|
It is fashionable to pay lip service to the value of the public
understanding of science (PUS) and to scientists' willingness to
participate in it. From some of the more soothing statements made by
people whose views are often sought on this subject, the Committee might
be forgiven for thinking that there is no major problem. As working
science journalists, however, we can see that the problems are immense.
Most of them stem from the cultural clashes and incomprehension of the
major groups involved: scientists, journalists and society at large.
First, the clash between society at large, represented by the values
of university bureaucracies and journalists. The universities are huge
repositories of science stories but in our experience it's almost
impossible to find out about the research being done there. The first
port of call for a journalist is the university information officer.
These people hardly ever know what scientific research the university
is doing and they don't generally consider it part of their job to find
out. This is in marked contrast to American universities which employ
specialist science writers who send descriptions of current research
(not just what has already appeared in the Annual Report) to inquiring
journalists.
Our experience last year illustrates the problem. We contacted many
university information officers asking them if they would like us to
visit to publicise their research. About 15 expressed interest, so we
wrote to them all asking them to send us a menu of research that had not
yet had much publicity. One replied.
British universities evidently do not value PUS enough to demand that
their information officers should take it on board; and the officers
themselves don't have high enough status within the universities to
demand it from departments. The officers may also lack confidence with
science and they hardly ever understand the needs of journalists
(notification in advance of any publications etc). These problems could
be addressed by employing science writers in residence; people who are
not part of the normal bureaucracy, not afraid of science and who
understand what the media needs. The article in New
Scientist (1 April 1995) by John Newell, who has been a science
writer in residence at Loughborough, explains how this could work. The
cost need not be great. Several universities could share one writer
between them.
As far as the clash between scientists and journalists goes,
researchers themselves also need to feel that publicising their work is
part of their job. At the moment, junior staff are often keen to go on
media training days and to publicise their work, but they are not
supported - and sometimes actively undermined - by departmental heads
who can resent the time 'lost' to the research or the very idea of
popularisation. Even now, researchers who go out of their way to help
the media can be stigmatised by their bosses.
Many laboratory and departmental heads do not realise that solid
publicity for their research can help them win grants by pushing their
projects up the ladder of public interest. The broader point, of course,
is that the public has a right to know about the research it is paying
for.
We might use both stick and carrot to encourage departmental heads to
cooperate. Stick in the form of a clause in all research grants that a
certain percentage of the grant - say 1 per cent - must be used in
publicising the results in some agreed way (minimally, a summary to the
information officer with press releases and hopefully interviews to
follow); carrot in the form of awards to the departments which do most
to publicise their research. One award might be given by each of the
EPSRC and BBSRC. Both of these organisations are currently advertising
awards for projects that promote PUS. After a researcher had given an
interview to a journalist, the researcher would follow up how much was
written/broadcast. Departments could collate this information which
would be used for assessing how effectively they were communicating
their work.
The clash between the scientific and journalistic cultures is also
apparent when scientists (often, again, at departmental head level)
refuse to provide abstracts of their presentations to conferences at
which there is a press presence, or to attend press conferences. This
happens regularly at the British Association meeting and other
congresses. It is also a factor in the flak researchers have to field
from their colleagues when they comment to the media on something that
has arisen within their general area but outside their specific research
interest. For example: journalists might quite reasonably ask a
geneticist to comment on the social implications of the discovery of a
particular gene. That geneticist may then be criticised by others whose
research is more closely connected to the gene in question. Scientists
need to understand that straying across research boundaries is not a sin
when making general comments to a general audience. Journalists value
and need more well-rounded scientists who will put some new development
in a broad context.
Another clash occurs between journalists and people roped in to do
publicity work for PUS ventures of various kinds. Journalists need
instant contacts and full information. Publicity people are often
unavailable. The article by Fabian Asker in the ABSW's monthly
newsletter, The Science Reporter (April 1995), makes this point in
relation to this year's SET95.
PUS can be a victim of the clash between scientific and social values
as reflected in media proprietors. Some proprietors do not think PUS is
important. They do not perceive that competent science coverage will
attract the buying public to their paper / magazine / radio / TV. They
do not therefore employ specialist science correspondents.
Generalist journalists sent to cover science stories are more likely
to be incompetent, which understandably alienates researchers further.
Scientists who feel they have been misrepresented should be encouraged
to complain to the journalist's employer and press for specialist
reporting.
Wendy Barnaby
Chair, ABSW
Two of our members, Mary Rice (head of PR at the Medical Research
Council) and Lionel Milgrom (Brunel University and freelance writer)
also gave oral evidence before the committee, which included two ABSW
members in David Whitehouse (BBC) and Tom Wilkie (The Independent).
| 
