The best headline I read last week is from Metafilter blog: "Scientists prove that lunch came before breakfast." In fact, journalists at major news sites all around the web reported that scientists have solved the infamous chicken-and-egg problem.

Which came first? The chicken. Definitively.

Trouble is, there's no way to draw that conclusion from the research. According to the scientific paper, scientists found chicken proteins that lock onto calcium carbonate to help it form a crystalline shell structure. A prominent science blogger explains the subject in detail. But--am i crazy here--just because the protein exists in chickens doesn't mean that the first chicken with this protein didn't hatch from some less evolved bird without it, right? The research doesn't solve the chicken-and-egg problem any more than just knowing "chickens lay eggs" solves the problem..

In other words, this is a non-story. It never should have been printed. The playfully suggestive language in the press release should have been recognized for the unsavory bait that it is. The press release reads:

Researchers at the University of Warwick and the University of Sheffield have applied computing power to crack a problem in egg shell formation. The work may also give a partial answer to the age old question “what came first the chicken or the egg?” The answer to the question in this context is “chicken” or – at least a particular chicken protein.

"May give a partial answer"?? This is nonsense.

But, the plot thickens. The journalists who proceeded with their stories seemed to have gotten this quote from the lead scientist:

""It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," said Dr. Colin Freeman of Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials"

Whereas the quote tacked onto the end of the press release is more realistic:

"Does this really prove the chicken came before the egg? Well this actually further underlines that it's a fun but pointless question. This science does however give new insight into an efficient and fast method of crystallisation," says University of Warwick's Professor Mark Rodger

Wha? There's so much wrong with this situation, where can I start..

First of all, the press who covered this faithfully, as an actual story should be embarrassed. But, are they? CNN illustrates--DinoGoss points out--"A single editor's note has been made on the CNN article headline: "Maybe."

Hilarious.

You've gotta see this for yourself. The editor actually put a star next to the headline and wrote "Maybe" down below. As if that would suffice. Where is the journalistic commitment to truth here? If I was an editor that let this thing slip by, I would remove the offending article and issue an apology as soon as I caught wind of its rank malfeasance. But, articles at MSNBC,CNN, and Fox News still stand. Probably because the lead scientist's quote that backs it up?

Aside from chastising the journalist in what seems to be a extreme case of 'bad journalism,' I've noticed some tendency around the web lately to parse some of the blame onto the press officers and the scientists for crafting press releases that are themselves sensationalist. Makes sense.

Last week on twitter, I was part of this exchange:

Who do I speak to at BBC to get them to stop using 'missing link' & its derivatives? --Karen James, NHM London scientist

it would help if researchers who want attention stopped using it in press releases.--Hank Campbell of Science 2.0

Yes, researchers AND press officers--Karen James

In the case of the chicken-and-egg coverage, it looks like journalists just grabbed onto the easy hook and didn't read through the research thoroughly enough. Then again, who wouldn't take the lead scientist's word for it? The press officers and scientists certainly didn't make it easier to get good science news.

In the end, it boils down to--asDenim and Tweed says, "How to get MSNBC to notice a paper about protein structures: Claim you're answering an age-old philosophical riddle that you're not, actually."

Web publications want flashy news. Press officers want to glorify their own institution. Scientists want to attract new funding. It's a reinforced loop that can in some situations lead to the printing of truly questionable material, as the chicken and egg article so plainly illustrates.

Freeman CL, Harding JH, Quigley D, & Rodger PM (2010). Structural Control of Crystal Nuclei by an Eggshell Protein. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English), 49 (30), 5135-5137 PMID: 20540126