W. Alton Jones Campus, University of Rhode Island
November 9-11, 2003
(1st workshop in series)

Seventeen invited climate and marine scientists and science and environmental journalists met for 1-1/2 days at the University of Rhode Island in early November 2003 to explore communication hurdles impeding improved public understanding of science-related issues, in particular as reported through the mass news media.

The senior journalists and scientists, representing some of North America's leading news organizations and including highly accomplished environmental scientists, met under the auspices of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, housed at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography. The workshop was the first in a planned series expected to lead up to a new report on science communications and the mass media. Financial support for the workshop came through grants from the Paleoclimate Program, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation; from the Office of Atmospheric Programs, Environmental Protection Agency; and from National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The workshops are designed to lay a foundation for improving journalists' and scientists' understanding and appreciation of both disciplines' working culture and of their fundamental ways of doing business. The goal of the workshops is to explore ways to improve science communications with the broad public through the mass media, in ways loyal to the needs of both robust and independent journalism and of excellent science. One final product resulting from the series of workshops is to be a major new report on science communications and the mass media.

"The differences in world view are more vast" than those involved in other news beats, said a newspaper editor. "Neither side adequately understands the 'process' by which each field operates," said a TV producer.

Both science and journalism professionals often express frustration with the general level of understanding in the American public of complex science-based issues, including global climate change and issues related to marine biology and oceanography. They both acknowledge that the public generally comes to understand these issues through the mass media, and many acknowledge a shared responsibility for helping to improve public understanding of science-based issues.

While responsible, independent journalists and respected scientists share some similarities in their "pursuit of truth," the two fields – considering only their roles as information providers to the public – have different, and sometimes incompatible, goals, missions, and responsibilities: Some journalists complain, for instance, that scientists sometimes see the media as an extension of their own scientific work, promoting rather than reporting on that work; and many scientists express concerns that journalists too often look for "conflict" or for an artificial or misleading "balance" in reporting on science issues.

The 17 journalists and scientists were selected as senior and respected veterans of the science/environmental journalism and climate/marine science fields, individuals bringing to the workshop their own extensive professional experiences and backgrounds in communicating with the public on science issues. Each invited journalism or science participant brought to the workshop strong personal and professional convictions concerning the role and importance of the news media in science communications.

Individual journalists and scientists were invited to the workshop specifically because of their roles as science communications leaders within their own professional journalism and science communities. This emphasis led one participant at the URI workshop to correctly characterize the discussions as taking place in a somewhat "rarefied" atmosphere not broadly representative of the full range of participants in the climate change/oceanography and journalism arenas. A full roster of the invited journalism and science participants and also of workshop observers is included as an Attachment to this report.

The November 2003 workshop at URI was planned and designed as the first of a series of journalist/scientist interactive workshops to take place over the next few years. The workshops are intended to build on each other, with participants at the initial workshops passing on to those at subsequent workshops a record of their deliberations and also having opportunities to provide input as the workshop series proceeds; and with each subsequent workshop building further on the accomplishments of those that preceded it. In addition, the invited scientists and journalists from each of the workshops will be kept apprised, through electronic communications, of activities throughout the entire series of workshops, leading eventually to the major new report mentioned above and to a "community" of journalists and scientists with an improved understanding of each others' needs, professional culture, and communications capacities and constraints. Workshop participants are actively encouraged to share with their professional societies and peers the "lessons learned" from their workshop experiences.

Impediments to More Effective
Scientist/Journalist Communications

As the first in the planned series, the URI workshop focused primarly on identifying and categorizing communications impediments arising in the journalist/scientist relationship. The discussion then moved to initially identifying potential "solutions" that could facilitate improved media coverage of science-based issues. The issues discussed fall into several general categories:

• Mutual trust/confidence;
• Involvement in science education;
• "Balanced" reporting and reporting in context;
• Politicization of science;
• Participation in public life/democracy;
• Conflict of interest;
• Coverage of uncertainty;
• "Pitching" science.

The remainder of this narrative report highlights individual issues discussed at the URI workshop, along with initial ideas the journalists and scientists discussed as addressing those issues. Because many of the discussed "solutions" apply to more than one "issue," the solutions are presented at the end of the discussion of issues, rather than as a part of each issue. The paraphrases and quotations are drawn both from the actual workshop discussions and from written comments participants submitted either before or after the workshop.

Mutual Trust/Confidence

"Lack of Mutual Understanding" – Scientists and journalists at the URI workshop said that neither field sufficiently understands the other's roles and responsibilities, ways of doing business, and protocols. Scientists appear unfamiliar with how news decisions and judgments are made in the newsroom; with the roles of different news departments (for instance, news, editorial, and feature) within a single news organization; and with opportunities for what the reporters referred to as explanatory journalism. Journalists said their reporting colleagues have varying degrees of understanding of the scientific process; of how scientific hypotheses are aired and tested and challenged; and of how scientists view their pedagogical roles and their roles in the public policy arena. "Within the science community, differences of opinions are part of the way science evolves, and journalists try to take advantage of this difference to depict controversy (i.e., news) with the result that the science message is lost or misrepresented," said one scientist.

Scientists also sometimes see individual reporters as advocates for a particular perspective, and not merely as communicators of news and information.

In the words of one editor, "scientists and journalists view the world differently, and this contributes to many communications problems. Each group is, more or less, contemptuous of the other." Another reporter pointed to "the fundamental mismatch between journalism's traditional definitions of news and the way science progresses." Yet another observation offered at the workshop: "A common misperception among scientists, journalists, and the public is that all environmental journalists are also environmental activists."

"Fear Factor" – This term was used to describe some scientists' persistent fears of being misquoted or taken out of context in mass media reports on their work. Workshop participants indicated that in many instances, scientists fear that reporters are deliberately seeking controversy and disagreement in their coverage, and that reporters often are nonchalant concerning facts and accuracy. "Many in my field are virtually afraid to be interviewed on controversial issues, for fear of being misquoted or having their contributions distorted," according to a scientist.

Scientists at the workshop indicated that even when an interview goes "as well as hoped," their scientific peers sometimes see them as merely trying to curry favor or seek publicity – going beyond what is "traditional and expected" of them in their roles as scientists.

"Opportunity to Preview" – Many scientists, and some journalists, support allowing scientists an opportunity to review, prior to publication or broadcast, all or part of a reporter's coverage of a complex scientific subject. Many journalists balk at such a practice, equating it to a form of censorship or pre-publication intimidation. But some others routinely and, they say, successfully have sources check facts to help ensure accuracy and fairness of their copy. Discussions on this practice among journalists often approach an almost-religious fervor, and in a number of news organizations the practice is discouraged or disallowed.

"Letting Errors Stand Uncorrected" – Scientists discussed something of an inclination among them to not even seek corrections or clarifications from news media and instead to let published or broadcast errors stand unaddressed, so low is their expectation of factual accuracy from some reporters. Participants agree that corrections, when published or aired, seldom get as much attention as did the initial reports. The reporters decried this approach and insisted that they and their editors want to correct actual mistakes that have been reported. "Encourage scientists to critique media efforts," a TV producer urged.

"Common or Shared Objectives" – The URI workshop participants agreed that to some extent, at least, both news reporters and scientists are engaged in "seeking truth" or facts, but they found little common ground on basic terms such as "evidence" or "fact," or on concepts involving, for instance, correlation and causality. Journalism's commitment to the "new" in news and to the ever-changing contrasts with the more gradual and incremental scientific process.

Tools for the "General Assignment" Reporter – Although some news organizations – particularly major news organizations in large markets – have dedicated science staffs, editors, and reporters, many do not, workshop participants noted. They discussed a desire to somehow provide "general assignment" reporters and those not routinely dealing with science news tools and skills they need to successfully cover science news. Participants discussed increased use of general assignment reporters as a trend in newsrooms, and emphasized the importance of providing them additional resources for covering science stories.

Ongoing Dialogue – Reporters and scientists routinely speak with each other "on deadline" and on a specific story, and the communications in those instances often tends to be one-way. Workshop participants said there is value in their regularly exchanging views and perspectives on science news and science communications in a more casual non-breaking-news environment. One journalist said: "The more communication there is between journalists and scientists outside the deadline situation, the better off everyone will be .... in an atmosphere of 'safety' sufficient to get everyone talking."

Involvement in Science Education

The Scientist as Educator, Communicator – Professional and institutional barriers tend to discourage scientists from going "outside the laboratory" to inform the media, the public, and policy makers about their scientific activities, according to workshop scientists. They said such activities too often are viewed as "extra-curricular" or "on your own time," and they said no rewards system recognizes such activities, but rather that such activities often are resented, and in some instances can harm one's standing within a scientific institution.

The Media as Educator – Workshop participants explored the pedagogical responsibilities of the news media, with media representatives often resisting describing themselves as "educators." Journalists agreed, however, that media have and play an educational role – that responsible journalism often does educate; but some reporters said they and their counterparts actively reject the notion that reporters are educators. One reporter said that education cannot be the goal of news reporting, but that it is often an output, and other reporters pointed to the role of "explanatory journalism," as opposed to hard news reporting, in education.

Does the Public "Shy Away" from Science? Is the Public "Anti-Science"? – The workshop participants discussed a perception that the broad public sometimes is "anti-science" and incapable of grasping the complexities of science. While public opinion polls generally show strong support for science in the abstract, "The general public often perceives science as boring or inapplicable to their daily lives," one workshop attendee said. "How does this affect me, and why should I care?" Participants agreed that some scientists and some editors who take this general view resist "pushing" science news to the public, concerned that it will not be well received. The term "inadequate public understanding of science" recurred throughout the discussions, with the participants discussing ways to improve that understanding.

In addition, participants discussed some journalists' desires to assure that their coverage can be entertaining as well as informative. They discussed how this interest may run counter to "true" reporting of science, and some scientists pointed to this concern as a reason for scientists' hesitancy to work with reporters. At the same time, some journalists, perhaps in particular broadcast journalists, point to a need for their material to be entertaining (in order, for instance, to "hook and retain" the viewer) if it is to be reported in the first place. They say this need underscores the importance of making science news relevant to every-day life. Without this element, some journalists fear, science news will not compete successfully with other issues for finite air time and column inches and will, in effect, be "left behind" ... on the proverbial cutting-room floor.

"Balance" in Reporting

What is "Balance"? – Journalism's traditional commitment to reporting all sides of a controversial issue elicited concerns from some scientists seeing no real counterpart in the scientific process. Is balance 50/50 if the "preponderance of evidence" weighs in on a particular issue at 75/25? A scientist decried "a tendency by journalists to want to reflect both sides of most scientific issues, even if both sides are not equally respected by the scientific community." Is balance in the context of science news any different from balance in other news stories, for instance in stories reporting on a political campaign? Should the media apply balance in science stories differently than they might in other arenas? A reporter's perspective: "Scientists need to do a better job of describing the quality of the evidence underlying their conclusions, and journalists need to do more to understand varying levels of evidence and to insist that scientists disclose the evidentiary basis of their statements."

Balance and "Evidence" - Can the media accurately weigh evidence in a science story? Does a reporter's merely providing "both sides" of an issue in effect absolve the reporter of having to do more thorough research and analysis, and coming to an independent informed conclusion based on that research? Does balance come at the expense of, rather than contributing to, accuracy and "fairness"? One scientist's suggestion to scientists and journalists: "State clearly the bounds of uncertainty and what we do not know, but more importantly state what we do know." Another suggestion: "When the scientific community is mostly in consensus, the focus of a story should not be solely on a few dissenters but rather include and be focused on the implications of the scientific consensus for policy considerations."

Does "Balance" Distort? – Does the pursuit of balance sometimes distort what the scientific "consensus" might be on a particular issue? Does it falsely elevate in seeming importance or relativity a minority and scientifically faulty position? On the other hand, how do media allow for those times, relatively infrequent, when a minority in the science community "turns out to be right"?

"He Said/She Said" reporting – Simple but common "he said/she said" reporting on science news can leave the public confused rather than informed or enlightened, participants said. They discussed whether the popular "talking heads" or "point-counterpoint" journalism format – pitting diametrically opposing views against each other – is conducive to effectively covering complex science issues. Scientists said they are accustomed to scientific differences being aired and resolved through the peer review process, and not through heated "made for TV" face-offs. Those formats were described, in effect, as shedding more heat than light, as perhaps being entertaining, but not responsibly informative. Scientists said such face-offs contrast with the peer-review process they routinely use for airing and resolving scientific differences.

Continuity and Context in Science News – The media too often are inclined to characterize incremental scientific developments as major scientific breakthroughs, participants said. They agreed that often those scientific developments amount to incremental advances in understanding on a continuum – the product of extensive previous scientific work. A reporter's perspective: "Journalism's traditions in defining news make it difficult to cover science in anything but the 'amazing breakthrough' mode. Most journalists, especially those who do not specialize in science, tend to think that scientists' claims are asserted as if they were certain." Frequent news embargoes placed by leading scientific journalists can contribute to this mistaken "news flash" mindset, participants said. Scientists indicated that individual scientists need to put their own work in the context of scientific work that preceded and contributed to it, or, for that matter, differed with it. A print reporter: "Journalism needs to change the way it defines news, looking more at process of inquiry and avoiding the inflation of incremental findings into page-one headlines."

"Politicization" of Science and Reporting of Conflicts

"Censorship" of Science – Government agencies and some news organizations – the former reacting to political pressures and the latter to financial pressures tied to the media's being a "big business" – are seen as increasingly engaging in censorship or self-censorship of scientific findings, participants said. Journalists and scientists pointed to instances in which they believe political or commercial pressures have improperly led to the withholding or altering of scientific findings and reports, and there was discussion of a need for scientists to publicly and vocally condemn such instances.

"Junk Science" – Participants cited cases in which "junk science," as they define it, is sometimes treated by the news media as mainstream science. There was discussion that the "burden of proof" involving what some called "spurious claims" in some ways has been shifted from those challenging mainstream science to those representing it, in contrast to the scientific tradition of generally having new claims bear the burden of proof. "Scientists sometimes are selected for an interview BECAUSE of their biased or highly controversial views," a scientist complained. Another expressed concern over "the notion that a scientific issue must have two equally valid sides." A broadcast reporter's advice to journalism peers: "Be careful of 'bought' science masquerading as real science." There were discussions on the seemingly contrasting approaches of the scientific process and the news process in filtering-out "junk science."

Disclosing Conflicts, Connections – Participants generally agreed on the importance of the media's accurately reporting real or perceived conflicts of interest – reporting on scientists' financial, political, or institutional connections to the work they are doing. This discussion echoed the popular "follow the money" dictum familiar to many reporters, but participants said the practice needs to be followed more consistently, not only in news stories but also in feature pieces and opinion columns.

Participation in Civil Society, in Democracy

The Scientist "As Citizen" – The scientific community is sometimes reluctant or unwilling to "get involved" in public policy issues hinging on science, such as climate change, participants said. Some scientists expressed the view that their profession needs to "step up" on these issues, while also recognizing strong sentiments among many scientists to remain above the fray. A scientist, pointing to scientists' concerns that they not be viewed as biased or advancing a political or policy objective, cautioned that reporters "shouldn’t force scientists to make policy recommendations." A journalist's comeback: How aggressively should the media demand that scientists explain themselves when they do enter the policy realm? What is the optimum role of the scientists in the science/policy dichotomy?

Institutional Impediments – The scientific community and "culture" often punish scientists for engaging in public outreach and education activities and go so far as to provide incentives not to participate in such public dialogues, scientists said. One scientist’s concise suggestion to the scientific and research community: "Recognize that this is a legitimate role for scientists" ... and provide incentives to reward and encourage it.

Commercialization of Science and of News – Participants weighed the social and civil responsibilities of the news media and of the scientific community given financial pressures imposed in a market economy. They agreed that both disciplines can be inappropriately influenced by market pressures, and they agreed that the motivations of individual scientists and also of journalists can color how science news is reported.

Communicating on Uncertainty

Role of Scientists – Scientists are often reluctant to volunteer to reporters the relative uncertainties involved in their own work, participants said. There was discussion that some scientists lack the "skills" or instincts to fairly characterize uncertainty in their scientific research, and that reporters similarly lack essential skills in reporting knowledgeably on uncertainty.

Role of Media – The media often report scientific uncertainties as areas of major underlying disagreement, participants said. They said media don't sufficiently explore with scientists levels of uncertainty in their own work, and there’s a temptation to treat each new scientific development as "the next big thing," when it may not actually deserve such a billing.

"Pitching" Science

The Role of Public Information Officers – Workshop participants explored the optimum role of public information officers (PIOs), for instance those with federal agencies or with research institutions and universities, in communicating with the mass media on complex science news. There was some discussion that PIOs often lack sufficient expertise and training in the particular area of science at issue, and concerns expressed that scientists and news media sometimes do not make optimum use of even well qualified PIOs. There was discussion too of some PIO’s being more interested in providing a "positive spin" than they are in providing sound information.

Speaking to the Public – Workshop participants expressed concerns that many scientists are incapable of "translating" their technical work in words the broad public can understand, or uncomfortable trying to do so. "Some scientists act as though sound bites are the spawn of Satan," one reporter said, while effective sound bites from differing perspectives can help carry the day with the media and the public and policy makers. A scientist's counsel: "Make your science relevant to everyday life (both scientists and journalists)." And a reporter's: "Educate journalists about the significance of science to so many broader societal issues .... Sometimes, scientists do not realize the broader significance of their findings and/or research, and this may take some drawing-out."

"Pitching Science" Stories to Editors – Reporters can do a better job of "pitching" news stories to their own editors, in part by making the news relevant to people's everyday lives and concerns, participating journalists said. There was discussion that editors often are less familiar with science news than with other news routinely covered by the news organization, and that reporters need to regularly "educate" editors on the importance and relevance of science news.

Ways to Address Scientist/Journalist
Communications Impediments

Workshop journalists and scientists discussed a number of ideas for facilitating communications between their two disciplines, recognizing throughout that the institutional and practical challenges are considerable. The following key ideas were discussed during the November 9-11, 2003, workshop. These ideas are to be provided to scientist and journalism participants in the second workshop, scheduled for March 17-19 at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in La Jolla, Ca. Participants in that workshop will be asked to consider and to build on these ideas, but not to feel bound or limited by them.

Building Trust "One Person at a Time" – Participants agreed on the need for journalists and scientists to build trust with each other, but they several times emphasized that such a process must proceed "one person at a time." They pointed out the value – for a reporter regularly covering specific science issues and to help ensure technical accuracy – of a reporter's having a reliable and trusted scientist or scientists with whom to consult on complex science issues. There was discussion of scientists' mentoring journalists on scientific issues in a non-deadline relationship and of journalists' mentoring scientists on the news process. Some scientists serve informally or formally as on- or off-air scientific consultants for broadcast media.

Provide Mentoring and Training Opportunities – Workshop participants discussed potential benefits of reporters' hosting local scientists to a "newsroom open house" to help the scientists better learn the news process. Similarly, scientists could host individual or groups of reporters to an in-the-field or laboratory\bench work open house. "Breakfast with eggheads!" one scientist volunteered, describing one such effort along these lines.

Increased Interaction at Professional Conferences – There was discussion of efforts to increase interaction between journalists and scientists in non-deadline settings, such as at professional meetings of each discipline. Such exchanges were described as opportunities for journalists to learn more about how to communicate uncertainty, for instance, while scientists also would learn more about how to discuss with news media representatives uncertainty in their own work.

"Generally Accepted" or "Best" Practices – Participants explored the feasibility of what might amount to a "best practices" approach for scientists and journalists in communicating on science news. They addressed issues such as encouraging scientists to clearly differentiate, in their conversations with news media representatives, between their scientific and their personal judgments, and to be extremely careful in both acknowledging others' supporting work and in characterizing conflicting work done by others. They aired the notion of reporters' exploring effective ways to get pre-publication scientific review on technical matters, and of ways reporters might routinely paraphrase or "play back" a scientist's response to questions to have his or her understanding confirmed. A scientist encouraged peers to avoid communicating in "acronyms and jargon" and wondered if reporters could be encouraged to ask "more focused questions." Another suggested encouraging reporters to identify in advance of interviews the general questions they expect to pose, a practice likely to be controversial among some reporters. One workshop reporter's unequivocal comment: "I will not show sources advance copies of my articles for them to review." A scientist suggested that reporters and scientists might "discuss terminology prior to an interview" and familiarize each other with "language, methods, approach."

Mentoring of Small-Market Media – Participants explored how large-market news media organizations' science staffs might "mentor" reporters and editors in local or smaller markets on coverage of complex science news. A scientist supported "establishing scientific liaisons/consultants with journalists to act as a content source and in an advisory capacity." Participants discussed the feasibility and appropriateness of developing and distributing to small-market reporters responsible and authoritative lists of knowledgeable, respected, and credible scientists on a range of issues, raising the obvious question of who could be empowered to establish such lists. Beyond small-media markets, there was discussion that reporters newly assigned to cover environmental or science stories should "seek out" a reliable scientist to help teach them. "Make the scientist teach you," one scientist emphasizes. This discussion included the notion of "train the trainer" to maximize outreach potential.

Scientists' Understanding of the News Process – Participants discussed ways for scientists to better understand and interact with individual components of a news organization, such as the news room, the editorial board, and the business or science sections. There was discussion that scientists do not contact newsroom editorial boards, for instance, to the extent that government agencies and business or activist interests do. One reporter's comment: "Scientists need to streamline their data so that the media understand why their study is important and how it is relevant." Another: "Science reporting necessitates explaining difficult concepts to a naοve audience." A broadcast editor cautioned scientists to understand that "science journalism is under pressure. Commercial pressures make it harder and harder to get science stories on the air. This is true even with some of the most important subjects of our time. Editors and executives apply pressure to have shorter stories or follow formulaic approaches to covering science."

Science Education "At All Levels" – Participants discussed how public confusion can result when media portray scientific findings as swaying wildly from day to day: Coffee is good for you one day, bad for you the next. They discussed how media might help the public better understand that the scientific process and culture is a collaborative and iterative one, involving testing and retesting of hypotheses. "It isn't just about one guy trying to knock down the last guy's ideas," one scientist emphasized. They discussed also how the media, given its commitment to reporting "news," might help the public better understand the role of science in society and in daily life. Reporters and the public "shouldn't assume that all scientific questions have a specific answer," a scientist cautioned. Another advised that reporters "should avoid sensationalizing standard scientific differences which are a part of the scientific process." The group discussed opportunities for improving college-level education of scientists – and younger scientists generally – to better understand issues related to the news media, and education of journalists to better understand science. They discussed the willingness of school teachers to host in-the-classroom visits and lectures by scientists and journalists. A scientist's perspective: "Universities are amazingly passive about all of this .... Younger scientists seem much more receptive to developing good working relations with the media."

"Safe Zones" for Journalist/Scientist Exchanges – The participants encouraged increased opportunities for scientists and journalists to discuss their interactions in a "safe" and non-deadline environment, one encouraging candor and frank exchanges. "Don't just seek scientists out when news is breaking," a print reporter suggested to colleagues, "but try to maintain an ongoing dialogue." Participants discussed the idea of developing a "template" for conducting such one-day or half-day workshops, and they discussed whether university programs might best facilitate and conduct such activities.

Regarding "Balance" in Reporting on Science – Workshop participants discussed the feasibility of coming to agreement between scientists and journalists on the meaning of "balance" as it might apply to coverage of science news. They discussed how to improve journalists' analytical skills and capabilities so that balance does not become a substitute for more research and reporting and more in-depth analysis and understanding.

Understanding the Full Range of Communications Media – Many in the scientific community need to better understand and appreciate the differing needs of various news organizations and news media, including differences between news and feature items, participants said. They emphasized the need for scientists to better understand the differing needs of the print and broadcast media, such as broadcasters' need for video and visuals. "Most scientists are unaware of the needs of a visual medium," a TV producer said. They also discussed the potential for including more science stories in non-science publications based on relevance to "everyday life." One broadcast reporter's advice: "Find non-traditional media outlets to explain the work."

Encouraging Scientific Involvement in "Public Life" – Participants discussed the idea that the scientific community overall may have an "untapped reservoir of credibility" that it could use more effectively in assuring that science is adequately considered in public policy decisions and considered also in evaluating effects of those decisions. While distinguishing between their scientific and their public policy positions, participants suggested, scientists could examine how to better engage in public policy decisionmaking involving their areas of scientific expertise.

Scientists and "Plain English" – Participants said many scientists have trouble speaking about their work in nontechnical "plain English" understandable to non-experts. "Focus on real people" in speaking with reporters, one scientist cautioned, "not on your colleagues." "Think how you discuss your work with your family or friends, and use those terms when translating for a reporter," a journalist suggested. Workshop participants discussed, for instance, efforts to have scientists, in writing proposals for funding, write a concise "plain-English" synopsis of their proposal; perhaps those same scientists could be encouraged to write "plain-English" synopses of their research results. Journalists could be encouraged to use, but not to rely solely on, such synopses. A caution from one journalist: "Statistics – the language of science – is something foreign to most journalists." Participants discussed providing journalism students more background in fundamentals of statistics.

Scientific Institutions' "Investments" in News – Participants said that some research institutions specifically invest in working with news organizations and in engaging the media, but that most do not ... and should. "A major problem is undervaluation of public outreach in the science community," a scientist said. "Little is invested in it, and those who do get involved are often not well compensated for it, and outreach certainly does not play a role in the tenure system." Workshop participants discussed how having a budget line item for working with media would allow science institutions to "play offense" in working with the media, and not simply react to on-deadline media inquiries. These set-aside budgets might also be used to better train research groups' public information officers, they said.

What Comes Next?

This workshop report from the November 9-11, 2003, Rhode Island meeting will be shared with the journalists and scientists who participated in that workshop and then will be provided to their counterparts scheduled to participate at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography workshop March 17-19, 2004. The report will be used to help guide, but not steer, the Scripps workshop discussions, so they will benefit from the discussions at the previous workshop. It will also be made available to individuals who attended the Rhode Island workshop in an "observer" category, and it will remain available for participants in subsequent workshops in this series.

This report, the taped discussions from the Rhode Island workshop, and other written materials provided by workshop participants will be used, along with similar materials from the subsequent workshops, to produce a new major report on science communications and the mass media, once all the workshops are concluded.

The journalism and scientist participants in the Rhode Island workshop, identified below, did not seek to reach consensus on the matters discussed, and this document is not intended to be a consensus document. Each no doubt has her own and his own independent view of the relative merits of the points discussed in the workshop.

Journalists

• Cornelia Dean, Shorenstein Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, and New York Times Science Editor (1997-2003);
• Camille Rose Feanny, Producer, CNN Science & Technology Unit;
• Richard Kerr, Senior news writer, Science;
• Peter Lord, Environmental Writer, Providence Journal;
• Boyce Rensberger, Director, MIT-Knight Science Journalism Fellowships, and former New York Times and Washington Post science journalist;
• Andrew Revkin, science and environment reporter, The New York Times;
• Randy Showstack, Reporter, EOS;
• Sarah Webb, Ph.D. candidate, Indiana University;
• Dale Willman, executive editor, Field Notes Productions, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

Scientists

• Susan Avery, Ph.D., Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, professor of electrical and computer engineering, University of Colorado;
• Judith L. Lean, Ph.D., research physicist, Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory;
• Jerry D. Mahlman, Ph.D., senior research fellow, National Center for Atmospheric Research, former director of the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory;
• Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia;
• James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., professor of biological oceanography, Harvard University;
• Robert McDonald, graduate student, University Program in Ecology, Duke University.
• Ellen Prager, Ph.D., President, Earth2Ocean, Inc., Key Biscayne, Florida., and former assistant dean, Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami;
• Roger Street, regional director, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada.

Back to article or Back to top