The case for science reporting

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. John McCain has brain cancer. That’s straight news, July 2017.

The fact that he has brain cancer, that’s science news. The straight news becomes science news when it is explained what brain cancer is.

In the morning after the announcement, Scientific American came out with science news in the very first paragraph of its reporting:

“Last night Sen. John McCain’s office announced the maverick politician had been diagnosed with a type of aggressive brain cancer called glioblastoma. This kind of tumor usually arises from star-shaped cells called astrocytes that make up the supportive tissue of the brain. It is particularly difficult to control because it does not grow as a round, well-circumscribed mass – instead, because astrocytes’ main job is to travel among the neurons, it is able to send out fingerlike projections throughout the brain, essentially creating tiny, multiple ‘highways’ that spread malignant cells with extreme efficiency.”

Scientific American used descriptive words to explain brain cancer in understandable language.

In its report on the same day (July 20), CNN put the science explanation right in the first sentence of the first paragraph:

“Sen. John McCain, 80, has been diagnosed with a primary glioblastoma, a type of brain tumor...”

And in the third paragraph:

“Glioblastoma is a particularly aggressive tumor that forms in the tissue of the brain and spinal cord, according to the American Brain Tumor Association.”

Later in the report, CNN chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, provides more information in plain language.

He reports that the average survival for malignant glioblastoma tends to be around 14 months with treatment. In Senator McCain’s case, additional therapy, including radiation, could not begin until the incision heals, which would be in the next three or four weeks. Because a science writer never pretends to be a scientific authority, Gupta cites the American Brain Tumor Association as a source for the information about a 2009 study which concluded that almost 10 percent of patients with glioblastoma may live five years or longer.

We mention Senator McCain because of the science writing that explains brain cancer. The public, in this case the American public, has the right to know about McCain’s medical condition as he represents them in the US Senate – one of three Republicans who sided with Democrats in thumbing down the repeal of the Obamacare.

We also mention McCain because straight news and science news are one and the same: they are part of a free press.

Backtrack to February when Senator McCain, one of the few members of the US Congress to publicly criticize the Trump administration, said half in jest:

“I hate the press. I hate you, especially. But the fact is, we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. If you want to preserve – I’m very serious now – if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press.”

Without a free press, it will always be tricky to write straight news – and science news. Because straight news requires free access to information. And science news requires free access to scientific and technical information.

Freedom of information is essential in democracy. So is science reporting. And here we make a case for science reporting.

Science reporting is based on four principles. One, science news is current events. Two, public understanding of science news creates an informed citizenry. Three, an informed citizenry means a responsible citizenry. And four, a responsible citizenry is empowered to make informed decisions on matters of science and technology that impact on people and society.

 (Braulio Balbakwa is the pen name of a senior science writer who dropped out of chemistry class in college at University of the Philippines Diliman).