Journalists and scientists think very differently. Some would argue that they are two completely different breeds of people. But work is being done to bring the two fields closer together so they can understand each other’s language.
Last Wednesday, BioAtlantic and Geonome Atlantic hosted a panel discussion at the University of New Brunswick’s Wu Centre. The panel featured local experts from both fields and aimed to find harmony between the two.
“Science has a very distinctive way of speaking,” said panel moderator Jane Jenkins, director of St. Thomas University’s science and technology department. “A scientist has no problem talking to another scientist, but when it comes time to explain something to the public they have a terrible time communicating.
“We need decoder rings.”
But the journalists at the panel discussion said the marriage of journalism and science can put a lot of responsibility on the journalist to become more informed about science topics and processes, almost to the point of becoming specialized.
Micheal Camp, director of STU’s journalism department, said despite their necessary relationship, the way both fields work is almost exactly opposite.
“Journalists have a responsibility to be accessible to the public, but many times scientists consider that to be a ‘dumbing down’ of their work and it can be offensive,” said Camp. “But let’s face it, if nobody can understand it, then nobody is going to read it.
The term “Frankenfish” was overused by journalists in the past to describe fish that had been altered to make them more suitable for farming in New Brunswick. The Frankenstein reference is still used today to describe fish that are not native to the waters they live in. The term is not appreciated in the scientific community.
“Years of applied research can be destroyed, just like that, when slander, such as “Frankenfish” is used to inform the public,” said Benfey. “It sells newspapers, but it can ruin us scientists.”
For scientists, there’s a problem when a term does more to produce images of monsters than the extensive research used produce a better breed of fish.
Because scientists have the tendency to separate themselves from the general public, the panel agreed that often it’s left up to the journalists to translate findings and science news into information that can be consumed by the average person. Both sides agreed that in the past, this was something that was not done very well like in the instance of the “Frankenfish.”
“When something is not communicated clearly it becomes distorted and that distortion can undo years of work for us scientists,” said UNB’s Tillman Benfey, one of the panelists in the discussion. “We rely on public opinion to influence the government’s decision to fund our work.
“Ideally I’d like someone reporting to have a background in science.”
But journalists with science degrees are rare and expensive to produce.
Some people suggested offering courses specifically designed to improve communication for science students. Others thought it should be up to young journalists to become familiar with the basics of certain science topics.
“Science can be a lengthy, drawn out process, taking place behind closed doors,” said Camp. “That doesn’t give a journalist a lot of access, whose work is almost always time sensitive.”
Looking forward, the panel’s hope is that by bringing the two fields together, a simple dialogue will continue. From that dialogue, the love-hate relationship is expecting to grow, benefiting scientists, journalists and the overall public.
“What we really want is to convey overall understanding,” said Jenkins.
