The Leafslug.com

Scientists Don't Invent

The world is going to end in just 12 years by mega volcanos.

I read in Information Weekly magazine when I was 9. I read it at the home of my grandparents; they had a subscription to this magazine. A pretty yellow magazine with stories, reader’s letters, kids sections, puzzles, and of course, a two-page “Science and Technology” right in the middle of the magazine. I was addicted to that section. I read that part right before I go to the puzzles and kids parts.

And I remember this exact news there that said that the world is going to end in 12 years by a series of massive volcanoes that will end civilization, kill the environment, and end life on earth.

You may be surprised to know that more than 20 years have passed, and we are not all dead!

Now this story has nothing to do with the rest and the main point of this post, but giving a narrative to a piece is going to engage readers to the article. So, are you engaged?

Anyhow, I have noticed that every article, podcast, video, or even book that has something like “scientists made…” or “scientists invented…” is usually written by an uneducated person who under-researched the material for his work.

1. Scientists are in charge of finding out stuff. They are amazing at this. They might create it on the side of science or as a consequence of it, but often the more interesting stuff is done by people whose main focus is not science.
2. The creating stuff is typically done by designers and engineers, who consult or use the work of scientists.
3. These articles may confuse academicians with scientists. But academicians that make stuff are not typically the same academicians that do science; their process is not the same, their papers don’t look the same, their journals are not the same, and they are hardly in the same circles ¹. A better-researched article mentions that these are biologists, or medical engineers. Or something like that.
4. Also, inventions done solely by academicians are notoriously dead on publication. So I would not count on them to change your world unless they were contracted by a private company.
5. These articles may refer to private companies. In these cases, a well-researched article usually mentions the company. A big company gives credibility to the world-changing product. A small company is an opportunity for a journalist to gain credibility by saying, “I was one of the first to report on X” when the company became ubiquity. Not mentioning it might say 3 things.
   1. At best, the journalist is young and does not know how this might be affecting their career. In that case, I also do not trust their assessment of what can actually be a great deal.
   2. They may have been lazy and not done good enough research on that work. This is rare, but if the journalist is doing this repeatedly, just lose them. They are not worth your time.
   3. They may believe that the company, the startup, or the figures behind them are sketchy. And intentionally hide that fact from you. This is not a sign of a good journalist. But a clickbait creator.