Bench Press

Sorry for the late post everyone between lab and March Madness (UCLA ftw!) it’s been a hectic couple days. Despite all that I wanted to write a quick post about a news feature on science journalism over at Nature by Geoff Brumfiel. Brumfiel’s article discusses the rapid decline of science journalism and questions whether science blogging can step in to fill the role.

It’s very well written and brings up several interesting points which are already being discussed all over the blogosphere. One idea in Brumfiel’s article really caught my attention and that is that since science journalism is atrocious to begin with, we’re better off without it. Larry Moran’s comment that “[m]ost of what passes for science journalism is so bad we will be better off without it” is sentiment that’s apparently shared by many bloggers and while I don’t disagree that a lot of what passes as science journalism is poor (thanks to a variety of issues e.g. dwindling budgets, lack of writers with legitimate science backgrounds) I can’t agree with the sentiment that society would be better off without some form of mainstream science journalism. Regardless of their failures, mainstream science journalism at it’s worst raises awareness of scientific endeavors within the general public and at it’s best ought to serve as a legitimate watchdog for scientific misconduct.

Even if hype and marketability play a major role in the presentation of science news stories, the exposure, discussion, and potential inspiration from scientific breakthroughs presented in the mainstream media outweigh much of the typical issues (e.g. inaccuracies, oversimplification, and generalizations) that scientists have with scientific journalism. I became curious about science by getting a taste from mainstream scientific journalism as a young student and I’d hate to see that possibility disappear.

The mainstream media’s science coverage is definitely flawed but that does not provide a necessary and sufficient justification for getting rid of mainstream science journalism in it’s entirety. Improvements can and should be made, however as discussed by Brumfiel’s article this will ultimately require a give and take between journalists and scientists. The editorial introduction to Brumfiel’s article puts it best:

[I]n today’s overstressed media market, scientists must change these attitudes if they want to stay in the public eye. They must recognize the contributions of bloggers and others, and they should encourage any and all experiments that could help science better penetrate the news cycle. Even if they are reluctant to talk to the press themselves, they should encourage colleagues who do so responsibly. Scientists are poised to reach more people than ever, but only if they can embrace the very technology that they have developed.

In the end as Bora Zivkovic astutely states “[s]omebody has to actually be paid to write about things as they come out”. There will always be a need for a “professional” science journalist of some sort and I think scientists can play a large role in helping these journalists be science journalists. The decline of mainstream journalism in it’s current incarnation provides a grand opportunity for scientists to help fix the problems that we currently see. The movement of bloggers into print media and John Timmer’s work at Ars Technica are just two examples of how scientists can begin making an impact on the scientific journalism establishment. Participation in the discussion and providing new ideas will ultimately help more than happily dancing on the grave of that drivvle most scientists view scientific journalism as.