanying, even if unintentional, devaluation of actual expertise, is in large part why so many of us mistrust and misunderstand science today.  We can correct our course, but only if we understand what it actually means to be scientifically literate.”(b)  So, in addition to the writing challenges already mentioned, there’s the complication that the target concept of “science literacy” is, itself, an idea about which there’s varying degrees of shared understanding in the journalism community.

Another complication here involves the evolving standards of journalistic excellence that have shifted over time in the past several decades, together with the increasingly hyper-competitive and tumultuous economic landscape that science reporters and their editors must contend with.(c )(d) The pressure to stay afloat economically in a competitive market, coupled with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the vast distractions of the internet and social media, an increasingly-polarized American society, and especially recent hostility toward the press by populist politicians, have led to a lot of pressure to market stories as well worth your (limited and possibly hostile) attention.  As the case description notes, “…even the most reputable media still rely on gaining consumers through attention-grabbing headlines and engaging content, [so] you have a recipe for confusion.”  Add to this picture a widespread distrust in some quarters of the public of the reliability of science news, or science itself as a source of knowledge (regardless of whether that reputation is deserved).  Science journalists understandably struggle to contend with all of these social and economic forces as they research, compose, and publish their stories.  And science reporting on (and during) the Covid-19 pandemic is no exception: let’s not forget that good reporting means getting out into the world to interview sources, confirm factual accuracy, and follow up on leads—necessitating an increased risk to a journalist’s exposure to Covid-19 over weeks or months of investigative reporting.  [See optional sources # 2 & #5 below]  Ethics Bowl teams that gloss over these complexities in their position on Discussion Qs #1 and #2 risk facing a barrage of clarifying questions from judges and the other team.

Psychologically, there’s another series of hurdles for science reporters covering the Covid-19 pandemic.  People are dying, or have died, in the hundreds of thousands (even in the millions worldwide).(e)  The numbers of deaths and subsequent ripple effects are staggering and probably overwhelm most people’s ability to martial emotions of care or to make sense of the loss, especially as the numbers continue to rise and no definitive end to the pandemic is in sight.(f) (g)  Science journalists risk sounding indifferent to this widespread suffering if their stories lack a tone of empathy or suggest a tone of blame (due to some sectors of the public’s irresponsible behavior regarding precautionary measures like masking, social distancing or vaccination).  Especially tricky for science writers who seek to correct the public’s misconceptions about preventative measures or vaccine safety is the Backfire Effect, wherein some segments of the population double down on their false beliefs in response to corrective measures (although, to be fair, recent research on this cognitive bias is inconclusive).(h) (i)  Ethics Bowl teams who strive to articulate the moral dimension of this case accurately should deliberate with some care on these historical, economic and psychological dynamics of science reporting.  

Discussion Q#2 explicitly brings the moral dimension of Case 2 “Trust the Science” into focus, proposing more directly a science reporter’s choice of “withholding information in the interest of the public good.”  Again, a first-pass response might be, “No, that’s wrong, because withholding important information is, at best, a form of paternalism, or, at worst, a kind of deception or manipulation of the reading audience.”  But as any veteran social media user should know by now, always revealing the absolute unvarnished truth of a matter might not be the wisest approach, given some audiences.  And therein is the thorny issue, no?  If repeated past evidence has shown that wide swaths of Americans have either consistently misinterpreted or distorted scientific evidence, or influential pundits with a vested interest in spinning the facts to suit an established narrative consistently twist the important truths of the evidence, or even if the evidence itself (or the implications of it) are bewilderingly complex, then science journalists—in some situations at least—may have some justification for “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” (j)  Your team should discuss this dynamic and decide which position makes the most sense, given the evidence and reasonable considerations about the way the public (or bad actors in the media) react to controversial scientific findings.  

You could also consider how science reporters and their editors might not be in the ideal position to forecast accurately what “is in the interest of the public good”—given the imperfect record of both the scientific community and science reporting in the past.(k)  Moreover, is “the public good” always immediately obvious to anyone at the time of reporting or writing on public health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic?  Sure, some health risks or behavioral consequences can be reasonably verified or forecasted; however, the challenge of balancing individual liberties with personal sacrifices for wider public health has been especially tricky for public officials.(l) (m)  So, while science reporters might be well placed to verify the accuracy and implications of Covid-19-related research, knowing how to communicate the important and evolving complexities of said research—or whether to withhold parts of it to avoid unnecessary confusion—involves weighty decisions about the public’s right to know, the public’s capacity to process the information, and how the information may play out once released.  Discuss with your team which approaches for science journalists are likely to safeguard the public’s interest most effectively, who science reporters ought to consult when releasing (or withholding) sensitive information, and the reasoning you rely on to address these concerns.  

I predict that Consequentialist or Deontological ethical frames are likely to influence your moral reasoning in this case, or perhaps also a Care Ethics approach to the concerns mentioned above.  Whatever approach to ethical reasoning you take, recall what Dr. Sager at PSU said about relying on any normative Ethical Theory for Ethics Bowl: “Ethical theory provides a toolkit to deepen and sharpen how we think about ethical cases.  It does not provide a blueprint for analyzing or presenting cases.”  In other words, use appropriate ethical frameworks to help you diversify and/or deepen your stated reasons for your team’s position, but never simply name drop a philosopher or ethical frame in an attempt to add credibility to your argument.  Try not to get overwhelmed with your options here either.  Begin by discussing, then articulating as clearly as you can, the answer to the question, What’s a good reason to believe this position? for each of your team’s proposed answers to Discussion Qs # 1 and #2.  Maybe it’s beneficial foreseeable consequences that justify your supporting reason.  Maybe it’s an appeal to a universally-held right or principle that does the justification work.  Or maybe it’s an appeal to forms of care, compassion, empathy or relationships that all families or workplaces deal with when facing Covid-19 precautions, restrictions or concerns raised by scientific research.

Finally, regarding Discussion Q #3, I will keep my tips brief (given this already-long Tips article).  On the surface, it may seem obvious for science journalists to collaborate with the government on reporting pandemic data; however, considering the significant pressure that a few public health departments at the state or federal level have faced from some elected officials, the question of how much, if at all, to collaborate with governments will depend on the quality and transparency of the government’s response to scientific research.  In some countries, science journalists face significant danger to their persons or their careers by challenging an official government stance on pandemic-related public outreach, safety protocols, or quarantine policies.(n)  A position that takes these risks into account is likely to be stronger than merely issuing a general “Yes, they should collaborate” message.

Good luck in your collaborative thinking! 😉 

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips  Footnotes

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
  1. (Article) “What Should Health Science Journalists Do in Epidemic Responses?. @ AMA journal of ethics.  By Katherina Thomas and Alpha Daffae Senkpeni. AMA journal of ethics 22.1 (2020): 55-60.
  1. (Video)  “Journalists adjust to unprecedented conditions during COVID-19.” @ CGTN America. (4-7-2020|). “In times of crisis, the need for journalism is more important than ever. The demand for information spikes, as it has during the coronavirus pandemic. But reporting has become more challenging, and many media professionals are risking their safety to do their job. CGTN’s Karina Huber reports.” [2:14]
  1. (Article)  “Science center’s principles offer guidance to reporters covering complicated COVID-19 issues.” @ Covering Health — Association of Health Care Journalists | Center For Excellence In Health Care Journalism. By Tara Haelle (August 16, 2021). 
  1. (Video)  “Mei Fong & Daniel Lippman: Ethics, Journalism, & COVID-19.” @ Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (5-1-2020) “The Center for Public Integrity’s Mei Fong and Politico’s Daniel Lippman discuss the role of ethics in the work of journalists, focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic.” [7:05]
  1. (Video) “COVID-19 impact on journalism under spotlight | South African Broadcasting Corporation” @ SABC News. (6-27-2021). “At least one thousand five hundred journalists have died of COVID-19 in over seventy countries. According to the Press Emblem Campaign, in May alone, over 200 journalists succumbed to the virus. Bringing vital information to citizens during a pandemic hasn’t been easy. And its led to calls in many countries for media workers to be moved up the vaccination queue.” [4:12] 
  1. (Article) “ Media ethics, safety and mental health: reporting in the time of Covid-19” @ Ethical Journalism Network. (3-18-2020) By Hannah Storm, EJN Director. 
  1. (Article) “Tips for professional reporting on COVID-19 vaccines.” @ WHO. (7 December 2020) World Health Organization.
  1. (Video) “Digital Spread of Pandemic Misinformation and Lies, Part 1” @ AMA Journal of Ethics  (Jul 22, 2020) “Dr Vish Viswanath talks about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation through digital platforms and social media.” [18:05]
  1. (Video + Transcript)  “Personal and social drivers of vaccine hesitancy.” @ SciLine. June 9, 2021. “The United States is one of the few countries in the world with enough COVID-19 vaccine doses to protect the vast majority of its populace. Yet hesitancy about vaccines generally, and COVID vaccines in particular, is stalling uptake. SciLine’s media briefing covered the role of social values and personal belief systems, including religion, in people’s decisions to get vaccinated or not; the factors driving parental choices about whether to vaccinate their children; and how public health messages and policies can influence vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Scientific experts briefed reporters and took questions on the record.” [59:28]
  1. (Video) “COVID-19, Science, and the Media: Lessons Learned Reporting on the Pandemic | Panel Discussion + Q & A” @ Petrie-Flom Ctr| Harvard U. (Oct. 26, 2021) ”As scientists and public health experts worked to understand the [Covid-19] virus, reporters worked to communicate to the public the state of the knowledge — an ever-shifting ground.  From the transmission debate, to the origins investigation, to changes in mask guidance, to vaccine safety concerns, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a particularly precarious nexus of science, politics, journalism, social media, and policy. This panel discussion reflected on this tenuous situation, potential areas of improvement in pandemic reporting, and lessons learned from recent experience.” [1:07.03]
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Journalists on COVID-19 Journalism: Communication Ecology of Pandemic Reporting.” @ American Behavioral Scientist (2-5-2021) By Perreault, Mildred F., and Gregory P. Perreault. ABS 65.7 (2021): 976-991.
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic.” @  Stem cell reports. By Turner, Leigh, et al. Stem cell reports (2021).
Related Ethics Bowl Cases

2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised.  The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission.  How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?” 

Leave a Reply