Leading journalists and scientists meeting at a Rhode Island workshop have identified a series of issues potentially impeding more effective communications between their disciplines, and therefore perhaps complicating reporting on science-related news to the general public.

The 17 science and environmental journalists and climate/marine scientists met in early November under the auspices of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, publisher of Environment Writer and recipient of a recent National Science Foundation grant to sponsor a series of science journalism workshops. The issues discussed at the University of Rhode Island meeting in November are expected to form a basis for discussions among a new set of journalists and scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in La Jolla, Ca., March 17-19, 2004.

In their day-and-a-half of discussions, the reporters and scientists touched on a wide range of cultural, institutional, and procedural hurdles to more effectively informing the broad public on important climate change and marine science issues. Those issues and others to be discussed in the NSF-led workshop series are expected to be addressed in a major report or book on science communications and the mass media, to be published some time after the workshop series ends near the end of 2005. Interim reports on proceedings from each workshop also will be available, according to workshop managers (see note).

While the Rhode Island workshop involved senior scientists and journalists having substantial experience in covering science news, the discussions disclosed a sizeable disconnect in the understandings among participating scientists on the nature of the journalism and news processes. At the same time, the discussions also illuminated major fissures among reporters in their understanding of the overall scientific process and of the ways scientific differences are raised, addressed, and sometimes settled or left unresolved.

Scientists participating in the Rhode Island meeting by and large felt that reporters should see themselves as "educators" when it comes to covering science in general circulation print or broadcast media. Reporters at the November workshop generally agreed that there is an educational component to much of what they do, but many said reporters resist being labeled as "educators."

On another point, scientists generally felt that reporters should regularly share their copy with them, for pre-publication or pre-airing review and to help ensure accuracy. Several reporters said they indeed do so, and some routinely, but other reporters pointed to major philosophical and practical objections with they feared might become a form of pre-publication censorship or control.

The roughly three-dozen issues raised during the discussions fall –- if not necessarily neatly -– into several broad categories:

Mutual Trust/Confidence: Scientists and journalists at the November workshop generally agreed that neither discipline fully appreciates the roles and responsibilities and protocols of the other. There was discussion of many scientists' having a "fear factor" -– a fear, approaching an expectation, that they will be misquoted and that their work will be taken out of context. Several scientists said their colleagues so distrust the media that they don't even bother to seek corrections of factual mistakes, assuming the reporters don't want to hear about them. Reporters at the meeting urged that that notion be corrected and that factual errors be quickly brought to their attention.

Involvement in Science Education: Participants generally agreed that outreach and educational work is generally viewed within science circles as "extra-curricular," and they agreed there are few institutional incentives for scientists to undertake such efforts. There was discussion at the workshop of whether the public is –- or is sometimes perceived by editors as being -– "anti-science."

"Balance" in Reporting: Scientists contrasted the he said/she said brand of point-counterpoint journalism with the peer review process they are more familiar with. The groups discussed whether a convenient resort to "balance" sometimes substitutes for more thorough reporting and discourages the media from trying harder to report analytically and in context.

"Politicization" of Science: Participants pointed to recurring instances in which scientists or funders –- whether corporate, nonprofit, or governmental –- in effect "censor" scientific findings and subject science to a political or policy prism. Scientists and reporters at the meeting generally agreed on the need for the media to carefully consider and report potential conflicts of interest among scientists.

Communicating on Uncertainty: Participants said both scientists and the news media need to develop skills for better discussing risk and uncertainty. The media drew criticism for portraying "each new finding as a big news flash."

"Pitching" Science: The parties discussed how the scientific community might more effectively "pitch" science to the media and to the public, emphasizing real-world day-to-day relevance, and how reporters might better "pitch" science stories to their own editors.

The Rhode Island discussions also involved consideration of how scientists might be better trained to work effectively with the news media and how journalists could be trained to better understand statistics and other tools of the scientific community.

Plans currently call for a third workshop in the series to be held in mid-2003, probably in the Midwest or Southeast, with subsequent workshops likely to be held in the Rocky Mountain West and in the Pacific Northwest. Details will be reported in future issues of Environment Writer.