The Evolution of Science Journalism?

This is part of an OpenSciLogs/Indiegogo project entitled “the History of Science Journalism” to which I contributed. To add your own contribution go to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10hB4Pa1Alx-m04iON9-QfKOSp3kfCpRENeN-vFC0Ft0/edit

When asked what I want to do in the future, I reply, “science journalism”. The most common responses I get are “what’s that?” and “ooh, haven’t heard of that one before!” One person remarked: “science journalism? Those are two words I’d never have put together!”

Does this mean that science journalism is dead? I should hope not! I think it is simply the case that people aren’t used to hearing the term – after all, it is commonly assumed that science graduates have one of three broad career options: academic research, teaching, and medicine. Yet the public is exposed to science journalism, in the form of documentaries and news headlines. Science is what informs society about stem cell research, newly discovered drugs, new materials.

Clearly, the way in which we receive science news is diversifying: the use of blogs and social media is taking over, with more traditional forms of journalism becoming less popular. Wanting to know whether and how the content of science journalism has evolved, I decided to look through the Archive of the Popular Science magazine and gather some statistics.

I selected a random issue (two issues at the start, when they were short) from every 4^th year between 1872 and 2008 and counted the number of articles which best fit into 12 broad categories (this took longer than expected!) and got some interesting results:

Articles in the “other” category initially consisted largely of history and philosophy of science, but later these were replaced with advertisements, readers’ opinions and economics.

Far be it from an aspiring science writer to attempt to draw conclusions about the evolution of science journalism from just one magazine – that is not how the scientific method works! – but there were several points of note from the Popular Science archive:

·         For the first 40 years or so, each issue comprised around 10 long, research-paper style articles about developments in science. These were broad in topic, but with some preference for the biological sciences and a lot of articles focusing on sociology, anthropology and philosophy.

·         At this point there were relatively few articles on engineering and technology, with the odd paper on electronics and mechanics.

·         1916, right in the middle of WW1, was the first major turning point: the magazine became more newspaper-style, with many more articles which were much briefer; the focus at this point shifted almost entirely to new inventions and machinery, which continued to dominate the magazine. From then on there was hardly any mention of physiology, psychology or philosophy.

·         It was interesting to note some important scientific discoveries which nonetheless were not front-page headlines and could easily have been missed. For example, June 1948: “Experiments prove you can’t destroy energy”.

·         In the 40s and 50s there was a big increase in home and DIY, with entire sections devoted to this.

·         From the 80s onwards there began to appear articles on renewable energy sources and mention in advertisements of products being eco-friendly, suggesting this was around the time we began to become self-aware of our impact on the environment.

To what extent does the coverage of science in the media affect the direction of scientific research? I think this is especially the case with somewhat controversial current topics such as GM and stem cell research. These are big scientific advances, but they raise ethical issues and it is important that scientists take public opinion into account. However, I also think that science journalists should stress where possible that the benefits of these advances often outweigh the moral issues. For example, many people argue that the creation of human embryos in stem cell therapy is akin to creating and then destroying a potential human life, but a sense of perspective is needed here, i.e. many lives will potentially be saved; furthermore, can an embryo really be likened to a human life? I’m currently reading How We Live and Why We Die: The Secret Lives of Cells by Lewis Wolpert, in which developmental processes in humans are discussed. With all the massive changes, including cell division, differentiation and the formation of organs, that the single fertilised egg must undergo before it even resembles a human being, Wolpert argues that it is not justified to allocate the same rights to an embryo that one would to a human.

What would I like to see in the future with regards to science reporting? I’d like the relationship between science news and the public to be more two-way, more interactive. With the increase in social media for reporting scientific news and discoveries, I can envisage a situation where more people become engaged in the news they receive - give feedback, ask questions, push for more information. Now that would make a science journalist’s job very interesting, in my opinion.

The data came from http://www.popsci.com/content/wordfrequency#internet.
The project "the History of Science Journalism" belongs to Robin Wylie, PhD student. Please feel free to contribute to the document.