Petit’s comment about releases lacking “skepticism or [the] investigative side” is fair and accurate but no one expects that of releases from public information officers. That’s the journalists’ responsibility but it isn’t fulfilled by simply finding an opposing source to provide dissent in a false search for “balance” either.

Futurity’s fundamental flaw is that it touts itself as an alternative or supplement to science journalism but then it fails to follow the basic tenets of best practices by university science writers. Specifically, it fails to insure that the editing and alterations it makes to usually well-written science releases did not alter the sense or facts of the story, a flaw easily correctible if the Futurity version was vetted by the original author, whose work is usually vetted initially by the researchers who achieved the discovery.

Futurity’s braintrust have argued that their practice of altering original releases is intended to enhance the readability of the text by a lay audience, but virtually all university science writers will affirm their copy is written for that same lay audience, not a readership of scholars. No, Futurity is more a marketing effort than it is an attempt to fill in the gaps of science journalism. If it were the latter, its stories would link directly to the original releases and, when possible, to journal articles reporting the science, rather than to the university’s generic “home page.” It would also vet the altered copy with the institutional science writers, or do its own original reporting. No, Futurity is a rewrite service with more intent at touting member universities than it is explaining the science.

Lastly, the suggestion that journalism students review releases before they’re sent out shows just how separated the commentor is from reality when it comes to best practices in university science writing. I’ve taught graduate-level science writing classes for more than two decades and only an occasional student would capable of writing a decent research release, much less reviewing the work of the professionals trained and experienced at doing that work.

Or Futurity could institute peer reviewing of press releases. Let University of X review and question Y College’s releases prior to Futurity publication – that should also yield more balanced reviews (and maybe ideas for future scientific work).