|
Robert
Bazell
Researchers often
complain (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) about how the media have represented their work to the
public. It's natural to want the press to serve as a transparent channel for one's own point of view, a
value-neutral megaphone that expands one's ability to reach a wide audience without changing the
message. But it doesn't work that way. The media have missions and functions that differ from what
researchers might expect. With a little clearer knowledge of what most reporters are after and why,
members of the research community can dodge some common bullets and do a better job of
clarifying science to the lay audience.
Considering the public's need for scientific knowledge, this is regrettable. Certainly one can be an
excellent scientist without ever talking to the press, but I believe good scientists recognize an
obligation to explain what they are doing to the public. There are superb scientists who do this well; a
professional atmosphere that discourages such communication has ill effects for both the public and
researchers. If more researchers developed a habit of regular communication with reporters, it
couldn't help but improve the ratio of useful information to misinformation in the mass media.
Responsible reporting, checking information with knowledgeable people, can be a kind of peer
review. One of the most important functions in scientists' interactions with reporters is to comment,
on or off the record, about new claims, especially those made outside the usual confines of the
peer-review process. In the case of cold fusion, some members of the press were more than happy to
go along with claims about something nearly magical happening in a test tube full of water, but more
skeptical reporters -- and physicists -- weren't as forgiving. An awareness of the full arc from
exuberant press conference to embarrassed retraction (or stonewalling defense) can help prevent that
kind of outcome.
From a reporter's perspective, one of the things that makes science easier to cover than, say, politics is
that there is often an ultimate truth: An assertion will eventually be proved or disproved. (Politicians
can do or say or promise anything without being held accountable later on, because nobody has to
repeat their experiment.) This is part of the beauty of science; it can also be a hazard to a researcher
who sounds a premature clarion.
The crucial question to ask about a research story is "Why would readers, listeners, and viewers pay
attention?" When they do, it's because the topic is likely to affect their lives (e.g., a reported
breakthrough against cancer) or because they find it intrinsically fascinating (e.g., a
discovery about stars, black holes, or the dating habits of carnivorous cats in Africa). If your work
falls into either of those categories, it may find an audience, whether or not it has a vaudeville aspect.
Conversely, if you can't explain what you're doing to a non-scientist at a dinner party, why would a
journalist (or a reader) find it interesting?
Never
underestimate the difficulties that misinformation or disinformation can cause, particularly when a
more scientifically accurate explanation doesn't fit easily into a sound bite. Researchers and
institutions protect themselves best by denying misleading allegations as rapidly as possible -- ideally,
with a well-timed press release within the same news cycle as the initial charge, taking a tip from the
1992 Clinton campaign's effective damage-control efforts.
Precisely because journalism creates pressures in the direction of certainty, the
wise researcher avoids yielding to this pressure and giving the public all the definitive answers it
craves. Even when reporters are knowledgeable enough to avoid oversimplifying a science story,
however, editors and producers may step in later and make a story "clearer" by stripping away its
nuances. If a reporter, publication, station, or network has a preordained agenda and is determined to
be unreasonable in its treatment of a topic, there's little a researcher can do but minimize contact and
be prepared to make energetic, principled rebuttals. Know -- or make it your business to find out -- to
whom you are talking. Reporters are not all the same, any more than scientists are all the same; an
experienced university press office can often help determine who's worth cooperating with and whom
you're better off avoiding. Gaining familiarity with the track records of reporters is an excellent way
to optimize your chances of getting intelligent, fair coverage.
Finally, when you find certain reporters offering such helpful coverage, don't be a stranger! A lot of
valuable stories never get out because scientists haven't reached out to the press. When you have an
idea that deserves public attention, it never hurts to approach the media with a call or a letter;
reporters see large stacks of press releases, and a personal communication carries far more weight. In
the open forum of ideas, the best cure for bad information is to deliver better information.
Are the 15 minutes of fame really worth it? With so much prestige, power, and funding at stake in
today's competitive research climate, some scientists and scholars welcome a moment in the spotlight
of the popular press. Others demur, recalling the claims that tabletop "cold fusion" could help solve the world's energy problems (claims that
were at first energetically promoted through the media, then scrutinized by peers and resoundingly
debunked). Or the witch hunts against Rockefeller's David Baltimore and Pittsburgh's Bernard Fisher. Or the
apparently ineradicable tendency of some media organs, particularly tabloids, to promote dubious
miracle cures at the expense of scientifically tested medical knowledge.
"I don't usually talk to the press, but..."
One problem with research-media communications is that the number of researchers who
have regular interaction with reporters is minuscule. The scientists who are articulate or willing
enough to talk to the press are often viewed with contempt or jealousy (or both) by their peers. Not
that many researchers wouldn't want to see the New York Times or NBC trumpet a finding
after it's appeared in an appropriate journal (or even before; the entire concept of peer-review
publication is under such criticism that it's not clear that everything needs to undergo review before
being considered newsworthy). The news, rather than journals or conferences, may even be their first
source for a discovery in their field. But almost no serious scientist wants a reputation as a press
hound."These preliminary results will change the world as we know it."
No one really
says this, of course. Judging from a few notorious cases, however, it's safe to conclude that the more
ambitious the statement, the greater the chance it will backfire once it's been subjected to professional
scrutiny. Grandiose claims about reproducibility or applications can be just as counterproductive as
excessive secrecy."Of course, the general public would never appreciate this work."
The purpose
of journalism is twofold: to inform and to entertain. There's always a balance between the two, and
research reports attract journalistic attention by satisfying one of these needs. An occasional story
appears to do both, even if it's prima facie absurd; if someone with a Ph.D. says that aliens have landed, there will be reports (perhaps even
straightfaced ones) that aliens have landed. Because a university appointment confers a degree of
seriousness on practically anything, academics should recognize the different reasons the public
might listen to their statements and might hold an academic uniquely accountable for them."We have no comment on these allegations."
The proliferation of media, now
including myriad cable channels and websites, has created a vast hunger for information to fill them,
and it's inevitable that certain hotly pursued stories will turn out to be insubstantial or worse. False or
exaggerated charges of misconduct, nonetheless, can travel far before the complete truth appears, and
public exoneration of the parties involved may or may not ensue. Reporters don't always confirm
information they find through services such as Nexis; if an erroneous claim has appeared once,
anywhere, chances are it'll be recycled -- no matter how thoroughly you've refuted it."Science establishes
X with absolute certainty."
The lay public, by and large, resists concepts like
uncertainty, risk, and statistical association. Readers and viewers want science to be authoritative, to
prove that something is true or false. They may also resist the imperative to distinguish between
researchers taking different sides of a question; for many laypeople, a Ph.D. is equivalent to every
other Ph.D., and once one of these credentialed oracles has made a point, the point stays made,
regardless of colleagues' critiques. It's horrible science, as responsible scientists realize, to assert a
causal connection on the basis of anecdotes; it's also done all the time (especially in the presence of
journalists), and it can implant mental associations that tend to harden into beliefs, or even into
public policy.
Related links...
ROBERT
BAZELL, chief science correspondent for NBC Nightly News, participated in the Fred Friendly
Seminar "Socrates Meets the Medical-Media Complex" at the "Breakthrough?" Conference. The
award-winning science reporter has advanced training in biology at the University of Sussex,
England, and immunology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author most recently of
HER-2: The Making of Herceptin a Revolutionary Treatment for Breast
Cancer (NY: Random House, 1998, with Mary-Claire King).