Conference participants urge cooperation between journalists, scientists

Gene Policinski
World Center

03.23.98

Printer-friendly page

	Photo by Max Cacas
	Rick Chappell and Dr. Martin A. Apple

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Journalists and scientists must work harder not only on accurate, thorough reports on science, but also on helping the public better understand how such news affects their daily lives, participants in Monday's seminar on "Science, Journalism and the Public" concluded.

The group of leaders from philanthropic foundations, journalism, government and the scientific community also issued informal recommendations on how scientists and journalists can work together to produce more and better information for readers, listeners and viewers.

The findings and recommendations largely echoed the report "Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America's Future," which was discussed at morning sessions of the conference. Veteran NBC science reporter and former Today host Jim Hartz and former NASA scientist Rick Chappell spent more than a year examining science journalism as part of their report, funded by the First Amendment Center. The one-day conference was held at the National Science Foundation. This fact was particularly significant in that it "added the third element in this issue of the coverage of science-the foundations," Hartz said. These are the institutions which have sizable funds and connections to the two groups discussed in the report, the press and scientists, he noted.

"There seemed to be a lot of interest among [the foundation representatives] in attacking the problem, in generating more information [from scientists] … and in helping the media do a better job," said Chappell. "This is moving the report forward. Of course, now we have to figure out how to do that."

Julia Moore, NSF director for legislative and public affairs, told free! "The surprising thing is that when [the report] was discussed, there was immediate acceptance of the findings. It was never an issue. We moved on to focus on the challenge ahead."

The session was sponsored by the Foundation for American Communications (FACS), the NSF, the Council on Foundations and The Freedom Forum.

FACS president and CEO Jack Cox told free! that three key views were expressed during the conference:

• There is a "desperate" need to educate scientists about how journalists, editors and the media work;
• There is a need to move beyond educating the writers who cover science, to the editors, assignment editors and others who are the "gatekeepers" of the information that is published or broadcast;
• While the Internet offers an outstanding, new method of bringing information about science directly to the public, it will not become-in the foreseeable future-the main source of news and information for most people. Thus there is a long-term need for scientists and a range of media outlets-print and broadcast, national and regional-to work together to produce the best possible reports.

Veteran journalist and editor Gregory Favre of McClatchy Newspapers told free! the session emphasized "the great need to overcome the barrier of understanding" that exists because scientists often fail at communicating their news to the general public and because journalists often are not properly trained to convey or interpret that news.

"The importance of science news is such that we need, we must, find a way for people to understand how much it affects their daily lives," Farve said. "We need better education" for both those in the science community and journalists. He noted that there are a number of fellowships now available to reporters wishing to get a better background in science writing, and that the task is now to insure those opportunities are extended to the widest possible reach.

Favre also said that one challenge facing the media is to enlarge the number of reporters focused on science and areas such as the environment. "We have not yet come to regard science coverage in the same way we do the crime, city government or politics beats," he said. "Anyone with a research center anywhere near them ought to have a person who regularly covers that area."

The concept of ongoing training sessions, perhaps three-day seminars in various regions, was endorsed by Nona Shepard, manager for the Enrico Fermi Award given by the U.S. Department of Energy.

"I think the need is greatest among scientists," she told free! "They are trained to give deductive arguments, not to place the most important facts first. But of course that's what journalists have to do."

Members of the general public don't have the time to follow a deductive line of reasoning, with conclusions at the end of the process, she said.

"I'm a former journalist. If it takes training for journalists to learn how to put the news first, then why do we expect scientists to just know how to do it?"

Shepard also suggested that greater emphasis on science writing during scientific study might encourage some students to focus on the writing area. Sherecommended that scientific societies also might see such training programs as part of their overall role.

In a summary session, the conference participants produced a series of informal recommendations including:

• Creation of a "Pulitzer Prize" for science reporting, to emphasize the importance of the area, and a similar award for scientists who make reports to the general public;
• Better basic science education for all citizens to help them better assess developments and announcements;
• More forums in which scientists and journalists can exchange views on how best to cover science news;
• Media training for scientists, particularly to assist them in providing "lay" summaries and versions of technical or detailed reports, and workshops in newsrooms around the nation to help train reporters and editors;
• Creation of a major clearinghouse for news on science to help put reports into layman's terms and to help journalists report accurately and properly assess the importance of various news items;
• More general programs about science, such as art displays to help the public become more comfortable with scientific news;
• A requirement, linked to funding of scientific projects, that a general summary and report must accompany the formal report on the outcome of each project.

In "Worlds Apart," Hartz and Chappell contend that a poorly educated public, fewer research dollars and a growing chasm between scientists and journalists threaten the United States' dominance of science and technology. Their study found that:

• While the U.S. government spent $73 billion on scientific research in 1997, the figure represents the lowest percentage portion of the nation's total research and development budget in four decades.
• Only 22 percent of 2,006 adults polled in a National Science Foundation study could correctly answer at least seven of 10 simple science questions. Less than half knew that it took the Earth one year to orbit the sun.
• Scientists are more distrustful of journalists than are clergy, businesspeople, military personnel and even politicians. A survey of more than 1,400 scientists and journalists conducted last year for "Worlds Apart" found only 11 percent of the scientists said they had a great deal of confidence in the press.

But Hartz and Chappell say they see reason to hope for an improved relationship.

Although two in five scientists said they were afraid of being embarrassed in the press, nearly three-quarters said they wanted the public to know about their research. And 81 percent of the scientists surveyed said they would be interested in taking a course to improve their ability to communicate with the press and the public.

Journalists, on the other hand, conceded their insufficient knowledge of science and of the methods scientists use to conduct research.

The two writers said "scientists and journalists recognize the widening gap between them and want to bridge it. The time is ripe for action."

-- Phillip Taylor of the First Amendment Center contributed to this report.