- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
The Possible Futures of Science Journalism
Good science policy depends upon good science journalism. As Chris Mooney has pointed out, the federal government alone spent $142 billion on research and development last year. But “informed citizens deserve to understand more about what they’re getting from that investment,” he wrote.
CJR’s Observatory recently rounded up two useful discussions on the fragmenting state of science reporting in the United States.
Curtis Brainard tuned into the “Future of Science and Environmental Journalism” panel at the Wilson Center here in DC that explored the business-minded cuts that have diminished or eliminated science reporting staffs at mainstream news outlets. Though some cuts seems stranger than others; he notes that Aviation Week & Space Technology closed its Cape Canaveral office in the last year (NASA’s budget in FY2008 was $12.2 billion).
Cristine Russell reported on the more dire-sounding “Science Journalism in Crisis?” event at the AAAS conference, but she and Brainard both mention the migration of science journalism from major U.S. newspapers to niche online outlets. At AAAS, this phenomenon was coupled with an influx of foreign reporters:
The number of science reporters and journalists-in-training from far-flung parts of the world—the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, as well as Canada, the U.K., Germany, Sweden and other parts of Europe—has expanded at AAAS. At the same time, the presence of working American science reporters from major newspapers and magazines has declined over time, their ranks often replaced by a diverse group of freelancers and digital journalists who write, blog, and Twitter for a variety of startup and established news and information Web sites.
The Wilson Center event captured a slate of ideas for more citizen-centric science reporting that meets the local needs of individuals for environmental and technology news. Panelist Jan Scaffer, who directs the Knight Foundation-funded J-Lab at American University, is a champion of such “civic-media networks.” Inspired by her ideas, AU professor and science communication expert Matt Nisbet suggests in a recent column that the Obama administration should support collaborations between universities, museums, local media, and communities to produce and distribute science and environmental news.
The idea that nonprofit orgs may be the future of high-quality journalism in general is not new, but the suggestion that existing public media is a solid foundation on which to rebuild science journalism is worth considering, as any NOVA watcher or Science Friday listener can attest.
What do readers think the next iterations of effective science journalism will look like?
Image: flickr.com/mybloodyself
Comments on this article
