Thanks for this editorial. Whilst I agree with the nuance of the editorial that covering scientific stories should not be removed from the cultural context in which they occur I disagree with some points. You refer to ‘western’ science but I don’t see anything inherently ‘western’ in the scientific method. I think the term implies an alternative ‘eastern’ or ‘southern’ scientific method against which ‘western’ science competes.

I also think that the term ‘bad’ science refers to slightly different things in the examples used. For instance, the MMR issue was a case of ‘bad’ science in an academic sense in that both experimental design and interpretation of results were flawed (the role of the media in this case is another debate entirely); the Mbeki/HIV/SA policy issue was a case of bad and indeed discredited science meeting bad policymaking. The Nigerian polio story had little to do with the science behind the vaccines but reflected a mixture of sociopolitical factors which are very well reviewed here: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040073

I think the issue of scepticism and the cultural context are very relevant but that does not mean journalists should find ways to balance coverage of flawed/discredited science but rather find culturally sensitive ways to report the ‘good’ science.

Accepting without scrutiny such as 'green technology' is clean energy?

Take wind turbines for instance. The press touts how clean it is.  Read www.iags.org/rareearth0310hurst.pdf and you’ll see that each large wind turbines requires a massive amount of rare earth elements (REE), upwards of 4,000 pounds. REEs are 97 per cent monopolized by China, so the manner in which they mine and refine them should matter to environmentalists. When you promote wind turbines, you also have to accept the process to make the components can be extremely dirty.

According to an article published by the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, 'Every ton of rare earth produced, generates approximately 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kilograms of dust; and using concentrated sulfuric acid high temperature calcination techniques to produce approximately one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic wastewater, and about one ton of radioactive waste residue (containing water).' Furthermore, according to statistics conducted within Baotou, where China’s primary rare earth production occurs, 'all the rare earth enterprises in the Baotou region produce approximately ten million tons of all varieties of wastewater every year’ and most of that waste water is ‘discharged without being effectively treated, which not only contaminates potable water for daily living, but also contaminates the surrounding water environment and irrigated farmlands.'

The disposal of tailings, which are the ground up materials left behind once the rare earth has been extracted, often contain thorium, which is radioactive. According the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, producing one ton of rare earth elements creates 2,000 tons of mine tailings. And much of these tailings have gone into the Yellow River, which dumps into the Pacific.

We must be aware when something has not been tested by science, such as natural alternatives to synthetic medicine. Most of the testing / trials in medicine is funding by pharma companies. They are not going to test potential natural solutions as their is no motive for them to do so. Indeed as they cannot patent them there is an opposite motive. It's interesting that people on the net are claiming be be cured by natural solutions. The BBC's programme "grow your own drugs" showed many great results for people where normal medicine has failed them. My point: just because it is not backed up by peer review does not mean it is not true. It just means it has not been peer reviewed. And the reason is a problem in how we fund science. Journalists - please be aware of this.

Thanks for an interesting article David. I think the part which I agree with most is the need to be respectful to people's beliefs. It is all too easy to dismiss people who believe in 'bad science' as stupid or even evil- but this is not helpful or true. To use the example of MMR vaccine, parents who choose not to give their kids the vaccine, genuinely believe that they are doing the best for their children- we need to respect that.

I would however echo some of the points that Alex makes above. While I think we should be respectful of people's beliefs, I don't think this is unique to developing countries. I worry about falling into the trap of thinking that science is a western belief system imposed on the rest of the world. Number 1, science is not a belief system it’s a methodology- a way to test beliefs that tries to reduce subjectivity; Number 2- as Alex points out, it is certainly not owned by the West.

More trainings on science journalist and further investigation to prove that issue please.

It is precisely the belief of Western scientific practitioners that they are on the right track that renders science Western, as well as potentially blind to its own subjectivity. The relationship between subject and object is culturally constructed and therefore limited, and that relationship has yielded some very valuable methods. The danger is that there is an over-compensatory need to experience oneself (and others) as scientific which is rewarded in the ecosystem by funding and approval. This carries with it the danger of creating a closed metaphor which finds it increasingly difficult to conceive of anything outside itself. Not everyone involved this system is Western, but the meaning system was still constructed out of Western culture, and spreads readily, much like our viruses did among indigenous people. The best science always holds close the possibility of being self-critical. The new scientific evangelism and atheism is anything but scientific; it is a cultural movement drawing on the credibility of an entirely unconnected sphere of activity (scientific research) to win social reward for its adherents. One of its memes is "bad science."