Order Cheap Ativan Online - Discount Online Pharmacy

My previous post on science journalism generated a lot of debate – this interested me, so as a follow-up I decided to attend today’s RSA lunchtime talk, titled “Do scientist get the media they deserve”, a dialogue between noted genetics researcher dr J Craig Venter, former BBC social affairs and health correspondent Niall Dickson, currently at the King’s Fund (with Fiona Fox from the Science Media Centre as moderator). Those who had expected heated debate were perhaps disappointed, as Ventner and Dickson were mostly in agreement that science journalism could be better and that there was room for improvement among both journalists and scientists (besides the normal accusations of sensationalism, both discussants used fairly mild language). I asked a question about what the participants through we could and should do about making science journalism better, given that we all agree that it can be improved. What are the top ‘to do’ tips for scientists and journalists? Dr Venter directed his remarks at the journalists:

Work harder! Even with the time constraints that journalists face, doing basic research to get the fact straight is not difficult nor time consuming. Many glaring errors could be avoided with a simple Google search.

Use more sources, and more interviews! Actually talking to people who know about things also helps in avoiding errors.

Niall Dickson had this advice for scientists:

Scientists need to understand media – the object of most news media is not to educate people about scientific advances, so scientists should act and think accordingly.

Training is needed – on both sides. Journalists need better understanding of science and scientists need to be able to communicate better.

Specialisation in journalism helps – i.e the more specialist science journalists there are, the better science journalism will be.

To this, Fiona Fox added:

Advice for scientists: Don’t just complain, engage! According to her, if scientists actually get out there and talk to journalists, the reporting gets better.

Advice for journalists: The more sensational the claim, the more carefully you need to check and verify those claims (not the other way around, which is often the case – i.e. the more sensational, the less you check)

So what do you think? Useful advice or the same old truisms? Do we need more radical measures (forcing all journalists to get a science degree, requiring that scientists communicate only by press releases etc)?