More on this program

by Amy Schoenfeld

When I tell strangers that I study earth and environmental science journalism -- and pay tuition for it -- I often get looks of confusion and concern.

"Oh", they say, "that's quite specific." And then quietly, "What kind of job does that really prepare you for?"

Occasionally, I come across those who see value in science writing. But to the majority of these supporters, important and newsworthy science is limited to the realms of space shuttles and stem cells -- not the composition of the atmosphere or the heat-storing capacity of the oceans.

These interactions say so much to me about our disconnection from the non-human elements around us. It's this disconnection that convinced me to pursue science and environmental journalism in the first place. It's also the reason that I jumped at the chance to attend the fourth of six science communication workshops run by the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting held at Lamont in June.

As a mix of scientist and journalist-in-training, I was excited to interact with well-respected professionals from both spheres during the NSF-sponsored workshop. Many of the journalists are role models of mine; the scientists had supplied the innovative climate research I studied in the classroom. Although veterans dominated the group, I was glad to see a few early and mid-career scientists and journalists in the mix. All in all, it was an impressive and diverse crowd, eager to take time to discuss the state of science in the media.

The first day featured timely lectures on the status of contemporary American journalism. There was talk of newspapers succumbing to all-mighty blogs, debates on the short attention span of the American public, and discussions about the politicization of climate science and the ever-shrinking science news hole.

I learned a great deal, but felt somewhat helpless by day's end. After all, I am about to begin a career that depends upon the success of science as news. Am I, and the other students at the workshop, destined to a lifetime of political blogging?

Luckily, some of the participants noted that the coming changes might be opportunities and not handicaps. Science and environmental stories are colorful and rich, lending themselves well to new media technologies. Web-based stories with bright motion graphics and linked audio may make complex science easier to understand. These tools also have the potential to attract readers who aren't typically drawn to science stories.

Sure, we may someday find ourselves in a world of TiVo-style web and cable news, but environment and science stories will not fade away. The biggest stories have yet to be told. How will we supply the country and the world with renewable energy? Will there be enough clean water to support us? How will U.S. towns maintain their natural resources as populations expand?

I believe that people will continue to look for and demand such stories. But to successfully get past editors and compete with other news, we must find ways to make the science more relevant and tangible.

As one journalist at the workshop said, environmental stories are innately multi-disciplinary and can be framed within the language of business, culture, and other fields to appeal to broad audiences. Scientist profiles can also convey technical information in an engaging way. And, as many participants suggested, if journalists and scientists can move the public (and editors) beyond the stigma that environmentalism is radical, we will capture the attention of additional audiences. One successful reporter further revealed, "I don't have to come up to my editor with a green hat on with a capital E [for environment], I just keep going back with stories they can't refuse."

The second day of the workshop was filled with ideas for improving science coverage and content in the media. Most of these recommendations were based on the relationships between scientists and journalists, such as developing a "culture of availability" between the two groups, encouraging scientists to invite journalists to the lab and field, and convincing journalists to seek an informal science mentor.

Additional ideas focused on education, such as developing science and math training for reporters, and communication workshops for scientists. Others centered on engaging the elusive editors -- the "gatekeepers of the news" -- either through scientific presentations or invitations to field expeditions.

The list of suggestions goes on. Looking back at the notes of previous workshops, it seems that many of these ideas have come up repeatedly, indicating their strength and potential. The compiled recommendations, after the sixth and final workshop, will be an important body of work to share among us and beyond us - to editors, science center directors, research funding agencies, and media consumers.

But we have to ask ourselves, after the final workshop passes and the recommendations are published, to what extent will we –- working scientists and reporters and also students -- follow through?

Will the scientist call his local newspaper and arrange for a presentation to editors? Will the environmental reporter brush up on her statistics or connect with a scientist off-deadline? Will the science center director encourage his scientists to create journalist-friendly web pages? Will the science journalism students write the stories inspired by the workshops?

It's certainly easier to talk about change than to make it, especially when it looks like an uphill climb. But the steps needed to improve science journalism are manageable, and the more of us that take them, the smaller they will be.

I promise to write those stories (and study my statistics). What will your first step be?