Scientists see bright side of working with media
July 10th, 2008Once upon a time in the world of science, sharing your work with the press was heresy. Journalists, according to the common wisdom, would get it wrong, your research would be distorted, and your colleagues would see you as little more than a shameless grandstander. Scientist popularizers such as the late Carl Sagan, a master of adroit science communication, were excoriated by some of their colleagues for the questionable practice of trying to make science accessible.
But a sea change is under way, it seems. In a report published this week (July 11, 2008) in the journal Science, an international team of communications researchers reports that relationships between scientists and journalists are now more frequent and far smoother than the anecdotal horror stories scientists routinely share.
"Scientists actually see rewards in this process, not just pitfalls," says Sharon Dunwoody, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of journalism and a co-author of the new report.
What's more, a majority of scientists surveyed - 57 percent - found their "latest appearance in the media" to be a mostly positive experience, while only 6 percent were unhappy with the journalistic outcome.
The Science report is based on a survey of more than 1,300 researchers in five countries: France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The poll revealed that, for the most part, scientists felt their work was portrayed accurately, explained well, and that news reports were generally complete and unbiased. Journalists, according to survey respondents, were perceived as responsible and informed in their reporting.
The new study was directed by Hans Peter Peters of the Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany, and sampled researchers in two broad and well-covered scientific fields, epidemiology and stem cell research.
The results of the survey suggest that scientists' perspectives of the news media have evolved during the past 15 years, says Dominique Brossard, a UW-Madison professor of journalism who is also a co-author of the report.
"Clearly, the survey shows that scientists see interactions with journalists as necessary," Brossard explains. "We don't have to convince the scientists anymore. We're beyond that."
Although scientists may no longer need to be persuaded to engage journalists, many still view the practice of journalism as incompatible with scientific culture. However, that perception, say the authors of the new report, seems to be more nuanced than in the past.
What may be driving the change in scientists' behavior, according to Dunwoody, is the prospect of rewards. Science that is more visible appears more credible to potential funders, and news coverage may enhance individual scientists' career prospects. Another driver, say Dunwoody and Brossard, is that scientists see a benefit of greater public understanding of the scientific enterprise through news coverage of research.
The survey, which included responses from 358 U.S. scientists, indicated few differences in scientists' perceptions of interacting with journalists from country to country, possibly because the cultural norms of science are universal.
The scientists in the survey who interacted most with journalists tended to be more senior, more productive researchers, suggesting that journalists do a better job than scientists think of finding the best people to talk to. "Journalists are attending to the highly productive scientists," Dunwoody explains. "That's good news and gives less credibility to the notion that journalists pay too much attention to outliers."
The survey also suggests scientists are becoming more knowledgeable about how journalists work and are thus more skilled at working with reporters. "Scientists in this survey are quite savvy in their interactions," says Dunwoody.
Although the results of the poll are generally good news for both scientists and journalists, the researchers caution the picture is far from complete. In some fields where social controversy is more acute - climate science and evolutionary biology, for example - surveys might paint a different picture, the researchers caution.
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jul 02, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Most stories here purposefully distort science to make it more "exciting" (to lure more readers and $ from ads). Authors will go to great lengths to make article's title as exotic as possible stuffing it with words like 'nano', 'quantum', 'exotic', 'first time', 'revolution' etc while completely disregarding the actual content in most cases ending with a nonsensical title that has absolutely no relevance to the article. Another must have for articles here are outlandish application claims and wildly exaggerated discovery's importance - breakthroughs and revolutions are everywhere. Finally many articles fail to represent scientific consensus on reported issues and instead write about wild speculations and unproven hypothesis as if they were generally accepted theories.
A person without scientific training required to tell the truth from nonsense will end up knowing less about science after reading this site then before!
All in all this site is a worst kind of scientific tabloid. The only reason I'm reading it is it helps me get the idea of new developments easily since I have the knowledge to cut through all the BS and when I find something interesting I look it up elsewhere.
RESULTS. Articles in the Journal that were covered by the Times received a disproportionate number of scientific citations in each of the 10 years after the Journal articles appeared. The effect was strongest in the first year after publication, when Journal articles publicized by the Times received 72.8 percent more scientific citations than control articles. This effect was not present for articles published during the strike; articles covered by the Times during this period were no more likely to be cited than those not covered.
CONCLUSIONS. Coverage of medical research in the popular press amplifies the transmission of medical information from the scientific literature to the research community.