Science vs. Clickbait: When the Media Gets the Facts Wrong

When I saw the tabloid headline online, my stomach dropped. “Oh no,” I thought, “did I actually say that?” It was almost the exact opposite feeling that I had experienced when giving these interviews.

Two months earlier, I was almost giddy with my minor scientific success. I had fresh interesting results from my first experiment in graduate school, and I was heading to the biggest scientific conference in my field. I was so excited to share my findings with the world.

I study rice, arsenic, and climate change. Arsenic is a toxic metal and if you are exposed to it for a long time (what we call chronic exposure) it can increase your chances of getting cancer. Compared to similar plants like wheat or barley, rice takes up more arsenic. I completed a laboratory experiment where I grew rice plants in pots of soil with arsenic. Some plants were grown at normal temperatures, but others were grown at higher temperatures. I found more arsenic in the rice grown at higher temperatures.

Given the importance of this find, I was thrilled when both my university press and my local NPR station requested to do stories about the research that I would be presenting at the conference.

Like the good scientist, I was trained to be, when I gave these interviews I was dripping with nuance and caveats. I described what my results meant and also limitations. Both of these stories were interesting, well-written, and informative. But then there was that one troubling quote I had given near the end: “Arsenic concentrations in the [rice] grain more than tripled between the low- and high-temperature treatments.”

When I saw these great stories had inspired a spin-off digital tabloid article headlined, “Arsenic levels in rice could TRIPLE by 2100 as rising temperatures increase concentrations of the cancer-causing toxin,” I felt both queasy and responsible.

So, then what is wrong with this headline? I did use a temperature that was similar to some predictions for the year 2100 to grow rice. And there was a threefold increase in rice grain arsenic between this group and the “normal temperature” rice. So where is the problem?

There are two general reasons why this headline is not true.

The laboratory: This caveat holds true for almost every laboratory experiment. They are simplified representations of the environment. My lab experiment was useful because I could control the temperature in the lab much more easily than I can control the weather outside. But scientists know that plants grown in pots act very differently than plants grown in a field. So, while we can detect trends in the lab (temperature goes up, arsenic goes up), we can’t make specific predictions about the magnitude of the change.
The soil matters: Rice is grown all over the world in many different types of soils. These soils have different properties including the original arsenic concentration, the type of arsenic present, the soil microorganisms, and even the concentrations of other metals. All of these properties can influence arsenic concentrations in rice plants. While temperature is likely to increase arsenic in rice grown in many different types of soils, the exact amount of increase depends on the specific soil and environment.

Thankfully the offending tabloid story has disappeared into internet obscurity. After this experience, I’m much more careful about how I communicate my findings; I rarely give exact figures and focus mostly on the implications of my research.

Communicating science is hard but important. It’s worth it to fight deceptive clickbait headlines to get the story right.

Yasmine Farhat is a 5th year PhD student in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Farhat studies how environmental changes impact the movement of metals (both helpful and toxic) in rice paddies, and change the nutritional quality of rice.