Expert commentary uncovers structural vulnerabilities limiting investigative science reporting in Latin America, highlighting the need for rigorous oversight of scientific authority.
The watchdog role of science journalism, as a way of revealing wrongdoings in science-driven enterprises, is a recent and rather invisible practice in Latin America. From my 20 years as a practitioner, this commentary explores some structural causes of this phenomenon: insufficient training opportunities in science journalism; a weak perspective of the watchdog role; a cheerleader posture by the media towards science; symbolic and political links between media owners and scientific elites; and the vulnerable position of journalists due to fragile incomes, which compromises independence and critical thinking. I also underline a further watchdog role: to investigate, expose, and warn society about the misuses and abuses of scientific methods, processes, outcomes, and authority in the public domain. In this role, the watchdog journalist verifies scientific arguments invoked to make decisions. Lastly, I relate successful instances of watchdog science journalism in the region for the social evaluation of scientific knowledge and its impact on urgent Global South problems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aleida Rueda (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: