A Presentation to the Conference on Science Journalism at The Millennium Institute for Advanced Studies The University of Chile, Santiago, April 7, 2001

By Luke Wallin, Professor of English The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Senior Research Fellow, The Center for Policy Analysis, and A Member of the Writing Faculty, Spalding University, Master of Fine Arts in Writing Program

Every other year since 1988 I've offered a course in Scientific Journalism, within our Master of Professional Writing Program at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Some students have strong scientific and technical backgrounds; recent examples include a pharmacist, a chemical engineer, and a computer programmer. Others are good writers untrained in the sciences, but drawn to the idea of reporting on science. The course is popular within our program, and after some initial rough patches, discussed below, I've found ways to make it accessible to everybody. Last year I allowed several undergraduates in, with good results. The maximum number allowed is 15.

1. Lack of science literacy is a major problem throughout the world.

Many people do not realize such basic facts as:

• Destroying other species' habitat eventually undermines all life
• Small amounts of motor oil on the ground often pollute water supplies
• AIDS precautions are both possible and important
• In farming, monocultures increase vulnerability to disease

Underlying the lack of science literacy are widespread Philosophical Myths.

These include:

• Myth #1: The goal of science is absolute Truth, which may be known with Certainty.
• Myth #2: Science concerns facts, not values.
• Myth #3: Science is limited to the material, hence is not spiritual.

How can science journalism dispel these myths? Let us take them in turn.


Back to Science Journalism Index  |  Top

Myth #1: The goal of science is absolute Truth, which can be known with Certainty.

This was the belief of Descartes, in the 17th Century, and many people hold it today. Philosophers of science have completely demolished this myth; perhaps the best 20th Century writer on this topic is the great Austrian philosopher Karl Popper. Science journalists can spread awareness of the truth by:

• Including historical dimensions within stories. For example, a piece about contemporary physics might show how Einstein's work superceded Newtonian physics. An article about contemporary astronomy might explain how Copernicus's work trumped that of Ptolemy.
  
  
• Highlighting stories of important changes in scientific views. For example, recall the transformation in ideas about nutrition and prenatal care in this century. News of the threat of alcohol and nicotine, even in small amounts, to unborn babies is revolutionary and profound relative to the received wisdom of just a half-century ago. Yet many people still reject this news. They cling to the old idea that 'moderation is good enough.'
  
  
• Presenting stories which challenge emotional attachments to established theories. For example, recent archaeological discoveries suggest that Caucasian and Negroid skeletons may predate Amerindian skeletons in the Americas. Such evidence may challenge emotionally-held views on Tribal rights to rebury all early skeletal remains (sometimes without scientific study.
  
  
• Celebrating stories of independent investigators who challenged received theories, and discovered something new. For example, the book The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner, tells the story of the husband and wife team who discovered in the Galapagos Islands that the beak sizes of several finches actually change under environmental pressure, within a few years. They thus proved that natural selection can be observed in action, within the lifetime of a single observer.

Myth #2: Science concerns facts, not values.

Science journalism brings news of issues where many facts are known, but the evaluation of those facts is a key part of the story. For example, the United Nations has announced that global warming threatens millions of people as well as other species, yet US President Bush is reported to have said he doesn't believe in it.

Scientifically literate people know that global warming in a complex issue in which risk levels must be balanced against difficult predictions of long-term trends. How much risk is one willing to assume? Whose values guide this decision - those who profit most from fossil-fuel consumption, yet live far from the disturbed climate zones? This is an issue that cries out for delicate explanation of facts but also of values. Science journalists can patiently explain how facts and values are interwoven in such cases.

Myth #3: Science is limited to the material, hence is not spiritual.

Science journalists can express a deep joy in the scientific enterprise, which relishes new discoveries - whether about the age of the universe, one's unconscious metaphors of love, or what makes the sky blue. There is joy in the science that prevents or cures disease, that correlates brain and mind events, or that reveals the multi-species benefits of restoring large predators like wolves to ecosystems like Yellowstone National Park in the western USA. This is a profound excitement and hope within the spirit, which can be nurtured. This element of celebration subtly invites the reader to join the worldwide community of scientifically inspired persons.

The following truths may serve as guidelines for the science journalist who wishes to dispel the myths discussed above:

• Problems, not solutions, are the keys to understanding science
• Knowledge depends upon the viewpoint of an observer
• Critical thinking is a virtue, not a defect
• Science offers inspiration to the spirit, not materialistic despair

Back to Science Journalism Index  |  Top

Let us take them in turn:

Problems are the keys to science.

Science journalists should celebrate problems in every story.

Karl Popper has shown how the generation of new problems lies at the very heart of science. In the Jan. 2001 issue of the journal Philosophy Now, physicist David Deutsch expresses the viewpoint this way:

It is problems that are inherently wonderful, solutions are merely useful. And the fact that solutions always create new problems is not, on balance, a drawback, but their most useful attribute. Science ought to be regarded as a transition from one problem situation to the next. (27)

Problems are the glory of science, and the mission of science journalists must be to celebrate the excitement of struggle in theory, experiment, and application.

Knowledge depends upon the observer.

Journalists should seek opportunities to celebrate the observer problem in all human 'knowledges'.

Famous discoveries of this relative standpoint of the observer include Copernicus' astronomy, Kant's epistemology, and Einstein's general theory of relativity. An observer is necessary in all perspectives, and no single observer is privileged above others in any ultimate sense. In their book Toward a Unified Ecology, Allen and Hoekstra discuss the observer's position within biology. They show how, at the root of every hypothesis and experiment, there lies a person who makes the decisions as to what will count as an ecosystem, or a relevant species, or an observation, within the framework of knowledge.

The things we study in ecology seem very real. Nevertheless, ecology is a science and is therefore about observation and measurement more than about nature independent of observation.

This applies to the things studied, and to those left out.

Even at the grossest level of decision making, when the ecologist chooses what to study, that act influences the outcome of the investigation. When one chooses to study shrews, there is an implicit decision not to study everything else. In that implicit decision most other things ecological, such as trees, rivers, or ants, are excluded from the data. (13)

One cannot study trees, rivers and ants at the same time. Selection operates in science just as it does in journalism - someone decides what to focus on, and what to leave out. This is a general feature of human knowledge, which some people fear as the onslaught of 'relativism' over 'absolutism.' The observer issue in science is a generalized 'relativity' problem. This is not the same thing as 'relativism' in values. Sorting out the various senses in which an observer conditions knowledge, and exploring the ethical implications of this, is one of the great tasks of our age.

Critical thinking is a virtue.

Stories which celebrate critical thinking inspire readers to become more careful thinkers. One should especially praise someone who rethought his or her field, such as the discoverers of the structure of DNA, or of dark matter. A recent study showed that if a wild plant is touched one single time by a human hand, its life expectancy may change. In a few cases it remained the same or improved, but in more cases it was shortened. How did someone think to question this, and design an experiment to test it?

Such stories serve a double purpose: they educate the reader, and they gently lead the reader toward the virtue of critical thinking.

Science inspires the spirit.

There are countless ways in which this can be nurtured. Darwin's dedication to understanding the differences between the finches he brought back to England from the Galapagos, a dedication which years later led to his discovery of the mechanism of evolution, offers a wonderful role model of an inspired life in science. A good journalist should be able to find what inspires any scientist, and present that to readers.

How are these principles applied within my course? Primarily in the spirit of the work, rather than in specific rules or requirements. Next I present the elements of my course; as to how the students combine the spirit with the rules to produce publishable work, I refer interested readers to some examples on this website.

• Reading requirements
  
  
  • Usually include two books, one of award-winning science articles, such as The New Science Journalists, ed. by Anton & McCourt, and the other an in-depth work of popular science writing, such as The Beak of the Finch, by Weiner . Each Tuesday students must read the NY Times Science section, and choose a story to analyze for the class. They make oral presentations of 5-10 minutes on their selections, emphasizing the following:
    
    
    • How well are the ideas explained?
    • What paragraphs seem exemplary?
    • What sections seem murky?
    • Are the illustrations helpful or confusing?
    • What background would the audience need?
    
    
  • Time will not always permit every student to present every analysis, but they are to make the effort and be prepared each week. This exercise, with following discussions, achieves a remarkable change. By term's end, students transform themselves from intimidated consumers of science journalism to confident and critical readers. While some of the Times pieces hold up as models of the genre, many others get a B or even C from the students. They eventually realize they are capable of doing good work in a highly competitive and professional forum.
  
  
  
• Writing requirements
  
  
  • Are 2 or 3 major articles, for a total of approximately 20-25 double-spaced pages (70% of grade), and well-prepared class participation (30%). The reason for the choice of 2 (longer) or 3 (shorter) articles is that I encourage students to publish their work, and shorter pieces are more publishable for an unknown writer.
    
    
  • Many students do the entire semester's work on a single issue, such as bone loss in older people, or the discovery of breast cancer genes, or the use of fire in ecosystem management. They dive in and learn a great deal, and how they analyze and present their information depends upon their intended publication and its audience, which they must specify in advance. The essential thing is their own level of knowledge, interpretive context, and confidence in telling the story to others with less time to research the topic. Flexibility in presentational length and style mirrors the situation of working journalists who must collaborate with editors. I wish the students to avoid producing 'correct' but term-paper like pieces of such length that they could only be published if they issued from the pen of a recognized expert.
  
  
  
• Topic selection
  
  
  • My course meets one a week for 2 1/2 hours, and by the second meeting students must bring in 5 topic ideas. In a round table forum these are discussed, to eliminate those too broad or too narrow. I encourage students, with their limited budgets, to take advantage of the presence of scientists on our campus. Students may wish to explore the research interests of available interviewees, before making final decisions about their topics.
  
  
  
• Topic difficulty
  
  
  • I have found that students do better work if I allow them to choose topics and levels of difficulty. Some are already experts in a field, others beginners. Some understand the basics of normal science, some have studied the history of science, but some are newcomers. Through unhappy experiments I have discovered that I cannot teach them science in the time available. But if they are to participate in the course they must at least understand enough to report on some area, for example nutrition and exercise. They learn a great deal from the readings, their research and writing, the discussions, and each other's articles. But having them read books on the nature of evolution, or the history of scientific revolutions, does not work.
    
    
  • Background of the journalist: Quite often students are drawn to a topic for which they lack adequate background, or which would be expensive in time or money to research. For this reason I go around the table at our first meeting and we discuss preparation. This raises one of the most important questions in science journalism: What is the appropriate level of expertise for the journalist? My answer is that you should position yourself somewhere on a line between audience and scientist. How far you can advance toward the scientist's position will depend upon:
    
    
    • Preparation before the assignment occurred
    • The time available to research and interview
    • The preparation of one's audience
  
  
  
• The journalist's preparation
  
  
  • I often suggest to students planning a career in SJ that they earn a master's degree in the field they wish to write about. I have a Master of Regional Planning degree, which covers community resource and health issues, rhetoric and communication with diverse citizens. It surveys the science behind environmental litigation, for example acid rain, global warming, and the importance of a particular place as habitat for a species or a local population of a species.
    
    
  • The important thing, I stress to students, is not having an MA degree - there are many fine science journalists without one - but the current knowledge you'll gain in a relatively effortless way, and most of all it's the confidence you'll gain in your own ability to research and report on a complex issue, in a short time.
    
    
  • Time to research: Reporters have severe time constraints. One extreme is the case where a local reporter must keep up with so many stories, and produce copy so regularly, that the writer continually falls back on the same old sources, and fails to really report what's new. Time pressures lead to ethical lapses, such as repeatedly consulting only one side in a controversial case. One of my students wrote her MA thesis as a study of how a local newspaper covered the cleanup of toxic materials in a local harbor. She discovered that the reporter assigned to the beat was so overworked that she frequently used well-publicized government sources, but neglected the opposing viewpoint of a volunteer citizen's group. The main reason was that the citizens were working during the day, and were more difficult to contact.
    
    
  • Students must count the weeks they have before the first draft of their first story is due. Then they must measure their preparation at this point, the amount of work they anticipate in their proposed topics, and the days they have available - given their other responsibilities. This kind of analysis will quickly yield sharp differences in the work each of their five proposed topics will require.
    
    
  • Audience preparation: Newspaper consumers are sometimes said to read at the 8th grade level. Clearly the challenge is great for the reporter, who must bridge diverse constituencies.
  
  
  
• Workshop and process writing elements
  
  
  • Each student will provide copies of a first draft to each class member, on the assigned day (at week # 6). Ideally, this should be done a week ahead of time, so that the readers can bring in detailed written comments. Sometimes the reading takes place on the day. This rapid reading has advantages, too, as problems in clarity and style surface quickly. The first draft is graded, by the way, and its grade is averaged with that of the final draft. The word 'draft' does not mean 'rough draft,' as students may assume. What standards are applied to each draft, and how the grades are weighted, will vary from teacher to teacher.
    
    
  • After reading, we go around the room and each student offers comments. Here are the rules:
    
    
    • First, positive comments only. Each student either comments or acknowledges that she/he has nothing to add.
    • Next, we go around again for 'perhaps I would change this or that' comments.
    • Finally, a third pass yields 'I would definitely change this or that' suggestions. We do not use 'good' and 'bad' in this context.
    • After these three rounds, I have my say, then finally,
    • The writer is allowed to speak.
    
    
    
  • These rules are adapted from workshop procedures developed some 40 years ago in creative writing programs. I have a Master of Fine Arts degree in Fiction Writing from the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, and I have experienced many approaches to workshops, both as student as teacher.
    
    
  • I take care to avoid 'destroying' or 'shredding' student work. This is because I believe the quality of a writer's work is deeply related to that person's confidence level. In the case of science journalism, this also applies to the confidence that one can research a topic and interview subjects quickly. Both the writing skills and the scientific research skills can be greatly enhanced by earning master's degrees in these fields.
    
    
  • The reason I offer my critique after the students speak, is to avoid influencing them unduly. The reason the writer must wait and speak last is because the important thing is the written work, not the excuse. The experience of listening to a critique of one's work builds up psychological pressure in the writer to rush home and 'get it right.' If allowed to make defensive speeches during the workshop, the writer may feel exonerated and exhausted, and leave class blaming the readers for their lack of insight. After my workshops, the writer is burning to improve.
    
    
  • These are the elements of my course. I will close with a few words on objectivity and fairness in the training of journalists.

Back to Science Journalism Index  |  Top

Training Journalists

Two of the great questions in training journalists are:

• What is objectivity?
• What is fairness?

Objectivity certainly does not mean lack of evaluative viewpoint. What we expect from a good journalist is that he or she research, think through, and then tell the story in a way which leaves us with a sense of the truth of things. Of course this story will be told from an observer's position. And of course values will be entwined complexly with facts.

Sometimes a science story will not have great social meaning, for example the question of whether the universe is expanding towards ultimate dispersion, or whether it may again coalesce into a 'big crunch.' In one of these stories, a reporter will often announce a new paper, and cite opposing viewpoints, and there is no question of the reporter's independent judgement, because he or she couldn't possibly have one.

But many science stories have vital, urgent consequences. To take one from the last weeks:

Genetically modified trees have appeared. The issues raised by GM trees are similar to those raised by GM crops - yet genetic modification in forestry is even more serious than that in agriculture. Trees live longer; they are largely undomesticated; their biology and lifecyles are poorly understood; forest ecosystems are complex and fragile; corporations and states have control over enormous areas of forest lands - all these factors combined create unique risks. (cornerhouse@gn.apc.org)

This is a science story which is also an environmental one, and hence bound to stir controversy. But what we ask of ethical reports is that they present the story as objectively as they can, in the light of their due diligence in research and critical thinking. We do not ask that they avoid controversy.

Fairness means that the reporter should present all sides clearly and, and give all persons mentioned the chance to respond, within the story. This requires that the writer treat with humility his or her own observer's viewpoint, never presuming to 'know for sure.' In presenting all sides clearly, the reporter must never attempt to cover up, or downplay, the strength of a view. As part of his reverence for problems over solutions, Karl Popper always tried to state his opponents' views as forcefully as possible, and only then show why they were inadequate, and his own were superior. I teach this as a principle of fairness in my courses in rhetoric and argument, and in my journalism courses as well.

My approach to objectivity allows full scope for the reporter's judgment, but my approach to fairness requires that his or her judgment be presented in context, with opposing viewpoints represented.

In conclusion, my course is focused on improving the student's drafts and final articles. The theory behind my pedagogy provides talking points within the classroom at times, but mainly it serves as a heuristic, an organizing approach. Though the obstacles to science literacy are daunting, I believe the most positive results come from emphasis on celebration: of problems over solutions, of the observer as a fascinating puzzle, of critical thinking as a virtue, and of the inspiration that science offers us all.