Anyone can scan the pages of any major national newspaper – should we be among those who still get it in a hidden form – or scroll the news, and we are unlikely to find a story about the process of science or discovery. In the amazing sequence of news included in the gossip of politics, sports, scams and celebrities, science is also not included in the list. Science and technology, if presented, is talked about as if it is incredible, a wonderful story of all kinds. Or it is presented in terms of punishment, dustupia, or something that can only be done in imaginary myths. This is especially true in Urdu newspapers where science stories are often presented with the basic accent of trauma or the air of disbelief. In such stories, sources are rarely mentioned, and many people go far beyond the offered.
The idea that since our research maps is small, there is not much to talk in the domain of science in newspapers, it is not true. From climate change to pollution, from spread of diseases to digital technologies, titles are high. It is just that we choose to discuss these stories about the environment, health or technology (when we discuss them) from the lens of science and policy, not from science and technology. Stories about these issues that have a scientific component are rarely referring to local researchers, who often have deep knowledge and skills. Instead, the quotes in the stories are either bureaucrats or policy makers, who may be able to talk about these issues about scientific issues. In our newspapers, dedicated reporters about science, are very few, and most newspapers do not report news from science -covering wire services. The problem is not just in print news – TV news channels have no different behavior.
Newspapers are not the only problem – but they are definitely part of the problem. The consequences of our apathy are very high towards serious dialogue about science and scientific research. At one end, this attitude usually talks about the world about our ignorance and especially our immediate world. As a result, this ignorance feeds the ideas of misinformation, scientific denial and conspiracy. We make sense of things that are worried, strange or deadly through explanations. WhatsApp groups have added fuel to this ignorance fire. But there is another problem here. Some of the science stories that cover it produces a false image of what is scientific research and scientific process. These stories present new results as miraculous, random or mere serheypitis. Since we do not engage scientists to talk or comment on the results, or make them part of the conversation, we explain all the discoveries through the lens of a rich theory that comes out because an apple has fallen from a tree in Cambridge. Or we imagine science that a series of events (and they are mostly men) led by great people). We fail to appreciate hardship, failures, gradual success and teamwork in the core part of research. Finally, because of this, we imagine science as a quest for great discoveries rather than a curious journey to understand the world around us.
This, anyway, is not normal. Local audiences are better ways to cover science news and make it related. Many countries – including many low and middle -income countries – have a much stronger coverage of science, including countries in our geographical neighborhood. They are able to talk about the consequences, connect them with local issues, reach local researchers and praise people for both action and its implications. This can be done. With the news of the news, we just have a tendency to make other choices.
