Myths abound when it comes to food allergies - no doubt about it. Even worse is when the popular media feeds the myth machine. Science journalism is tough because the work needs to be readable, factually accurate, and give non-scientist readers a sense of its significance and potential impact without over- or under-selling the complicated science itself. In other words, science writers translate what seems like a whole other language (academic journals) into something average human beings can understand and appreciate. When done well, science journalism/writing is a work of beauty. Some days, it feels about as rare as winning a Pulitzer Prize.
Most science writers are knowledgeable about science, but are not scientists themselves. Mistakes happen, and scientists endlessly gripe about how the media seem to get it wrong more than they get it right. Scientists who also happen to write for the popular media are a rare, but powerful voice. I love the branding of The Conversation - academic rigor, journalistic flair - because I want to believe it. Is this finally a media outlet that can marry those two worlds?
|Academic rigor, journalistic flair?|
By Greek , possibly Athenian (Princeton University Art Museum) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
I've vetted "The myth of flying peanuts: not so deadly after all" for you at Asthma Allergies Children in the following piece - “Rigor” Mortis: Post Mortem on an Airborne Allergy Article.
A big thank you to editor, Henry Ehrlich.