|
ABSTRACT
In an age when
science-based questions are confronting society almost constantly, public
science knowledge appears to have remained stalled at a very low level, or
is in retreat. This is largely a result of a failed communication theory
that persists in science journalism and particularly among scientists.
Serious thought should be given urgently to training working journalists and
journalism students to deal successfully with science topics by abandoning
failed models and taking up the democratic opportunities offered by new
communications technologies.
For 50 years at
least, enormous amounts of paper, energy, money, time and anxiety have been
expended on the question of getting science to the public – and the ferment
continues. So John Maddox, then editor of Nature, could in 1995 describe
promotion of “the public understanding of science” as swiftly becoming
politically correct, while, in the US, the funding base of the Informal
Science Education program of the National Science Foundation grew from $US4
million in 1984 to $56 million in 2001 (Field and Powell, 2001) and is still
growing. Scientific literacy has become “an internationally well recognised
educational slogan, buzzword, catchphrase and contemporary educational goal”
(Laugksch, 2000, p. 70). Indeed, by the beginning of the 21st century,
promotion of science communication had become literally an industry (OST and
The Wellcome Trust 2000, p. 14). Obviously, significant powerful sections of
Western society are anxious that the populations become more
science-literate, and that anxiety is repeatedly aggravated by studies
showing low to very low levels of public understanding and knowledge of
science.
As many
commentators have observed (eg, Hornig-Priest, 2000), a large part of the
responsibility for providing the public with this scientific understanding
and knowledge is perceived to be that of the mass media, especially
journalists in the news media. However, the media do not appear to be making
anyone happy with their coverage of science – not scientists, not the
public, not journalists. Anger and frustration among scientists and the many
promoters of public science literacy at the amount and quality of science
the news media provide is constantly evident (Fleishman, 2002). Content
surveys show that the level of science in newspapers, for example
(newspapers carry the greatest quantity of science information), ranges from
extremely low to very low (McIlwaine, 2003). And the accuracy and fidelity
to scientific sources of that low level of information is never satisfactory
to science (McIlwaine, 2001). At the same time, what is labelled
pseudo-science and even anti-science appears to be flourishing as never
before. Even attempts at providing science information in science sections,
such as that begun in 2002 by The Sydney Morning Herald, are characterized
by critics as mere consumer health-and-fitness niches that are designed to
attract advertising, not inform anyone about current scientific work
(McIlwaine, 2003). Simultaneously, specialist science journalists are viewed
with suspicion by their generalist colleagues, as well as media critics, as
complaisant creatures of the science and scientists they write about.
Science journalists complain that they do not get a fair go, that they are
not allowed to do their job. Meanwhile, survey after survey in Australia, in
the US and in Europe show that media audiences are interested in knowing
about science but consider themselves poorly informed about science and
poorly served by the media in science information. Clearly, these problems
present a major challenge to journalism and to journalism education.
Much of the
science establishment’s disappointment concerns public ignorance of basic
science and the way science is supposed to work. Surveys keep showing widespread
failure to answer satisfactorily such “textbook” questions as whether the
sun revolves around the earth, whether electrons are bigger or smaller than
atoms, whether lasers are produced by sound or light, how the “scientific
method” functions, and so on. The presumed task for journalism of getting
this kind of science information and understanding across to lay audiences
has always been based on what appears to be an attractively simple process:
publish more science “facts”, train more specialist science journalists, who
will generate still more science “facts”. This uncomplicated remedy sees the
needs of all parties being satisfied: science journalists would have more
opportunities to do the work they are passionately interested in, media
audiences would be freed from their superstitions and misguided ideas about
science, and scientists would bask in the glory of their even further
heightened social profile, as well as gaining greater access to funds
provided by a grateful public.
But this apparent
solution has failed, and failed comprehensively. Nobody is satisfied and
little has changed. Despite the establishment in many journalism-education
institutions throughout the world – and notably the US – of postgraduate and
undergraduate courses in science journalism since 1979, lay knowledge of
science among news consumers appears not to have risen at all (Miller,
2001). Indeed, despite some rapid increases (from a low base) in the space
devoted to science in newspapers, the quantum of science “knowledge” among
the populations of Western democracies as a proportion of what is there to
be known, in fact appears to be rapidly diminishing: as the number of
research outcomes rises almost exponentially, public awareness bumps along a
bottom flat line. This has produced a fresh round of charges against
journalism. Not only are the media responsible for an anti-science movement,
the science establishment accuses, but also the stubborn persistence of
public scientific ignorance is a direct outcome of journalism’s refusal or
inability to do what only it can do. Further, even critics of science assert
that the very basis of democracy is threatened by this media-driven public
ignorance. We are constantly warned that the scientific and technical
revolution offers a series of complex choices that demand an informed
electorate. As one critic put it: “We cannot hope to maintain even the
limited degree of democracy that we now have (in the US) if the great
majority of us are alienated from the language and methods of science”
(Cooper, 1998, p. 25).
What can be the
reason for this paradox? Why does journalism not satisfy such a clear
demand? Why does such a large and growing investment in public understanding
of science have such negative return? The reasons are complex and include
problems of specialisation versus journalism’s inherently generalist
outlook. They also have something to do with the non-science backgrounds of
many in executive positions in the news media. But an important and basic
reason is that the theory on which the idea of science communication –
including the training of specialists – is constructed is fundamentally
flawed. The crux of recent research is that much of what the science
establishment, scientists and promoters of science popularisation have for
so long insisted on is clearly counter-productive. The recent work in
Britain has found little or no evidence that the presence of more science,
scientists and science specialists in the media increases the public
understanding of science (Hargreaves, Lewis & Speers, 2003). On the
contrary, a “science for science’s sake” approach seems the one least likely
to generate public engagement and understanding (p. 53).
These researchers
have confirmed what promoters of science literacy through the mass media have
refused to admit since social scientists started to question the validity of
the science-literacy paradigm more than 15 years ago. They show that the
pedagogically inspired notion of news audiences being filled with knowledge
like so many empty vessels is nonsense. The splendidly simple idea that
through consuming news and features about science citizens will become more
scientifically literate and, therefore, more friendly towards science, and
therefore seek to know still more about science is by now utterly
threadbare. This model’s lack of success in building a scientifically
informed citizenry, a failure about which scientists and other science
promoters have complained for 50 years, appears to be absolutely
predictable. People do not respond to being lectured, and they will actively
disengage from a communication that allows them no say. This is especially
so when the lecture appears to have nothing very much to do with day-to-day
life or particular problems. Yet this “deficit” or “top-down” model of science
in the news media, where information flows in one direction only – from
science through the conduit of journalists to the public – is still
earnestly promoted and practised. And this discredited and ethically suspect
model is still the basis for teaching people to write about science as
science specialists. The central thrust of courses continues to emphasise
one-way transmission from science to the public (see, eg, Wallin, 2001). The
most recent text, A Field Guide to Science Journalism (Blum & Knudson,
1997), the “Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers”,
is prefaced by a briefing on the “chief responsibilities” of a newspaper
science writer, including: “Writing a story based on a journal article is
the science-writing equivalent of a political writer covering a candidate’s
speech or a court reporter covering a written decision handed down by a
judge” (Rensberger, 1997, p. 10). That is, science is holy writ and must be
faithfully translated for the masses in a form that they can understand, but
in a form that permits no discourse, no dissent.
As we know, the
same people who seem to resist the instruction to learn science from the
media do want to know more about science from the media: they keep saying
so, at least in answer to surveys. Here is another paradox, or another part
of the same paradox. While it is not yet clear what lay people generally
consider is and is not science, it is becoming much plainer that their
interest in what are obviously important aspects of “real” contemporary
science is rational and growing.
Researchers have
long been aware that people are intensely interested in knowledge that
affects them or has the potential to affect them personally. This means much
interest in science that deals with health and medical research, but also
considerable interest in science other than health and medicine (Myers,
1996). We know that very few people outside the 10 per cent or less who can
be described as science-attentive care enough about science in general to read
an article on astronomy, chemistry, geology or quantum physics, for instance
(Weigold, 2001). And that same 90 per cent will not be shamed, cajoled, or
bullied into doing so. However, a great majority is likely to be very
interested in specific matters, such as potential harm from science or
associated technologies that are touted by science as promising great gains.
These might include personal chemical or radiation hazards, general
environmental effects or specific risks, such as Prince Charles’s recent warning
of advanced nanotechnology turning the world’s surface into “grey goo”. Such
concerns are further heightened by public awareness of government science’s
equivocal or obfuscatory responses to “scientific” disasters, including
effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident and “mad-cow disease”, as well as
by the uncertainties of the global-warming debate and developments in
genetic modification of crops and animals, including humans (Weill, 2003).
This kind of interest is, of course, normal: such questioning is a valid
exercise in scepticism based on the knowledge that science has often failed
to see what might arise from its discoveries. (It is instructive that
leading scientists, who themselves could not know the potential for proposed
self-replicating, sub-microscopic nanomachines to do unimaginable damage,
called for the prince’s statement to be rebutted in case public fears
interfered with public funding of nanotechnology research.) Importantly as
well, such questioning is a fundamental element of democracy.
Developments in
democratic reform emanating originally from the US, but now concentrated in
Europe, are showing that scepticism and questioning are natural outcomes of
late 20th century social structures, as better-educated citizens become more
exposed to information and more likely to exercise their rights to question
authority (Cross, 2003). Elements of this change are becoming apparent in
the news media, most notably locally in such innovations as ABC television’s
“Do It Yourself Dissent”, where citizens’ disagreements with authorities are
aired from their own videos. With wider bandwidths becoming increasingly
available, it is now thoroughly normal for news consumers to do their
consuming entirely on-line, although most members of the news audience who
use on-line news sources combine conventional sources and Internet (Nguyen,
2003). This already allows a number of participatory opportunities, from
“have your say” sites and on-line polls to recorded interviews. Topics for
participation in the on-line version of the “up-market” broadsheet The
Sydney Morning Herald include sporting, political and social issues, as well
as matters in the news. Readers are offered an opportunity to comment on
such matters as the sacking of two Sydney councils and a “vote” on whether
these councils should be merged. Readers are also offered a “vote” on, for
instance, “which city is best” in response to a front-page story reporting
that Melbourne had been named the best city in the world to live in. At the
same time, the “down-market”, wide-circulation tabloid The Daily Telegraph
may offer readers a “vote” on whether Sydney’s troubled public transport
system is “up to scratch”. Of course, none of these votes could be validly
representative or have any direct political effect other than generating
news reports about news reports.
However,
technological advances allow news consumers to do more than “have a say” or
record a meaningless vote: it allows them also to interact with news
providers, including experts. Just as part of the democratic change has
included the perceived right not only to question authority but also to
engage in dialogue with authority, part of the recent revolution in
communications is that citizens are now obtaining the means to do precisely
that. Citizens can actively “talk” in real time with authorities when
authorities make themselves available. Although this is yet not common in
newspapers, even if newspapers are clearly moving in that direction, it is
already becoming familiar in radio, probably as a direct extension of the
long-established “talk-back” format. For example, journalists, their sources
and others connected with an issue commonly “stand by” on-line after ABC
radio programs are aired.
This is just the
environment in which the science issues of the day could be most fruitfully
explored. That is, a forum is becoming available for citizens to meet on
equal grounds with science authorities to discuss doubts and fears. Here is
where real engagement with science could be achieved and where answers to
specific questions and responses to specific anxieties could be evaluated
and pursued further. Here is where citizens could become “science literate”
as far as they need or want to be. But there seems little sign of this, even
in the ABC. Science issues appear not to be part of even basic newspaper
participation offerings. Apart from an on-line video of a journalist’s
questions and answers with an expert on “bird flu”, The Sydney Morning
Herald, for instance, has made little concession in 2004 to its audience’s
participation in science news beyond the written reports. That audiences
might have a reason to want to participate is barely acknowledged in
newspapers. For example, an examination of the SMH since 1997 shows that, of
62 items published about nanotechnology, only six (or 9.7 percent)
acknowledged that a dispute existed about the safety of this technology. The
Daily Telegraph over a similar period published 44 items, four of which (9
percent) mentioned doubts about safety. News Ltd’s national broadsheet, The
Australian, published 188 items over the period, 12 of which (6.4 percent)
included information about safety concerns. Significantly, most mentions of
concern in all newspapers came in reviews of books containing such warnings.
Journalism
generally has failed and is failing to take the opportunity to include
science in this democratic and technological revolution, and this failure is
directly the outcome of science’s refusal to make itself available in such a
forum. As Parsons (2001) points out, science finds it hard to accept
democracy’s apparently irrational forces of popular belief, so scientists
tend to avoid engagement in the public policy debate, often out of fear of
having their findings given the same value as popular prejudice. Further, as
Roth and Lee (2004) assert, a common science attitude is blatant opposition
to the possibility of a general scientific literacy, maintaining that
science is an elitist calling and that it requires intelligence and special
skills far beyond what “average” people could attain. Such elitism and fears
of that elitism being undermined by real public engagement encourage
scientists generally to cling to the failed “top-down” model of
communication in what Bucchi (1996, p. 380) refers to as a “social itinerary
of recognition” used by scientists to give discourse at the public level
merely the appearance of public communication. Such communication is an
integral part of scientific discourse, Bucchi continues, not meant actually
to address the public, but meant as a coded message to colleagues that have
been freed of the constraints of specialist communication. But journalists
cannot excuse themselves for their failure merely because their sources may
be unwilling or fearful, or devious. Democratic times demand democratic
measures, and journalism about science needs to move on proactively, to
cease being, as veteran Australian science journalist Peter Pockley puts it,
“cheerleaders for the good news of science” (Pockley, 1999, p. 11).
Such a transition
will not be without trauma. Already highly suspicious of journalists, and of
handing control of information flow to journalists, scientists are likely to
resist such a process with some tenacity. Media organisations, too, may find
such a shift appears just too difficult, especially after what look to be
ambiguous results from experiments with “public journalism” in other fields,
mostly political. But neither may have a choice. Faced with shrinking
budgets, scientists may have to come to the public debating table if their
access to public funds is not to become more difficult. Faced with shrinking
audiences, media organisations may have to learn to exploit the great
potential reader/viewer/listener involvement that would flow from a
democratic engagement with demonstrated audiences in the science arena.
Journalists are
already beginning to employ the technological tools made available through
rapidly expanding communications opportunities. If they are to include
science in the democratic sharing of important knowledge, journalists need
to follow the advancing edge of these technologies. They need to offer web
sites, discussion groups, access to on-line journals and to scientists
themselves if they are to provide audiences with the science information
they want and need. Journalists must also function as they always have by
winnowing the issues, preventing overloading of the discourse with a Babel
of voices while still allowing voices from all sides to be heard. Most of
all, they must convince their scientific partners in the communication
effort that this is the only way for both sides, that the old ways are worse
than useless.
Journalism
educators need to be aware of current communications findings and to prepare
their students, as well as in-service journalists, for new ways of
professional work in writing about science. The changes are urgent if
journalism is to play its part in avoiding the “red shift” acceleration of
science away from the grasp of societies in which it ought to be imbedded as
an integral and valued part.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blum, D., &
Knudson, M. (1997). A Field Guide
for Science Writers. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bucchi, M.
(1998). Science and the Media:
alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.
Cooper, W. (1998).
Science in the public eye. Skeptical Inquirer 22(2), 25-27.
Cross, A.
(2003). Drawing up guidelines for
the collection and use of expert advice: the experience of the European
Commission. Science and Public
Policy 30(3), 189-192.
Field, H., &
Powell, P. (2001). Public
understanding of science versus public understanding of research. Public Understanding of Science 10,
421-426.
Fleishman, E.
(2002). The error of judgment:
Struggling for neutrality in science and journalism. Conservation Biology 16(6), 1451-1453.
Hornig-Priest, S.
(2000). Commentary: Globalization
and science communication. Science Communication 21(3), 219-221.
Laugksch, R.
(2000). Scientific literacy: a
conceptual overview. Science
Education 84, 71-94.
McIlwaine, S.
(2001). Science and journalism: a
Mexican stand-off? Australian Journalism Review 23(2), 134-141.
McIlwaine, S. (2003). How much ‘real’ science do Australian and New Zealand
newspapers publish? Australian Journalism Review 25(1), 129-143.
Maddox, J. (1995). What
is public understanding for? Nature
374(6520), 291-292.
Miller, S.
(2001). Public understanding of
science at the crossroads. Public
Understanding of
Science 10(2): 115-120.
Myers, G. (1996).
Out of the laboratory and down to
the bay. Written Communication
13(1), 5-43.
Nguyen, D.A.
(2003). The current status and
potential development of online news consumption: a structural approach. First Monday 8(9). Retrieved October 20,
2003, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_9/nguyen/index.html.
OST & The
Wellcome Trust (2001). Science and
the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes toward
science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 10, 315-330.
Parsons, W.
(2001). Scientists and politicians:
the need to communicate. Public
Understanding of Science 10, 303-314.
Pockley, P.
(1999). New directions for science
communication. Australasian Science, Incorporating Search 20(7), 11.
Rensberger, B.
(1997). Covering science for
newspapers. In Blum, D., and
Knudson, M. (Eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford
University Press, 7-16.
Roth, W. -M.,
& Lee, S. (2004). Science
education as/for participation in the community. Science Education 88,
263-291.
Wallin, L.
(2001). Impact of teaching science
journalism: integrative aspects. Presentation to the Conference on Science
Journalism at The Millennium Institute for Advanced Studies, The University
of Chile, Santiago, April 7. Retrieved October 11, 2002, from
http://www.lukewallin.com/sci31.htm
Weigold, M.F.
(2001). Communicating science: a
review of the literature. Science
Communication 23(2), 164-193.
Weill, C. (2003).
Can consultation of both experts and
the public help developing public policy? Some aspects of the debate in France. Science and Public Policy
30(3), 199-203.
A version of this article was presented to the first Journet
international conference on “Professional Education for the Media”,
Newcastle, Australia, 16-20 February 2004.
|