PLOS Biology weighs in on Mukherjee affair: “Writing for Story distorts and cripples explanatory prose”

At least one science writer, Tabitha M. Powledge, has called out her journalistic confréres for their abysmal coverage of MukherjeeGate. In her piece at the PLOS Biology blog, “That Mukherjee piece on epigenetics in The New Yorker“, she has little patience for the “let’s leave out the truth in favor of a cute but dubious story” school of journalism. I like her headers, too:

Mukherjee apologizes, sorta

Brian Resnick’s post at Vox is inclined to cut Mukherjee some slack, partly because the author sent Resnick an apologetic email. Mukherjee told Resnick he had erred in not emphasizing gene regulation–but also noted that the piece is an excerpt from his new book that explores the topic more. (However, see this Why Evolution is True post wherein Matthew Cobb, who just reviewed the book for Nature, asserts that the New Yorker piece is not an excerpt.)

Not having read the book, a history of genetics called simply The Gene, I can’t say whether that’s true. But even if it is, so what? A magazine piece is supposed to stand on its own.

Resnick says, “The print New Yorker only has so much space. These choices aren’t always easy, but in journalism, they’re necessary. We can only tell one story at a time.”

Pfui. Epigenetics is one story. One intricate story. No matter our space constraints–and I’d argue, enviously, that 6000 words doesn’t strike me as terribly constrained; I’ve written on epigenetics in 2000 words and in 700–what we can do is alert readers to the fact that the details we’re emphasizing for space reasons are only part of that story. A couple of paragraphs noting that histone modification is but one chunk of the very complex tale of epigenetics discoveries, and offering a bit of description of some of the other parts, wouldn’t have been a big deal in a 6000-word piece.

And the change wouldn’t have required added wordage. To keep within the generous word count, that new explanatory material could easily replace the too-extensive family history in the piece. Mukherjee’s mother and aunt are identical twins but differ in a lot of ways. It’s an irresistible anecdotal lede for a piece explaining how the same genetic material can generate different outcomes. But the trip to New Jersey and other travelogues were just clutter.

PAUSE FOR BRIEF RANT:  Writing for Story distorts and cripples explanatory prose. The fact that narrative science/medical journalism is fashionable–and at some pubs obligatory–doesn’t make it right. Or informative.

There’s also a section called “What the pissed-off scientists said,”  a pleasingly informal (but accurate) appraisal of the reaction of those who work on gene regulation.

It’s interesting, but not that surprising, that the real science journals, like this one and Nature, have covered the story accurately, while places like Vox and Undark (the organ of the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT!) offer up the same pathetic excuse: “We didn’t have enough space to give an accurate portrayal of science. You don’t understand how hard our job is!” And Forbes, rather than evaluating the criticism, simply gave Mukherjee a free platform (and softball questions) to defend himself. Powledge handily dismembers those lame apologetics.

I haven’t yet seen a retraction or a clarification by the New Yorker. We’re all waiting, Mr. Remnick.