
Scott Kelly’s medical monitoring has spawned some bad press coverage - BerislavLopac
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/scott-kellys-medical-monitoring-has-spawned-some-horrific-press-coverage/
======
docdeek
> Live Science...Business Insider...CNN...Daily Mail

They all got this horribly wrong, but a lot of people who understand enough
about biology to know why will still trust their coverage of other areas they
are less expert in. Michael Crichton called it Gell-Mann Amnesia. [0]

[0] [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-
Mann#Quotes_about_...](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-
Mann#Quotes_about_Gell-Mann)

~~~
jsl1212
That's an interesting quote from Crichton. I think the safest assessment of
any given publication is to regard its credibility as only being as good as
its worst story. Like Crichton said, should we really take CNN seriously in
any subjects if they're saying space turned Scott Kelly into a mutant?

~~~
mulmen
I would hope the average HN reader has a higher capacity for critical thought
than a binary decision to blackball an entire news source. if you really do
what you are saying here you won't read any source on anything, ever.

~~~
jsl1212
Regarding a source's credibility and ignoring it outright are two different
things entirely. I was just agreeing with Crichton that publications need to
be held to a consistent standard across all areas of coverage.

~~~
mulmen
That's a fair distinction. I would apply that reputation to the author and
possibly aggregate that for the outlet though. I don't think it's as easy as
judging CNN as a whole based on a single piece.

------
wpasc
The media's track record of covering anything scientific is pretty horrendous.
Because of that, I am a massive fan of the proliferation of smaller science-
based youtube channels/blogs that cover science well.

I think old school media is really adapting pretty horribly in most areas of
news coverage, which is why I have altered my diet to more long form, smaller
channel sources and I've been happier for it.

~~~
paulgb
The media's coverage about topics we know about is a good reminder that it's
probably roughly as good on topics we don't know about :)

I'm optimistic that the internet will allow small, topic-focused media to
flourish.

~~~
mikeash
See also the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:
[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-
ge...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-
amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you)

~~~
wpasc
I just read that, and I love it. HN has introduced me to named conventions
that I have been loving: Betteridge's law, Hitchen's razor, and now the Gell-
Mann Amnesia effect

~~~
arthurjj
Learning the proper names for these concepts has been a huge benefit of
reading HN.

I've been collecting them for the past few years and now have enough for a
bingo card.

~~~
Swquenzer
Absolutely agree. Does anyone have a compiled list of these types of concepts?

~~~
arthurjj
My list in reverse chronological order:

baumol's cost disease,

Chesterton's fence,

Berkson's paradox,

goodhart's law/Campbell's law,

Gell-Mann Amnesia affect,

Ship of Theseus,

The Zeigarnik effect,

Conway's law,

selection bias

heffindal index,

Betteridge's law of head lines,

survivorship bias,

bayes theorem

black swan,

Dunbar number,

Anscombe's quartet,

false positive/false negative,

fundamental attribution bias,

type 1 type 2 thinking,

grok,

simpson's paradox,

Hawthorne effect,

dunning kruger,

Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon,

flynn effect,

Moving the overton window,

~~~
thanatropism
Since you're keeping a list: it's "Herfindahl".

~~~
arthurjj
That's what I get for just copy pasting a personal note. Thanks for the fix.

------
cmsmith
News article titles:

> 7% of Scott Kelly's DNA was changed due to his year in space

> Humans and chimps share 96% of the same DNA

Seeing as how Scott Kelly is not severely mutated (or dead, as the article
says), this should be an indication that something is wrong with the
reporting.

~~~
klenwell
I heard about this on NPR yesterday afternoon. In their interview, this bit of
misinformation was specifically called out:

> Now, there's been a little bit of misinformation about this study. Scott is
> still Mark Kelly's identical twin. And he did not have 7 percent of his
> genes altered by space travel.

[https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/594062986/nasa-study-finds-
as...](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/594062986/nasa-study-finds-astronauts-
genes-changed-while-in-space)

~~~
ryen
Sure. But the headline leads the reader in a different direction despite
"change" not meaning what people think it means: "NASA Study Finds Astronaut's
Genes Changed While In Space"

------
sempron64
I notice something in the NASA press release that is getting less attention,
but I find fascinating. Apparently it was found that Scott Kelly's telomeres
lengthened in space. It's hypothesized this is due to caloric restriction and
exercise aboard the ISS, but it's noted that they returned to near-normal
length shortly after he landed. Perhaps these are some effects of microgravity
or radiation? Could space tourism become an anti-aging industry? I did some
further searching on aging studies on the ISS and found only one as yet
incomplete Japanese study of nematodes

~~~
jessaustin
I agree this seems much more important than the everything else that's been
said about this issue. Even TFA could be faulted for not expanding on this
point.

------
foo42
I'm no biologist, but a good demonstration of the extent to which the same
genes can have differing expression is found by considering the variety across
all the specialised cells in your body. Your brain cells and muscles carry the
same DNA, but it is expressed very differently. If this is possible, then
clearly more subtle changes are possible without altering the DNA also.

------
aaronarduino
This to me is one of the most discouraging parts of mainstream media. "Old"
stories get articles written about them as if they are new news. This is
probably why social media has become where some people get their news.

~~~
Bartweiss
It's frustrating on several levels.

Letting stories 'age' a bit is actually _good_ , it makes detailed coverage
with expert input possible. But we've somehow ended up in this idiotic double-
bind where not only are year-old stories being run as current news, they're
still written up at "reporting live" quality levels.

"Speed, accuracy, pick one" would still be one more merit than we actually
get.

------
dang
Discussion of the story here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16589412](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16589412).

------
joncrane
I had skimmed over the titles of the other coverage, but actually read this
one. Good job, OP.

------
code4tee
You mean journalists just printed a bunch of nonsense they didn’t understand
and never made any effort to learn the material so they could report
accurately? No... never! ;-)

~~~
banned1
And CNN did this? Oh my gosh it is so out of character!

------
vasilipupkin
I feel like the author is nitpicking here. 7% of genes didn't change but 7% of
genes exhibited different "genetic activity levels" ? What does that mean ?
Not being a biologist, it sounds to me that .... genes changed...

~~~
Sharlin
No. They're completely different things. Genes are a cookbook. Gene expression
("activity levels") is cooking. You don't need to rewrite the cookbook every
time you want to cook something different, you just pick a different recipe
from the book. Gene expression changes all the time. That's how you can have
different types of cells even though they all share the same DNA. And that's
how your cells can adapt to changing conditions. Including changing your diet.
Or spending a year in space.

~~~
vasilipupkin
That's a great explanation -thanks !

