Seeing two variables together does not necessarily mean one variable causes the other to occur.
Ask the scientists how likely it is that there is a causal relationship.
Why do people get cancer? Why do some young people complete an education while others do not? Why do insects disappear?
A lot of research is about finding causes. In the search for answers, scientists often find statistical coincidences: developments or phenomena that correlate over time.
A classic blunder among journalists is believing that a statistical coincidence implies cause and effect. But often the coincidence is … well, coincidental.
An Australian statistic, for example, shows that the number of drowning accidents increased with the sale of ice cream.
This does not mean that eating ice cream increases the risk of drowning.
The underlying cause of the statistical coincidence is probably that people both go swimming and eat ice cream more often in the summer.
Can family dinners be linked to drugs?
Another example of underlying causes possibly playing an important role: media in several countries have reported on numerous studies linking family dinners with a decreased risk of drug addiction for teens.
The message seems simple and appealing in the media reports, but the correlation between family dinner and drug abuse does not nescessarily mean that you can prevent drug abuse simply by eating regular dinners with your child.
There may be several other reasons for the correlations found in these studies.
For example families having daily dinners together may have strong family connections or deep parental involvement in a child’s life.
In other words, the dinner itself may not be as ‘magic’ as reported in the popular press.
A lot of research is needed before we can be sure that one is in fact causing the other: that there is a causal relationship.
When scientists conduct statistical studies of, for example, diseases in the population, you will find that they often try to adjust their results for the participants’ financial background, level of education, health and other conditions.
\ Download the guide
This article is part of the guide 11 tips for journalists: How to avoid blunders when reporting on science. The guide is accessible in three formats:
Online articles regarding each of the 11 tips.
The full guide of 11 tips as a PDF-file.
The 11 tips as a checklist, a one-pager.
Ask about the causal connection
This means that the scientists have tried to rule out that the connection they find is due to something other than what they have studied.
But even if the scientists adjust for these kinds of underlying causes, there may be explanations that they have not been able to investigate, or their data set may be too small to conclude anything unequivocal.
Therefore, always ask the scientists or your independent source how likely it is that their study has found a causal connection.
If you as a journalist confuse a statistical coincidence (correlation) with a causal relationship (causality), you may spread misinformation.
In a worst-case scenario, such misunderstandings can lead readers, listeners or viewers to make choices that can damage their health and well-being.
Read more tips by clicking the blinking icons at the left in the graphic below.
\ About the Science Journalism Guide
This guide is for journalists and journalism students who are working on science and research news.
It provides 11 specific tips on how to avoid common pitfalls when covering science material.
The guide is written by journalists at the leading Danish popular science site Videnskab.dk.
It summarizes our many years of experience and the best solutions for communicating research and science critically and nuanced and with credibility.
Help us learn
The guide is based on our own experiences as journalists at Videnskab.dk, and we have received feedback and input from several talented scientists, communicators and journalism students.
It is important to emphasize that the guide sets out only general guidelines and rules of thumb.
No two stories are alike, and you will probably come across science stories where the guide is lacking or where it doesn’t make sense to follow all the tips. In other words, the 11 tips in the booklet are not set in stone.
If you have ideas or suggestions for how our guide — or our journalism at Videnskab.dk — can be improved, we would always like to hear from you. If you have questions, or if you are interested in a presentation on science journalism from Videnskab.dk, you are also welcome to contact us. You can write to us at redaktion@videnskab-wp.wp.stage.combell.peytz.dk.
The guide has been compiled by
Lise Brix, Ditte Svane-Knudsen, Anne Ringgaard, Thomas Hoffmann, Frederik Guy Hoff Sonne og Marie Barse.
Editing and layout: Jonas Salomonsen og Jon Mathorne.
Illustrations: Thøger Junker.
Translation: Stephanie Lammers-Clark. Proofread by Randy B. Hecht.
©Copyright and publisher: Videnskab.dk.
Thanks for help, input and feedback
Videnskab.dk has recieved economic support for our work with developing and sharing knowledge about science journalism from Den Fynske Bladfond, a foundation that supports free press in Denmark.
The following has provided valuable input and feedback:
Claus Emmeche (Associate Professor), Eske Willerslev (Professor), Felix Riede (Professor, AU), Gunver Lystbæk Vestergård (PhD in science journalism), Jesper Lesager Christensen (Journalism Student), Karin Frei (Professor), Kresten Roland Johansen (Lecturer, science journalism), Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen (Associate Professor,), Lasse Laustsen (Associate Professor), Mads Faurschou Knudsen (Associate Professor), Maja Horst (Professor), Mikkel Gerken (Professor), Oluf Danielsen (External Lecturer), Peter Hyldgård (Chairman, Danish Science Journalists), Simon Taarnskov Aabech (Journalism Student), Søren Kjørup (Philosopher, Emeritus), Andreas Søndergaard Petersen (Journalist, TjekDet) as well as journalism students at Roskilde University and Danish School of Media and Journalism.
