I am a geek.

I checked on the most reliable sources I could find (i.e. the internet, the crazies on the street, etc) for the definition and I am definitely one. I am into comics, science fiction/fantasy (whether books, TV or film) and computer games. I love me all that techno bullshit. I’m going to a computer science conference in Liverpool in September. Hell if you’ve listened to the show you will have realised I’m unashamedly into it all.

Actually, lets face it I’ve been out for years, so why now do I feel the need for a suitably internet confession? Well, I was out-geeked in a comic book shop for the first time in my life. I’m not sure if I can adequately describe the sensation of standing in the queue, clutching my comics to my chest as a sign that I wasn’t a pretender or tourist that had gotten lost in Central London.

So it suddenly occurred to me after all these years how people must feel when I go on a rant about the socio-political nature of Star Trek (not really… I just wanted to sound smarter than ranting about ST) or why Batman is infinitely better than Superman. Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing and although details make the experience all that more enjoyable, we can really get bogged down in them. The devil is truly in the details.

And this is where I think science journalism also goes wrong. Having been ‘taught’ how to read scientific papers you realise that most has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The politics in getting papers published is a complex and intricate dance. They have to pitch their ideas as carefully and make sure it is what the journal editors want. Bearing in mind that most papers are an accumulation of not just one life but many lives work, you have to realise the level of spin that is applied to any piece of research. Now I am not saying they lie or even bend the truth but let’s face it presentation is everything.

Then we come to public media. Sensationalist headlines, although exciting, are really very misleading. I don’t think you need to be a scientist to understand current but care certainly has to be taken in making sure people get a balanced message. Academic speak is as confusing and intimidating as walking into a comic book shop or going to a pub on the night of the Champion’s League Final. No one is expected to understand the offside rule straight off or why geeks get excitable about Windows Vista. So why should we expect journalist, whether or not they have any scientific background, to be able to condense scientific papers, usually the work of many years into a 200 word story.

When I read most stories in the newspaper about some scientific breakthrough, whether it is ‘SAUSAGES CAUSE CANCER’- panic - or ‘Why extreme diets don’t work’ – well, duh – I struggle to keep my temper. I do not think that the portrayal is right. We not only undermine what the research paper is about but also the general public’s ability to grasp the fundamental details. At the same time I worry now that I am being the guy in the pub scorning your knowledge of which side is Man Utd.

Sure I probably know more science stuff than average, but most media represent their science news stories very badly. And yes I realise that some articles can actually be quite good. I just wish they were not so few and far between. The balance needs to be struck, condensed down but not so that it no longer resembles what it comes from.