SciComm Board

“The New York Times recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of its historic “Science section” with a special issue. An opportunity to reflect on the state of the art of scientific journalism. After having seen the inserts dedicated to science flourish in the ’70s and ’80s, in recent times the major Italian weekly and several newspapers have decided – with rare exceptions – to eliminate them. Most health inserts remain. How can we explain the reason for this trend? Science continues to permeate our culture, from cinema, to books, to advertising, to television. And there are numerous masters and university courses in Italy that prepare young graduates for science communication. Yet, paradoxically, in the newsrooms the presence of scientific journalists has been gradually reduced to nothing, and quite often those who write about science are “generalist” journalists. Fault of the crisis that publishers live and of the entry into the mass information circuit of internet? Certainly the interaction between the protagonists of scientific information (public, journalists, researchers) has become more and more complex and problematic. Since the ’80s the boundary between academic institutions and business has gradually faded, coinciding with the birth of the so-called entrepreneurial science. Scientific research becomes instrumental to the pursuit of personal and commercial goals, and the conflict of interests more pervasive: because the dividing line between science and business is increasingly blurred. The anxiety to communicate on the part of scientists, to make public what research is discovering, is pressing and an integral part of their “work”. There are scientists whose career is integrated with the media system. Stories of unbridled competition (just think of the war between France/USA to grab the royalties of the blood test for AIDS) and stories of fraud (in the last ten years the number of articles retracted by scientific journals has increased tenfold compared to the previous ten years and fraud covers 60 percent of these retractions) have come to have a corrosive effect on the untouchable image of science. Making good scientific journalism, which takes into account the context in which research is moving today, requires awareness (going deep into the issues to be addressed) and ethical rigor. This applies to all modes of expression, from print media to online communication. And should be a must not only for “science writers”, but for all those who produce information.”

Read More: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30720012/