How Scientists Control the News

"True descendants of Prometheus, science writers take the fire from the scientific Olympus, the laboratories and the universities, and bring it down to the people." That was how William Laurence, a science writer for The New York Times, described the work of science writers in the 1930s. Fifty years later, many scientists might be more likely to compare their opposite numbers in the media to the troublesome Pandora, whose impulsive opening of the box sent by Zeus unleashed a host of evils on humankind. In her new book Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (WH. Freeman and Co.), Dorothy Nelkin describes the uneasy relationship between scientist and journalist. In this excerpt from the book, she discusses how, out of fear for their professional reputations and their public image, scientists have begun to try to control the flow of information to the media. Seeking a press that expresses their views and supports their goals, scientists feel betrayed when their views are challenged or distorted. They defensively interpret critical reports about science or technology as evidence of an anti-science or antiestablishment bias. Scientists also complain about inaccuracy. They admit, though, that inaccuracy is mainly a problem, not of getting the facts wrong, but of omitting qualifiers or details necessary to place information in a proper perspective. The omission of information in many reports of the saccharin controversy is a case in point. Scientists often tell horror stories of being misquoted, misinterpreted or even maligned. For example, the chairman of the International Task Force on World Health and Manpower was once asked by a reporter whether he thought witch doctors can effectively administer medication in Africa. He replied that they probably could because of their high credibility in the population. The headline the following day read "U.N. Expert Calls for More Witch Doctors." Part of the tradition of science is a strong belief in the value of open communication; secrecy is believed to be damaging. Recently, however, science has come to depend on sophisticated technology that is both extremely expensive and more subject to regulation. Increasingly, scientists seek support from industry or directly from congressional appropriations, bypassing traditional sources like the National Science Foundation that rely on peer review. As competition for these funds increases, many scientists are convinced that traditional professional standards are not enough, that their research support—and their ability to maintain autonomy—will be affected by their public image. In general, while scientists see public communication of scientific information as necessary and desirable, they are also aware that it extends their accountability beyond the scientific community. Increasingly vulnerable to such external pressures and concerned about threats to their professional sovereignty, scientists have begun to seek more control over the discourse on science—to influence the images of science in the press. Strategies of Control Unlike physicians and other licensed professionals with codes of ethics and standards of confidentiality, scientists as a whole share few norms to guide their relations with the public. Defining their work as an autonomous enterprise, they are ill-equipped to deal with the external pressures represented by the press. In an effort to mitigate the problem, a number of scientific journals have published guidelines on how to respond to journalists and how to avoid misrepresentation. These guidelines are usually defensive in nature. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, warns scientists to be aware of reporters' motives, to avoid interviews about their research before publication, and to be extremely cautious in what they say. Scientists attempt to control news by discouraging their colleagues from "going public." In her book The Visible Scientists, Rae Goodell observes that scientists who become visible to the media "are typically outsiders, sometimes even outcasts among established scientists." A number of professional journals will not consider an article whose content has been published in the popular press. These journals are highly prestigious; publishing in them can affect a scientists's career. Thus, their policies serve as effective constraints on scientific communication. Often scientists try to control press coverage by refusing interviews unless they can review and correct the copy before publication. Reporters, fearing censorship by vested interests, are usually reluctant to show their articles to sources, though they often confirm the accuracy of details with them. Government has moved to increase restrictions on the flow of information to the press by imposing prior censorship on government employees who want to write about their work, by reducing the number of press briefings, by making changes in the Freedom of Information Act, and by classifying more federally funded research. Scientists themselves have also proposed restricting press access to information. They tried to ban reporters from the Asiomar Conference on recombinant DNA research. They eventually allowed 16 reporters to attend, but set boundaries on the discussion and placed an embargo on all stories until after the conference was over. Scientists have also proposed control of public access to information by diverting reporters to professional intermediaries or contact officers, who will provide official versions, thus isolating working scientists from the media. Other scientists have suggested the creation of a new scientific profession: the "certified public scientist," who will be certified as technically competent to speak with the media. These are paternalistic proposals; they are easily rationalized, often reasonable, but they place scientists in the inappropriate role of public guardian. As with most efforts to censor information, they are also difficult to contain. And as the control of information at Chernobyl suggests, professional or political control over news can foster rumor, uninformed speculation, and sometimes unwarranted fear. Official accounts that are structured to emphasize the positive may also cause costly delays in bringing a problem to public attention. For years the press relied on official accounts about nuclear power, underreporting the concerns expressed by those outside the establishment. In the reporting of environmental problems there are many examples of costly delays stemming from control of communication by scientists or public officials. These have had high social costs, delaying public recognition of serious problems and preventing appropriate responses. The efforts of scientists to manage the media—through both public relations or communication controls—reflect their continued ambivalence about the press. Scientists today see improved press coverage as a means of fulfilling their obligation to bring science to the public and attracting support from legislators, corporate leaders and foundation executives. But they also fear that publicity will direct research funding toward applied and newsworthy areas at the expense of less dramatic but more productive fields. They worry about the corruptive influence on science of self-promotion and the encouragement of scientists more skilled in public relations than in research. They worry about distortion of information, inaccuracy and sensationalism. Relations between science and the press remain fragile and strained. However, the question is no longer whether science will be covered in the press, but how it will be conveyed. While the two cultures remain in tension, they are also inextricably bound. Nelkin is a professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Copynght © 1986 by W.H. Freeman and Co. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

How Scientists Control the News

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of