Seminar hosts debates on the relationship between scientists and journalists

Science reporting is becoming more important in the academic world, and the ties between these two classes of professionals are growing closer, say specialists in a meeting held by FAPESP.

By Karina Toledo

Agência FAPESP – Reports on scientific work in the media are becoming increasingly important in the academic world, and the relationship between journalists and researchers seems to be improving. But it’s important to remember that eminent scientists are not authorities on all subjects.

This warning was given by biologist Thomas Lewinsohn, a professor at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), during his participation at the “Science and Media” seminar held by FAPESP on April 16.

“In the old days, researchers gave a lot of importance to publication in scientific journals (which guarantees them academic prestige and funding) and no attention to scientific reporting in the media (which only served only to increase popularity). Today, these have almost equal weight,” Lewinsohn affirmed.

In addition to popularity, media exposure has also affected decision-making power in the academic world, increasing the probability that a project will be financed and, consequently, consequently, the researcher will gain academic prestige.

Lewinsohn says that a clear example of the new paradigm is the change in the post-graduate course evaluation system by the Federal Agency of Support and Evaluation of Postgraduate Education (CAPES). “Today, more weight is given to the visibility of the work of the scientists on staff,” he noted.

Another sign is the transformation undergone by the most prestigious science magazines (including Science and Nature) in recent years, as they acquire new sections with news content and more accessible language.

“It’s becoming impossible for scientists to ignore the media. Today, many scientists court journalists, and this leaves room for distortion. There is an idea that science will always have a rational, strongly based opinion on everything, and this isn’t true,” said Lewinsohn.

He recommends that journalists, in the rush to write articles, resist the impulse to consistently go to one source for answers on all issues. “Some [sources] have a personal agenda, which isn’t always about the science” so that the English flows more naturally.”

During his presentation, Dr. Paulo Saldiva from the USP Medical School complained that most journalists who seek him out want to talk about topics that are unrelated to his area of study, the effects of atmospheric pollution on health.

Another problem Saldiva addressed was the limited amount of time spent on topics and the risk of superficiality. “You talk for half an hour, and they show only ten seconds [on TV].”. This is scientists’ greatest fear,” Saldiva added.

For biologist Fernando Reinach, who became well known after participating in the FAPESP-funded Genome Project and who currently writes a scientific news column in the Estado of São Paulo newspaper, “the biggest problem in scientific reporting is that journalists “describe the miracle but don’t reveal the saint””.

“Much emphasis is given to the discovery, and the methods used aren’t really explored. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether what is being said is true,” he stated.

Reinach said that after leaving academic life, he maintained the habit of reading scientific articles and got the idea for a newspaper column because there were many interesting topics hidden behind obscure titles. “I have the scientist as a character. I try to give research a human dimension,” he stated.

The Folha de São Paulo newspaper’s science editor, Reinaldo José Lopes, spoke about the shrinking amount of space in newspapers for news in general and science in particular. “How do you package the news, the methodology and the human side in half a page? We feel a frightening impatience from the reader, and this ends up leading to superficiality,” he said.

Another participant was Roberto Wertman, editor of the Globonews program Espaço Aberto Ciência & Tecnologia [Science & Technology Open Space]. Wertman commented on the limitations of scientific coverage on TV, which is extremely dependent on the existence of images. Sonia López, ex-editor of AlphaGalileu, one of the largest academic news portals, also participated in the seminar.

Clive Cookson, science editor for the Financial Times, gave the opening talk, listing the three main problems that, in his opinion, affect the quality of scientific journalism.

First, Cookson mentioned the tendency to approach research results in an exaggerated or sensationalist manner. “The reporter needs to convince his editor that publishing the data is worthwhile, and scientific truth sometimes ends up in the background. And when the subeditor writes the headline, it becomes even more exaggerated,” he commented.

Another problem is the tendency to approach data from a negative point of view, which can cause distortions. “The idea is that bad news sells better,” he said.

Finally, Cookson mentioned biased news reports full of political interest. “Scientists should stick to science. But even in controversial situations, they should take the opportunity to pass their message along. If they leave an opening, sources with political interest could take advantage of the situation.”