|
||||||||
|
FORUM Finding the Middle Ground Between Scientists and Journalists
"Have you heard the news?" "What news?" I asked as I searched for Lisa, a fellow graduate student in my lab. Her father explained that he'd just heard a news report about a discovery published in Science that might lead to new vaccines and drugs for combating Salmonella infections. Since our lab studies Salmonella pathogenesis, Lisa's dad thought these findings would be particularly relevant to us. He seemed shocked when I told him we hadn't yet received the latest issue of Science and knew nothing about this "breakthrough" in our field. I told Lisa about her dad's call, and we decided to investigate. Reading through the table of contents for the most recent on-line issue of Science, we identified the article. The title and abstract seemed interesting, but we wondered what made this article more newsworthy than the rest. Putting Science on the SpotThe next day, one of the public information officers at HMS asked if my adviser would comment on the Science article for a reporter from a television news show. She hadn't read the paper and didn't have time to look at it. "Maybe my graduate students could do it," she suggested. Turning to Lisa and me, he explained that he had to respond to the reporter very quickly. He suggested that we call him after reading the paper to let him know if we would be willing to give a statement. "By what time should we get back to you?" I asked. Looking at his watch, he suggested 3:15. It was already 3:00. We quickly photocopied the paper, asking several other lab members to read it with us. Barely glancing at figures and ignoring descriptions of methods entirely, we scanned the text, discussing potential flaws and criticisms along the way. Suddenly, it was past 3:15. "Does anyone want to give this guy a statement?" I asked. No one volunteered. As I dialed the Public Affairs phone number, I thought about the completely different worlds in which scientists and reporters work and how those differences create friction between the two groups. Certainly to the nonexpert, science is not all that lucid, and neither are most researchers. We speak in jargon and focus on detail. We work slowly, and our day-to-day research is usually not as glamorous as reporters might wish. We often strongly disagree with each other, and many of us have trouble explaining our data to experts in our own fields, much less to reporters. Even the best among us are often biased and sometimes completely wrong. We are always too busy, sometimes self-promoting, and occasionally dismissive or arrogant. We don't make it easy for reporters. At the same time, the fast pace of the media doesn't make it easy for scientists. Journalists usually report discoveries as soon as they are made publicÑoften before other researchers have had time to read the articles and occasionally even before the research has been peer reviewed. Many journalists have only a few hours to write a story and, since they lack expert knowledge of the science they're reporting, they rely on scientists for critical analyses. But on such short notice, what working scientist will drop everything and rush to evaluate a paper that he or she probably hasn't read yet? For that matter, who would want to when the rewards are so intangible and the risk of being scorned by other scientists is so great? A few might take the time to give a well-considered critique, but understandably, many turn reporters away. Others make statements based on incomplete information or pre-existing biases, misleading the public. In the end, the reporter decides whom to interview, which quotes to use, and the context in which those comments will appear. Sometimes quotes are confusing not because the scientist said something inappropriate but because the reporter took the comment out of context. Thus, both journalists and researchers must share the responsibility of providing the public with accurate information. Improving Science JournalismIn an essay published in the March 5 Science (Vol.283 pp.1461-1463), Michael Crichton suggests several measures to improve the way science is presented in the media. Reporters must strive to think more critically about the findings they report and the opinions of the scientists they interview. Editors should refuse to publish scientific claims that have not yet been peer reviewed, and following The New York Times and The Boston Globe, they should establish science sections in their newspapers where reporters can write more in-depth articles over an extended period of time. Instead of calling on scientists only when they need a quote, reporters should establish long-term dialogues with many different researchers, not just a few media stars. Finally, as noted in an editorial accompanying Crichton's essay (p. 1453), both reporters and scientists should participate in programs that help them appreciate how science and journalism really work. "You mean 15 minutes wasn't long enough?" the public information officer joked after I told him that none of us felt comfortable making a statement just yet. He told me not to worry about it and said that the reporter had probably already found someone else to quote. I wondered who that someone else was. Later, I asked Lisa if she'd ever called her father back. She nodded and said, "My dad thought Salmonella was about to be cured and that I would be out of a job!" Shaking my head, I laughed in disbelief. We still have a long way to go. —Robin Lucas, an HMS graduate student in the
Biological and Biomedical Sciences microbiology program
|
