Home > Research > Project Rationale

Project Rationale

Over the past decade, a renewed urgency has developed regarding the need to more fully and openly discuss the field of science journalism (Bubela et al., 2009). This need has emerged alongside a growing convergence over the call for publics to be more “engaged” in the governance of emerging scientific technologies (Burgess & Tansey, 2009). From environmental genomics, to genetically modified crops, to personalized medicine and biofuels, the pace of scientific research has quickened while growing more global, interdisciplinary, and privately funded. This has raised a host of legal, ethical, and political questions over topics such as biopiracy, climate change research, the commodification of human tissues, food and energy security, and genomic sovereignty. There is also increasing concern that as science and the media become more intertwined (Schafer, 2011) and research funding grows more dependent on public legitimation (Weingart et al., 2003), further pressures on journalists will emerge as scientists seek increased media coverage.

In this context, science journalism is seen by many as an important source of information for non-specialists. For example, it is hoped that science journalism, along with other forms of communication, will allow non-specialists to keep apprised of scientific advancements, assess the appropriateness of research, and make choices relevant to perceived personal risks (Nelkin, 1995).

However, in the midst of politically and ethically contentious issues, science journalism has been criticized. Critics deem it polarizing, sensationalistic, and unable to connect with citizens in ways that allow meaningful engagement with the governance of science (see, for example, Logan, 2001; Bubela et al., 2009; Amend & Secko, 2011). In this way, science journalism’s ability to positively support democracy has been questioned.

While the extent of this crisis is arguable, it is troublesome for scholars, journalists and scientists that see science journalism as a democratic undertaking — one that is important for the development of social capital and an inclusive democratic community.

For this reason, the CSJP was initiated to investigate current and theoretical practices in science journalism in Canada, with a focus on determining how it can be improved so as to better support public engagement with science. It is not the project’s intention to suggest that science journalism is poorly done (and to the contrary there is much to praise), but that there is room for improvement with regard to issues of social importance and in particular those often perceived in terms of personal risk.

There is much to discuss and study about science journalism and its current landscape. Science journalism has a unique history linked to science literacy (Logan, 2001) and evolving political-economic circumstances such as significant decreases in specialized science journalists (Russell, 2006), increases in scientific media coverage (Schafer, 2009) and scientific PR (Machill et al., 2006), and a movement toward the Internet where science journalists now compete with audiences for the formation of scientific narratives (Brumfiel, 2009; Secko et al., 2011).

The CSJP is currently exploring these and a range of other topics. We welcome your feedback on the project. (This rationale will, of course, evolve as the project evolves. The above was revised in November 2011). 

References

  • Amend, E., Secko, D. M. (2011). In the Face of Critique: A Metasynthesis of the Experiences of Journalists Covering Health and Science. Science Communication, Online First DOI: 10.1177/1075547011409952.
  • Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature, 458, 274-277.
  • Bubela, et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27, 514-518.
  • Burgess, M., & J. Tansey. (2009). Technology, democracy, and ethics: Democratic deficit and the ethics of public engagement. In E. Einsiedel (Ed.), Emerging technologies: From hindsight to foresight (pp. 275-288). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.
  • Logan, R. (2001). Science Mass Communication: It’s Conceptual History. Science Communication 23: 135-163.
  • Machill, M., Beiler, M., & Schmutz., J. (2006). The influence of video news releases on the topics reported in science journalism. Journalism Studies 7: 869-888.
  • Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
  • Russell, C. (2006). Covering controversial science: Improving reporting on science and public policy. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/ papers/working_papers/2006_04_russell.pdf
  • Schafer, M. S. (2009). From Public Understanding to Public Engagement: An Empirical Assessment of Changes in Science Coverage. Science Communication 30: 475–505.
  • Schafer, M. S. (2011). Sources, Characteristics and Effects of Mass Media Communication on Science: A Review of the Literature, Current Trends and Areas for Future Research. Sociology Compass 5/6: 399–412.
  • Weingart, P., C. Muhl and P. Pansegrau. (2003). ‘Of Power Maniacs and Unethical Geniuses: Science and Scientists in Fiction Film.’ Public Understanding of Science 12: 279–87.
  • Secko, D. M., Tlalka, S., Kingdon, A., Dunlop, M., Amend, E. (2011). The Unfinished Science Story: Journalist-Audience Interactions from the Globe and Mail’s Online Health and Science Sections. Journalism 12(7): 814-831.