A blog article discussing the arguments about how science is communicated to the masses and the importance of the internet in this process, is akin to preaching to the converted here on Nature Network. There has been much written recently (here, here and here) on how conventional scientific journalism is fading faster than the ink on last weeks newspapers, and what is replacing this. The rapid rise and popularity of blogs and other electronic formats of information are touted as replacing the print form, but many argue that these merely supplement rather than substitute conventional journalistic reporting.
I was therefore interested to hear what the opinions were of a range of scientific editors and writers at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Columbia Biological Society and Columbia Science Review. Although the aim of the meeting was to feature a panel discussion about careers in science journalism, the discussion evolved into a broader theme of the changing nature of communicating science and the role of science and its impact on society.
The panel consisted of five experienced writers / editorial including;
Ingrid Wickelgren – an editor and writer at Scientific American Mind who develops articles on psychology and neuroscience. Ingrid started as a freelance writer for numerous publications including Popular Science, Business Week and the New York Times, before joining Scientific American Mind.
Davide Castelvecchi – studied mathematics at the University of Rome and left academia to study science writing at the University of California at Santa Cruz before eventually becoming an editor at Scientific American
Claudia Dreifus – an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a regular contributor to the Science section of the New York Times. She interviews and writes about prominent scientists in the column “A Conversation With…”.
George Musser – a editor and writer for Scientific American who developed journalism and writing as a hobby before accidentally getting into science writing though a desire to escape the cold winters of upstate New York.
Noah Gray – editor for Nature, neuroscientist, blogger and twitterer.
After an individual introduction (condensed above) about how each person found their way into science writing and editing, a panel and audience discussion commenced. What became apparent from the panel was that the outlook for traditional science journalism as a career move is bleak. Not new information for anyone following the recent news of layoffs and altogether abolishment of science departments in the mass media. The role of blogs and the internet in replacing the traditional print form drew some apprehension from a number of the panel, who thought the print form was still preferred through in part its role in supporting the source. Some championed the role of blogs are other online forums for science as a way to bridge the broader reporting of science to interest people to seek out and find more detailed online information.
The questions then led onto why this change is occurring and whether the state of scientific literacy in America may be a factor in this. A range of interesting points were raised by the panel to explain the lack of interest from large parts of the population in science. One such point is that the perception of science and scientist have changed, and not necessarily for the good. Blame the media for one was a point; the perception of the “mad scientist” and their Armageddon devices in movies and the dividing issue such as stem cells and evolution. One of the main problems perceived was that scientists are not getting their message out clearly and can be perceived as elitist. Claudia Dreifus pointed out that as children we are naturally curious about the world around us, but through our development into adults, most of us lose our interests in science.
So what has changed and what can we do about this? Isn’t it the role of “science” journalism to get the message out? Are we failing as scientists to help with this? Perhaps, the evolving role of the science journalist could be something altogether different if we are to keep the interest of a greater percentage of the general public, and explain what it is we do. It seem that for most we have already lost them from and interest or understanding of science during childhood, and no matter what is tried this will not change. Therefore, could the evolving role of the science journalist be to learn how to maintain and develop the curiosity of children in the world around us?
Nice! Thank you.
I am curious as if there are new stats or research out on this topic since Jon Miller, Michigan State University researcher, found 28 percent of American adults qualify as scientifically literate, an increase from around 10 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s. If you also take into account Pew’s 2006 study that found “87% of Americans online use the Internet for science-related research” and “65% of Internet users say they have come across science news and information when they went online with another purpose in mind,” the situation may not be as dire as the panel and author of this post perceives. In fact, it may be getting better.
While 28% of US adult scientific literacy is not something to celebrate, I think the advent of self-published podcasts, the amazing growth in science blogs, and the growing number of science-focused social networks can only help increase this number.
I think the real challenge for science journalists is in how to leverage these new shiny communication tools.
@ Chris – some very interesting points. However, the actual number of science literate Americans was discussed and the feeling that there is an increasing interest from the public. However, the change that predominated in discussion was not so much the number, but the viewpoints of science. It was felt that the perception of scientists themselves by the public, or the view of key scientific issues such as stem cells and evolution, was the actual problem. The statistic you quote for people searching out scientific information is encouraging and I agree its how as scientists we move forward with technology to engage with the public. However, I think we still need to address how we educate children and keep their interest in science. This is something our “new shiny communication tools” can be used for.
Great post Barry. Was there any discussion about some specifics about what scientists can do to communicate with the public, engage/educate children and spark their interest? Journalists will be quick to tell you that they are in the business of informing the public, with a bit of education on the side. But (even if science journalists can find/keep jobs) education and creating rosy images of scientists aren’t the primary goal of journalism.
I think scientists can and should do a lot to fill in this gap. Yes, this isn’t seen as a core part of their jobs, but given the erosion of science coverage in the mainstream media, the frequency of people stumbling across science online, and the explosion in new online communications tools, scientists can do a lot to pick up the slack. I think most scientists would agree that improving the public’s scientific literacy and appreciation is important for science and for their profession. (see this Nature editorial calling on scientists to communicate more)
Barry, did they discuss the effects the economic crisis as a possible reason for the downturn of science journalism? Perhaps it is just more than the mad scientist persona.
@Corie – they suggest that its really up to us scientists to do the work and promote our science and the understanding of it.
@Caryn – this is perhaps the biggest factor they mentioned regarding the downturn of science journalism. It seems that the emphasis is on the likes of people like us to put the word out there and inform the public.
I agree with Chris, and I would add that several different issues tend to be conflated here and during the panel discussion. I am not an expert on any of these, but I think it’s important to at least define which problem we want to discuss at the outset.
1) science education: from what I understand, many science teachers in this country don’t have a science degree. That doesn’t seem like a good starting point for creating science literacy. But it’s an education issue, not a media issue.
2) the public’s interest in science news: it is important for scientists and science communicators to try to think of new and better ways to attract more interest to science and to improve science information. But I don’t have reasons to believe that the public’s interest is going down compared to interest in other topics. From what I understand, through the Web people find and read more news (including science news) and have access to vastly more (by orders of magnitude) information than ever before. Perhaps what has changed with the Web is that people are less willing to sit and read longer, in-depth articles. But that’s not specific to science.
3) the on-going struggle for science desks at general-interest publications (such as the New York Times): this issue predates the internet. Editors may be unsympathetic to science and may not realize that many of their readers are more interested in science than they are; also, people have told me that it has been historically challenging to sell ads for science sections, so some have questioned whether it makes business sense to have one, even if a lot of readers like it.
4) the internet is killing print publications and no one seems to have found a workable business model for online. This is also not specific to science coverage.