Since I have been frequenting these forms and spending time reading about science more generally than just for my studies, I have noticed that there are basically three types of people (not everyone falls into a category here btw):

• Scientists
• Crackpots
• People worried about science

I feel concerned about the amount of people that fall into the latter 2 categories. We are in an age where our achievements are truly breathtaking, and yet there are people that either think science is wrong or think it's going to bring about the end of the world, so I ask myself the question; who is responsible?

Clearly, first in the line of fire are scientists themselves. If we can't communicate what we are doing in a way that people can understand and realise that scientists generally do what they do because of a desire to take humanity forward then it's our own fault that we are misunderstood, right? That opinion will generally come from a commentator on science - a science writer.

In my opinion, the blame for much of the ignorance around science lies with science writers. Typically, the primary drive behind journalism isn't to get the facts out there, it's to sell product. That means that instead of a rational and sensible discourse we get sensationalism, hyperbole and outlandish claims that the scientist would very likely not agree with. Two cases in point, the danger of the LHC - there is maybe a single genuine physicist (Plaga) that has published work claiming that the LHC may be a danger (and his work has been rebutted in other papers). People like Wagner, Sancho and Rossler aren't physicists, despite what they claim, and have not published any work in theoretical physics. It's almost impossible to find a news article on the LHC without some mention of a "black hole machine" or suchlike. The result of this has been an Indian girl committing suicide. Second case - the MMR vaccine; there was a single study out of many many studies into the effects of the MMR that gave an indication that there were possible health risks related to the three in one combined jab. In the press conference Wakefield made a claim (that was not supported by his paper) that single jabs would be safer. The study was eventually discredited and it's author hauled before the general medical council to answer charges of a conflict of interest, but the reporting of it in the press was wall to wall. People have had horrible diseases that they would otherwise have been immune to as a result.

Why do we stand for these poor standards in journalism where they are effectively the largest influence on the way people think? Should there be more accountability for journalists in general?