October 4, 2016
(Undark Magazine) – Journalists and scientists are both in the business of telling stories, though the tools of the trade are different: Journalists are more likely to rely on apt anecdotes, while scientists prefer to use an accumulation of data. But on a fundamental level, both fields interpret evidence in an effort to make sense of the world. Ideally, that means journalists and scientists are both striving toward the same goal: the truth. But as the controversy over Henry Molaison’s legacy illustrates, weighing competing narratives is not always straightforward.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.