Crossing enemy lines?

In one of today’s lunchtime sessions at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists, Chris Whitty, head of research at the UK Department for International Development (DfID), said the point of research was not doing the research itself, but putting its findings to use. He emphasised that the media has a key role in facilitating the transition from one to the other.

This reflects an idea presented yesterday by Ugandan journalist Patrick Luganda that science journalists, if they do their job right, can provide a platform for informed decision-making and debate.

But creating such a platform means that reporters and researchers have to be fully engaged with each other and committed to getting the science out there.

Yet, more often that not there is, according to Whitty, “mutual antagonism, more often indifference”.

Why? It seems it all boils down to two simple excuses — from both sides: don’t want to; don’t know how to.

Journalists are reluctant because they think science is boring, irrelevant or just too complicated, or because they don’t know who to talk to. Researchers, on the other hand, don’t talk to reporters because they don’t know any, because they worry that their research will be oversimplified or misrepresented, or because they just don’t see communication as part of their job.

The answer, according to two DfID-funded projects in Africa presented at today’s meeting, is to get the two sides round a table to talk the issues through. For example, a discussion on language in one project in Zambia quite quickly led to a set of terms and definitions that journalists felt comfortable using in their stories, but which researchers felt still retained scientific meaning.

More difficult is determining where researchers’ responsibility in communicating science ends and journalists’ begins, said Alex Hyde from the TARGETS Health Research Consortium.

Indeed, as pointed out by TVE Asia Pacific’s Nalaka Gunawardene, some researchers have started bypassing journalists altogether and feeding their findings to policymakers more directly, using the plethora of tools available through new media.

Does that mean we’ll all soon be out of a job? Let’s hope not.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

Finding the science in the midst of disaster

Science journalists who found themselves in the thick of disaster

Has a science story ever moved you to tears?

A session in which three science journalists talked about how they reported in such a dramatic situation was certainly moving.

Nalaka Gunawardene, director of TVE Asia Pacific in Sri Lanka (and a SciDev.Net trustee) told the audience about his experience covering the tsunami of 2004. The phenomenon caused 40,000 deaths and 550,000 people lost their home.

“We had to explain the basic science but we couldn’t answer the big question: why now and to us?”, Gunawardene said. The challenge was to cover the humanitarian side of the story but also the substories with science elements, like how to prevent epidemics and DNA identification. After some days, journalists started asking why they were  not warned in advance.

Hujun Li, science and health writer of the Caijing Magazine, talked about the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, when over 86,000 people died. There was an intense first week of reporting and in the second week more questions started to be asked.

For example, was the widespread collapse of schools, which killed so many children, a natural consequence or a human-caused disaster? The Chinese reporter also wondered about the ethics of disaster reporting: “Did we hurt the victims by asking them questions again and again?”

Richard Stone, correspondent for Science Magazine in Beijing, gave an amazing chronicle of his coverage of  the Wenchuan earthquake in China, which began with his disbelief that he would be able to find a science story amongst the rubble.

“The first days I was paralysed. There was a science angle out there?” he said.

But after contacting scientists and visiting the disaster area with them, he finally found a very interesting angle: there was a controversial possibility that a dam could have caused the earthquake.

All this highlights, as Tim Radford, former science editor of The Guardian newspaper in the UK and session chair said, the fact that science reporters have an important role in the reporting of disasters — they can keep the story alive. It is really important to keep going back to the disaster places a month, six months and even years after.

Laura García, freelance contributor to SciDev.Net

Reporting tomorrow’s story today

UN talks offer easy news hooks for climate change stories

We (the editors I mean) are apparently to blame for the lack of media coverage on climate change. This is beginning to sound a bit like a broken record. Every session I’ve been to at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists has, in one way or another, bemoaned the fact that editors aren’t interested in stories about climate change (or science more generally) — because they’re not new or sexy, or are just plain boring.

Today’s session ‘A drought or a flood? Climate change reporting around the world’ was no exception. Paddy Coulter, from the University of Oxford, discussed his research on climate change journalism in China, Ghana and Norway, concluding that newspaper editors, especially those at business papers and tabloids, just don’t see climate change as a big story.

The problem, said Saleemul Huq from the IIED, is that “climate change is not an issue of now”. It is tomorrow’s story, or next year’s — but not today’s. Today, editors want stories that will wholeheartedly resonate with their readers, such as imminent changes in government or crashing markets.

So how to get editors to buy in to climate change coverage? Huq suggested that it’s essential to find a “news hook”. International climate talks, such as the UNFCCC Conference of Parties meetings are an easy example. And the negotiations planned in Copenhagen later this year, with all that’s riding on them to come up with a sequel to the Kyoto Protocol, are the biggest hook of all—even the most complacent editor is likely to take the bait.

But, as one delegate from the Thomson Foundation put it, “what happens after Copenhagen?” Huq said the key is to use local events to bring up related issues of climate change. For example, extreme weather events like cyclones or droughts. While any single event cannot be attributed to climate change, each one provides an opportunity to explain that such events are likely to become more frequent with climate change.

One delegate from The Guardian, suggested using technology (electric cars for example) or political tension, drama and scandal as effective news hooks.

Earlier today we heard some other tips for making climate stories appealing — both to editors and readers. “Humanise it”, was the advice from The Guardian’s Damien Harrington. IPCC chair, R.K. Pachauri agreed—“human stories have immense appeal”, he said.

The bottom line is that after Copenhagen journalists will have to become more imaginative in pitching stories about climate change.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

Does the developing world need science media centres?

Science media centres seek to help ensure that accurate science is promoted in the media

Is it worth setting up science media centres (SMCs) in the developing world?

Science media centres seek to promote more informed science in the media. Patricia Scholtz, communications manager at the Academy of Science of South Africa, is hoping to establish such a centre in South Africa — potentially collaborating with Nigeria and Uganda.

Playing devil’s advocate, she asked the panel at the session “Different strokes for different science folk” whether, for developing countries with other priorities such as education, such centres would be a “luxury”.

Peter Calamai, a consultant at the Canada Foundation for Innovation, who chaired the discussion, doesn’t think so. “The way to get [developing] nations out of poverty is development; to have a public that is well-informed and engaged in science”.

But would developing world science media centres encroach on press officers? Kenyan delegate Juliette Mutheu said that press officers in her country had expressed concerns that such institutions would “take away their role”.

Several delegates at the WCSJ have lamented the state of press officers in the developing world. Christina Scott, SciDev.Net’s African news editor, pointed out that there are very few of them. In South Africa, she said, the quality of press releases could be improved.

Surely media centres would help, then? Fiona Fox, director of the UK’s Science Media Centre, thinks they would complement each other.

She said the role of SMCs is to “add value to existing institutions”.

“We need to listen to press officers and ask them what they want. It is a critical relationship”.

And Scholtz, a former journalist, believes that science journalists must be helped in any way possible to overcome the obstacles in getting science to the public.

She and her team have submitted proposals for the centre and are awaiting the results.

“It’s definitely worth trying,” Scholtz told SciDev.Net. “There’s a long road ahead but I’m very excited.”

Naomi Antony, SciDev.Net

Creating a climate for change

Rajendra Pachauri underlined the scientific rationale for action on climate change.

The poorest countries will be the hardest hit by climate change and we, as science journalists, must do more to highlight their plight and support their position — this was one of the key messages to emerge from the much-anticipated climate change session at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists this morning.

Echoing the sentiments in his SciDev.Net Opinion article published last week, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said the media has a crucial role in underlining the scientific rationale for action on climate change, which includes reporting on the worst impacts of climate change, many of which are expected in the developing world.

David King, former UK chief scientific advisor, similarly suggested that the media can help put pressure on governments to take action against climate change.

This means emphasising the need to “defossilise” economies over the next 40 years. Science will have a huge part to play. “There are amazing opportunities for innovators in the private sector,” said King. And the time for action is now. Change is coming, and “any country that doesn’t start defossilising now will find the transition very expensive”.

Developing countries are, in some ways, at an advantage as they can jump straight to low-carbon economies — if they are given help to do so. The willingness to help is certainly there — only last week UK prime minister Gordon Brown highlighted the need to work with African countries in the battle against climate change. He said billions of pounds need to move from North to South to help African countries manage climate change impacts.

But — and this is key — such support must not be just another hand-out. It must come with the skills, people and technology needed to support long-term sustainable development. I won’t argue with that.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

Survival of the fittest science journalists

Hammersley: a bleak future for science journalism?

The word on everybody’s lips at the 6th World Conference of Science Journalists opening plenary this afternoon was ‘crisis’.

With newspapers around the world migrating online or ceasing publication altogether, science journalists are right to be worried. Nick Higham, BBC correspondent and chair of the plenary, attributed the crisis in part to the rise of new media. He hit the nail on the head when he said “but how can we make it [new media] pay? And where do traditional, professional, properly-paid journalists fit in?”

Three speakers offered their perspectives on “New media for new journalism?”

Krishna Bharat, GoogleNews founder, simply suggested that we must become “smarter about getting the right material to the right people”. This means working in “cooperation, not competition”; using experts to create “living stories” a bit like wikipedia articles; and “packaging up” individual articles with branding and advertising for people to post on their own websites.

Jeff Nesbit, from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States, which traditionally supports science itself rather than science journalism, highlighted a variety of strategies that blend old and new media and, according to Nesbit, are proving crucial in the fight to keep science journalism alive. These range from underwriting the costs of science desks in traditional newspapers, to aggregating news online, to creating new content for radio, television and new media.

Poor Nesbit was given a hard time by the audience who questioned both the quality and objectivity of government-funded science communication — several delegates argued that the NSF’s efforts fall into public relations rather than science journalism.

Ben Hammersley, associate editor of Wired Magazine, painted a bleak future for science journalism, suggesting that the next WCSJ might see just half today’s number of working science journalists. The key to survival, he said, is to specialise in a single medium and create “extraordinarily good products”. Audiences go to “where the good stuff is, not where the shiny stuff is”. It’s survival of the fittest.

But we should remember that new media has been on the table for at least ten years. Arguing that it is causing a crisis in science journalism is, said Hammersley, like “being chased down the street by a snail”. If you haven’t got your head around new media by now, he added, you’re in serious trouble.

Sian Lewis, SciDev.Net

Evolution (God optional)

The new survey suggests the evolution-religion debate may not be black and white

Egypt has just two per cent, the United States 13 per cent and India 20 per cent but China overshadows them all with an impressive 67 per cent. Can you guess what it is yet? It’s the percentage of people who believe in Darwinian evolution.

These varied findings are the preliminary conclusions of a survey of more than 11,000 people and their attitudes to evolution and religion in ten countries across the globe, presented today at the World Conference of Science Journalists in London.

So why the big differences? Why do 42 per cent of Mexicans toe the evolution line when just six per cent of South Africans do? The researchers wouldn’t be drawn in during the short time they had on the podium but Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the Darwin Now Project which was behind the survey, told me there’s still a lot of data to go through before conclusions can be drawn.

The most important thing about the survey, she and her colleague, Peter C. Kjærgaard of Cambridge University’s Leverhulme Centre, told the assembled press is that unlike previous surveys, theirs gave the respondents a chance to agree with evolution as a process but with the involvement of God – on this basis, the proportion of Egyptians who accept evolution jumps to 50 per cent.

This showed them that the debate isn’t black and white, an encouraging point considering how evolution and religion are so often pitted against each other. Allowing for this level of complexity means new insights for the research – but also a lot of data processing.

Elsdon-Baker says the team might analyse the data to see if there are any trends, for example whether there are major differences between views in developed and developing nations. But whatever they find, she’s not convinced that attitudes to evolution reflect the level of public understanding of science in a country.

“In some countries where there is low understanding of evolution or Darwinism, science actually holds a high status,” she said. “There are so many different factors, it’s clearly an area where a lot more research needs to be done.”

I don’t think we disagree with that.

Katherine Nightingale, SciDev.Net

If it’s 2009, this must be London

Well, here we are at last.

It’s exactly 806 days (yes, I’ve counted them) since a high-powered but slightly nervous team put an ultimately successful bid to the board of the World Federation of Science Journalists to host their biennial conference in London in 2009.

The occasion was the fifth such conference, which opened on the following day (17 April 2007) in Melbourne, Australia. But the initial incentive for the bid was sparked by the success of the previous conference, which had taken place in Montreal, Canada, in October 2004.

Having initially been sceptical that a world federation of anything could be effective at much more than allocating radio frequencies and similarly bureaucratic tasks, a small delegation led by Pallab Ghosh, then president of the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW), came away impressed.

The Montreal meeting was an unanticipated success, attracting some 620 delegates — including about 300 science journalists from 58 countries. It had also made a profit, which was shared between the World Federation and two Canadian science journalist associations.

So when it came to bidding for this year’s World Conference of Science Journalists, the cash-strapped ABSW took little convincing to put its weight behind an application that eventually won out over a rival bid from Trieste, Italy.

The ABSW’s confidence looks as if it will be rewarded. Two months ago, the conference organisers were fretting about a failure to attract enough registrants, even contemplating moving to a smaller venue.

Yesterday they were able to announce that, as in Montreal, targets had been met, with more than 800 registered to attend. Indeed they are now having to turn down new applications for registration.

All of which augurs well for a lively conference, which opens tomorrow with a plenary session on “New media, new journalism?”

Given the strong support that SciDev.Net is delighted to have provided for the conference planning — including the suggestion of including a “development stream” in the schedule — our interests will be in there from the start.

Indeed, the description for the session opens by declaring: “There is no question that the Internet has dramatically changed the way news is gathered and disseminated.”

The apparent popularity of the London meeting also means that bidding for the next World Conference, due to take place in 2011, is fierce. Cairo, Helsinki, Kampala and Nairobi have all indicated an interest.

Cairo’s bid, backed by the newly formed Arab Science Journalists Association, is said to be the current favourite. The result will be known by the end of the week.

I’ve made some comments on some of the issues that will face participants attending WCSJ2009 in an editorial on the SciDev.Net website, “Beware scientific fundamentalism“.

You can also see on our website an article by IPCC chair R. K. Pachauri, written exclusively for us as a curtain-raiser to the plenary session in which he is participating on Thursday. He calls on journalists to maintain focus on the scientific rationale for action — rather than the politics — in their coverage of climate change. See “How the media is creating a climate for change“.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net

Click here to go to the SciDev.Net homepage

Good news for developing world science journalists

While science journalism in developed countries is facing a crisis, there are a growing number of exciting opportunities for science journalists in the developing world, says senior Harvard fellow Cristine Russell.

The economic downturn has hit the Western science writing community hard, with staff and budget cuts, and lighter stories about consumer health and fitness often stealing the limelight from important scientific developments, argues Russell. Yet there is a growing demand for local stories about science and the environment in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

Read the full article on SciDev.Net

Science journalism makes its mark in Dakar

Adding colour: Diran Onifade and Armand Faye

One of the pleasures for a European visitor attending a conference in Africa is the colourful clothes that many delegates occasionally choose to wear — a welcome change from the drabness than usually dominates back in the UK.

Adding to the colour of the proceedings at the 3^rd Knowledge Management Africa conference in Dakar this week have two long-standing champions of science journalism in Africa, Diran Onifade from Nigeria, and local science journalist Armand Faye.

Both are active members of the World Federation of Science Journalists, having been actively engaged in finding mentors for young science journalists in Africa. Armand has been one of the pioneers of science journalism in Senegal, which recently set up its own association of science writers.

And Diran is also the chair of the African Federation of Science Journalists, a flourishing body created a couple of years ago whose growing strength reflects the recent resurgence in interest in science — and science journalism — across the continent.

Both express delight — perhaps tinged with surprise — that science journalism appears to be accepted as an important dimension of “knowledge management” in the interests of meeting Africa’s needs.

And Armand also impressed the other delegates with a set of impressive moves as he led the way on to the dance floor at the conference dinner.

Not a typical role for a science journalist, perhaps. But a good reflection of the importance that music plays in life in Senegal.

 David Dickson, SciDev.Net