One of the reasons that I got into science writing was because of Baroness Susan Greenfield. Actually, she’s also one of the reasons that I got into video game research as well. In that sense, I guess, I owe a lot to her. In another, more realistic sense, the reason that she acted as a catalyst for those things is because of her regular appearances in the media, claiming that the internet, social media and video games are damaging our brains.

Over the years, Greenfield has appeared in newspaper articles claiming that computer games “leave children with dementia”; that internet use is linked to autism; and that social media harms children’s brains. When criticised about the comments, the Baroness has been quick to claim that she’s been misrepresented, although no retractions or corrections of pieces like those mentioned above have ever surfaced. A call from Ben Goldacre for Greenfield to publish her claims in a scientific journal, so that they can be placed under an appropriately rigorous level of scrutiny, has been dismissed. Instead, we’ve had two books – the disastrous science fiction novel 2121, and the equally problematic popular science book, Mind Change. Both advance Greenfield’s view that the internet generally, and social media and video games more specifically, are having a huge and negative impact on our brains.

So it’s refreshing to see that, yesterday, the BMJ published an editorial taking a stance against the Greenfield media circus, and has called for a more nuanced, evidence-based debate to be had about the potential effects of digital technology on developing brains. In the article, the authors – Vaughan Bell, Dorothy Bishop and Andrew Przybylski – point out that many of Greenfield’s claims don’t accurately represent the state of the underlying research literature, and that the claims that she makes in the media are misleading. It presents the evidence against some of her claims – for example, that social networking sites like Facebook can negatively impact on empathy and social interactions – in a calm and collected manner. It’s well worth a read.

It’s also great to see that the editorial is far from an apologetic piece. Generally, research in the relevant areas is still in its early stages, and there are some clear negative effects that have already been shown – for example, the editorial points out that there is an association between using passive forms of digital technology and health risks such as obesity or diabetes. But the important take-home message here is that the debate about the potential positive and negative effects of using the internet and digital technology needs to be sensible, informed, and objective. If we really want to get to grips with what the potential problems are for young people, not only is ‘more research needed’, but that research needs to be appropriately presented to parents, policymakers, and the public.

Speaking to the Australian, Greenfield replied to say that she welcomed the criticism of her work, because it means the debate has now shifted to “how”, rather than “if” there is an effect. In doing so, she implies that her approach – through scaremongering, sensationalistic claims in the media over the past ten years – was worth it. I find this a bizarre claim to make, as if Greenfield’s crusade to promote the dangers of modern technology has resulted in some sort of Pyrrhic victory. But it’s not just Greenfield’s reputation that has suffered as a result of her campaign; it’s the way the public has been informed about the evidence. Hopefully, the BMJ editorial marks a turning point in the way in which that debate plays out in the public eye.