Scientists as Sources

In his 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, Daniel Boorstin describes our brave innovators in science, technology, and the social sciences as working “in the twilight” that is “just beyond our understanding.” Never has such insight been truer than it is today. Consider the advances in stem cell research or the study of how one protein enzyme might explain why cell division goes so awry in cancer. Despite the complex nature of science, the public's interest in scientific information continues to grow, making the role of science journalist as interpreter ever more critical. More and more people are turning to the news media for information about health and other scientific issues. In fact, in the area of health sciences, many people use the news media as their primary source for guidance on health issues and problems.

The primary role of a journalist is to find and then distribute information the public wants and needs to know. In order for journalists to provide the public with scientific information, they must develop reliable, trustworthy associations with a diverse group of scientists. In other words, science journalists need scientists (and other researchers) as sources.

Previous research and anecdotal evidence examining scientist–journalist relationships has painted a picture of discord between the two professions. The current perception is of existing obstacles that prevent scientists from participating in public communication efforts.

For decades, journalists considered most of what scientists did to be complicated and difficult to translate to audience members. On the other side of the issue, scientists regarded journalists as inconsequential. The news media were not considered a factor within the scientific professional culture, so scientists believed assisting with the journalistic enterprise was unnecessary—if not actually damaging to their careers.

Although some still perceive interactions between scientists and journalists as negative, communication scholars and other researchers believe the relationship between many scientists and journalists is more cooperative than in the past.

In fact, over the last three decades, interactions between journalists and scientists have increased substantially. Many countries have implemented strategies to improve the science–media relationship, often initiated and sponsored by various professional organizations. The amount of science-related media content has increased substantially over the years and science journalism has become a recognized specialization within journalism. Many universities offer science writing courses and students interested in science communication often take classes in a specific curriculum designed for this specialization. Currently, science and health reporting is one of the most exciting and growing niches in journalism—science reporters get to travel, meet intelligent and interesting people, and report on new developments ranging from the dramatic and innovative to the quirky and peculiar.

Along those same lines, more universities and colleges are offering courses to science majors in public education and outreach. These courses are designed to help future scientists learn to communicate more effectively with the journalists and the public. Training provided in many of these courses includes how to work with the news media.

Efforts to improve communication between journalists and scientists appear to be paying off. Journalists and scientists are working together more often, and these encounters are increasingly perceived in a positive light. For example, biomedi-cal researchers from several countries say their interactions with the news media have increased [Page 777]significantly over the last few years. Many scientists rate their encounters with the media as mainly positive, as opposed to mostly negative.

...