Did you try? Did you ask to see an advance copy of the story? Did you tell them their story was inaccurate? Did provide them with corrections and revisions? I've never heard of a press office that would not allow you to do this. I'm not talking off the cuff; I've written about it a fair bit.

I do not believe that a scientific press release from a prominent group is beyond critique so long as an early career author is included on the authorship list.

Nor do I buy your complaints about power dynamics. When I post my comment, I did not single you or any other junior researcher out. As the press release makes clear, your team includes people at least as established and senior as I. They were welcome to respond.

Of course I never claimed or suggested that you are a bad actor, only I found the press release non-credible. If you have no control over your own press office, surely you can’t expect me to have any control over the posts of various random people who follow me on Bluesky.

AMAZING!

I prefer "empirically adequate" but there is limited room for nuance in this medium.

Since my post about scientific methodology escaped containment: There's a different between "is X true?" and "does this study show X?". That difference turns out to be critically important for science. We undermine the power of science when we use false premises to argue for true conclusions.

I could have been a lot clearer in what I wrote. I was imagining the treatment group having their shovels replaced with trowels.

How do I know you didn't read the thread....?

They are quoted extensively. I very much doubt that the university press office interviewed them without their knowledge. Based 30 years of working with press offices and teaching how to, faculty absolutely have the ability to control what the university press office publishes about their own work.

The great thing is that they love it. Learning statistics? Nah. Calling bullshit on adults? I'm in!

While eg the NY Times may not give you the opportunity to vet, let alone rewrite, portions of a story about your work, university press offices serve a different function and therefore they do. It's your obligation to avail yourself of that opportunity just as it is to be honest in your own prose.

I've posted about it here, I used to post about it on Twitter, I've written about it in our paper on Misinformation in and about Science, etc. The point is this: Authors have an obligation to collaborate with their university press office to ensure the accuracy of reports about their own work.

That said, I vehemently disagree with this post, particularly where university press offices (my original source) are concerned. It is ABSOLUTELY the author's fault if a university press office misrepresents their work. I've been teaching this for a decade in our NIH trainee bioethics courses.

Thanks so much for letting me know! I'm very glad you find it useful.

If you've read or shared this thread, please read the author's responses as well.

Clearly we are speaking at cross purposes. If you put 15% as much effort into considering their experimental design as you seeming will to invest in the discussing rhetorical optimality of a 280-character shitpost, we'd probably be on the same page.