Section 4: What Museums Can Learn from Media Public Understanding of Research Initiatives

Tim Radford – It’s the way you tell ‘em

Science has to be told as stories in order for the public to take any interest. Media frames are chosen to sell these stories to the guy who is eating his bowl of cereal. Science stories compete for attention with every other story in the popular press. Analysis of the media brings up words like Frankenstein, Pandora’s Box, and Playing God, far more frequently than do the actual scientific words. By selling stories, however, the journalist is able to transmit science to the public. By doing this repetitively, the press can educate.

Cornelia Dean – Covering Science at the New York Times

The NY Times relies on staff writers, about half of which have some advanced degree in science. These individuals scan the science journals and convene each morning to discuss what to cover and how much space to devote to each story.

Dean describes the role of science writers in translating science in the press. She writes, “when our stories do not get the play we think they deserve, it is often because we have done a poor job communicating, clearly and quickly, why they are important. (This is a problem we share with scientists who complain that their work does not get the attention it deserves.)” (p.307)

Dean remarks on the problem of scientific specialization and the ability of staff writers to understand the research. She also describes the effect of commercialization in science. Many scientists have financial interests in companies (sometimes their own) which leads to a blatant conflict of interest.

Dean argues that most scientists do not know how to talk to the press or prepare for a press interview. Scientists, in general, are rewarded by publishing their articles in scientific journals and communicating their findings to their peers. They have little incentive to speak with the press, who will corrupt the meaning of their work. There is also a scientific cultural pressure not to overly promote oneself to the popular press.

Nancy Linde – Nova: The leading edge

In describing how Nova has been so successful as a television program, Linde writes, “There are three critically important elements in creating the perfect Nova: story, story, and story.” While TV programs are linear and do not have the time to focus on detail (unlike museums), creating programs for the public is similar. There are four basic elements when creating an episode of Nova:

1) The narrative. It needs to be entertaining, stimulating and enlightening.
2) Characters. They need to be appealing, concise, articulate, and interesting.
3) Dramatic arc. A story needs to build and release tension.
4) Visuals. TV is the medium for visuals and they should move or show a process.

A producer needs to have the courage to reject subjects because there is no story, or to reject important scientists because they cannot communicate their research effectively.

Programs essentially have three acts: Act 1 – the setup, act 2 – the conflict, and act 3 – the resolution. Science stories that end with contingencies or are vague do not work. For example, “it might lessen our dependence on foreign oil someday, if we can get hydrogen fuel cells to work.”

The most important questions to ask are:

• What’s the story?
• Who is the main character?
• Who are the minor characters?
• What’s the conflict? What are the twists and turns in the story?
• What’s the resolution?

Marc Airhart – Earth and Sky: Some challenges of Communicating Scientific Research on the Radio

Earth and Sky is a 90-second radio show broadcasted on 650 stations. Because of the format, Airhart describes the biggest challenges as:

1. Selecting the Topic
2. The Interview. Getting scientists to go beyond presenting “the facts” to telling about themselves, their motivations, their challenges, etc.
3. Accuracy versus Reality. Focusing on the parts of the story that are interesting means leaving out parts the scientist may feel are important.

Eliene Augenbraun – Crossing the Public and Commercial Broadcasting Barriers: ScienCentral’s Two Public Understanding of Research Projects.

Augenbraun itemizes the issues (financial, cultural, political, and technical) facing the production of science programs.