academy of science of south africa (assaf)

of 16

ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA (ASSAf) Free-Online Scientific Writing Course System Module: Media relations, and why and how scientists should communicate with the

media - pitfalls and good practices; OR How to turn scholarly/scientific articles into media stories without losing accuracy and maintaining ethical standards.

Compiler: Professor George Claassen

Why and how scientists should communicate with the media – pitfalls and good practices

1. The Why of Science Communication:

1.1 Introduction

The public understanding of science is vital in any society to counter pseudoscientific claims and

quackery. The relationship between scientists and the media, often the only channel through which

scientific findings reach the generally scientifically illiterate public, is therefore a vital factor in

establishing and determining the level of the public understanding of science in society. In 1985, the

British Royal Society’s study of the public understanding of science referred to this dual role of the

media and scientists in getting scientific messages across:

“The media can exert a powerful influence on the public understanding of science. The scientific

community traditionally regards the mass media with some suspicion and is, on the whole,

ignorant of the way they work and the nature of their constraints. The more ‘popular’ sections of

the media, on the other hand, too often make relatively little effort to discuss science in

anything other than a superficial and mostly sensational way, and do not generally understand

the nature of the scientific enterprise. These attitudes need to be changed. To do so will require

a considerable but challenging and worthwhile process of mutual education.”

“The main explicit function of scientists is to generate knowledge about the natural world,

whether for its own intrinsic interest or for some immediate or future practical application.

Success is judged mainly by the approval of other scientists or by the usefulness or commercial

success of the application to which the new knowledge gives rise. The main functions of the

media are to entertain and to inform. Success is judged primarily by audience ratings (numbers

and level of appreciation) or circulation figures, which for the commercial parts of the media,

of 16

translate into profit. Each group needs to recognize how the other can help it achieve its

objectives and to understand each other’s limitations” (Report, The Public Understanding of

Science, The Royal Society, 1985: 21).

Issue for reflection: The days are well past when scholars or scientists could have withdrawn

into their ivory towers or laboratories without being accountable to the taxpaying public

funding them. Accountable science is ethical science.

1.2 Problems creating the canyon of misunderstanding between scientists and the media

(a) ‘Textbook science’ vs ‘Frontier science’

Textbook science is the settled scientific knowledge on which (in natural sciences) one can

build one’s own work. In contrast, frontier science is science as it is actually being conducted.

Its results have just been obtained, they are uncertain and unconfirmed (Bauer, H. H. 1992.

Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois

Press).

It is important that both scientists and journalists understand this distinction because when

textbook and frontier science are wrongly understood, it can become a barrier in the way of the

public understanding of science. On the one side the media have a dilemma, as pointed out by

Adelmann-Grill, B C et al. (1995. EICOS: The Unique Laboratory Experience. Paper presented at

International Federation of Science Education, Barcelona.)

(i) “In textbook science an expert is easily identified. Someone who claims that there is a

reasonable probability that an apple may fall from the bottom to the top is immediately

known as a non-expert. But if we are interested in the effects of electronic smog it is

difficult indeed to know who is an expert and who is not…. Therefore the theory of

relativity is not news anymore and will only become news again when new findings are

made about it, maybe when it is refuted in a scientific publication.”

(ii) “Citizens (readers, listeners, viewers) are not much interested in textbook science but in

frontier science. Unfortunately, public decision making with respect to new

technologies is not about textbook science but always about frontier science. And

of 16

decisions cannot be postponed until present frontier science has matured into textbook

science.”

On the side of the scientists, the dilemma is that they are “intensely involved in frontier

science because their emotions, their careers, their whole life depend on what they are doing.

This entices many scientists to sell textbook science when they are actually talking about

frontier science.”

From the side of journalists, the lack of distinction between frontier and textbook science

often creates distorted views on new discoveries. As the American science journalist and

academic Dorothy Nelkin argued, the media often promote scientific discoveries and

developments “as the cutting edge of history, the frontier that will transform our lives”, but

this frontier characteristic of media reporting on science and technology is often biased

(Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: how the press covers science and technology. New York: W.H.

Freeman and Company, 31-32.)

What often happens in the process of news presentation in the media is that highly complex

research findings are reduced to misleading headlines and reports that make deductions that

are either exaggerated or blatantly wrong. In this way editors and journalists fail to make a

distinction between textbook science – the facts that have been accepted for generations,

even centuries, about a specific scientific field – and frontier science with all its untested and

unverified uncertainties. In the medical field, the media quite often report on medical research

findings published in scientific magazines in a sensational way, as if the final word has been

spoken about, for example, the reasons for cardiovascular disease or cancer. The frontier

science is thus presented by the media as textbook science, only to be refuted a few months

later by a contradictory report.

Issue for reflection: Not distinguishing between frontier science and textbook science confuses

the public whose main source of information is the media and not scientific publications. The

fault for this lies with both the media and scientists, the former because they quite often don't

understand scientific research as a long process with preliminary findings, the latter because

they do not communicate the intricacies of research findings in a proper, direct way with

science journalists, rather working through second parties or media liaison officers.

of 16

(b) The lack of communication skills of scientists

As the Royal Society report (referred to in 1.1) emphasised, “scientists must learn to

communicate with the public, be willing to do so, and indeed consider it their duty to do so. All

scientists need, therefore, to learn about the media and their constraints and learn how to

explain science simply, without jargon and without being condescending” (Report, The Public

Understanding of Science, The Royal Society, 1985: 5).

In a survey undertaken by the author on the relationship between scientists and the media,

journalists were asked ‘how accessible do you generally find scientists, engineers and members

of allied professions? Only about 13% regarded them as ‘very’ accessible.

Bucchi identifies this attitude or position of scientists as the ‘diffusionist’ conception (2004:

108-109), ‘indubitably simplistic and idealized, which holds that scientific facts need only be

transported from a specialist context to a popular one ... On the one hand, it legitimates the

social and professional role of the “mediators” – popularisers, and scientific journalists in

particular – who undoubtedly comprise the most visible and the most closely studied

component of the mediation. On the other hand, it authorises scientists to proclaim themselves

extraneous to the process of public communication so that they may be free to criticize errors

and excesses – especially in terms of distortion and sensationalism. There has thus arisen a

view of the media as a “dirty mirror” held up to science, an opaque lens unable adequately to

reflect and filter scientific facts.’

Issue for reflection: Why should scientists improve their communication skills and be active

towards building better relationships with the media? Five reasons why scientists should make

improved communications skills a priority can be given, as set out by the British Economic and

Social Research Council (Pressing home your findings - media guidelines for ESRC researchers.

Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council, 1993: 2).

(i) Public accountability. Scientists are mostly funded, in one way or another, by the

taxpayer. Scientists cannot say they do not have a responsibility to the state or

parastatals – and directly the taxpayer – funding their research. They are

accountable to the public and civil society and by communicating with the media;

they fulfil their responsibility towards society.

of 16

(ii) Influencing policy-makers and practitioners. This is not possible if policy-makers

and practitioners do not know about the research scientists undertake and conduct.

(iii) Stimulating additional funding. The more scientific research projects are in the

public eye, the better the chances are that further funding will become available to

take research to its final conclusion

(iv) Encouraging collaborative work and research. Again, linking with (iii) above, the

way science is communicated to other parties outside the parameters of the

research project, can vastly improve collaborative research with other scientists and

research organisations across borders. This can take place across university and

research borders, or can lead to joint research projects across provincial, regional or

international borders, which has financial implications for sharing the costs of

research.

(v) Giving scientists greater control over their research. Regular and dedicated

communication by scientists enhances the manageability of their research.

(c) The media’s lack of investment in science journalists who know and understand science

When you study the structures of the media in South Africa, one glaring fact about science

reporting stares you in the face: only one South African newspaper or broadcasting station has a

formal science desk headed by a science editor and with a team of well-trained science

reporters. Political editors, arts editors, sports editors, financial editors, life-style editors, general

news editors are in abundance, but science is reported haphazardly, quite often by reporters

with not the faintest idea how the scientific method works, what a scientific theory is, why peer

review, observation, experimentation and independent verification of scientific evidence are

unnegotiables in science.

Yet, if South Africa wants to compete with the best and become a nation solving its immense

unemployment and unskilled workforce problems, our media should do better in the way we

report on science. We quite often only give attention to science when some medical

“breakthrough” with screaming headlines is announced, only for scientists to caution us that it

was no breakthrough, rather preliminary results that have to undergo further research.

of 16

South African editors, as their counterparts in other countries, quite often do not know the

distinction between textbook science and frontier science, treating the latter, despite its high

level of uncertainty, as if it is textbook science.

This lack of serious dedication to science by trained science reporters leads to a serious mistrust

by scientists of the media, with the result that scientists are hesitant to communicate with

journalists they can trust about their research.

Issue for reflection: To overcome this lack of understanding between the two groups, scientists

need to build relationships with journalists they can trust and with whom they can regularly

communicate news about their research.

(d) The media’s lack of understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience

The regular appearance of pseudoscience in the media and presented in the cloak of science as

if it is science, is a serious obstacle in the public’s understanding of science. To counter this,

scientists should be far more active in engaging with the media when pseudoscientific ideas are

published or broadcast in the media. Scientists should clearly define the differences between

science and pseudoscience, as for example set out by three scientists.

(i) E.O. Wilson emphasises that “Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering

knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into

testable laws and theories (Wilson, E O Consilience) (my emphasis).

(ii) Carl Sagan makes this distinction, that “… at the heart of science is an essential

balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes – an openness to new ideas,

no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly sceptical scrutiny

of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep

nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and sceptical thinking,

working together, keeps the field on track (Sagan,C: The Demon-haunted World –

Science as a Candle in the Dark, New York: Headline Books) (my emphasis).

(iii) Robert Park emphasises the strength of science, a characteristic that is absent in

pseudoscientific claims made by pseudoscientists: “Expose new ideas and results to

independent testing and replication by other scientists; and abandon or modify

of 16

accepted facts or theories in the light of more complete or reliable experimental

data” (Park, R: Voodoo Science – The Road From Foolishness to Fraud, Oxford:

Oxford University Press) (my emphasis).

Issue for reflection: Scientists should make it their duty to explain their science, but also to engage

with the media when pseudoscience is propagated by the media. This engagement is vital in getting

the correct message out on the public platforms. Mistakes in the media cannot be left uncorrected

as they perpetuate pseudoscientific thinking that can harm the interests and indeed sometimes even

the lives of members of society.

(e) Bridging the jargon gulf

Probably the most serious obstacle between scientists and the public is the way scientists

communicate. The scientific jargon used in peer reviewed journals belongs only there and

should and could not be used when the scientific message is broadly communicated to

journalists and the public in general. The obscurity of science communication sets up walls

between the lay public funding the scientists’ research through their taxes and scientists whose

research should be clearly and lucidly communicated.

Ten golden rules for communicating with a lay audience

(a) Clarity – Avoid ‘Scispeak’: Good communication is clear communication. Explain scientific

terms; do not leave them in obscurity. “As things are, too much of what passes for the scientific

literature is not literature at all but a way of stringing code words together in such a way that the

perpetrators can enjoy the warm glow of knowing that a piece of research has been written up

and given a prominent place on the library shelves throughout the world … The immediate

interests of readers that they should be able to read and understand are given only scant

attention” (John Maddox, Editor, Nature).

When you write, “The haplodiploid hypothesis by the geneticist William D. Hamilton, is widely

accepted by scientists as valid, also in humans”, the underlined words are obscure when

speaking to a lay audience. Rather write: “The haplodiploid hypothesis by the geneticist William

D. Hamilton – a proposal that an individual can increase his fitness and that of close relatives by

taking risks that enhance the fitness of those relatives – is widely accepted by scientists as valid,

also in humans.”

of 16

Or when you write: “In the evolutionary arms race other species are reduced to facing

extinction because of human folly”, again the underlined words won’t be understood by the

public. Rather write: “In the evolutionary arms race – the adaptation of one species (such as

a parasite, or a predator) that reduces the fitness of an individual in a second species (such as

a host, or a prey) – other species are reduced to facing extinction because of human folly.”

(The italicized parts from Mai, L. L. et al. 2005. The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology

and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)

(b) Think about the mythical reader of science

Apply the principle of T. W. Fline: “Those Whose First Language Is Not English”. Write so clearly

that T.W. Fline will understand your research. Fline can be: Your neighbour, your grandfather,

the 10-year old children playing in the park, the janitor in your building at work. (Booth, V.

2000. Communicating Science: Writing a Scientific Paper and Speaking at Scientific Meetings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

When the members of the British Royal Society set out the aims of the new journal,

Philosophical Transactions, in the 17th century, they wrote: “The journal would use the language

of artizan (sic) countrymen and merchants, before that of wits and scholars.”

“It is easy, especially if you are nervous, to retreat into the scientist’s emergency supply of stock

scientific phrases”. Think “specifically about a non-scientist friend, and then talk … as though

you were talking to” him or her. “Think like a wise person, but talk in the language of the

people.” – Aristotle (Shortland, M and Gregory, J. 1992. Communicating Science – A Handbook.

New York: Longman, p. 168.)

(c) Start with the familiar and proceed to the unfamiliar by using analogies

Always remember and apply the words of the geneticist and biologist J.S.B. Haldane: “You must

constantly be returning from the unfamiliar facts of science to the familiar facts of everyday

experience” (my emphasis).

(d) Using pictures, illustrations and graphics to explain intricate science

Pictures, illustrations and graphics can, if used accessibly and enticingly, make people, also

journalists, understand science far better and easier. What people remember…

of 16

• 10% of what they read

• 30% of what they see in illustrations

• More than 50% of what they see and read

Leonardo da Vinci emphasised the usefulness of illustrations as far back as the 15th century:

“And ye who wish to represent by words the form of man and all the aspects of his

mebranification, get away from the idea. For the more minutely you describe, the more you will

confuse the mind of the reader and the more you will prevent him from a knowledge of the

thing described. And so it is necessary to draw and describe” (my emphasis).

(e) Beware of scientific abbreviations without explaining them at least once

Do not think and accept that the lay public and journalists will necessarily understand the

scientific abbreviations you use. You must always explain it the first time in a communication

process. “GVHD is feared by most patients…” Rather use: “Graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), a

serious condition that sometimes develops when cells in transplanted bone-marrow attacks the

recipient’s body, is feared by most patients.”

(f) Apply Ockham’s Razor ruthlessly

This rule as set out by the English monk and philosopher William of Ockham (1300-1348): lex

parsimoniae, the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness:

“Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter

necessitatem).

Before distillation After distillation

• Such a process is a very rare event. Such a process is very rare.

• The fact of the matter is that no results No results have been obtained.

have been obtained.

• The results were of an intriguing nature. The results were intriguing.

• A great deal of… Much

• at high speed quickly or fast

• At some future point later

• At this point in time now

• Due to the fact that because

• Has the ability to can

of 16

• During the same time that when

• From a military point of view, The army doesn’t think you can

your destination does not seem get where you want to go from

logistically accessible. here.

(Examples by Shortland, M & Gregory, J. 1992. Communicating Science – A Handbook. New York:

Longman; Howell, J F and Memering, D. 1986. Brief Handbook for Writers. New York: Prentice-Hall).

When you are writing or speaking, apply the words of the science journalist of The New York Times,

Cornelia Dean: “When I am writing, I try to think of my story as a cart moving along a track. Every

word is either propelling the cart forward or weighing it down. I try to ditch the dead weight.” (Dean,

C. Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide To Talking To The Public, Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 2009).

(g) Avoiding jargon does not mean dumbing down

Do not think that communicating with the lay public, means that you have to dumb down. It only

means a change in register from ‘scispeak’ to ‘layspeak’. “It is neither necessary nor desirable to

dumb our projects down when writing for a general audience” … but “we need to write quite

differently when we want to reach beyond the comforting confines of our disciplinary coteries”

(Damrosch, D. 2007. “Trading up with Gilgamesh”, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9.)

Issue for reflection: Scientists should be prepared to change their register to that of the audience.

Research and the public understanding of science cannot flourish if scientists stick to one register,

i.e. their scientific jargon register.

(h) Know your audience

Always take your audience into consideration as not all audiences are the same. Change your

register to adapt to your audience. “The personal speaker – you – is the linchpin of spoken

broadcasting. Whether you are reading a script, reviewing a book, or discussing a breakthrough

in scientific research, you have to sound as though you are talking to each listener personally,

direct and alone,” the BBC broadcaster Elwyn Evans emphasised (as quoted by Shortland, M &

Gregory, J. 1992. Communicating Science – A Handbook. New York: Longman, pp.168-169.)

of 16

Illustration: Laurent Durieux

(i) Use the active voice and try to avoid the passive voice

Active voice versus Passive voice

• Scientists discovered a new planet * A new planet was discovered by

scientists

• Too much cholesterol in the * Cardiovascular disease is caused

diet causes cardiovascular disease by too much cholesterol in the diet

• Trees absorb CO2 * CO2 is absorbed by trees

• Humans cause climate change * Climate changed is caused by

humans

(j) Become and be a storyteller – don’t be a bore

Scientists are the discoverers and explorers of the modern world but they often refuse to tell the

story of science in stimulating and exciting ways.

of 16

Scientists should always remember the words of the first very successful popularizer of science, the

astrophysicist Carl Sagan: “I hold that popularization of science is successful if, at first, it does no

more than spark the sense of wonder.” (Sagan, C. The Demon-haunted World – Science as a Candle in

the Dark. 1996. New York: Headline Books, pp. 315-316) (my emphasis).

The aim of scientists communicating should not be to make the lay public scientifically literate, that

would be impossible. But to take the words of the physicist Robert Park as a communication’s credo:

“It is not so much knowledge of science that the public needs as a scientific worldview – an

understanding that we live in an orderly universe, governed by physical laws that cannot be

circumvented. (Voodoo Science – The Road From Foolishness to Fraud. 2006. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, p. 64).

Recommended reading:

Issue for reflection: There is an adage in journalism that you cannot be a good writer

(communicator) if you do not read good writing. Here are some examples of good science writing,

popularized by scientists and excellent science journalists, all awarded with important science-

writing prizes for their accessibility in communicating science:

of 16

• E.O. Wilson: The Diversity of Life; On Human Nature; The Ants (with Bert Hölldobler).

• John Gribbin: The Birth of Time – How We Measured the Age of the Universe, In Search of

Schrödinger’s Cat; Schrödinger’s Kittens.

• Richard Dawkins: The Ancestor’s Tale, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker,

The Selfish Gene, The Greatest Show on Earth.

• Carl Zimmer: Evolution – The Triumph of an Idea.

• David Bodanis: E=mc²: A History of the World’s Most Famous Equation, Electric Universe:

How Electricity Switched on the Modern World.

• Steve Jones: Almost Like a Whale, The Language of the Genes, The Descent of Men

• Frans de Waal: Peacemaking Among Primates

• Nick Lane: Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution, Oxygen.

• Sean B. Carroll: The Making of the Fittest, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: Six Impossible

Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief, The Unnatural Nature of Science.

• Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True.

• John Allen Paulos: I Think, Therefore I Laugh, Once Upon a Number, A Mathematician Reads

the Newspaper, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't

Add Up.

• Ben Goldacre: Bad Science.

• Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe.

• Simon Singh: Fermat’s Last Theorem, Big Bang

• Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw: Why does E=mc²? (and why should we care?)

• Lewis Carroll Epstein: Relativity Visualized

• Richard Fortey: The Earth: An Intimate History

• Malcolm Gladwell: Outliers, What the Dog Saw, Blink.

• Tim Folger (editor): The annual series, The Best American Science and Nature Writing.

2. How scientists should evaluate the newsworthiness of their research

2.1 News must be new (neos, novus, neu, newe): Scientists should always remember that getting

their research findings reported in the media, should take into consideration that news must be

fresh, have a new angle on present knowledge, and give new information.

of 16

Issue for reflection: Communicating their research to the media should reflect that novelty

requirement of news, and this is the first question the journalist and editor will ask: why

should we publish or broadcast this, what is new about this?

2.2 News must have conversational value (“My God, Martha!”-factor): Scientists often

underestimate the issues about their research that can make news around the dinner table and

barbecue.

Issue for reflection: Always look for the exceptional, the part of your research that can get a

conversation going.

2.3 Conflict can be news: The scientific endeavour is in its heart busy opening up new knowledge.

That can mean that new findings can be in conflict with previously held scientific findings or

theories. And because it is new, it is usually news.

Issue for reflection: Do not underestimate the value of conflict as a newsmaker but do not

sell frontier science as textbook science. Science is uncertain and new findings should never

be overblown and over-emphasised; give context of new findings.

2.4 Progress and disaster are news: Because of the discoveries made by scientists, progress can

take place. Scientists can often give perspective about new scientific discoveries and caution

about the expectations that can be over-emphasised in the media. Similarly, scientists can – and

should – give context to perceived disasters, e.g. how the outbreak of an epidemic may affect

society.

2.5 Timeliness: Scientists work at a different pace and time appreciation of when something new

should be announced. The news media have short deadlines, scientists have long deadlines.

Often it is difficult to align the two time-concepts as required by the different professions to the

benefit of all.

Issue for reflection: Scientists should be very careful not to announce their findings to the

public through the media before the research has been successfully peer reviewed. Going

directly to the media with breakthrough announcements without peer review, is a recipe for

disaster. The classic case of how it should not be announced, is the Stanley Pons/Martin

Fleischmann cold fusion announcement in the late 1980s and which destroyed both

scientists’ careers. That does not mean that scientists should not speak about their research

to the media before it has been completed. Often this type of interim and updating reports

of 16

to the media can lead to improved funding for researchers, but it must be done with tact

and caution without announcing final results.

2.6 Proximity: News that is closer to home always has a better chance to be featured in the media.

Issue for reflection: Scientists should always try to get their local media to give attention to

potential science stories closer to home, especially if research has a direct bearing on a

specific region or population.

2.7 Human interest stories: Numerous research studies have found that people are interested in

reading about other people’s lives, their careers, their success stories. Scientists can, as

discoverers, be some of the most important and interesting news topics.

Issue for reflection: Scientists should not be publicity-shy if their research can benefit from

media exposure and if it is handled with care.

3. The do’s and don’ts of dealing with the media

There are certain guidelines that scientists should be aware of when dealing with the media. The

most important are:

3.1 Respect the short deadlines of the media. When a journalist contacts you for a comment or

insight, take into consideration that you cannot delay in answering too long. It is better to

immediately indicate that you cannot give information now and set out the reasons for that,

than stalling reporters or avoiding them. If possible, ask for when the deadline of the reporter is,

and try to give a suitable answer before that.

3.2 Be careful not to become a censor of the media’s reports. It is generally accepted that

journalists do not have to show you their copy before going to print or broadcasting your

comments. The fear of the media that an outside source or force will interfere with their stories,

originates from the protection of freedom of speech. However, scientists can at least ask to have

the relevant parts written about them or the quotes they have given to be read back at them to

ensure accuracy. Journalists, as non-experts, can get the science wrong and to ensure that the

science is not misinterpreted and a scientist embarrassed in front of peers, there is nothing

wrong to insist on checking the accuracy of the way scientific facts are being portrayed in a

story.

of 16

Issue for reflection: Check the facts, not the style or comments of the journalist’s report.

3.3 Build bridges with the media. There is a saying that you don’t pick a fight with a man buying ink

by the barrel.

Issue for reflection: Build relationships with journalists, invite them on field-trips or into the

laboratory to explain the intricacies of your science.

4. Conclusion:

Science can only benefit from an improved relationship with trusted reporters. It will enhance

scientists’ research, and makes them far more accountable to their research benefactors who are

mostly the taxpayer who funds them.

© George Claassen

academy of science of south africa (assaf)

Documents