Improving communications between scientists and society:
The value of partnerships with journalists.
Prefatory Note:
-
Our research program received an REU supplement to fund a student
being trained in environmental journalism to work alongside
scientists involved in basic research on nitrogen dynamics of the
alpine. The student investigated the relationship between this
research and the evidence for local, regional and global impacts of
excess nitrogen on biological systems.
I asked the journalist two questions. First, what was the major
problem in communication between scientists and society and second,
what was a possible solution to this problem. Below is her
response. I was very impressed with her perception, and I believe
that her solution is practical and appropriate in many but perhaps
not all situations. trs 8/20/97
Improving communications between scientists and society:
The value of partnerships with journalists.
-- thoughts from a journalist's perspective --
Susanna French, Environmental Journalism Program, Univ. of
Colorado, Boulder.
I think scientists must have a tough line to walk. On the one
hand, as with any specialists, they simply have to speak
technobabble if they are to discuss their ideas with colleagues and
advance science. On the other, making the leap to public
translation is hard. Journals like BioScience are great for
interprofessional discussion, but are murder on the layman. Trade
magazines like Discover, or worse, Time, help the public understand
the issues but rarely satisfy the scientists. There's no middle
ground where everyone is happy. One would have to decide just what
function journals should serve. I don't think there are any
inadequacies in the existing literature, if they are to be a forum
for scientific cooperation. But if they are intended to serve the
public, then some interpretation is needed. Magazines like
Scientific American and Discover are supposed to bridge that gap
but don't seem to.
The animosity I see between science and the media (the public)
really isn't doing anyone any good. Last week I hung around with an
entomologist who spoke with sour disdain at having to identify the
occasional bug brought in by curious civilians. It was cutting into
her research, she said, and she was looking forward to
discontinuing that service altogether. I was horrified. Sure, it
doesn't advance her science, and it's not terribly important, but
the PR from such a gesture is immense for the energy involved! And
what's the point of entomology if it doesn't serve to increase
human understanding as a whole? As you know, public backing is
essential to the acquisition of grants and the election of
science-friendly politicians, so science has got to be on good
terms with the public or else! But I personally couldn't imagine
someone equally gifted in both science and trade journalism. Even
Carl Sagan was better at one than the other.
The answer is partnership. I have little personal experience
in the science-public relationship, but it seems to me that a cadre
of really educated science journalists working in tandem with the
scientific community could do great things. I don't think it is
entirely the scientists' responsibility to improve communication -
science writing as a specialty needs to be much more highly valued
within journalism - but the partnership could also use more
patience, and a heightened priority for public understanding, on
the part of scientists.