CHICAGO — The story was too good to miss. When cosmologist Paul Davies proposed launching a “mission to earth” to search for hidden life on our planet—life forms different than anything we have ever known before—the large contingent of British and Australian science journalists here jumped right on it.
“Forget little green men on Mars. Aliens could be right here on earth,” Fiona Macrae wrote for the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail. A number of British publications went for the alien teaser, in fact, explaining afterward in more serious science-speak Davies’s belief that we need to look for signs of microscopic “shadow life” in poisonous lakes and boiling deep sea vents—maybe even inside the human body—that have thus far escaped traditional scientific scrutiny.
The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which ended here yesterday, has long been a mecca for journalists searching for stories of all shapes and sizes—from basic brain research to broad environmental policy issues involving land, oceans, and the atmosphere. Particularly remarkable was the increasingly international focus of the 175th meeting, aptly titled “Our Planet and Its Life, Origins and Futures,” which attracted about 6,800 participants, including roughly 800 members of the science media.
The number of science reporters and journalists-in-training from far-flung parts of the world—the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, as well as Canada, the U.K., Germany, Sweden and other parts of Europe—has expanded at AAAS. At the same time, the presence of working American science reporters from major newspapers and magazines has declined over time, their ranks often replaced by a diverse group of freelancers and digital journalists who write, blog, and Twitter for a variety of startup and established news and information Web sites.
This year in Chicago, there was the usual representation from key international wire services, including The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse, among others. But other standard features of the meeting, like a live, on-site show of National Public Radio’s “Science Friday” with veteran radio reporter Ira Flatow, were gone. Local newspapers, which often blanketed the meeting in years past, were hit and miss—mostly miss—with Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times staff reporters covering the irresistible Valentine’s Day special on the science of kissing, but skipping some of the big picture stories. The Sunday Tribune, for instance, chose to cede coverage of an important climate-change story to AP science writer Randolph E. Schmid.
Veteran Australian Broadcasting Corporation science correspondent Robyn Williams, who has covered AAAS meetings since the 1980s, noted that these days “the working international science reporters usually seem to outnumber the Americans,” and that the first five questions at press conferences there tend to come from foreign reporters, particularly the U.K. contingent often found in the front rows of the briefing room. An AAAS welcome reception for the international media, once a small low-key affair, is now a big, bustling event.
The Times (London) science editor Mark Henderson, who often covers science in the U.S., admitted that there was “a bit of a pack mentality” among the U.K. camp, but said that he had no problem getting science news from the meeting into his paper. “Science is something that sells newspapers,” he said.
At “Science Journalism in Crisis?”, an informal AAAS press briefing (in which I participated) put together by several science writing organizations, Pallab Ghosh, a senior BBC News science correspondent, urged science reporters to avoid being seen as “luxury items” or “just space-and-dinosaur correspondents” by covering important and timely global issues with a science, technology or health component. “Our skills are still needed … [at a time when] science journalism as a whole is under threat,” said Ghosh.
At the briefing, concerns abounded about the loss of staff jobs in American media, as well as the difficulties of surviving as a freelance science writer, a theme sounded at several other journalism events over the past week. But some people expressed a remarkably refreshing sense of optimism over the opportunities opening up in other parts of the developed and developing world to write about crucial scientific topics such as global warming, agriculture, water resources, and infectious diseases like HIV and polio.
“The loss in your part of the world is a gain in our part of the world … Journalism is growing in developing countries,” said Akin Jimoh, a former newspaper science reporter in Nigeria who now heads Devcoms Network, a media-training group in Lagos for science journalists. Argentinean science journalist Valeria Roman agreed: “We are in the beginning. Science journalism is increasing fortunately.”
Egygtian science journalist Nadia El-Awady presented findings from an informal survey, which found growing numbers of Arab and African science journalists. For the past two years, El-Awady has been involved in an exchange program in which the U.S. National Association of Science Writers has partnered with the Arab Science Journalists Association as part of a larger mentoring program for African and Arab journalists organized by the World Federation of Science Journalists, of which the BBC’s Ghosh is president. The federation’s membership has grown to forty associations of science journalists worldwide. The changing fortunes of global science journalism will be amplified at the federation’s 6th World Conference of Science Journalists, to be held this year in London June 30 to July 2.
“I’m thrilled with the globalization of science journalism,” said New York science journalist Robin Lloyd, a senior editor for LiveScience.com and other Web sites. Like the international science correspondents, online science journalists like Lloyd and the prolific Ivan Oransky, who contributed to the 60-Second Science Blog and Twittered (hashtag: #aaas09) for Scientific American during the meeting, had a hopeful view that innovative, multimedia technologies will help create a better future for science journalism.
- 1
- 2





I fear that Canadian science journalists fall into the North American "dwindling" classification, rather than the "growing" European and others.
There are no more than a handful of dailies in Canada with designated science reporters (maybe five). When I covered my first AAAS in 1970, there were more than 20 staffers across Canada and at least five were at the AAAS from Canadian dailies.
I was not at Chicago, having retired from The Toronto Star in June, but I'm told there was one staffer there from Canada. Even the CBC's Quirks and Quarks (an hour-long weekly science show) was not represented by a staffer.
Peter Calamai
Posted by Peter Calamai on Wed 18 Feb 2009 at 11:28 PM
I think that science journalism is a vanishing specialty in Germany as well as in the United States. After 20 years on the job I find it puzzling, that only a small minority of German science writers that attend AAAS can be seen at scientific conferences at home. AAAS provides good overviews and easy stories - but I think that science journalists should be aware of becoming entertainers. Instead we should continue to seek out the original research, sorting out facts and data from opinions, identify conflicts of interest and putting important stuff into context.
Michael Simm
Posted by Michael Simm on Thu 19 Feb 2009 at 05:41 AM
Lest we attach too much importance to the decline of U.S. journalists at the AAAS meeting, it's important to add that several years ago, the National Association of Science Writers stopped meeting jointly with AAAS. The NASW meeting drew a lot of American reporters to AAAS, and when it moved it took some of those reporters with it.
Also, as all science reporters understand, the AAAS is often not the place to find the latest breaking science news. The panels at the AAAS meeting generally wrap up recent research that has already been published or presented elsewhere. It is rarely a showcase for breaking news.
For reporters from overseas, who can make only one or two trips to the U.S. each year, AAAS is a good way to catch up on what's happening here. But breaking stories usually appear first in journals or the annual meetings of such groups as the Society for Neuroscience, the American Geophysical Union, or the American Heart Association.
Paul Raeburn
Author, Fathers and Families blog.
Posted by Paul Raeburn on Sat 21 Feb 2009 at 05:41 PM
"The panels at the AAAS meeting generally wrap up recent research that has already been published or presented elsewhere. It is rarely a showcase for breaking news."
Come on Paul. This has been the case in the 30 years or so since I first attended the AAAS in Denver. That never stopped the rat pack from descending en masse.
And the idea that the NASW's meeting "drew a lot of American reporters to AAAS" is just plain bonkers. No one would get their paper to pay for hacks to attend an annual reunion.
Sorry, I'll need a lot more evidence than that to counter Cris's case.
Posted by Michael Kenward on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 05:52 PM
You may be interested in the following Media Release from the University of South Australia on a continuingly controversial topic. Physicists working with radiations are frustrated at the continual unjustified bad press that radiation receives from the media.
Media Release
December 14 2009
New research casts doubt on impact of depleted uranium
Senior Research Fellow at the University of South Australia, John Pattison has led a research project that casts doubt on the aftermath impact of exposure to radiation from depleted uranium munitions.
The research recently published by the Journal of the Royal Society Interface (J. R. Soc. Interface published online before Print Sept 23,2009, doi:1098/rsif.2009.0300) investigated the health effects of the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions which to date have carried the main blame for the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.
Pattison, with colleagues from Swansea University and the University of Birmingham, concluded that DU may not be as harmful from a radiation perspective as previously thought.
The study, conducted between 2006 and 2008, investigated the effect on the human body of exposure to DU in conjunction with natural background gamma-radiation in comparison to exposure to natural background gamma-radiation alone.
Pattison says the study results are in overwhelming disagreement with recently published results and could play an important role in eliminating possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome.
“There is understandably a great deal of controversy surrounding Gulf War Syndrome - an umbrella term used to describe a range of illnesses thought to have arisen following exposure to DU munitions, either through ingestion, inhalation or the presence of fragments such as in shrapnel wounds,” Pattison said.
“It has been claimed that the radiation dose from micron-sized particles of DU in the human body would be enhanced by a factor of 500 to 1000 upon exposure to naturally occurring background gamma-radiation (New Scientist, 2672: 8-9, 2008.
“Simply put, the claim has been that together these elements contribute a significant radiation dose in addition to the dose received from the inherent radioactivity of the DU.
“Many studies have been undertaken to discover more about Gulf War Syndrome but none has uncovered a direct cause or cluster of unique symptoms and that is why we need more research to clarify and refine our understanding of the syndrome.
“Our aim in this study has been to help by continuing the process of elimination and, in doing so; we believe that we can in fact rule out DU as a cause of the Syndrome from a radiation perspective. Our research found that the enhancement factor is actually of the order of 1 to 10 which, although significant, is at least 50 times smaller than has been suggested in the past.”
Pattison said it was unfortunate that the results of such research are often not understood or accepted, as shown by the recent inquest into the death by cancer of a Gulf War veteran in Birmingham, UK.
“In that case the coroner concluded that the cancer in the returned soldier had been caused by DU (The Daily Telegraph, UK, 10 Sept 2009),” he said.
“As sad as the death of the returned soldier is, it is extremely unlikely to have been due to any radiation effects of DU.”
Social bookmarking
Digg It Reddit Delicious Stumble It! Seed Newsvine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media contact
Michèle Nardelli office (08) 8302 0966 mobile 0418 823 673 email michele.nardelli@unisa.edu.au
top^
Footer Navigation
Disclaimer | Copyright | Privacy | Web accessibility | CRICOS Provider no 00121B | Contact UniSA | Midyear entry | Open Day
Latest content revision:Monday, 14 December 2009
This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2009/141209.asp
Posted by John Pattison on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 03:01 AM