Chairman Philipe Pajot, science journalist from French Association of Science Journalists

Outlined the topics of this session, which were the similarities and differences in which genetics is reported mainly in French speaking newspapers, and then introduced the speakers. 

Francois Heindryckx, who had written many books on media in Europe, explained that he usually attends conferences where the peers are to present his research. Researcher in general has to defend himself because colleagues attack him and his methods or the things that he forgotten or the theoretic framework he got wrong. This is different now – he is talking to journalists about study made about journalists. This study was made in collaboration with the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, where colleagues were given grant from Genome BC to find out how journalists cover genetic research and genomics. Schools in Quebec and Lille in France also investigated and research was transposed to Belgium as well.

The study turns to be threefold:

   1. Content analysis how the research is reported on four markets
   2. Interviews with science journalists in general
   3. Interviews with scientists themselves (now in process)

Results: Researchers screened four markets, twelve newspapers, articles with keywords like genomics, genetics, genes, cloning, GMO, genome. Work proceeded for two years (2006, 2007). Seven hundred stories were read, half of them within science pages, quarter elsewhere in the paper, tenth in pages related to social news. Focus was on whether the article was related to readers as to people suffering those diseases – balance is split: 44 % it was “them”, 40 % it was “us”.

Are the articles concerning research framed around “hope” or around “fear”? Situation is balanced, 50 % bring “hope”, third is balanced between hope and fear and 12 % is framed fearful way. Fear or hope framing also relates to the source giving the information: ordinary citizen or individual researcher is usually framed by hope. In case the source are experts, lobbies, interest groups, government or public authority, then the fear framing takes over.

Is the tone of the articles favorable to research or unfavorable or neutral? Two thirds are very or rather favorable, one third neutral and 7 % have unfavorable or critical frame. Tone is different depending on what the article is about – fundamental or applied research has in three quarters very favorable tone. When it comes to societal or ethical terms then only one quarter of the articles are written in the favorable tone, 20 % is with unfavorable tone, half neutral or balanced.

GMO´s are treated in Canada in neutral way. In Europe there is more coverage on GMO´s, but it constitutes controversial and political agenda, 50 % is framed in fear.

Science journalists are in some countries more easily found then in others (Canada – 25, Quebec – 4, France – 8, Belgium – 7). They were given standardized questionnaire, results are processed now, but they give very blurred and confusing picture. Any trends showing significant Canadian or European differences could not be found. But there ore other differences, one of them – in Canada journalists are conscious of the weakness with their being less on the top of the subject then those with whom they talk about it. They are looking for training and workshops. In Belgium and France journalists are less uncomfortable when it comes to the interview, they usually have a degree in science and only then they moved to journalism. Some journalists are worried and complain about shrinking their stories – format is ever shorter.

Main sources of the articles are research articles, academic journals, other newspapers, new alert services, researchers, lists of contacts. Not many journalists have time to attend science conferences, they rely more on press releases.

Trustworthiness of sources – journalists know where to be conscious, especially with companies, industry, pharmaceutical companies, but even there is certain level of trust as large companies could not survive the loss of trust if they ever cross the line and lie or exaggerate too much.

Split attitude to proof reading could be seen. Some journalists almost every time let the scientist proof read just to make sure there are not many factual mistakes. Other journalists felt very uncomfortable doing that.

Newsworthiness means bringing something novel, surprising and important. Some areas of science benefit from more attention like health and medicine, environment, psychology, geology, astronomy, archeology and origin of man. These can be easily understood by non-specialist. Difficult areas are not so covered as not many could understand.

Concerning the role of science journalist there is a split attitude: Do journalists have the responsibility in educating their audience? Report or educate? Or rather “translate” science to audience? Do they have to stimulate vigilance, stress prevention, or play the warning role of the media? Journalists try to avoid giving false hope to their audience. Science journalists feel they are isolated in the newsroom and colleagues usually don´t ask for help with the main stories.

What the next steps are?  Researchers are going to interview scientists themselves about how they feel about the way their science is being reported. And go further – how the oversimplification can be fixed and improved.

Fourth step is also prepared to facilitate dialog between the scientists and the journalists on what their responsibilities are, whether science journalists should be educated in certain areas of science, whether science journalists should be more critical, like political journalists. But are they in position to say: I doubt what you tell me. Is it their role?

Jacques Poncins, science journalist from Belgium

Genetics is not a journalistic topic per se, but some subjects are related to genetics. Journalists are not well informed. Summarized his career in there steps. The first one was fight and explaining to editors that it makes sense to inform about genetics. Second step was the time of blooming when Dolly the sheep was cloned. Genetics supposed to cure every problem. The third step is under way now. It is a good subject for TV series, but in the press it is back to the first step as it didn´t bring the cure for everything. GMO´s are in the labs but not in the fields – doesn´t it indicate controversy? People are interested into controversy, not into science. Problem for journalists is to maintain the good news because the bad news is overwhelming. 

Valeria Roman, science and medical reporter, Clarín, Argentina

She was speaking about her experience. In Latin America genetic issues are considered sexy for the editors and for the public, but the reporting is not excellent. Headlines do not represent the whole science and the results of the research. Sometimes science journalist finds barriers because he/she doesn´t make decisions about headlines so these can be wrong. Newspapers are big organizations and editors decide themselves without having the necessary knowledge. Editors have to decide fast and the truth doesn´t matter for them. Science journalist can suggest stories, but editors usually ask about applications and do not consider basic research. Media do not often report about the social and ethical aspects as local experts who could give opinion on bioethics do not exist. Journalists report on research in more advanced countries and forget to report on diseases in Latin America. Most of the stories are favorable and neutral, cloning received good coverage. In Argentina GMOs receive favorable coverage. The problem is indirect. In the past years problems with deforestation in north emerged, draught came last summer. These environmental problems were related to GMOs because increased land for growing them is needed.

Q & A

Guido Romeo, Italy: Shouldn´t we look more at the environment of the newsroom? Is science journalist really isolated there? In my case it works very well, I work at business magazine.

Philipe Pajot: It is a crucial issue. CNN dissolved its Science and Health Departments with explanation that it is not useful to have specialist journalists per se because science is everywhere. It does make sense in a way, but still – with politics it is the same way. Should there be science pages? Make specialists ghettos?

Ben Walter, Cambridge University: Do the results in your study reflect culture in the country or whether reporting is influencing the culture. Which way round the influence is coming from?

Francois Heindryckx: We have no idea at this point and one of the reasons is that we could not find differences without being able to connect them to any corresponding realities in working conditions. When we started the study we were expecting that we would soon find that science journalist are very unhappy, that they have to struggle within their newsroom and that they´ll be frustrated in some way. And that we could be able to help them in some way. To our surprise science journalists are quite happy whether they have science background or not. Different trajectories and approaches are leading to happy journalists.

Jacques, journalist from Quebec: GMOs in USA started earlier, so it is easy to communicate with scientists in US, it is different in Europe. Only 20 % is written by science journalists. Most of the science news, about 45 %, is written by generalist journalists. And they are driven mostly (about 80 %) by PR news releases. They do not have time to look for the big science stories.

Francois Heindryckx: The study we made didn´t enquire whether journalists were writing about other topics.

Valeria Roman: In the past I felt isolated but then I discovered there are many science journalists around the world. Now about one hundred people in Argentina in different provinces have established network and are in touch. We were in touch especially in time of dengue fever epidemics and helped each other. I gave contacts on national experts, they gave stories on patients. Is it really a network of isolated people?

Anna, reporter of the Swedish national Radio: We published a report on relationship of the scientists and science journalists. The main barriers are 1. Lack of time. 2. Lack of knowledge. 3. Difficulties with finding researchers who are independent. What are the risks when the lobby people are coming in to try to get their message through into the media?

Francois Heindryckx: Usually journalists do not have the proper background but that’s fine because readers don´t have it either. But for the controversial stories it is difficult on the part of the audience to make the difference between opinions and science facts. Lobbies usually tend to disguise and transform one into the other. What some journalists do, is to write: Look there seems to be a conflict, controversy, different truths. I am not in position to determine who´s right and who´s wrong, so I´ll give you the opposite views and you´ll make up your mind. For certain areas of science this is fine but when it comes to GM food it could be harmful in the long run. Monsanto says: Look, we have been eating GM food for decades now and there is no problem. People from the opposite side say: The problem might come in generation and cause e.g. infertility. Another trick of lobbyists is to ask: Are you 100 % sure? Whatever the question is, if it is a good scientist, he will tell you: Of course not! We cannot ever be 100 % sure. Aha, see, says the lobbyist, in case we cannot say this about climate change, why bother then!

Sarka Spevakova