“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.
But the rapidly failing fortunes of the American print media, and specialty science reporting in particular, provided an underlying sense of gloom and doom at the annual science gathering. In what would normally be an exuberant ceremony, weak gallows humor repeatedly surfaced Saturday night at the Art Institute of Chicago, as the winners accepted their 2008 AAAS Science Journalism Awards, which are independently judged by respected U.S. science reporters. (The melancholy art of Edvard Munch on exhibit there seemed somehow appropriate.)
Veteran journalist Terry McDermott, winner of the “large paper” award, noted wryly that getting his hefty four-part series, into the Los Angeles Times had been a long struggle involving five top editors at the beleaguered paper. The series finally appeared in August 2007, but McDermott said he was fired in 2008 after being told he was a “luxury” the paper could not afford, because his in-depth projects took too long to complete. Kara Platoni, a younger reporter and winner of the “small paper” award, suffered a similar fate. She said she was laid off from the East Bay Express after her series, “In Search of Life,” appeared.
Nonetheless, the evening ended with a moment of cheer when the AAAS surprised my revered friend and colleague David Perlman, long-time science editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, with an unannounced award for career science journalism. Long-term is an understatement, since Perlman, who recently turned 90, has been reporting since he started a mimeographed paper in junior high, worked on the college paper as a Columbia University student (B.A., 1939; Journalism M.A., 1940), and became a copyboy at the Chronicle before going off to war.
“Writing about science is the best thing you can do because you’re learning all the time,” said Perlman, who has traveled the globe from the Galapagos (1964) to Ethiopia (2005), writing about everything from evolution to astrophysics, and has no plans to retire.
Interestingly, in an interview I did with him recently for ScienceWriters, the quarterly publication of the National Association of Science Writers, Perlman said he thought the biggest science story on the horizon “would be the discovery of earth-like exoplanets with habitable zones and then the discovery of some kind of life on them.” Just the kind of story that has long been a staple for science writers at the AAAS meeting.

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
#1 Posted by Peter Calamai, CJR 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
#2 Posted by Michael Simm, CJR 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.
#3 Posted by Paul Raeburn, CJR 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.
#4 Posted by Michael Kenward, CJR 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 wil
#5 Posted by John Pattison, CJR on Wed 16 Dec 2009 at 03:01 AM