Cut out the media middle-man
The lament of scientists to be given fair air time and column inches in the popular media is a long and sombre one. Moreover, it is a battle for accuracy as well as frequency.
There are simply too many examples of research being sensationalised or taken criminally out of content for the sake of copy to mention. I am sure each of you is aware of at least one example that has caused consternation. As someone who attempts to uphold the highest standards of science journalism I try desperately not to fall foul of this (though not always successfully I have to admit, and it is important that I can rely on Lab News readers to always staunchly correct me if I stray).
There is a perception at least, that the aims of science and the media (by which I mean ‘mass media’) are irreconcilable. But are they? I have recently come across a very interesting paper by Professor Hans Peter Peters, a senior researcher at the Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine in Germany. His research deals with the formation of the public opinion of science under, he tells me, the ‘conditions of a media society’.
In his paper – Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators, published in PNAS – he talks about why it might be that scientists can, and often do, feel suspicious of the media. Most bluntly he mentions early work suggesting “scientists and journalists were like strangers to each other, not able to understand each other’s language, and driven by different agendas.” In the age of near ubiquitous press departments this may have eased somewhat but there is still, as Peters points out, an almost global perception of an unsatisfactory relationship between science and the media.
But there are also other problems. It is clear from the evidence he reviews that the majority of scientists think acceptance of a publication by a scientific journal is threatened if the research results have already been reported in the mass media.
That is to say that peer-peer publishing takes primacy over a discussion with the public because of a perceived threat to those who might later seek to publish their work in a journal. This, I am sure, is an unhelpful situation. I’m not advocating necessarily that any given researcher should talk about their work before it has been peer reviewed, but I am saying that I don’t think journals should be the enforcers of this.
Let’s assume this is unlikely to change. Then it is true to say that once work is peer-review published there is often a second-step required by scientists in order to then communicate that work with the public. A step not always taken. Public communication plays second fiddle to its more respected peer-review brethren, that much is clear. To my mind communication to interested citizens is just as important as communication to your peers. Important for different reasons I’ll grant you, but important none-the-less.
So, for all those interested in communicating their work effectively to the public I say this; whilst it might be tempting to demand of the mass media that scientists and their work are taken seriously and given a chair at the grown-up’s table, it might be easier to dine elsewhere…
Cut out the media middle-man...www.labnews.co.uk/shout-it-out/
Related Content
Gatsby: a benchmark for STEM success
The Gatsby Foundation’s benchmarks are helping transform school careers guidance. Good news for STEM employers, says Rachel Bibby, who explains …
Moon myths: Artemis in proportion
Curious how space science is always exaggerated. If there’s a meteor shower due, when you might see a fleeting shooting …
When plasma leaves the laboratory
The orbital laboratory is evolving into something more ambitious, a controlled industrial environment for producing next-generation materials, explains Ed Smith and Andrew Griffiths. …
