Summer 2008
From the Chair
New members
Sci Comm news
Eurochat
Feature: Publicising non peer-reviewed science
Feature: New media, new opportunities
Feature: Spinning science
Event Report: Science and the embargo
Event Report: Podcasting and new media
Interview: Emma Morton, The Sun
|
Stempra newsletter
FEATURE: Spinning science
Let's face it: scientists and journalists may never see eye to
eye. It's becoming tiresome to hear the old arguments rehashed. Boffins
are poor communicators with little grasp of how the media work, say the
journalists. Hacks sensationalise and dumb down our science, say the
researchers.
Over the years, numerous organisations, institutions and
individuals have made efforts to improve the quality of science
coverage. Indeed, one organisation – the Science Media Centre – was
founded for just that purpose. Other institutions have developed
guidelines for scientists on how best to communicate and for
journalists (less well received) on how best to report science.
Valiant though these attempts have been, the majority have
neglected to target one crucial element: press officers. In the
increasingly competitive and under-resourced media world, journalists
are more than ever reliant on press officers to provide them with
stories. And whilst scientists may not necessarily need the approval of
their press offices before they speak to the media, they often draw on
our expertise or use us to manage a story.
In fact, press officers play an essential role not only in
affecting how science is reported – by writing clear, informative and
measured press releases and by coaching scientists on how to handle
interviews – but also in influencing which science is reported.
Anyone who has ever tried to negotiate an academic paper in Cell or Nature Chemical Biology
will know how abstruse scientific language can be. A well-written press
release or a chat on the phone can make all the difference between
generating column inches for an academic and their university or the
research disappearing into the wilderness of academia.
And what about the peer-review process? If a scientist is
presenting new – but unreplicated – findings at a conference, should we
be encouraging them to speak to journalists? This not only throws up
questions about how receptive a prospective publisher will be to a
submission at a later date, but also opens up a wider debate about
promoting research which may later be dismissed.
There are times, too, when we need to understand that a piece
of research is only worth dealing with reactively – this is not
sinister censorship, but rather avoiding an unhelpful addition to an
already confusing (and confused) public debate.
Press officers have to negotiate a fine line between promoting
a brand and over-hyping science. Many of us work for respected
institutions – universities, learned societies and research funders –
which are trusted by the public. Navigating through conflicting
scientific claims is difficult and the public looks for recognisable
and reputable brands; we have a duty not only to our organisation but
to the public to accurately represent our scientists' research.
Of course, even when the press release has been issued and
interviews lined up, a press officer's job is not complete. We are
nowadays fortunate enough to have a cadre of media savvy scientists,
but many researchers will be new to the game, unaware that they may be
asked to speculate on the implications of their findings or that they
will be inadvertently drawn into the "Frankenstein science" debate. A
good press officer should not let them wander blindly into a
potentially difficult interview.
Science PR is not easy. It can be difficult to get right, with
myriad intricacies and sensitivities surrounding each story. Science
press officers come from many different backgrounds: research, science
communication and science policy, for example, but also often
non-scientific. University press officers, particularly at smaller
universities, may have a broad remit encompassing higher education
issues as well as research yet their last encounter with science was at
GCSE.
This is why it's time to develop a guidebook, a Lonely Planet
Guide to Science PR. At this year's BA Science Communication
Conference, Stempra, which was founded 15 years ago to offer support
for PR people in the not-for-profit STEM sectors, will make steps
towards developing this guidebook.
Like all good guidebooks, however, it will not be too
prescriptive and will need updating regularly. But it would map out the
difficult areas, give advice on how to avoid trouble and provide a
useful "how to…" guide. It will doubtless need tailoring for each
individual press officer as every organisation has its own unique
issues. But we are confident it will help us reflect on and improve
where we go wrong, provide reassurance that a lot of what we do and
know is correct, and help us work towards the goal of best practice.
Craig Brierley is a Media Officer at the Wellcome Trust and a committee member for Stempra.
craig@stempra.org.uk
|
<< Back to
current newsletter
|
