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

The panelists discussed the various issues climate change reporters need to consider

Climate change reporting is a real challenge for science journalists. There is a wide range of news angles to choose from — and it is often hard to find one that convinces editors.

A good strategy when covering stories about climate change is to not lose the “big picture”, said Andrew Revkin, environment reporter for the New York Times, at the session ‘Climate change coverage: The messy marriage of science, policy and politics’.

Revkin said that it is important to frame news, making the context clear.

There has been a steady increase in media coverage of climate change in the last 20 years, according to Maxwell Boykoff — a research fellow at Oxford University — who presented the results of a study at the session. But analysing the headlines and text of news stories, he found that there is sometimes no coherence between the two.

Richard Black, environment correspondent for BBC News, pointed out that when reporting on climate change a reporter has to face not only science, policy and politics but also business, education, culture and many other areas.

For example, explaining the mechanisms of the ‘carbon market’ is really complicated and incorporates a variety of areas. “You need to learn,” Black warned, “and if you are not sure about something, just don’t say it.”

Black said that climate change is undeniably a major environment issue. Desertification, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, decline of fisheries and growth of population are all related to climate change. But Black pointed out that media coverage about these phenomena is “pretty bad”.

A key when reporting is to link your story with your region, said Black, to “find the relevant element in your time and place,” he concluded.

I think that’s a really a big challenge!

Laura García, freelance contributor to SciDev.Net

Do strict Western embargoes overshadow developing country research? (Flickr/Garrett Crawford)

Are embargoes — and their accompanying press releases — an innocuous tool that give journalists time for the best coverage or are they a manipulation of the media by the publishing and scientific establishments?

In a lively debate, Vincent Kiernan — associate dean at the United States’s Georgetown University — argued that while journalists are constantly distracted by a stream of news releases we don’t have the time to seek out other, possibly more important, stories.

And he reminded us that this becomes all the more important in the developing world, where under-resourced journalists could come to rely on Western news sources rather than digging around in their own backyards.

“As we foster development of our craft in other parts of the world, is the embargo addiction really something that we want journalists in developing nations to take up?” he asked.

“Unwittingly the embargo system exerts a kind of Western hegemony on developing nations. It incentivises their journalists to cover embargoed research from developed nations rather than research and science related news from their own countries. How does that behaviour foster the public interest in those nations?”

Watts seemed bemused that the issue of embargoes was even being given airtime, so little of a problem does he see it. “I don’t really regard this as a controversial issue,” he said. “My feeling is that the arguments made against embargoes are made on false claims and false perspectives.”

But perhaps we should remember that developing countries often have to look to the West for resources. And as science journalism is promoted in developing countries, practices that have become standard in the West don’t necessarily have to be transplanted — particularly if we can’t decide whether they’re any good.

Katherine Nightingale, SciDev.Net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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