Introduction [3](#introduction)

What is the \"problem\" of science communication?
[3](#what-is-the-problem-of-science-communication)

Important definitions [6](#important-definitions)

What is science? [6](#what-is-science)

What is news? [8](#what-is-news)

What is science news? [13](#what-is-science-news)

Reporters [14](#reporters)

Background of reporters [15](#background-of-reporters)

Roles and activities of reporters
[17](#roles-and-activities-of-reporters)

What is a good science reporter? [20](#what-is-a-good-science-reporter)

Science information professionals
[21](#science-information-professionals)

The Public(s) [23](#the-publics)

Who are the publics for science communication?
[23](#who-are-the-publics-for-science-communication)

What is public understanding of science?
[24](#what-is-public-understanding-of-science)

Why should the public understand science?
[25](#why-should-the-public-understand-science)

How does the public gather science information?
[28](#how-does-the-public-gather-science-information)

What does the public need to know? [31](#__RefHeading___Toc433077562)

What are the attitudes of publics toward science?
[33](#what-are-the-attitudes-of-publics-toward-science)

Scientists [35](#scientists)

What are the ways that scientists communicate to the public?
[35](#what-are-the-ways-that-scientists-communicate-to-the-public)

What problems does the scientist face communicating with the public
[36](#what-problems-does-the-scientist-face-communicating-with-the-public)

Why should scientists communicate with the public?
[38](#why-should-scientists-communicate-with-the-public)

How well do the media cover science?
[39](#how-well-do-the-media-cover-science)

How is science covered by reporters?
[39](#how-is-science-covered-by-reporters)

What styles are used in science coverage?
[42](#what-styles-are-used-in-science-coverage)

What are the conflicts between scientists and journalists?
[47](#what-are-the-conflicts-between-scientists-and-journalists)

The Scientist\'s view. [47](#the-scientists-view.)

The Journalist\'s view [52](#the-journalists-view)

What factors determine contact between scientist and journalist?
[57](#what-factors-determine-contact-between-scientist-and-journalist)

How can reporting of science be improved?
[58](#how-can-reporting-of-science-be-improved)

What the scientist should do [58](#what-the-scientist-should-do)

What the journalist should do [60](#what-the-journalist-should-do)

Prospects for improvement [64](#prospects-for-improvement)

Science communication scholarship
[65](#science-communication-scholarship)

Important theories [65](#important-theories)

Science and media [68](#science-and-media)

How accurate is media coverage? [68](#how-accurate-is-media-coverage)

How are decisions made about news coverage?
[70](#how-are-decisions-made-about-news-coverage)

Does the press set a science agenda?
[74](#does-the-press-set-a-science-agenda)

What is the tone of media coverage of science?
[75](#what-is-the-tone-of-media-coverage-of-science)

Are science stories balanced? [77](#are-science-stories-balanced)

How is science portrayed outside of news?
[78](#how-is-science-portrayed-outside-of-news)

Media Relations
[79](#what-are-relations-between-scientists-and-media-like)

Audiences [80](#audiences)

Segments. [80](#who-are-the-important-science-publics)

Interest in science [81](#interest-in-science)

How well does the public understand science?
[82](#how-well-does-the-public-understand-science)

How favorable are the publics\' attitudes towards science?
[84](#how-favorable-are-the-publics-attitudes-towards-science)

What is known about science communication and risk?
[85](#what-is-known-about-science-communication-and-risk)

How is science policy made? [88](#how-is-science-policy-made)

Suggestions for future directions in science communication
[90](#suggestions-for-future-directions-in-science-communication)

What are the priorities for science communication scholarship?
[91](#what-are-the-priorities-for-science-communication-scholarship)

My own suggestions for scholars [92](#__RefHeading___Toc433077598)

Problem: The isolation of science communication scholarship
[92](#problem-the-isolation-of-science-communication-scholarship)

Problem: What is science news? [94](#problem-what-is-science-news)

Problem: focus on media besides newspapers
[96](#problem-need-for-attention-to-media-besides-newspapers)

References Consulted [100](#references-consulted)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Introduction

Science communication plays an important role among the relationships of
important constituencies in any democratic society: the press, the
public, science, government, religion, business, and education. For
these institutions, the quality and effectiveness of communication about
science has profound implications. To consider one example, effective
science reporting fulfills the media\'s obligation to provide knowledge
of fast-breaking events, poorly understood natural phenomena, and
exciting developments from the world of science. It also allows the
press to provide readers or viewers with vital information for forming
opinions about policy and for healthy and effective living. For science,
effective communication returns a debt created by years of generous
public funding and support, helps to offer society insights into the
nature of the world and those who occupy it, and helps to generate
excitement among young people who might otherwise not consider
scientific careers. For different publics, science knowledge enhances
decision making about policy, reduces fear and superstition, fosters
economic competitiveness, and generates national pride.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it surveys the landscape of
science communication research with an emphasis on research from the
past twenty years. A number of key areas are identified and reviewed,
and important ideas in science communication are noted. Second, a short
critique of the literature is presented and agenda for the future is
offered that suggests directions for future research.

# What is the \"problem\" of science communication?

A pervasive assumption in the literature is that there is a problem or
set of problems for which more effective science communication is the
answer. The evidence that problems exist is based on findings that the
public is scientifically \"illiterate\" (Hartz & Chappell, 1998), on the
reports of scientists angry about media coverage of their research,
their fields, or science generally (Hartz & Chappell, 1997; Shortland &
Gregory, 1991), and from complaints of journalists frustrated with the
difficulties of describing and understanding important scientific
findings (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

Ziman (1992) suggests there are three models of the problem: the
deficiency model, the relational choice model, and the context model. At
the risk of oversimplifying, these can be thought of as, \"ought to
know, need to know, and want to know.\" According to the deficiency
("ought to know") model, widespread ignorance about science is a problem
because scientists in democratic societies depend upon public good will
for funding and support. If ignorance of science can be reduced, a
public\'s attitude towards science will be positive. This positive
attitude will result in ever-increasing levels of support in the form of
money and resources. If ignorance is not reduced, publics may be
vulnerable to the anti-science messages of those who would cut science
funding, whether motivated by greed, power, or superstition. Ignorance
is reduced via effective communication about science. The model\'s
appeal is enhanced by findings that show widespread scientific
illiteracy in major democracies (Hartz & Chappell, 1997) and by evidence
that attitudes toward science may be growing more negative (Yankelovich,
1982).

But the deficiency model has important problems. Some (Gregory & Miller,
1998; Trench, 1998) criticize it for its top-down, science-centered
approach. In addition, there are logical problems with asserting that a
body of knowledge exists ready to be communicated to the uninformed
since, as Ziman points out, science is not "a well-bounded, coherent
entity, capable of being more or less 'understood'" (Ziman, 1992).
Scientists themselves have no clear and consistent notion of what
'science' covers, and often disagree about what it is telling us about
the world. Questions such as, "Is psychology a science?" and "How did
humans evolve?" elicit controversy among scientists, let alone lay
people and the press, as do questions about, "Should our instruments for
measuring public understanding of science therefore take no account of
knowledge of the social or behavioral sciences? How should they score
responses on interesting topics that are still highly disputed? Where
would they draw the line between a plausible conjecture and the wisdom
of experience?" (Ziman, 1992, p. 16). And even within established
sciences, experts considering a set of agreed-upon facts may still
differ in their prescriptions for how knowledge should be applied. For
example, medical specialists frequently offer contradictory advice on
healthy eating (high protein, low carbohydrate diets versus high
carbohydrate, low fat diets).

Rejecting the deficiency model, Ziman presents an alternative he labels
the rational choice model. This framework poses the basic question,
"What do people need to know in order to be good citizens---even to
survive---in a culture largely shaped by science?" Without sufficient
knowledge, people might not live their lives optimally or they might
even turn against science. But dilemmas plague this approach too. For
example, given conflicts among scientists over findings and theory,
whose advice should be followed? What advice is necessary? Where should
such advice be located?

Finally, Ziman describes a context model that asks: What do people want
to know given the circumstances of their lives? This model requires
understanding of the context of scientific knowledge and how different
people put it to use. This notion of an audience-centered approach that
begins with questions about what people want and need from science
communication has been echoed by others as well (Lewenstein, 1992).
Ziman believes that science communication scholarship would benefit from
adopting this third perspective.

Each of the models described by Ziman is well-represented in the science
communication literature. My review proceeds as follows: First, I
attempt to provide some basic definitions of key constructs related to
science communication. Next, I review the literature on the relationship
of news media personnel and scientists. While the term science
communication extends to a broad range of communication activities, the
bulk of the paper examines what can more precisely be labeled science
journalism or science reporting. Finally, theoretical areas of science
communication scholarship are then reviewed.

# Important definitions

## What is science?

What definitions do science communication scholars apply to constituent
parts of the phrase "science communication? Perhaps not surprisingly,
definitions of these "obvious" terms are elusive. Friedman, Dunwoody and
Rogers (1986) propose a broad definition: "'Science' comprises not only
the biological, life, and physical sciences but also the social and
behavioral sciences and such applied fields as medicine, environmental
sciences, technology, and engineering" (p. xv). They add that "\'science
writing' includes coverage of these fields as well as the political,
economic, and social aspects of science" (p. xv).

Burkett's (1986) review offers several definitions, along with
critiques. The idea that science is the control of nature has a long
history, dating to Bacon. Burkett rejects this definition because it
also covers technology and manufacturing (which he would exclude) while
excluding astronomy. Another definition is that science is the study of
the material world. However this approach excludes mathematical physics
and the social and behavioral sciences. Perhaps science can be thought
of as \"public\" knowledge. But this would exclude private research,
such as that conducted by corporations. Also problematic is the notion
that science is the application of the experimental method, which
excludes observational work characteristic of anthropologists,
naturalists, paleontologists, astronomers, and some social scientists.
Burkett concludes that the best definition of science is that it
consists of logical inferences from many observations.

The label \"science\" refers to a broad range of activities. It may
include the work of pure or academic scientists who seek knowledge for
its own sake, as well as that of fundamental or applied scientists who
explore solutions to immediate problems and concerns. A broad definition
of science might include technologists who use fundamental knowledge to
develop and design new products, whereas a narrower definition would
exclude this group.

Beyond understanding how scientists see themselves, it is also
instructive to learn definitions of science offered by science writers
from major news organizations. According to *Newsweek* science writer
Sharon Begley "At *Newsweek*, science is basic research" (Hartz &
Chappell, 1997, p. 51). Begley continues, "I cover everything from
archeology to genetics, neuroscience, and physics. I do not do medicine,
which is defined as anything having to do with sick people. And I don't
do technology. I'll do genetics. I'll do neuroscience. But once it gets
into somebody sick, I give it to 'medicine'" (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).
Clearly then, for Begley, basic science is different from applied
science and from technology. The *New York Times*, in its special
sections, also distinguishes \"science\" from \"technology.\" The issue
is clearly of importance in one respect: scholars (and journalists) who
use the term \"science\" without specifying the boundaries of the
concept may be describing very different things. Greater specificity
would be a welcome addition to this literature.

It is likely that the first exposure most people have to science takes
place during their schooling. However, outside of the classroom, the
most important science communicators are found in the news business. For
journalists and broadcasters, \"science communication\" means informing
audiences about events, issues, and controversies that qualify as
\"news.\" A science story may deal directly with an issue of science
(Hubble photographs; cold fusion; causes of depression). Or it may deal
with a broad issue for which scientists can provide an important
perspective (global warming, hurricanes). Or it may be an issue of the
activities or conduct of people who work in science or related fields
(Challenger explosion, Baltimore case). For the news media, the decision
to cover any of these events requires that it be judged as newsworthy.
But what is news?

## What is news?

Mass media are instances of \"any medium of communication that reaches
large numbers of people. Under that umbrella are newspapers, radio,
television, and magazines. One could also include books, newsletters,
and cable TV programs. . ." (Friedman et al., 1986, p. xv). In the
twelve years since this definition appeared it is clear that new
technologies such as the Internet also qualify. Mass media industries in
the United States are big business. Recent annual revenues for major
media were as follows: book publishing\--\$28 billion, newspapers\--\$55
billion, magazines\--\$26 billion, movies\--\$35 billion, radio\--\$13
billion, recordings\--\$14 billion, and television\--\$49 billion
(Biagi, 1998).

Print media that carry science news have been divided into four types
(Shortland & Gregory, 1991): general news, newspaper and magazine
features, books, and book reviews. General news consists of breaking
stories, typically written under very tight deadlines. General news
stories require writing with a clear structure, short sentences, and
little jargon. Harsh editing of news stories is common because editors
must make difficult decisions about a story\'s worth in comparison to
other events of the day. Edits are rarely checked by sources for
accuracy, since deadlines for publication are so short.

Feature stories are longer and offer greater room for structured
arguments, detail, context, and illustrations. Publication schedules are
more flexible, which may provide a science writer with an opportunity to
check on editorial changes for accuracy.

Books allow science writers to deal directly with a public without the
need for compromising accuracy for journalistic convention. In practice,
though, manuscripts intended for general audiences are heavily edited.
Shortland and Gregory note that, for scientific sources, publishing can
be an ordeal; Darwin's first book, recounting his voyage on the HMS
Beagle, took a year to write.

Friedman (1986), in a text devoted to science communication, provides a
breakdown of the kinds of news generally carried by major media.

> Hard news, sometimes called spot news, is what generally occupies the
> first three to five pages of a newspaper and most of a television or
> radio newscast. Because this type of article is written according to a
> rigid formula with strict requirements, it causes many problems for
> scientists who don't find it contains enough information or detail.
> One prime requirement for hard news is currentness, or a news peg,
> something that makes the story immediate, or, in journalistic terms,
> makes it news" (Friedman, 1986, p. 23).

Hard news is written in inverted pyramid style, which means important
information and conclusions are placed first. Friedman estimates that 90
percent of news stories are written this way. The lead sentence of hard
news is written to be a "grabber," to draw the audience into the story.
Detailed information usually falls to the bottom of a story or is not
included at all. Such details are likely to be the first casualties of
editorial decisions to cut story length. News stories are written with
the "5 W\'s and an H," or who, what, where, when, why, and how. News
norms dictate that each of these issues be covered within the first
paragraphs of a story. Once again, this fairly common approach assumes a
low-involvement reader, who, in many instances, will not finish an
article (Graber, 1988).

Other news story approaches include: features, interpretive stories, and
investigative pieces. Feature stories are longer than most hard news
stories and are not constrained by the requirement of a hard news "peg."
But features are required to be timely, that is, to address some current
issue. An explanatory feature---frequently used in science
writing---expands or elaborates upon something that is already in the
news or some topic of interest. Interpretive reporting is meant to
provide readers with the meaning or significance of a development. This
requires interpretation and inferences on the part of the science
writer. Interpretive reports frequently deal with controversial
subjects, and may evolve into a longer series of articles. These stories
often try to relate many viewpoints, including the costs and benefits of
a proposal or solution to an issue. Finally, investigative reporting
tries to get below the facts or surface features of a story and digs
into aspects often neglected by a hard-news approach. An investigative
piece typically takes longer to write than hard news or feature writing
and involves extended document searches and numerous interviews with
sources (Friedman, 1986).

Americans are avid media consumers. Biagi (1998) suggests that 63
percent of adult waking hours are spent using media. Approximately 64
percent of adults read a newspaper daily, and the typical American reads
10 magazine issues per month. He or she listens to the radio for just
under four hours per day, watches television for four hours a day, and
has the television on at home for seven and a half hours per day.

For mass media, determining the content that will fill the news hole is
a repetitive and important problem. Media organizations must routinely
develop answers for issues such as: What is acceptable to consumers?
What is the news organization capable of processing? What raw product is
available from suppliers? (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Media companies
spend a lot of money finding out what their audiences want. This is
important both for keeping and growing a loyal audience and for serving
the sponsors of the media vehicle. Audience size and composition is
directly related to what content is considered acceptable as well as to
how much advertisers can be charged for space or air time. Because news
organizations lack immediate feedback about audience values, they
develop what Shoemaker and Reese (1991) refer to as "craft norms." These
norms are the guidelines gatekeepers use to make news judgments.

What are these craft norms for news? Shoemaker and Reese (1991) suggest
they are: [prominence/importance]{.underline} (How many lives are
affected? Fatalities are "worth" more than property damage. Actions of
the powerful are more newsworthy than actions of ordinary people or the
poor), [human interest]{.underline} (including the activities of people
with no direct impact upon audience member's life other than that
created by their own fame, i.e., celebrities, gossip, human dramas),
[conflict/controversy]{.underline} (conflict is presumed to alert
audiences to important issues. It is also believed to be inherently more
interesting than harmony), the [unusual]{.underline} (David, 1996),
[timeliness]{.underline}, and [proximity]{.underline} (events that
happen nearby are considered more newsworthy). Singer, Endreny, and
Glassman (1991) find, for example, that the geographic distance of a
hazard from a newspaper\'s town affects the length of coverage of that
hazard. Inevitably, local media seek local angles on a story, even for
stories of national importance. News should also have audience appeal
and tell some kind of a story. It appears that these news values flow in
large part from assumptions that the attention span and interest of
audiences for news is quite limited (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991; Zaller,
1992).

Several organizational influences on news selection have been identified
in the literature. Early research (White, 1950) concluded that media
gatekeepers (editors) are unusually important in construction of the
news agenda. White also suggested that gatekeepers act in a somewhat
idiosyncratic fashion. Subsequent studies suggest story selection is
affected by a newspaper's editorial policy (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991) and
the influence of news services (Gieber, 1960). Organizational
constraints that influence news selection also include the complexity of
deadlines, unpredictability of occurrences, and the organization\'s
ability to adapt to physical limits, including limits of time and space
(Liebler & Bendix, 1997).

To reduce the complexity associated with seeking news, Tuchman (1973)
suggests reporters use a "news net," a system whereby reporters are
deployed to institutions and locations expected to generate news. In
science, such events include press conferences, announcements, and
scientific meetings. Because of limits of time and resources, reporters
often work from "predefined angles" or frames which provide themes
around which to build stories (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Altheide (1976)
argues that these frames can bias reporters by leading them to seek out
sources and facts that support preconceived notions of how the world
works.

News organizations rely heavily upon each other for ideas, and this
reliance constitutes an important routine. The reliance on other news
organizations may be a result of a lack of formal benchmarks for what is
actually important. Inevitably it fosters duplicating the ideas,
interpretations, and news judgments of others. Reporters tend to cover
the news in packs, and rely on each other for ideas and confirmation of
their news judgments (Dunwoody, 1980).

Similar processes may occur among news organizations. For example, Breed
(1980) finds that editors of smaller papers use larger city papers to
guide them. Gans (1979) argues that editors read the *New York Times*
and *Washington Post* for story ideas, eliminating the need for an
independent judgment of newsworthiness. The elite media that serve an
important "inter-media" agenda setting role appear to be the *New York
Times* and *Washington Post* (Reese & Daniellian, 1989; Shoemaker &
Reese, 1991).

## What is science news?

According to one estimate, there are 5,000 science writers, defined as
people who \"spend all or most of their time writing about subjects in
the bodies of highly organized knowledge known loosely as the sciences"
(Burkett, 1986, p. 3). A broad range of topics can be seen as relevant
to science writing, the physical sciences, the social sciences, applied
fields such as engineering and medicine, and areas of technological
development.

The amount of coverage that a news organization can provide about
science, or any \"niche\" area, is at least partially a function of its
resources. For example, the size of a news organization determines
whether it can afford to employ specialty or "beat" reporters. In large
news organizations science is covered by a beat reporter. However in
smaller organizations, reporting is done by a general assignment
reporter or by using wire service coverage (Friedman, 1986).

In addition, the type of medium can affect the quality and amount of
science news. Most in-depth reporting is done by newsmagazines, followed
by large national papers. Wires, small dailies, and broadcast stations
are least likely to have the time or money for this in-depth science
coverage. Friedman (1986) notes that space and time are precious
resources at the typical newspaper: the news hole may only constitute 30
percent of available space, and from this must be subtracted columns,
comics, editorials, and features. She estimates that perhaps five
percent of the paper is reserved for news of the day. Thus, story length
is important, and shorter is better. Coverage of issues in broadcast
reports is even tighter. Science writers face a difficult challenge in
such an environment, since informing a public about a science issue can
require background information. Data show that writers at large
publications are much less likely to complain about space than are
writers at small papers (Friedman, 1986).

# Reporters

According to one source, there are 67,000 reporters and correspondents
in the United States, 232,000 writers and editors, 67,000 radio and
television announcers and newscasters, 109,000 public relations
specialists, 427,000 marketing, advertising, and public relations
managers, 120,000 photographers and camera operators, and 95,000 actors,
directors, and producers. However, there are only 600 to 800 science and
medical reporters in the United States, a tiny number compared to the
almost 12,500 radio and television stations and more than 1650
newspapers that are potential vehicles for science news (Klaidman,
1991).

Becoming a reporter is relatively easy: no license or test is necessary,
the fledgling journalist needs not even possess a college degree in
journalism. Many young reporters try journalism as a first career and
then move on to something else. Those who leave cite poor salary and
benefits as their primary reason for leaving (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1991).
The median age of a journalist is 35. The typical journalist has less
work experience and has lived in his or her community for less time than
the sources he/she is likely to interview (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991).
Weaver and Wilhoit (1991) find that those who leave journalism for other
careers typically have more education and experience than those who
stay. Beat journalists may also leave their beats to enter the specialty
areas they covered as reporters (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991).

## Background of reporters

Research suggests that those who cover science frequently lack any but
the most cursory backgrounds in sciences and mathematics. "Most
journalism graduates will be exposed to science journalism issues, if at
all, in passing during basic and advanced reporting courses" (Palen,
1994, p. 607). But surveys suggest that science education, or rather a
lack of same, is often absent both for reporters and editors. Fewer than
one in three editors in a Canadian study has taken a single science
course in college (Dubas & Martel, 1975). Ismach and Dennis (1978) find
over 60 percent of newspaper and television reporters major in
journalism, while only 21 percent major in social sciences and a mere
three percent major in science or engineering. Encouragingly,
specialized science reporters tend to be better educated in science when
compared to their general news peers. However, because they lack status
in news organizations, it is likely to be a general reporter and not the
science writer who is given the assignment when a fast-breaking news
story deals with science (Friedman, 1986).

Because stories with a science angle cover such a broad range of topics,
science communication educators believe that offering student
journalists a technical background is beyond the scope of most
journalism programs. A science background, when obtained, is therefore
usually due to willingness of a journalism apprentice to take general
education courses in the sciences (Palen, 1994). More commonly, writers
learn their science on the job (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

Some science majors later do seek to train as journalists. A well-known
example is Sharon Begley, senior science writer for *Newsweek* (Hartz &
Chappell, 1997). A recent report on science communication equivocates on
whether a science background is best for a science journalist (Hartz &
Chappell, 1997). But Siegfried (1992) argues:

> . . . knowing the subject is more important than a lot of journalists
> think, and to write good explanations, you have to make an extra
> effort to know the subject thoroughly. There are some prominent
> newspapers in this country that have science journalists who don't
> apparently believe that. Nevertheless, I think that knowing the
> subject should be at the foundation of trying to explain science. You
> can't succeed by thinking that nay good reporter can go out and do it.
> You have to know what you're doing to do it well." (p. 114).

## Roles and activities of reporters

Weaver and Wilhoit (1991) describe the roles of the journalist as
follows: to interpret (i.e., investigate claims, analyze complex
problems, discuss national policy), to disseminate (get information to a
public and concentrate on the widest possible audience), to serve as an
adversary (oppose officials or business leaders, or others in positions
of power and influence). These functions, as we shall see, may in some
instances lead to conflicts with scientists and scientific institutions.

The news hole requires news "suppliers" (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). These
are the sources, which for general news include the courts, public
relations practitioners, politicians, and others. Sigal\'s (1973)
analysis of how reporters obtained source information suggests that just
under 60 percent are found through "routine channels," which includes
official proceedings, press releases, press conferences, and
non-spontaneous events. Another 16 percent come from "informal
channels," which include background briefings and leaks,
non-governmental proceedings (such as professional association
meetings), and reports from other news organizations. Finally just over
25 percent are found via "enterprise channels," which consist of
interviews conducted at the reporter's initiative, spontaneous events
witnessed firsthand, and independent research.

Friedman (1986) suggests that the values of journalism can create a
short-term focus for reporters. For example, much credit accrues to a
reporter who breaks a story. Less credit is given to the writer who
follows up with detail. It is a norm that stories on issues presented in
the past be approached from "a new angle.\" And beyond the facts
associated with any event, editors and reporters tend to value stories
that contain drama, human interest, relevance or application to the
reader (Friedman, 1986).

Dunwoody (1980), in a study of science writers at the 1977 AAAS meeting,
finds that reporters operating under deadlines are more dependent on
press conferences and therefore on the sponsoring organization than are
reporters with fewer time constraints. In addition, the more stories a
reporter is expected to write, the greater the reporter\'s reliance on
press conferences. Additionally, the majority of stories produced by
reporters with daily deadlines are single-source stories, while the
majority of stories written by reporters with fewer constraints involve
two or more sources. This finding is important in light of the belief
that good reporting requires the observations of multiple sources (Rubin
& Hendy, 1977). Why, then, do many science reporters rely on one or two
sources? Apparently, reporters often do not know how to find sources for
science-related issues (Friedman, 1986).

Editorial pressures also create problems for reporting on science. A
Canadian study (Dubas & Martel, 1975) finds that city editors tend not
to be very discriminating in selecting science stories, preferring
stories with a sensational angle, an element of conflict, or in some
cases, dismissing the relevance of science stories altogether (Friedman,
1986). Not surprisingly then, many science writers are unhappy with the
priorities of their editors (Dennis & McCartney, 1979) believing they
like to scare readers, ignore continuing stories, and waste space and
air time on junk. Editors often write story headlines (Friedman, 1986)
and control story revisions, with the consequence that science reporters
sometimes write for editors rather than the public. Editors also have
different news priorities than lay readers (Dubas & Martel, 1975) or
reporters (Dunwoody, 1986a).

A seemingly endless debate surrounds questions of media bias. The stated
norm of reporters is that the journalist should not write news in a way
that promotes his or her own biases and attitudes. Yet this is difficult
if not impossible to prevent in practice (Fico & Soffin, 1995; Lispari,
1996). According to Klaidman (1991)

> Journalists . . . are not just passive conveyors of information . . .
> . They decide what to publish, and when to publish, how long the story
> will be, and where to put in the paper, they interpret and comment on
> the policy debate and the decisions, and more and more they explain
> the science itself and comment on it. Simply by exercising its
> prerogatives, the press influences public policy, on health or
> anything else. What is less clear is the extent to which it does so
> and, the extent to which it does so intentionally and systematically
> as opposed to unintentionally and haphazardly, the impact on policy of
> manipulation of journalists by sources, the degree to which the media
> set the public agenda in contrast to simply reacting to public opinion
> about the importance of health risk issues, the extent to which
> journalism's preoccupation with controversy polarizes policy issues,
> and the different ways in which the print and electronic media exert
> their influence" (Klaidman, 1991, p. 15).

It is interesting to note that the notion of the journalist as an
independent seeker of objective news is historically of recent vintage.
Palen (1998) notes that early newspapers were subsidized by the
political parties. It was not until late in the 19^th^ Century that mass
advertising allowed papers autonomy from the parties. This independence
fostered the ideal of the \"objective\" journalist. In the 1960s, the
notion of reporting objectivity came under attack both as a descriptive
and normative concept. But a residue of the independence that
journalists so clearly value is found in their discomfort and suspicion
about relationships with powerful groups, especially business and
activist groups (Palen, 1998).

## What is a good science reporter?

Hartz and Chappell (1997) conduct interviews with practicing journalists
in an attempt to understand the nature of science journalism better.
According to Ira Flatow, host of NPR's *Science Friday* "Science
journalism is no different than any other kind of journalism except that
it takes someone who really likes science and is willing to put in the
hours and the time and have the talent to make what most people would
think is a dry story into a story" (p. 51). Flatow approaches science
stories as "detective stories, because scientists are really detectives
. . . working on a larger piece of the puzzle" (Hartz & Chappell, 1997,
p. 51). Many of the most talented science writers say they entered the
field and stay in it because of the undeniable thrill of discovery.
Several prominent science writers learned their science on the job,
including Kathy Sawyer, science writer of the *Washington Post* and John
Wilford Noble, a science writer for the *New York Times*. But other
reporters began as science majors were later trained as journalists.
Among this group is Sharon Begley, senior science writer for *Newsweek*
(Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

Science reporters tend to have somewhat different values than regular
reporters. A 1973 survey finds that science reporters tend to favor the
alternatives to hard news, feeling that these alternative formats allow
more effective communication about science issues (Friedman, 1986). A
1978 survey of science writers found the most common formats of science
journalism were science writing features (38%) and spot or breaking news
(32%). By comparison, the hard news format is still the most prevalent
in journalism. This poses challenges for science writers because science
stories often lack a peg and scientific discoveries do not happen
overnight. (Friedman, 1986).

## Science information professionals

Many times the communications link from scientist to reporter will
travel through a science information (SI) professional, or public
relations person (frequently found under names such as public
information, public relations, communications, public affairs, news
service, and media relations). Science information professionals are
common in most large scientific societies, universities, major research
laboratories, and industrial organizations. (Rogers, 1986).

SI professionals often have backgrounds as reporters, and, like
reporters, typically have little or no formal training in science. Some
do have science backgrounds and choose communications over teaching and
research. Young persons trained in science journalism frequently end up
working as science information professionals instead of as journalists,
perhaps reflecting job market realities (Rogers, 1986).

There has been far less attention paid to the roles and backgrounds of
science information (SI) professionals, or people who perform a public
relations function for science organizations. A notable exception is
Rogers (1986), whose chapter helps paint a portrait of the group. SI
professionals serve as spokespeople for their organizations, frequently
appearing before community groups and media. They may also run speakers'
bureaus and coordinate special events, produce brochures, booklets, or
reports, act as advisors to top officials within organizations, and help
individual scientists work more effectively with media.

The SI professional may be asked to help interpret implications of new
developments, suggest ways of dealing with media, and suggest the kinds
of information that should be released to a public. He or she may be
asked to produce "how to" books for scientists dealing with media. In
one sense, according to Rogers, they serve as science journalists within
their own organizations. Some SI professionals may develop messages that
are to be taken directly to a public. In these instances they function
as journalists rather than as middlemen, although their obligation to
their home organization may prevent the kind of objectivity associated
with news journalists.

Of course, the SI professional may also serve as a liaison between
scientists and media representatives. Acting as a boundary spanner is
difficult because of the conflicting roles of scientists and
journalists. In such instances, the professional maintains media
contacts, prepares and distributes news releases, arranges news
conferences, and restricts or secures access to scientists. More than
half of the scientists in one study report that mediation occurred in
their interactions with reporters and that it resulted in more accurate
stories (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1983).

In addition, the SI professional orients reporters to ongoing research
activities in the organization. Research suggests that most reporters
covering the AAAS meeting use news conferences to help determine what is
important, and content analyses of print and other media show these are
the major sources of information from the meetings.

SI professionals face their share of problems. They are resented by
journalists, who often hold public relations people in low regard. They
are often low in the hierarchy of their own institutions. Their efforts
are supported with small budgets and few resources. They typically
receive no credit for the stories about science that appear in the news.
In the worst cases, the SI person's news release may be carried verbatim
but with a reporter's byline. Scientists see the SI professional as too
close to the media, journalists see them as \"flacks\" for scientific
organizations, and both view them as representatives of organizational
administration (Rogers, 1986).

# The Public(s)

## Who are the publics for science communication?

Despite assumptions about the importance of science and technology
information, it is clear that not everyone who consumes media is
interested in science news. Indeed, almost half of all American adults
report that they do not follow any public policy area closely (Miller,
1986). Yet the question of interest is important because, according to
Miller (1986), the single "most important factor affecting someone's
receptivity to scientific information appears to be interest" (p. 56).

Prewitt (1982) and Miller (1986) are both advocates for considering the
differential importance of special segments in relation to science
communication. Their logic is that only a fraction of adults are
concerned enough about science to attend to and process science
communication. And while these groups are minorities in the general
population, their importance may exceed their numbers. Moreover,
specialization is common for other issues in which small groups exercise
considerable influence on policy (Miller, 1986).

The issue specialization process, first described by Gabrial Almond,
suggests that citizens who demonstrate a) high interest, b) functional
knowledge about an area, c) pattern of relevant information gathering,
can be considered attentive (Miller, 1986). National survey data
indicate that close to 20 percent of American adults can be considered
attentive to science policy. Data suggest that members of the
science-attentive public tend to be younger, male, better educated, and
more likely to have taken a college-level science course when compared
to the broader population. (Miller, 1986).

Miller describes a second segment, which he labels the
science-interested public. This group, comprising another 20 percent or
so of the population, has a relatively high interest in science and
technology, but lacks functional understanding of the process or
terminology of science. These persons, compared to the science-attentive
public, are slightly older, somewhat less educated, and less likely to
have had a college-level science course (Miller, 1986). Miller\'s
estimate of attentive publics may be too low, however, as Pallen (1994)
reports that 56 percent of Americans are regular viewers of television
programs on science, technology, or nature and 38 percent read science
news in a newspaper weekly.

The remaining 60 percent of the public, according to Miller, is not
attentive to information about science. This large group, according to
surveys, shows evidence of \"science illiteracy.\" While large
majorities understand that the center of earth is hot (86%) and that
sunlight can cause cancer (94%), smaller majorities realize that the
continents are moving (72%) and that oxygen comes from plants (60%).
Only 30 percent of respondents in one survey correctly reported that the
earth travels around the sun.

## What is public understanding of science?

Public understanding of science is an important concept (Logan et al,
1998), yet there is some disagreement about what this means (Lewenstein,
1992). For example, does it refer to the knowledge of non-scientists
about developments of science? Does it refer to science literacy (i.e.,
basic understanding of accepted scientific facts and theories)? Is it an
issue of scientific training? An understanding of the methods of
science? Familiarity with new technologies? Insight into the
implications of scientific findings? Or is it all of these things, or
some combination?

According to one scholar, the theory and practice of science
communication should not underestimate "the incoherence, practical
inadequacy, incredibility, and inconsistency of formal scientific
knowledge, as received and used by the public" (Ziman, 1992, p. 18).

-   Incoherent because evidence shows that what little information
    people retain from school is overwhelmed by information from media
    and other aspects of life.

-   Inadequate because the use people make of formal knowledge in a
    situation is frequently overwhelmed by the needs of the moment.
    People may rely on expert knowledge, but also select or construct
    the scientific elements according to their own interests,
    involvement, personal and social histories, and other circumstances.

-   Incredible because people do not accept expert knowledge passively,
    a finding suggested by many studies, but perhaps most clearly
    evident in risk studies.

-   And inconsistent because personal conflicts on social issues between
    scientific experts reduces the privileged position of scientific
    knowledge. People appear to resolve contradictions \"by
    incorporating them into the whole knowledge complex and making the
    contradictions disappear\" (Ziman, 1992).

### Why should the public understand science?

> A popular government without popular information or the means of
> acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps
> both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean
> to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which
> knowledge brings. (James Madison, quoted in Shortland & Gregory,
> 1991).

Why should the public know anything about science? According to
Lewenstein (1992) the dismal state of science literacy \"is one of the
most intractable and important facing our society today" (p. x). But why
is it so important? While ignorance of science is prevalent, most people
seem content with that state of affairs. Why is it cause for concern
whether or not people understand science or know about the work of
scientists?

A number of reasons have been suggested for concern about the nation\'s
science literacy. Hartz and Chappell suggest "the populous needs as much
information as possible to act wisely and intelligently---whether it is
about high technology or garbage collection" (1997, p. 117). This idea,
that science knowledge permits the public to make effective decisions
about science policy, is common (and relates to Ziman\'s rational-choice
model of \"the problem\"). The idea here is that an educated public can
better judge between competing technical arguments on topics such as
energy conservation, solid waste disposal, pesticide risk, and social
welfare policy. Science knowledge would also help publics distinguish
between logic and trivia in debates about government budgets
(Lewenstein, 1992).

Nelkin claims that effective reporting "can enhance the public's ability
to evaluate science policy issues and the individual's ability to make
rational personal choices" (Nelkin, 1995, p. 2). Public understanding of
science is also linked to public support for science (Hartz & Chappell,
1997). An educated public will show greater resistance to the prejudices
that associate responsible science with irresponsible science, or the
activities of scientists with those of people whose work appears
\"scientific\" but who are not scientists at all (psychics, astrologers,
etc.) (Shortland & Gregory, 1991).

But why is support for science important? Some believe that science
excellence, an outcome of support, is vital to the nation\'s economic
competitiveness. For example, Daniel S. Greenberg, editor and publisher
of Science & Government Report, suggests that should science support
diminish, America might lose its material preeminence, which has been
created in large part by the great scientific and technological
achievements of the past (cited in Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

Carl Sagan (quoted in Shortland & Gregory, 1991) appeals to a more basic
reason for sharing science:

> Understanding the world is a kind of joy, and I find that every time
> people, ordinary people, understand some aspect of nature they hadn't
> grasped before\--why the sky is blue, why the Moon is round, why we
> have toes\--they are delighted. This is a delight first in the joy of
> knowledge itself and second because it gives them some intellectual
> encouragement: they discover they're not so dumb as they had been told
> they were (p. 8).

Lewenstein (1992) makes a similar point when he suggests that effective
science communication might allow the public to comprehend the beauty
and challenge of the ideas that are central to science.

Other arguments for effective science communication appear in the
literature. For example, it has been proposed that effective science
communication, if it can reach a broader audience than it does at
present, may promote greater ethnic diversity among scientists by
inspiring more young people to choose careers in science (Lewenstein,
1992).

Even if one should accept that popular understanding of science is
important, why should it be supposed that the key to greater
understanding is held within the activities of news organizations?
Historically, a free press was viewed as holding the potential to create
a country of science-literate citizens. Scientists 70 years ago believed
science journalism would advance an awareness of science that would
elevate public understanding plus foster appreciation, literacy, and tax
supported dollars for research (Tobey, 1971). Nelkin concurs that the
press plays a vital role in scientific literacy:

> For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the
> press. They understand science less through direct experience or past
> education than through the filter of journalistic language and
> imagery. The media are their only contact with what is going on in
> rapidly changing scientific and technical fields, as well as a major
> source of information about the implications of these changes for
> their lives" (Nelkin, 1995, p. 2).

### How does the public gather science information? 

Where does the public come into contact with information about science?
What does it do with this information. Where does understanding of what
scientists do come from? As suggested earlier, Miller\'s research argues
for segmenting the public into active, interested, and general publics.
The attentive public is more likely to be a regular viewer of a science
television show, 59 percent regularly watch. Interested publics are less
likely than attentives to regularly watch television science shows such
as *National Geographic* specials or *Nova* (Miller, 1986).

Almost 80 percent of the attentive public watch news shows regularly,
and roughly the same proportion of the interested public watch the news.
About 75 percent of attentives regularly read the paper, but they are
dissatisfied with the science coverage they find there. Just nine
percent rate the paper as a good source of science news. About half of
the attentive public are regular readers of one or more science
magazines, including *National Geographic* and *Psychology Today*. But
fewer than 10 percent are readers of general science magazines such as
*Science*, *Omni*, *Discover*, or *Scientific American* (Miller, 1986).

Half also read a general news magazine most of the time, and Time and
*Newsweek* are the ones most often mentioned. Miller suggests that about
8 out of 10 members of the attentive public use a "variety of informal
information and learning resources, including zoos, acquaria, botanical
gardens, and museums." Roughly 7 out of 10 members of the interested
public use these resources. Approximately 60 percent of attentives visit
zoos, while 52 percent report visiting a science or technology museum.

These encouraging findings mask an unfortunate reality: two-thirds of
the attentive public cannot pass a "relatively minimal test of
scientific literacy" (Miller, 1983, cited in Miller, 1986, p. 66).
"Since these persons sometimes participate in the formulation of science
policy, it is important that their level of scientific literacy be
increased as much and as early as possible" (Miller, 1986, p. 66).

Beyond public understanding of basic scientific facts, it is interesting
to consider what people understand about the work of science and about
the lives of scientists. Science is not a visible occupation and people
rarely observe scientists at work. LaFollette (1990) analyzes how
popular magazines appearing between 1910 and 1950 present images of
science. His findings suggest that magazines generally linked science to
national progress and economic health. The general trend over the 50
years was an increase in articles about science, however there was a
noted spike during the depression (LaFollette, 1990)

During the period of his analysis, "American scientists participated
actively and enthusiastically in telling the public about science in the
twentieth century" (LaFollette, 1990, p. 45) In 1910s and 1920s,
scientists themselves wrote 40 percent of the articles that appeared in
popular magazines (LaFollette, 1990). Also growing in size and
importance was the number of journalists specializing in science
writing. Several scientists achieved widespread fame over the 50 years
of coverage, including: Thomas Edison, George Ellery Hale (astronomer),
Roy Andrews (zoologist), Michael Pupin (physicist), and Robert A.
Millikan (physicist). LaFollette points out that Millikan's
contemporaries were jealous of the public attention he received. One
barb among his peers defined the milli-kan as one thousandth of a unit
of publicity (LaFollette, 1990). Not all scientific disciplines
benefited from the passage of time. For example, articles on psychology
generally declined from the 1920s through the 1950s.

Magazines during the first part of the century presented quite vivid
portraits of scientists (LaFollette, 1990). They were said to have
extraordinary minds (brainpower, range of knowledge, encyclopedic
memory), to be dispassionate, curious, skeptical, roving, and unwilling
to take things for granted. Scientists were thought to manifest a
sometimes endearing, other times threatening, proclivity to flaunt
custom and ignore the inhibitions of tradition. Socially they were
presented as detached. Accustomed to long work hours spent burning the
midnight oil, scientists did not to need the sleep so necessary for
ordinary people. They were also represented in somewhat mythological
terms, as magicians or wizards, as experts, as creators or destroyers,
and as heroes.

Magazines of the day also characterized the work of science (LaFollette,
1990). Science was presented as consisting of concrete activities,
different from ordinary work. The scientist did his work in a lab.
Articles criticizing science grew throughout the 1930s, subsided during
the war, then began to grow again in the early 50s. These criticisms
implied that reporters were not always enamored with their scientific
sources. Reporters at times suggested that scientific \"jargon\" was too
complicated, that scientists were poor communicators, and that the
obscurity of their explanations might be deliberate rather than
unintended. Science and scientists also received criticism fostering a
skeptical attitude and threat to traditional values. Some reporters
attacked the idea that science could serve as a rival to religion.

### 

-   
-   
-   
-   
-   

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc433077562 .anchor}What does the public need to
know?

According to Miller (1986), what individuals need to know depends upon
where they exist in the science hierarchy. At the top are decision
makers in government and policy with specialized science information
needs. As the range and frequency of science policy matters have grown,
these decision makers have increasingly had to make comparative
judgments about science and technology matters. In order to make funding
allocation decisions, some have sought empirical measures of activity
and output. This has led NSF to engage in attempts designed to measure
the state of science (Miller, 1986).

Decision makers also need information about major science policy
problems and alternatives. These frequently comes from policy leaders
seeking to implement a given policy or arguing for one policy solution
over another. (Miller, 1986). The information needs of science policy
leaders are similar to those of decision makers, but are broader because
they also need to understand the substance of the scientific work for
which they seek support. These matters are discussed and resolved within
the structure of scientific societies and organizations (Miller, 1986).

Policy committees of groups such as the *American Chemical Society*, the
*Industrial Research Institute*, or the *AAAS*, provide forums for the
exchange of information and resolution of policy differences. Key
journals such as *Science* and *Nature* also provide an important forum
for science policy leaders. (Miller, 1986).

Further down in this hierarchy is the attentive public, which also has
important science information needs. Members of the attentive public
require information about specific controversies for which their
involvement and participation is important and desired (i.e., health
care debates, environmental issues). When policy leaders wish to
generate broader public response on issues like science research or
nuclear power, efforts are made to inform the attentive public about the
nature of the problem and to help them learn about alternatives and
long-term solutions. The attentive public also requires an understanding
of the process of scientific study and "functional understanding of the
major constructs used in scientific discourse \[for example, molecule,
gene, cell\]" (Miller, 1986, p. 61).

Science reporting in the mass media until recently has been too general
to provide the level of information necessary for basic scientific
literacy, while magazines such as *Scientific American* have become too
technical for most of the attentive public (Miller, 1986). Thus, the
recent emergence of a new generation of science magazines (Discover,
Omni), more sophisticated science in older magazines (*National
Geographic*), and effective science television programming (*Nova*) has
been helpful for this group.

The information needs of the interested public are more difficult to
address, according to Miller. He speculates that any approach to
communicating with this group should be non-technical, simple, and
pictorial. Finally, there is little consensus about the information
needs or wants of the non-attentive public.

The traditional view of science educators is that all citizens ought to
be scientifically literate to participate in the democratic processes
that lead to science policy. Yankelovich (1982) cautions that the
general public will play a great role in science policy formulations,
and therefore must be a target of science communications. But others,
including Prewitt (1982) believe universal science literacy is not
possible. Rather than waste efforts targeting the general public,
Prewitt argues that science communication should target the attentive
public. All agree that the task of creating a more science literate
public is daunting. Miller suggests "the improvement of scientific
literacy is a complex, long-term task. It is not an impossible task, but
it most certainly is not a short-term project.\" (Miller, 1986).

### What are the attitudes of publics toward science?

The attitudes people hold towards science appear to be complex. Angell
(1996) argues that the United States is in the midst of a groundswell of
anti-science feeling. He points to the renewed opposition to the
teaching of evolution in public schools as an example. There is an
irony, suggests Angell, that these feelings come at a time when people
are most dependent on science and the technology it generates. He
suggests that it may be that very dependence that sparks anti-science
sentiment.

Attitudes toward specific research projects can be quite negative. A
survey of young adults shows broad opposition to biotechnology and
cloning issues, including the creation of life. Less opposition to
biotechnology is found among those employed in science, those with
post-high school science, technology or health sciences courses, and
those who are regular newspaper or science journal readers. But even
among these groups a majority expressed opposition to the research
(Miller, 1986).

Yankelovich (1982) presents survey data suggesting the image of science
is somewhat less positive in the present than it has been earlier in the
century. A bare majority now agrees that, \"Technology will find a way
to solve the problems of society.\" The percentage agreeing that,
"Everything has a scientific explanation" decreased from 30 percent to
27 percent from the 1970s to the 1980s. Conversely, the percentage that
agree with the statement, "I used to believe that the mysteries of life
would eventually be explained by science, but no longer do" grew from 42
percent to 48 percent.

Yankelovich notes that such trends are part of a broader shift in
attitudes away from the institutions of society and the Protestant Work
Ethic. For example, agreement that "hard work always pays off" slipped
from 73 percent (in the late 50s) to 43 percent during the 1970s. He
also points out that it is difficult to get the public to distinguish
between science and technology.

Attitudes toward science also may be revealed in the interest that
people show in news about science. Crane (1992) contends that there is
often disagreement between the staffs of television news shows and the
public about the importance of science stories. His data suggest the
public has greater interest in science stories than news producers
expect, especially topics dealing with medicine and health. Burgoon,
Burgoon, and Wilkinson (1981) suggest that consumer, science, health,
and psychological information seem to have high readership appeal among
newspaper consumers, more so than life-style and business investments
information

Miller (1986) argues the goal of scientific literacy should be
distinguished from the goal of influencing science policy. The focus for
policy should be the attentive public:

> While there is some evidence that scientifically literate persons tend
> to feel more positive about organized science than nonattentives, the
> linkage is not perfect, and this is a long route toward policy
> support. For adults, communications designed to influence policy views
> should focus on the policy issue and provide an intelligent discussion
> of the policy alternatives. Given the relative sophistication of the
> attentive public for science policy, one-sided exhortations are
> unlikely to be effective in mobilizing support" (Miller, 1986, p. 65).

# Scientists

According to the Scientific Manpower Commission, three million men and
women are employed in the United States as scientists (Burkett, 1986).
Their efforts are supported by a large amount of public and private
spending: \$73 billion in public monies and \$100 billion in private
dollars (Hartz & Chappell, 1997). Trends are not promising, however,
since research and development spending has declined in real terms by
3.3 percent since 1994 (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

## What are the ways that scientists communicate to the public?

The majority of this paper deals with issues of how scientists
communicate with publics through mass media. Most of these interactions
involve the agenda of a journalist or broadcaster. However, scientists
sometimes have the opportunity to deal in a more direct way with
publics. Besides the general media that cover news, several prominent
publications are scanned by elites and members of the attentive public.
These include Science (the weekly journal of the AAAS), *Nature*, the
*New England Journal of Medicine* and *JAMA*, which "speak not only of
the technical matters of science but also of policy, politics, and
conscience" (Burkett, 1986, p. 8).

In addition, because of their fame, some scientists are given relatively
direct access to the public by news organizations. These "visible
scientists" as coined by Dr. Rae Goodell, professor of science
communication at MIT, include Nobel Prize winners, heads of prestigious
institutions, and administrators of science oriented agencies and labs
(Burkett, 1986). The late Carl Sagan may be among the best known of
these visible scientists. The popular Sunday supplement Parade carried a
number of articles dealing with science-related topics by Sagan.

## What problems does the scientist face communicating with the public

There is a widespread perception that scientists are not particularly
effective communicators, at least when the audience is the general
public. Dr. Neal Lane, head of the National Science Foundation, claims
that:

> With the exception of a few people . . . we don't know how to
> communicate with the public. We don't understand our audience well
> enough---we have not taken the time to put ourselves in the shoes of a
> neighbor, the brother-in-law, the person who handles our
> investments---to understand why it's difficult for them to hear us
> speak. We don't know the language and we haven't practiced it enough
> (cited in Hartz & Chappell, 1997, p. 38).

It is not just administrators who find scientists wanting in terms of
public communication. Over 80 percent of scientists said they were
willing to take a course to help them learn to communicate better with
journalists (Hartz & Chappell, 1997) so motivation does not seem to be
the problem. Roughly the same amount, 81 percent, report being willing
or very willing to make the effort to communicate with the public (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997).

The scientist wishing to communicate directly with a public about issues
of science faces several important hurdles. Perhaps the most basic of
these is language. According to one source, as recently as 1920 the
language used in a journal such as *Nature* would be comprehensible to
literate audiences and would not sound dramatically different from other
forms of literature. But "scientific language had diverged from the
mainstream of literary language and divided into a large number of
small, winding tributaries" (Shortland & Gregory, 1991, p. 12). This
suggests that the scientist must be skilled at translating ideas from
the technical language of his or her discipline into a currency
accessible to lay audiences.

A second problem concerns the scientist\'s ability to describe a context
or the importance of his or her research. The scientist typically
believes that the maximum value a scientist can give to society comes
from the research itself. "Scientists and engineers are notoriously
focused on the project immediately before them. They think only of the
outcome of their research and its value to society. This dedication
blinds them to the need for telling the public what it all means" (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997, p. 32).

This is not to say that the only problem in science communication comes
from scientists who say too little. Scientists occasionally become
spokespersons on issues that fall well outside their areas of
professional competence. For example, Sagan's views on nuclear winter,
an area in which his expertise as an astronomer provides a questionable
foundation, have been widely covered by the media. A psychiatrist
(Robert Jay Lifton) has been quoted in the press as saying that nuclear
technology is "unsafe." Klaidman (1991) wonders how such celebrities can
claim expertise in areas far beyond their training. He suggests the
opinions of these scientists are reported in the media:

> because they are expressed concisely, felicitously, and comprehensibly
> by celebrities with academic credentials, even if irrelevant ones. It
> stands to reason that the public would be better informed and less
> confused by health risks if reporters were knowledgeable enough to
> properly screen sources for the public and to characterize their
> expertise and biases, as well as to explain assumptions and methods
> that underlie scientific findings (Klaidman, 1991, p. 18).

## Why should scientists communicate with the public?

Many people believe that scientists must be willing to participate in a
dialog with the public. Jon Franklin, former science writer for the
Baltimore Sun, (cited in Hartz & Chappell, 1997, p. 38), argues that the
notion of scientists ignoring the broader social implications of their
work and leaving policy to others is obsolete:

> Scientists thought of themselves as apolitical. That they had that
> luxury was a measure of the privilege they enjoyed. In our political
> system, nothing is apolitical. As soon as science started being
> financed by public dollars, it was political. Science was the darling
> of both parties. Liberals had backed science from the very beginning
> of the Enlightenment, and conservatives had come aboard because of the
> Cold War. Scientists, innocents that they were, confused being in
> political favor with being apolitical.

Beyond the pragmatics of seeking funding and support, some authors argue
that scientists have a basic responsibility to interact with the public.
The public is believed to have a need for accessible, succinct, and
reliable information (Shortland & Gregory, 1991), and scientists \"have
a responsibility, indeed an obligation, at least to see to it that their
findings are disseminated to the public without error" (Eron, 1986, p.
12).

Yet there is reluctance by many scientists to engage in exactly this
kind of public dialog. Why? Some scientists look down colleagues who go
public (Shortland & Gregory, 1991). Scientific peers may believe that if
a scientist has something to say it should be written up and submitted
for peer review, that broadcast media are trivial, that scientists
should be humble and dedicated to their work, that scientists should
have neither the time nor the inclination to blow their own trumpets,
that if anyone should speak it should be the best scientists, that the
rewards of a media career can compromise a scientist\'s integrity, that
the public may commandeer a story and distort it, and finally that the
public may get excited about the wrong side of the story (Shortland &
Gregory, 1991).

Shortland and Gregory (1991) also present a list of reasons why the
scientist should engage the public, starting with a list of famous
scientists who have gone public and in the process have benefited
science and society: Ben Franklin as a writer, Michael Faraday as a
public lecturer, J.B.S. Haldane as a newspaper editor, Richard Feynman
and Carl Sagan as television celebrities, and Stephen Hawking as a
best-selling author. Other rewards include that the scientific
enterprise needs public support and approval, that dialog with the
public can be fun, and that communicating science to non-scientists is
an excellent way of getting ideas straight in the scientist\'s own mind.
Chemist Irving Langmuir observes that "Anyone who can't explain their
work to a fourteen year old is a charlatan" (Shortland & Gregory, 1991,
p.9).

# How well do the media cover science?

Not very well, according to one recent review. "With a few notable
exceptions---most recently, the triumphant Mars Pathfinder expedition
and the ongoing Mir \'deathwatch\'---most American newspapers and
television news operations basically ignore the accomplishments and
failures of science, overlook the nations investment in science and take
for granted the tangible benefits science provides" (Hartz & Chappell,
1997).

## How is science covered by reporters?

Science was once taken quite seriously in the news media. In the 19^th^
Century newspapers reprinted lectures of Thomas Huxley, Louis Agassiz
and Asa Gray. In 1872, an issue of the New York Tribune published the
text of physics lectures by John Tyndall. During the 1920s press magnate
Edwin W. Scripps launched the Science Service, a news agency offering
the "drama \[that\] lurks in every test tube." Science coverage may have
reached its zenith during the Second World War, when science and
technology were seen as integral to victory (Shortland & Gregory, 1991).
The launching of Sputnik led to a reevaluation of science education in
the United States and to renewed interest in science generally. By the
1960s science writers were no longer missionaries for science but part
of the critics (Shortland & Gregory, 1991).

Modern coverage of science varies considerably within and across media.
Larger newspapers with more space and educated readers, such as the *New
York Times*, "will cater to an audience interested in reading about some
advances in science or medicine that will be ignored by the editors of
the New York Daily News" (Burkett, 1986, p 12). Magazine writers draw
upon images of their audiences even more narrowly, although even within
*Newsweek*lies there can be variation in coverage; for example, *Time*
uses more scientific terms without translation than *Newsweek* according
to Burkett (1986).

Specialty magazines offer some of the richest and most sophisticated
coverage of science for general audiences. Science, the journal, "makes
no compromises with the technical language in its major articles written
by scientists." (Burkett, 1986, p. 12). More accessible still,
*Scientific American* employs editors, but it is scientists, not
reporters, who write the stories. Less-knowledgeable readers who might
have difficulty with *Scientific American* can still satisfy their
curiosity with \"popularized\" magazines such as *Science Digest*,
*Discover*, *Omni*, and *Popular Science* (Burkett, 1986).

Science is also covered in business, trade, or industrial publications
that focus on the interests of managers or stockholders in major
companies who require more than popularization. Science writers also
work for companies and institutions, "producing reports for a wide range
of purposes. There may be press releases promoting a company product, a
brochure explaining a process in layman's language, or a magazine for
stockholders or employees." (Burkett, 1986, p. 13).

Science can be found in many places on television. Public television
offers a menu of science programming, including well-known shows like
\"*Nova*.\" Programs such as *Bill Nye, the Science Guy*, target
children and foster appreciation of science. *National Geographic*
specials are prevalent on broadcast and cable television. Certain cable
networks, such as the *Discovery Channel*, and *Animal Planet*, almost
exclusively run shows related to some aspect of science. Such programs
not only teach facts, they create images of science that in turn have
implications for how science is viewed and understood. Programming not
explicitly concerned with science, but in which it plays a dramatic
role, such as science fiction programs, may also affect how science is
viewed. Here again, both broadcast and cable television offer diverse
programming. Surveying the attitudes and knowledge of consumers of
science fiction programming might suggest that they constitute another
important public of science communications. A number of years ago fans
of the science fiction program *Star Trek* lobbied heavily to have NASA
name one of the space shuttles *Enterprise*.

Ignored in the literature, but of seemingly great importance for
understanding the popularization of science, are science books directed
to general audiences. Such books may represent the public\'s only
sophisticated encounters with physics (Gleick, 1987; Hawking, 1988),
evolution (Wright, 1994), language (Pinker, 1994), astronomy (Ferris,
1995; Sagan, 1980), natural history (Gould, 1995), geography (*National
Geographic* Society, 1976), mathematics (Paulos, 1988), or scientists
(Boorstin, 1983).

Finally, of course, science is part of many national and international
news stories. Enduring issues such as nuclear energy, the environment,
the greenhouse effect, the treatment of disease and other health issues,
and the impact of new technologies, frequently require a scientific
perspective even when the issue is treated as news. Scientific
discoveries or findings also can be news: Martian meteors, cold fusion,
the Viking mission, genetic engineering, and cloning are examples of
stories that have merited coverage as advancements (or failures to
advance) science.

## What styles are used in science coverage?

When science communication scholars examine the coverage of science in
mass media, they often report that they do not care for what they see.
One prominent critic, Nelkin (1995), uses the research process for the
anti-cancer drug interferon as a case for broader problems afflicting
science and media. She argues that press coverage of a science topic is
held to proceed as a series of dramatic events. The coverage appears to
be designed to raise expectations for what \"modern science\" can do.
Inevitably, disillusionment often follows when these early hopes are
dashed (Nelkin, 1995). Or coverage of science may have a \"horserace\"
element, as in a race to discover something, or a race to be the first
to market with a drug (Nelkin, 1995).

This has implications for the scientific process as scientists then
begin equating coverage with financial support. Scientists begin
"selling themselves to the public to ensure that science retains both
public support and the funding that goes with it." Scientists, at least
in the interferon story, were not neutral sources for news, but actively
sought favorable press (Nelkin, 1995).

To Nelkin, science journalism mirrors the public\'s modern
contradictions about science: rationality is valued, yet we expect magic
bullets and miracle cures. People simultaneously demand medical advances
while supporting animal rights groups. While the society welcomes
technology as a key to progress and prosperity, and as the lives of
people become increasingly more safe, society is increasingly
preoccupied with risk, i.e., fearing the technologies upon which it is
most dependent (Nelkin, 1995).

Nelkin is also prescient about themes developed within this paper. For
example, she notes that scientists see the press as increasingly
important, yet criticize it strongly. Journalists also criticize press
coverage, but tend to blame their sources, scientists and technical
institutions for providing misleading or inadequate information.
(Nelkin, 1995).

> There are, of course, significant differences between local
> newspapers, which have few specialized reporters, and national papers,
> which employ a stable of experienced science writers who know the
> science terrain. Yet a surprising feature of science journalism is its
> homogeneity. While journalistic reports on science and technology vary
> from the 60-second sound bite to the investigative report, most
> articles on a given subject focus on the same issues, use the same
> sources, and interpret the material in similar terms (Nelkin, 1995, p.
> 9).

Nelkin believes that metaphors, prevalent in all news coverage, are
especially prevalent and important in science coverage. Metaphors are
important because they are critical devices by which people form their
views of science.

> By their choice of words and metaphors, journalists convey certain
> beliefs about the nature of science and technology, investing them
> with social meaning and shaping public conceptions of limits and
> possibilities. Was Chernobyl a 'disaster' or an 'event'? Is dioxin a
> 'doomsday chemical' or a 'potential risk'? Is embryo research a means
> to enhance fertility or a way to 'manipulate' persons? Is genetic
> engineering a 'boon' to agriculture or 'tampering' with genes? Is
> Prozac a 'therapeutic medication' or a 'mind-altering drug'? Are
> incidents of scientific fraud 'inevitable' or 'aberrant'? Selective
> use of adjectives can trivialize an event or render it important;
> marginalize some groups, empower others; define an issue as a problem
> or reduce it to a routine. . . . Nor are words and metaphors the only
> way in which journalists convey values. By selecting their stories out
> of an endless stream of events and issues, they define certain
> subjects and not others as newsworthy. By their choice of headlines
> and leads, they legitimize or criticize public policies. By their
> selection of details, they equip readers to think about science and
> technology in specific ways (Nelkin, 1995, p. 11).

Many other criticisms have been leveled against coverage of science,
including that media present \"grossly inaccurate\" reports of
scientific findings (Eron, 1986), that media treat science as
entertainment, (i.e. setting up ambush debates between a scientist and a
non-scientist on talk radio) (Tavris, 1986), and that media overcover
staged events which are managed by public relations offices within
industry, government, universities, scholarly societies, and public
interest groups (Angell, 1996; Nelkin, 1995; Saari, Gibson & Osler,
1998; Shepard, 1979, 1981; Wilkins & Patterson, 1987, but see Logan,
Zengjun, & Wilson, 1998 for a rejoinder).

Media are also criticized for their failure to attend to dissident
scientists, for their poor coverage of continuing or long-term issues,
for their failure to provide scientific contexts for reported
discoveries (Pfund & Hofstadter ,1981), for an overemphasis on
prepackaged news events, event reporting and inattention to in-depth
scientific stories and issues, over-dependence on established,
well-organized sources for news, and inattention to sociological,
cultural, ethical, historical, and educational aspects of science (Logan
et al, 1998).

Critics suggest journalists cover emerging or pioneer science at the
expense of established "textbook" science, thereby providing a false
impression that preliminary data represent significant public health
threats (Logan et al, 1998). It has been suggested that news reports
selectively present biased samples of available theory and research,
omitting important details of methodology or criticisms of other
scientists that would limit or qualify research (Goldstein, 1986).
Headlines and article titles have been derided for being
"mini-editorials" that differ in important ways from the content and
qualifications of the story (Goldstein, 1986).

Dunwoody\'s now classic observation that science writers form an \"inner
circle\" in which journalists look to one another for confirmation of
story importance (Dunwody, 1980) implies readers may fail to gain
exposure to diversity in science news. Failure to provide a diversity of
perspectives is the underlying theme of critics who believe that news
reports carry an inadequate or insufficiently large number of sources on
controversial issues having a high scientific or medical content
(Burkett, 1986). Favorite sources tend to be older, perhaps because such
sources are institutionally protected. In many instances the sources
most quoted in a story are not the scientists who performed the original
research (Burkett, 1986).

Journalists have been criticized for getting too close to sources and
protecting them (Friedman, 1986, Fuller, 1996; Hartz & Chappell, 1997),
for being awe-struck by celebrity sources (Friedman, 1986), and for
being targets of the partisan agendas of industry and activists
(Friedman, 1986; Palen, 1998).

Reporters have been criticized for lacking science training (Dunwoody,
1986a; Hartz & Chappell, 1997) and for having poor attitudes toward the
social sciences (seeing social sciences as \"soft") (Dunwoody, 1986a).
Some believe that reporters systematically ignore certain topics, such
as science as a human activity, the untidiness of experiments,
competition among scientists, failure of many studies, and the
personalities of scientists (Burkett, 1986).

Research confirms that a gulf exists between the priorities of
journalists and scientists. One survey discovered that the topics of
interest to scientists at the 1977 AAAS meeting were generally not of
interest to reporters, and vice versa, with the lone exception of space
data which was of interest to both groups (Dunwoody, 1986b).
Furthermore, the topics of interest to science reporters often did not
find a way into newspapers, largely because newspapers were more likely
to carry stories from the major wire services. Editors play a role too,
and Dunwoody (1986a) finds that editors preferred the subset of stories
dealing with social science issues over other science reports filed by
journalists.

Focusing on what the press covers, Nelkin observes that scientific
findings themselves are \"seldom newsworthy" (1995, p. 21). Issues of
how science is conducted are becoming more prominent however.
"Journalistic interest in scientific fraud began in the late 1970s as
part of the post-Watergate interest in the corruption of American
institutions" (p. 26). Nelkin believes that this kind of coverage does
not hurt the reputation of science, but rather is done in a way that
further idealizes science. Recent years have seen coverage of
high-profile accusations against powerful researchers and the press is
often accused of "taking delight in toppling a star" (Nelkin, 1995, p.
28). New programs (such as the space program in the 1960s) typically
receive positive coverage, but as the stories lose their initial luster,
coverage focuses on negative events such as mishaps. (Nelkin, 1995).

# What are the conflicts between scientists and journalists?

According to Dunwoody, \"The principal role of the scientist in the
public communication of science is as a source of scientific and
technical information for both journalists and the public" (1986, p. 3).
The science communication literature offers many perspectives on ways in
which the interests, goals, values, and routines of scientists and
science journalists clash. These differing values may, in part, be
responsible for misunderstandings and disagreements that can affect the
relationships among journalists and scientists.

## The Scientist\'s view.

According to Shortland and Gregory (1991) the writers who popularized
science in the late 19th Century were the scientists themselves. Now,
however, science is popularized by journalists. This requires
interactions of journalists and scientists, since journalists lack
sufficient training to understand sophisticated science findings (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997). Yet many scientists have negative views of
communicating with the press because of what they perceive to be
irresponsible reporting. In turn, the press has fewer scientists to
interview, and stories become even less accurate (Shortland & Gregory,
1991).

What causes this rift? Scientists view science as a cumulative,
co-operative enterprise founded on carefully nurtured consensus. This
consensus is meant to support a single "authoritative account," which
represents the best understanding possessed by a community of
researchers about a phenomenon. Yet this account is also recognized as
tentative in nature, and subject to qualification. The pace of
scientific progress is imposed by the nature of the research, not by
deadlines, dictates or desires for a firm and quick answer. Moreover,
shortcuts or rushes to judgment are considered serious lapses of
scientific or even ethical practice. Advances in science occur within a
community of scholars, building upon the work of peers and, as the
cliché goes, standing on the shoulders of giants from the past. The
attribution of credit for ideas, discoveries, and insights can create
controversies even among the scientists themselves (Shortland & Gregory,
1991).

The notion of a single individual uncovering the solution to a problem,
uninfluenced by the work of peers and those who tackled a problem in the
past, is simpleminded. A breakthrough uncovered in a single laboratory
inevitably represents the efforts not only of the scientists involved in
the research, but the work of others who have laid the groundwork for
the discovery. Scientists want to educate, but they are worried about
the opinions of colleagues and about norms that condemn informal
communication of new research in non-refereed channels. The preferred
media of communication, therefore, are symposia, conferences, and
quality, peer-reviewed journals (Shortland & Gregory, 1991).

When the scientist looks to journalism, differences in the approaches of
the two professions become obvious. The emphasis on \"newsworthiness\"
is sometimes believed to result in systematic distortions in the
reporting of scientific findings, characterized by the charge of
"sensationalistic" coverage (Gorney, 1992). The scientist believes that
media coverage should educate and provide complete, nuanced descriptions
of scientific findings (Friedman et al., 1986). Instead, the scientist
may find that:

> . . . the media have other agendas, and public education per se is not
> necessarily primary among them. Thus, efforts to inform the public
> about research in advance are unlikely to succeed, because in the
> absence of controversy, scandal, or\--yes---violence, it isn't
> considered news" (West, 1986, p. 40).

Scientists may also perceive that journalists ignore the balance of
scientific opinion in an attempt to highlight aspects of a story that
appear newsworthy (Dearing, 1995).

Some critics go even further:

> Many of the American media can be said to have no social
> responsibility at all, other than to sell their product or get the
> ratings. They will report bad research, good research, and
> unsubstantiated opinion with equal aplomb. And they will suppress
> research that 'our readers aren't interested in' if it contradicts
> their own or their reader's values (Tavris, 1986, p. 22).
>
> The scientist sees the journalist as imprecise, mercurial and possibly
> dangerous---'a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of
> nothing,\' to borrow Oscar Wilde's phrase (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

A recent analysis of the poor quality of press coverage of scientific
findings concerning violence and mass media argues that researchers and
reporters have different responsibilities to different audiences, peers,
and employers. The scientist\'s goals are to disseminate information,
educate the public, be scientifically accurate, not lose face before
colleagues, get some public credit for years of research, repay the
taxpayers who supported the research, and break out of the ivory tower
for the sheer fun of it. The journalist\'s goals are to get the news,
inform, entertain, not lose face before his or her colleagues, fill
space or time, and not repeat oneself. Sometimes these divergent agendas
work to mutual benefit, but at other times they lead to conflict
(Tavris, 1986).

Researchers and reporters have a language problem. To the researcher,
the language of the reporter is "excessively casual, trivializing, and
simple-minded, if not downright wrong or silly. To the journalist, the
language of the academician is excessively passive, technical, and
complicated, if not downright wordy or pompous\" (Tavris, 1986, p. 25)

The response of the journalist may be equally harsh. According to one
perspective, scientists hurt the importance of their work with writing
characterized by \"passive constructions, limitations, and wordiness\"
(Tavris, 1986). This obscure use of language may be a reason why
journalists prefer sources who speak clearly over the scientist who
conducted the research but is challenged by attempts to communicate
clearly about it.

Tavris suggests that scientists keep in mind the following when
considering dealing with media: 1) consider whether it is desirable to
talk to the press, and if so, which press, 2) reflect upon one\'s
ability to communicate, and if one\'s skills for popular writing, being
a TV personality, public speaking, and doing quick on-your-feet
interviews are found wanting, use other colleagues, trusted journalists,
press agents, limited media, or the public information office (Tavris,
1986). Tavris notes that control over published work varies by media.
Newspapers permit virtually no control, reporters are unlikely to check
facts or quotes, and will frequently omit information about methods.

A recent survey of scientists and journalists confirms that scientists
hold negative views of reporters (Hartz & Chappell, 1997). For example,
only 11 percent of scientists have a great deal of confidence in the
press, while 22 percent have hardly any confidence. More than 9 out of
10 scientists agree that few members of the news media understand the
nature of science and technology, especially the "tentativeness of most
scientific discovery and the complexities of the results" (p. 29).

Scientists view themselves in a far more positive light (Hartz &
Chappell, 1997). Almost 77 percent have a great deal of confidence in
themselves and their colleagues, while 80 percent disagree that they
waste the taxpayers' money. Most (72%) want the public to know about
their work, but a significant minority (40%) are afraid of being
embarrassed before their peers by news stories about their work. Most
are willing to talk with reporters, but hardly any actually do on a
regular basis (only 4% as often as once a month). Over a quarter of the
scientists from the sample have never been interviewed or written about.

Differences in defining the boundaries of legitimate science also can
cause conflict. Journalists may adopt a much broader view of what type
of individual is qualified to comment on scientific issues. Thus,
political activists for issues such as animal rights, nuclear issues,
the environment, the educational system, disease-afflicted groups, and
so on, may be presented to the public as qualified experts on issues of
science. This raises a problem of evidence versus assertions. Reporters
rarely ask how a source knows what he knows, or what evidence the
knowledge is based upon, or why it differs from positive wisdom.
(Tavris, 1986).

> Knowing little about methods and the differences among psychological
> disciplines . . . many media people have never learned to be critical,
> what questions to ask. Moreover, it is the nature of the social
> science to produce many contradictory, conflicting studies. To
> journalists, however, it often seems as though if they don't like what
> one report says, another study will confirm their prejudices and
> appear in 20 minutes. (Tavris, 1986)

Hartz and Chappell report some positive experiences of the interaction
of scientists and reporters. Most of those who had been interviewed were
allowed to check the story. A significant number of scientists (43%)
rate science journalists as at least somewhat knowledgeable. Scientists
believe that journalists should be able to communicate the complexities
of science. Moreover, they do not agree that there is an anti-science
bias in the media, and, in fact, most believe that stories written by
science reporters are positive in tone.

## The Journalist\'s view

The values of journalism that have appeared in the literature appear
frequently to contradict those of scientists. Whereas science is
communal, reporters like to write about individual scientists who have
made revolutionary breakthroughs. Journalists are attracted to stories
that feature controversy and to new, even tentative, results that carry
exciting potential. Norms of fairness lead journalists to balance views
of a topic rather than appeal to a single authority, even if a disparity
exists in the qualifications of the sources. The reporter faces strict,
inflexible deadlines for his or her work. No matter how technical or
abstract the issue, the journalist must write in prose that appeals to
the broadest possible audience. The journalist also writes knowing that
his or her work will be judged, edited, and screened by an editor, who
may not be interested in science (Shortland & Gregory, 1991).

The journalist is likely to view the scientist as narrowly focused,
obscure, and self-absorbed. The scientist is typically a specialist,
involved in the minutia of a specific problem that may represent a small
piece of a much larger puzzle. This can make it difficult for scientists
to state why their most recent discovery is a "newsworthy" event, or a
even a significant breakthrough. The predictions of scientists are
tentative and qualified, which may seem incompatible with developing
excitement in a story. Journalists may find little use for a clear
statement of the limits of the research.

But bringing scientific and reporting values into line is not simply an
issue of making scientists less humble in their writing. In many cases
the importance of scientific work is not immediately obvious. In almost
all cases, discoveries are only an incremental part of a larger
undertaking (Hartz & Chappell, 1997).

Among the sources of conflict are the standards that journalists and
scientists use to decide what is worthy of reporting to a broader
audience:

> To use a legal analogy, scientists work to meet the standards set for
> criminal cases which must be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt';
> journalists, because of deadline pressures, more often work at the
> level of civil cases (where preponderance of evidence is the standard
> of proof) (Hartz & Chappell, 1997, p. 14).

For the reporter, this creates difficulties. The demands of journalism
require a story, full of drama, with small events placed in a broader
context. Journalists contend that a story will never be told if they
wait for every conceivable issue to be settled and every controversy to
be resolved. They also avoid repeating the precise, qualified language
characteristic of research reports, both to preserve valuable time or
space and because such language may be seen as trivializing the
scientist\'s work. Scientists, believing that such qualifications and
precision are important, in turn become reluctant to speak with media
for fear of having their research mischaracterized or distorted. (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997).

An important value of science is objectivity, not so much in the choice
of questions or theories, but in the construction of tests which permit
outcomes that can disconfirm as well as confirm preconceptions. For
scientists, hypotheses must be falsifiable and tests of the hypotheses
must be replicable, so that others working in the discipline, including
those with hostile theoretical views, may subject theories to rigorous
scrutiny. Conversely, journalism is a subjective enterprise. Indeed,
some journalists have given up on the notion of objectivity and adopted
the related but different concept of "fairness." Long-term enterprise
stories (health, government performance, and quality of life) are those
that lead to Pulitzer Prizes, yet these typically adopt a value-laden
point of view.

Despite the differences suggested above, Hartz & Chappell (1997) find
that journalists have a great deal of confidence in scientists, more
than they do in their own profession, or in other major institutions.
Journalists disagree (80%) that scientists who allow themselves to be
interviewed are publicity seekers and agree (80%) that scientists are at
least somewhat accessible. In fact, journalists find their profession
wanting, although they are not as negative as the scientists. Few agree
that a professional code for journalists ensures high standards. A
substantial majority agree that the "biggest problem with science
reporting is that it only tells a small part of the whole story."

Reporters do offer some specific criticisms of scientists. Some feel
that scientists lack incentives to talk to small newspapers and that
scientists and industry researchers have vested interests (Crisp, 1986;
Kiernan, 1998). Russell (1986) is quite direct in voicing the
reporter\'s complaints:

> First of all, the obvious should be stated. For scientists, science
> communication with a lay audience is almost always a secondary issue.
> Of first importance, from a professional standpoint, is the business
> of science itself. . . (p. 83).
>
> Russell (1986) also offers this observation:
>
> Scientists can be put into two groups: those who are willing to
> cooperate with journalists and those who can think of nothing worse.
> In this group are those who hate the press and those who are too busy
> (p. 83).

He charges that reluctant scientists are difficult to track down and
reluctant to return calls. If reached, scientists \"talk in the most
technical language possible and are fearful of being misquoted" (p. 84).
Not escaping criticism are scientists who do cooperate with reporters,
but "who might be considered a bit too helpful in their efforts to
utilize the press. Some researchers are interested in popularizing not
only science but also their own reputations. They even seek out writers
with the help of their own public relations agents" (p. 85). Explaining
why some scientists may make themselves available, Russell notes that
"The overly cooperative category also includes scientists with a cause
to push or a political point of view to promote" (p.85).

Some scientists are valuable sources who attempt to help popularize
science. However "a danger exists both for these 'big name' researchers
and for the journalists who quote them when scientists begin to stray
from commenting on their fields of expertise and become "instant"
experts on almost any scientific subject under the sun" (p. 87).

Russell concludes the values of reporting and science may inevitably
create conflicts between the two:

> Underlying \[interactions of reporters and scientists\] is an
> essential tension. . . that can sometimes get in the way of an honest
> attempt by both parties to present science to the public. In part, the
> tension is natural because both sides have different purposes. The
> scientist may wish to tell his or her story in all its complexity,
> while the journalist must necessarily reduce it to a manageable and
> more simplistic form for his or her audience. But the tension can be
> exacerbated when there is a lack of awareness of the journalistic
> process by scientists involved, a confusion of roles, or a struggle
> for the control of information.

Some reporters are even put off by what they perceive as arrogance or
aloofness in scientists. As one news director suggested, "They are
somewhat superior in their attitude to those not of their world" (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997, p. 13).

Conflict can emerge between scientists and journalists over ownership of
information about science. As suggested earlier, science stories are
often found at controlled events, such as scientific meetings, press
conferences, or in journals. But reporters may also find out about
important stories via leaks from politicians, the actions or suspicious
activities of key players, and from articles in small trade
publications. Conflict between scientists and reporters can emerge when
scientists or journal editors attempt to control the information, for
example, through the use of news embargoes (Kiernan,1998).

Kiernan notes resentment among reporters for the way science gatekeepers
(in this case editors at the journal *Nature*) attempted to manage
information about the possible discovery of evidence of life on Martian
rocks. Reporters believed that individuals and organizations with
advance knowledge of the scientific discovery acted in ways to
capitalize on its value. For example, NASA sought to manipulate coverage
of the discovery to maximize attention paid to the agency. The actions
of NASA were seen as motivated by "a desire to derive political benefit
from the news, which would translate into appropriations for the
agency." (p. 38). The AAAS also sought to benefit their journal, and
when they felt that NASA was getting the bulk of the early press
attention, sought to make more prominent the single scientist on the
Martian rock project not affiliated with NASA. Kiernan also suggests
that the AAAS used the Martian story as a way to encourage journalists
to use their Eureka news service.

## What factors determine contact between scientist and journalist?

Scientific sources may be of interest to journalists because they are
lead investigators on important research, because they can offer expert
commentary on the work of other scientists, or because they can provide
an expert assessment of a breaking science news story. Typically,
reporters contact scientists rather than the other way around. Dunwoody
(1986b) offers some insights into the conditions of these interactions.
Scientists who work in private industry encounter journalists less often
than those in government or education, in part because of industry
efforts to protect company secrets and in part because journalists may
prefer sources that are either viewed as more credible or who lack a
private agenda.

The specialty area of the scientist also matters---for example, social
scientists are far more likely to be interviewed than physical
scientists. Editors like social science stories because they believe
readers will like them and because the research seems relevant to the
common problems faced by readers. There is also less technical language
involved in social science research (Dunwoody, 1986a).

Journalists seek those sources judged as credible. Credibility is in
turn determined by three factors: 1) mainstream status (establishment
scientists, who may be more liked, because journalists are more
dependent upon them and less likely to want to alienate them, and
because they are found in powerful institutions), 2) administrative
credentials (journalists turn to administrators rather than to actual
researchers, especially in government agencies), and 3) previous contact
with media (even when their expertise is tangential to the research
topic) (Dunwoody, 1986b).

For the scientist who cooperates with reporters and serves as a source,
what are the risks and benefits? Dunwoody (1986b) explores this question
in some detail. A decision on the part of a scientist to speak directly
and on the record with a journalist is risky. The news source hopes for
accurate reproduction of expressed opinions, but the risk of distorted
reporting may carry special risk for scientists who work in a culture
that remains relatively indifferent to the public understanding of its
work. Scientists find few tangible rewards for informing the public, but
many concrete costs. Within the scientific community, public
communication activities can be seen as distracting from efforts to do
research and public understanding of science carries little currency
among scientists. This is especially true among non-social scientists.

Dunwoody (1986b) also suggests some important benefits of sharing
scientific knowledge with the public: personal satisfaction, public
recognition, political recognition, easier access to grants from
agencies and foundations, and employer recognition. While the individual
scientist may remain skeptical about the value of public dialog,
scientific societies have grown more interested and savvy about media
relations; many are quite aggressive in their media relations efforts.
Even universities are coming to consider public communication a form of
community service.

# How can reporting of science be improved?

## What the scientist should do

Dunwoody (1986b) argues that scientists know little about journalists
because they lack an incentive for doing so. In considering the pros and
cons of dealing with the media, the scientist may use stereotypes based
on the reports of others, or simply hold a belief that reporters are
just interested in sensationalistic accounts. A recent survey contends
that scientists are not well trained to communicate to the general
public, tend to be wordy, unnecessarily detailed, and incomprehensible
to others outside of their discipline. This can have direct implications
for the advancement of science, because in an era of tax cuts and
reductions, the public "expects simple answers from scientists about the
basic value of the work it is asked to support" (Hartz & Chappell, 1997,
p. 21).

Faulty stereotypes may also plague the scientist who does decide to
cooperate with journalists, as when scientists assume that norms of
science publishing are the same for newspaper publishing. As Dunwoody
(1986b) points out, these are very different. In the case of a
scientific article, the scientist maintains control and can negotiate
changes. A journal issue takes months to publish allowing for checks on
accuracy. Science reports are longer and more informative than new
stories and are organized differently. Scientists are likely to recoil
at the levels of accuracy, complexity, and organization that guide
journalism, which must offer a fresh news product every 24 hours.

Shortland and Gregory (1991) admonish the scientist to improve his or
her writing skills by keeping in mind the following issues: Why should
anyone be interested in what I've got to say? Why is my subject
important? Why am I doing this now? Why should anyone trust me? Although
these questions are aimed at helping the scientist to better communicate
with the public, they may also represent useful tools for helping the
scientist to place his or her research in a broader context.

Scientists should remember that accuracy is better served when reporters
meet with the actual researchers on an investigation, rather than
administrators, public information officials, or second-hand sources
(Eron, 1986; Kiernan, 1998). "If someone else is supplying the press
with the news of our research results, they will naturally report the
data in a way that fits in with their own purpose and not necessarily in
an unbiased manner" (Eron, 1986, p. 16).

Various media also differ in terms of the control they permit the
scientist over the presentation of research findings. Newspaper stories
allow reporters very little control, whereas control in the broadcast
media may depend upon whether a show is edited or not (Tavris, 1986).
Tavris asserts that the scientist should take an active role in
presenting research, arguing \"Don't wait for the interviewer to ask you
what you want to say; answer the question you wish you had been asked\"
(1986).

## What the journalist should do

Improving science communication may also involve changes in the way that
science journalism is practiced. Indeed, the very label \"science
journalism\" obscures the diverse activities ranging from coverage of
basic science in specialty magazines to reporting on important science
stories at elite papers local news accounts of emerging local issues
with a technological angle.

Journalists, even those assigned to a science beat, often lack much
formal training in science and technology. One study suggests that
"journalists tend not to have even a liberal-arts background in the
sciences. Few understand the scientific method, the dictates of peer
review, the reasons for the caveats and linguistic precision scientists
employ when speaking of their work" (Hartz & Chappell, 1997, p.22).
Furthermore, gatekeepers such as editors and producers are critical in
determining the amount and type of science and technology news that
reaches the public. Yet few editors are qualified to make sound
judgments about science, and others underestimate the ability of their
readers to understand well-written science stories (Hartz & Chappell,
1997).

When a journalist lacks the background to evaluate or understand
complicated scientific issues, he or she is forced to deal with the
subset of available scientists who are skillful at translating
complicated issues into simple prose. But such sources may be quite
rare. An alternative is for news organizations to invest in or at least
expect better training in science and technology journalists who are
assigned to cover science. It is common, for example, for university
journalism programs to require that students develop a basic familiarity
with the workings of government, with communication law and policy, and
with history. Far less common is a requirement for basic scientific or
mathematical literacy.

Although it may seem obvious that improving the science training of
science reporters will enhance the quality of science journalism, this
proposal is controversial, at least among journalists (Hartz & Chappell,
1997). Those who resist the idea that reporters should be better trained
in science offer the following rationales: a) some outstanding science
reporting is done by individuals with little formal training in science,
b) reporters with excellent reporting skills can get scientific sources
to finally break down and explain research in simple and accessible
terms, and c) it is impractical to think that anyone can receive enough
training to serve as an expert across multiple disciplines of science,
such as chemistry, biology, medicine, psychology, engineering, and
physics.

It seems obvious that one can accept points A and B and still argue
strongly that science reporting is improved when a journalist receives
training in a scientific discipline. Point C introduces a more difficult
issue, but it is resolved by acknowledging that the task of covering all
of science may be too broad for one person. Rather, such coverage may
require specialization, the same way reporters may specialize in
covering the White House, Capital Hill, and the Supreme Court. In
reality, this solution may be impractical for any but the very largest
news organizations.

Consideration of how to improve science coverage must begin with the
reality that science is covered by many small newspapers, which usually
do not have a science writer. Instead these small papers assign ordinary
reporters to cover local issues with a science or technology angle. This
creates problems because scientists have little incentive to deal with
reporters from small newspapers. In addition, small-town news reporters
are typically ignorant of basic science. Thus, \"reporters on small
papers find themselves turning to scientists as primary sources rather
than going to them armed with facts and finely honed questions. This
approach strains the patience of the scientist and the credibility of
the reporter" (Crisp, 1986, p.76). Crisp (1986) suggests that it is
important for small town paper reporters to go to national meetings like
the AAAS convention. Such meetings, he notes, are a good place to see
the difference between the scientific method and the journalistic
method.

The points raised above suggest that science journalism can be enhanced
by improving the skills of the journalist for comprehending scientific
information. Other authors believe reporting can be improved by
enhancing the communication skills of the journalist. As Dunwoody (1992)
notes, "Journalists are rarely trained in any formal way to explain
anything" (p.101).

One way to improve communication is to focus on content. For example,
Crane (1992) advocates that reporters take advantage of pre-existing
interests of audiences. He suggests that reporters should routinely
specify for the reader, "Why is it important for me to know about this
story?" Science journalism should also characteristically provide more
background information and provide perspectives on what a story implies
for the broader society. Effective science journalism should provide new
information and connect science to everyday life.

Another way to improve communication is to focus on style. Conventions
of journalistic style date to formulas generated in the 1930s: simple
words, short sentences, and an inverted pyramid for organizing
information. Yet, according to Dunwoody, "To this day in the world of
journalism, there is very little attention paid to what people actually
get out of the stuff that they read. There are still a lot of
assumptions being made." (1992, p.102).

Rowan (1992) presents a number of recommendations for improving science
writing. She begins by asking the journalist to focus on explanation,
which she defines as "anticipating and overcoming likely confusions" (p.
131). Those who effectively explain possess a conviction in the value of
good explanation, large and easily accessed collections of explanations
and conceptual frameworks for determining why ideas are likely to be
difficult for audiences, and what strategies best overcome these
obstacles.

The task for journalists is daunting, however. Siegfried (1992) sums up
the constraints on newspaper coverage by writing, "The truth is that in
daily newspaper journalism there is very little room or place for any
real explanation. Cancer is cured, fewer people will die---that's the
end of the story in the daily newspaper" (p. 113).

Ward (1992) argues the situation is even worse when considering how
science is covered on television news shows. The length of the average
sound bite on TV is six seconds. The importance of compelling visuals
leads producers to require personalization ("Show me someone who has got
the disease") and a news peg. Ward also notes that:

> Casting is another important thing. A scientist that you put on the
> air has to be personable; he has to be voluble. If not, you take
> pictures of him and do a voice-over; don't let him talk. As for
> victims, it would be nice if they would have a tear dripping down
> their cheeks (1992, p. 105).

Contradicting writers who suggest that it is important to link science
to personal issues, Ward proposes that

> You do have to consider the readers' specific needs for information in
> dealing with their lives. But I find vast amounts of interest in
> things that haven't the slightest thing to do with daily life. That's
> an important thing in conveying the whole essence of science; if
> you're going to limit yourself to writing about hemorrhoids, you
> aren't going to give people the sort of picture of science that really
> communicates the essence of it at all, and you're not going to give
> them a lot of things that they really are interested in (1992, p.
> 116).

## Prospects for improvement

The ultimate issue in improving the coverage of science relates to the
demands, needs, and abilities of publics that have been charitably
described as \"ill-equipped\" for understanding technology and science.
While the public says it wants more science, few readers outside of
large newspapers are avid and faithful readers of science stories (Hartz
& Chappell, 1997). Several well-intentioned efforts at starting
magazines dedicated to coverage of science for ordinary people ended in
failure, and broadcast coverage of science issues still tends to be the
province of cable stations and public television.

Perhaps there is cause for hope amid the gloom. Klaidman (1991),
reflecting upon these different value systems, notes:

> Realistically, these imperatives are going to remain in conflict. The
> truth is, science does not translate precisely into lay language. The
> best journalists in the field, however, popularize science with
> remarkable success. Their reports often zero in on the essence of the
> story, are readable, and do not significantly mislead the audience.
> (Klaidman, 1991, p. 17).

Or as Palen (1994) notes:

> Health-risk stories often contain all of the standard elements of
> other news stories, such as conflicting financial, political,
> personal, and social interests, but there is also the science, which
> is usually complex. Most general-assignment reporters have training or
> expertise that qualifies them to deal with the nonscientific aspects
> of health-risk stories, but they are often at a loss when it comes to
> reporting on the science.... This inability to evaluate scientific
> information has nothing to do with lack of intelligence or scientific
> aptitude. It has to do with a lack of education, training, and
> experience. In other words, it can be corrected.

# Science communication scholarship

Science communication is a thriving and active area of scholarship
within mass communication. Lewenstein (1992) suggests scholarship in
science communication represents "50 years of science journalism asking
how science is reported as news and how that reporting could be
improved." A central concern is science literacy, the public's knowledge
of scientific and technological topics and prescriptions for addressing
the lack of knowledge. The following offers a brief review of the
themes, theories, and concepts represented in empirical investigations
of science communication.

## Important theories

A large number of studies in the area of science communication are
descriptive in nature. The field is still dominated by surveys and
content analyses. But mass communication theories are increasingly
represented.

Agenda-setting theory is concerned with how the prominence of coverage
an issue receives in news media comes to influence audience assessments
of issue importance (or how the press sets the public\'s issue agenda).
In recent years the approach has been expanded to include questions
about the press\'s own agenda and about the agendas of public policy
makers. Phillips, Kanter, Bednarczyk, & Tastad (1991) find an
agenda-setting effect for the *New York Times* on citations to articles
appearing in the *New England Journal of Medicine*. Articles that
receive coverage by the *Times* are more likely to be cited in medical
research than are articles that do not receive coverage. Rogers & Chang
(1991) examine how issue attributes, newspapers, and government affect
the likelihood of press coverage of technology stories. Schoenfeld
(1979) looks for an agenda-setting effect from an environmental
legislative act, but fails to uncover one.

Scholarship has long observed that those who possess knowledge and
resources in society tend to learn of new technologies and issues faster
than do the dispossessed. This divergence in information gain over time
between the have and have nots is described as a \"knowledge gap.\"
Griffin (1990), using this framework, suggests that better educated
survey respondents learned more about energy issues than did those with
less education.

In recent years media scholars have noted that the \"frames\" media use
to present issues to the public can have implications for how
respondents think about the issues. For example, frames that present a
problem as an issue of individual behavior (homelessness as the failure
of individuals to take responsibility for themselves) lead audiences to
see solutions as originating in the actions of individuals, whereas
frames that locate an issue at the societal level (homelessness as a
consequence of poor social policy) imply societal solutions (Iyengar,
1991). Investigations of risk (Hornig, 1992; Hornig, 1990) suggest
stories with scientific frames may lead audiences to perceive an issue
carries lower risk than socio-political frames. Some argue that the
chosen frames of science discourse limit understanding or breadth of
perspective (Karpf, 1988). Media frames in covering a scientific
controversy, such as the "discovery" of cold fusion, can influence
scientific debates (Lewenstein, 1992). Luke (1987) contrasts the frames
used in U. S. coverage of Chernobyl with that employed by the Soviets.
Media frames also were apparent in coverage of the early "space race"
according to Marlin (1987), which found some news magazines were
especially likely to emphasize the competition of the US and the USSR.

A recent and methodologically innovative investigation of the importance
of frames for understanding risk communication is provided by Kahlor,
Dunwoody, & Griffin (1998), who examine how people explain their own
thinking about risk. Respondents were contacted about risks from lead
and cryptosporidium contamination. Measures were obtained for reliance
on media for information about cryptosporidium, risk experience (whether
they had become ill), perceived future risk of illness, and open-ended
rationales ("What went through your mind when you decided on that last
answer about the likelihood of your becoming ill from cryptosporidium in
the tap water?").

Open-ended answers were then coded for frames, including internal
attributions, medical frame ("I won't get sick"), political frame
(\"government will solve the problem\"), and probability frames
(statistical estimates). They found people who did not become ill made
more internal attributions. People who believed they would not become
ill in the future also made internal attributions. Internal attributions
were less prevalent among TV dependent people. Persons high in
socio-economic status were more likely to use probability estimate
frames.

Coorientation theory examines the accuracy of beliefs of two or more
communication sources about one another. The framework can help to
pinpoint areas of misunderstanding by measuring both actual and
perceived attitudes. Ryan (1979) finds that science writers and
scientists have attitudes about science news that are similar, but each
perceives its attitudes differs from the other.

In addition to asking questions for which science issues are presumed
useful for testing theory, or in which theory is used to address issues
of science, more descriptive questions are also prevalent in the science
communication literature. It is to these issues that we turn next.

## Science and media

### How accurate is media coverage?

As suggested earlier, surveys tend to show that scientists are critical
of the coverage that science is given in the mainstream press. Thus it
is at least somewhat surprising to find that several studies dealing
with the issue of the accuracy of science news reports find general
satisfaction among scientists with news story accuracy. For example,
newspaper coverage of research appearing in the *New England Journal of
Medicine* is generally accurate in distinguishing facts from opinion
(Caudill & Ashtown, 1989).

One approach to the accuracy issue involves requesting that scientists
or other experts read over or watch a news account of research and
indicate errors of fact or omission. Findings suggest that scientists
asked to comment on the accuracy of magazine coverage (Borman, 1978) and
television coverage (Moore & Singletary, 1985) believe that accuracy is
on balance good. Pulford (1976) also finds that scientists are generally
satisfied with the accuracy of media stories. Broberg (1973) examines
the changes that scientists make to stories of their research and finds
that additions are the most common correction. This is consistent with
other research suggesting scientists' major contention with press
coverage concerns omissions rather than misstatements (Borman, 1978;
Dunwoody, 1982). Greenberg & Wartenberg (1990) analyzed network news
coverage of disease and teen suicide to determine whether such coverage
provided an accurate portrayal of the geography of the diseases. They
concluded the coverage was accurate.

What are the omissions from news accounts? One study suggests a common
omission is explicit mention of the research scientists responsible for
the work covered in the article (Borman, 1978). Other frequent omissions
include descriptions of methodology (Caudill & Ashtown, 1989) and theory
(Nelkin, 1985).

Not all research has found science coverage to be accurate. Ryan & Owen
(1977) find that the accuracy of stories dealing with social issues is
worse than that for ordinary news stories. Stroman and Seltzer (1989)
find that while reliance on newspapers is associated with accurate
beliefs about AIDS, reliance on television news is associated with
incorrect information about AIDS. Note this does not necessarily mean
that television content is inaccurate however, and educational controls
reduce the findings for television to insignificance.

Moreover, ensuring that accurate information is presented to audiences
does not ensure that audiences will perceive or remember the information
accurately. For example, Morris, Brinberg, Klimberg, Rivera, & Millstein
(1986) find that miscomprehension of television and magazine
advertisements for two prescription drugs was common. More generally,
many studies find widespread miscomprehension of ads and warnings about
potentially dangerous products (Jacoby, 1980).

### How are decisions made about news coverage?

Mass communication scholars have long sought to determine what becomes
news. On any given day the number of potentially important and
significant events far exceeds that which a newspaper or broadcast
station can cover. In science this is especially true. One study of the
news hole in the early 1970s concludes that only about two percent of
newspaper stories are devoted to science, and of these, the majority
deal with health issues (Larsen, 1973). Local issues may be important in
affecting science coverage. Ramsey (1989) discovers that a local
newspaper\'s decision to run science stories is influenced by the role
that science and technology play in the surrounding community.

Different media may emphasize different aspects of the same story. For
example, elite British newspapers emphasize credible sources and science
professionals, whereas popular papers focus more on the consumer\'s
perspective (Entwistle & Hancock-Beaulieu, 1992). Evans, Krippendorf,
Yoon, Posluszny and Thomas (1990) compare the coverage of science
stories between elite and tabloid American newspapers and find that
compared to the tabloids, elite media provide more details about
findings and methods employed in the research.

Differences occasionally fail to materialize where they might be
expected. Martin (1991) compares the coverage of breaking science
stories in popular science magazines and general news magazines.
Findings suggest that the sources appearing in the magazines are quite
similar. Additionally, fast-breaking science stories are not allocated
greater amounts of space in science magazines. Differences in coverage
can even be the opposite of what might be expected. For example, tabloid
papers, perhaps because of a greater focus on reader interest, have
actually outperformed mainstream papers in the coverage of some health
and medicine issues (Hinkle & Elliott, 1989).

Within the portion of the news hole devoted to science, decisions also
must be made about the specific topics to cover (Hilgartner & Bosk,
1988). Dennis and McCartney (1979) find that science writers at large
newspapers favor stories about medicine, the environment and technology.
Less attention is devoted to the physical and behavioral sciences.
Newspapers that carry regular science sections give greater coverage to
science in the news section of the paper in comparison to papers without
science coverage (Bader, 1990). This is especially the case for stories
about basic research rather than more applied topics.

Coverage of scientific ideas is often a function of some newsworthy
event rather than the ideas themselves. For example, Caudill's (1987,
1989) investigation of attention to evolution shows that the theory
receives news coverage in response to specific events such as Darwin's
death, the centennial of his birth, and the Scopes "Monkey" trial. On
the other hand, coverage of some issues, such as AIDS, seems less linked
to concrete events and other traditional determinants of newsworthiness
(Grube & Boehme-Duerr,1988).

Dunwoody (1979) observes activities of science writers at a scientific
convention and concludes that organizational constraints are an
important influence on which stories receive coverage. A group of
prominent writers at such conferences form an "inner club" of science
reporters working at elite papers (Dunwoody, 1980). These writers pool
resources in deciding what to cover and how such coverage is to be
formulated. Altimore (1982) echoes this theme when he writes that
science reporting \"is characterized by an inordinate degree of
collaboration and communication among reporters, and science journalism
is quite homogeneous in its view of what qualifies as science news\" (p.
25).

But the reports filed by writers do not necessarily become news, because
research suggests that science writers and their editors don\'t always
agree on the types of science stories readers will find interesting
(Dunwoody, 1986a). And editors, as compared to science writers,
scientists, and lay persons, are more likely to favor sensationalism and
less likely to favor accuracy in judging newsworthiness (Johnson, 1963).
Moreover, editors may underestimate public interest in science news
(Nunn, 1979). But within specific topic areas, editors may be more
attuned to reader interest. For example, editors of agricultural stories
are successful in predicting the kinds of stories of most interest to
their readers (Lassahn ,1967).

Editors and reporters differ in terms of their feelings towards
sensational stories. Editors are less opposed to such coverage than are
more experienced reporters (Glynn, 1985). Coverage of an environmental
issue and editorial policies for the issue do not correspond with media
managers' ratings of newsworthiness (Akthoff, Greg, & Stuckey (1973).

Selection of news stories is in part a function of the sources for news,
and one study finds that the preferred sources of science journalists
are not as representative of their respective fields as they might be
(Jones & Meadows, 1978). However, establishing norms for how much
coverage a scientific area "ought" to receive is problematic. Kidd
(1989) provides an innovative method by counting doctorates awarded
across different hard science disciplines. The author finds that by this
criterion, the field of chemistry is underrepresented in news stories in
comparison to biology and astronomy.

Even within a type of medium, changes may take place with the passage of
time. One study examines how magazines dedicated to outdoor life and
hunting, while expanding coverage of the environment, do so by focusing
on narrow problems of wildlife conservation rather than expanding to
cover general pollution problems (Belak, 1972). Howenstine (1987)
examines two newspapers and two news magazines from 1970 until 1982.
With the passage of time coverage of the environment becomes more
extensive, but the nature of the issues covered shifts from preservation
to economic development. McGeachy (1988) examines coverage of the
environment in American magazines and finds coverage declines in the
1980s as compared to the 1970s. However the coverage also becomes more
sophisticated and involves greater diversity of sources.

Finally, even when a topic is chosen for coverage, a news organizations
still faces choices about things within that topic that ought to be
covered. Coverage of deforestation in South America is shown to present
somewhat confusing speculation about the causes of vanishing rain
forests (Bendix & Liebler, 1991). Friemuth, Greenberg, DeWitt, and
Romano (1984) find most stories about cancer center on one of three
topics: causes of cancer, types of treatment, and celebrities suffering
from the disease. Noticeably lacking from many stories are specific risk
statistics. Coverage of science and health stories is also criticized
for not providing audiences with useful information. For example,
Greenberg, Freimuth, and Bratick (1979) argue that newspaper coverage of
cancer fails to provide information about prevention, detection, or
contextual factors such as risk information.

### Does the press set a science agenda?

As mentioned earlier, agenda-setting research posits that the prominence
of issues in news media can affect the salience given to the issue among
audiences (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, 1993). Pilisuk and Acredolo (1988)
survey three communities and concluded regular use of broadcast media is
unrelated to concern about technological risk. Conversely, Albert (1986)
suggests that magazine coverage of the AIDS disease in the early 1980s
contributed to a climate of blame for those afflicted with the disease.
Baker (1986) contends news coverage of AIDS in the early 1980s at an
elite newspaper influenced perceptions of the disease as a legitimate
social issue.

Mazur and Conant (1978) find that people who hear about a proposed
nuclear waste site are more opposed to it than people who have not heard
about it. Mazur (1981) concludes that media coverage of a scientific
controversy increases public opposition to the technology, even when
such coverage is not negative. McLeod, Glynn, and Griffin (1987) find
that greater media use is associated with higher ratings of the
importance of energy.

Placing an issue high on a public\'s issue agenda can carry positive
benefits. For example, one study finds a rise in the early detection of
colon cancer increased following the extensive media coverage of
Reagan's colon cancer surgery (Brown & Potosky, 1990). And events such
as Earth Day can spur coverage of environmental issues, even as the
coverage emphasizes some environmental problems at the expense of others
(Bowman & Hanaford, 1977).

Dearing (1989), in a twist on typical agenda setting research, considers
an agenda-setting effect for public opinion polls. He examines whether
media coverage of AIDS affected the way opinion poll questions
administered during the 1980s were written, and concludes that coverage
positively influenced the scope of polling questions.

Other studies find less support for the agenda-setting hypothesis.
Looking for an agenda-setting effect of environmental coverage, Atwater,
Salwen, and Anderson (1985) find only a small relationship between
audience beliefs about how important media judge an environmental issue
to be and the audience member's own evaluation of issue importance.
Culbertson and Stempel (1984) analyze stories and editorials from Ohio
newspapers and find no relationship between topics given greater
coverage and issues considered important among a sample of Ohio
citizens. How can one explain the failure to find an agenda-setting
effect for some science stories? Perhaps the frames for media coverage
of population growth might serve to keep some issues off of the media
agenda (Maher, 1998). In addition, coverage of science in the typical
paper may be so small that a threshold for agenda-setting is not
achieved.

### What is the tone of media coverage of science?

Audiences also can be influenced by the content of news stories. For
example, the tone of coverage (supportive versus critical) may influence
audience attitudes toward an issue. What tone do media adopt toward
science and technology? A recent analysis of coverage of biotechnology
from 1970 through 1996 (Lewenstein et al., 1998) finds that coverage of
biotechnology has, over time, been consistent and emphasized positive
outcomes.

Findings from several studies suggest that no single generalization
about tone may be appropriate for all media at all times. The tone of
elite media coverage of the theory of evolution changed from doubting to
supportive during the early part of the 20^th^ Century (Caudill, 1987).
Bowes and Stamm (1972) find that the tone of media coverage of a flood
control project became more positive following the growth of public
opposition to the project.

Whether reporting acknowledges or fails to present controversy in
reporting on science is related to the tone of news accounts, since
controversy can signal a negative tone. Cole's (1975) content analysis
of newspapers during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s finds controversy more
likely in articles from the 1970s than the earlier times. Collins (1987)
suggests that television typically ignores science controversy unless a
story relates to a current issue. The overall tone of science articles
in Canadian papers is positive according to one content analysis
(Einsiedel, 1992) which finds the typical story deals with health
issues.

Cole (1975) finds that the presence of controversy in news reports
varies by whether the reporter works a science beat or as a member of
the general staff. Science reporters are less likely to include accounts
of controversy, consistent with the concerns of some critics that
science reporters may grow too close to their sources and/or beat (Hartz
and Chappell, 1997). Contradicting those who believe that science
reporting is too influenced by the norms of journalism, Nelkin (1985,
1987) proposes that science coverage is too affected by affiliation of
science writers with scientists and that the tone of science
communication is too positive or unquestioning (Dornan, 1988, 1990;
Nelkin, 1995). Hornig (1990) suggests programs such as *Nova* provide
little insight into the scientific process and instead present an overly
positive perspective on science and scientists. The tone of science
coverage may be especially bright when the scientist is one of the
breakthrough celebrity scientists, or what Goodell (1977) refers to as
"visible" scientists. But Lispari (1996) presents evidence that wire
coverage of the shuttle program following the Challenger disaster
involved the use of stance adverbs that expressed a negative tone
towards NASA.

### Are science stories balanced? 

Some investigations examine the issue of whether a \"pro-science\" bias
is present in news stories, or whether other viewpoints are presented as
reasonable and legitimate. Karpf (1988) suggests that the British press
does not adequately present opposing viewpoints on health policies. But
Friedman, Gorney, and Egolf (1992) find that articles about the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster presented balanced coverage of pro- and
anti-nuclear opinions.

Koren and Klein (1991) examine newspaper coverage of studies that
present contradictory medical findings published in the same science
journal. They suggest that reporters often favor the positive article
and ignore or downplay the negative one.

Balance may be affected by economic considerations and critics bemoan a
perceived connection between commercial interests and the decision of
magazines to run stories (Kessler, 1989), as well as the frames of
educational campaigns (Kleinman & Kloppenburg, 1991; Lewenstein, 1992b).
Bowman\'s (1978) survey of editors finds a large majority present a
consistent and pro-environmental editorial page policy. The same
editors, however, prove quite willing to accept advertising from
companies believed to be polluters.

Journalists who cover politically active areas of science, such as the
environment, often find themselves the target of influence attempts from
both special interests and large corporations (Palen, 1998). Resisting
such attempts is an important journalistic norm, and research suggests
that balance can be affected by a reporter\'s own attitudes toward an
issue. For example, Rothman and Lichter (1987) find that the attitudes
of journalists about nuclear energy (skeptical) are reflected in their
coverage of the issue.

### How is science portrayed outside of news?

Views of science and scientists are not restricted to news programming.
Popular science-fiction programs provide audiences with what Zaller
(1992) calls "considerations" concerning the influence of technology;
that is, information for forming opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. For
example, Banks and Tankel (1990) argue that the popular *Star Trek*
series presents technology as serving the interests of society.

Images of science may be quite prevalent in media, and not just
restricted to science programming and news. Gerbner (1987) details a
content analysis of prime time television over a 10 year period that
suggests images of science appear in 70 percent of prime-time programs.
And while images of scientists in prime time television shows are
positive, they are less so than are the images of other professionals.
Consistent with evidence that television cultivates a general world view
(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, 1980; Hawkins, Pingree, & Adler,
1987; Shrum, 1996; Shrum, Wyer, & O\'Guinn, 1988), heavy viewers of
television are those most likely to hold negative views about
scientists.

Film portrayals do not always present a sympathetic portrait of
scientists. Goldman (1989) claims that images of scientists in popular
films emphasize their coldness and lack of concern about moral
consequences of their research. While there has been little attention
devoted to popular books, Hixson (1981) presents a content analysis of
selected social science book reviews. The author is critical of both
reviewers from the mainstream press and publishers who publish "bad"
science. However reliance on non-media coverage is shown in one study to
correlate with more information about environmental problems and a
stronger commitment to helping save the environment (Novic & Sandman,
1974).

### What are relations between scientists and media like?

Relatively few empirical studies have examined direct contact of media
and scientific organizations. DiBella, Ferri, and Padderud (1991)
suggest the primary motive of scientists for giving media interviews is
to help educate the public about science. Dunwoody and Ryan (1987) find
that while scientists are generally asked by the press to comment on
topics related to their research expertise, about one third of
science-reporter interactions deal with issues having little or no
relationship to the scientist\'s research.

Scientists fear that their own culture does not value direct contact
with the public via general news media (Dunwoody & Ryan, 1985). Although
this might suggest an important role for intermediaries, such as public
information professionals, Dunwoody and Ryan (1985) find that
scientists, while expressing a positive attitude toward public
information professionals, consider them to be of only modest importance
in disseminating information about science. Prescriptions for dealing
with news media on science-related topics have appeared in the academic
literature. A special issue of *Public Relations Review* presents cases
analyses of technological disasters and offers advice for improving
science public relations (Crisis Public Relations, 1991).

It is worth noting that scientists are not the only source of influence
on media coverage of science issues. Griffin and Dunwoody (1995) examine
how advocacy groups provide information subsidies to news organizations
in an effort to get coverage of an issue the group believes important.
Their work raises a more general issue frequently ignored in the science
communication literature, namely the influence of non-scientists on ways
that publics encounter science news.

## Audiences

### Who are the important science publics?

It has long been recognized that media consumers differ with respect to
their knowledge about and interest in news about science and technology
(Krieghbaum, 1967). Magazines may be an especially important medium for
persons interested in science and technology. For example, Larson,
Zimmerman, and Scherer (1982) find that environmental activists do not
differ from nonactivists in their use of most general media, but do
differ in magazine use and in wanting to find out more about the
environment. And Gantz (1976) notes that technology innovators are more
likely than persons from the general population to consume popular
science magazines such as *Scientific American*.

Prewitt (1982) notes that citizens tend to specialize in narrow areas of
public policy and that the people who tend to focus in this way can be
thought of as an \"attentive public.\" Such a group is self-selected
and, in the case of science, extends well beyond scientists themselves.
Prewitt suggests that little is known about this group, except that it
is less internally organized than attentive publics for other issues, it
does not possess fixed world views about science policy, and it does
tend to view issues in much the same way that scientists do. His thesis
is that the views of this group \"matter\" more than the views of the
general public.

Demographic segments have also been examined. For example, Patterson
(1982) finds that young adults generally support science but also fall
into attitudinal types ("true believers," "anxious dissenters," and
"seasoned supporters"). O\'Keefe (1970) discovers that doctors generally
consider medical information from mass media to be reliable, but judge
it to be of little personal importance. In contrast, Shaw and Van Nevel
(1967) find that 60 percent of a sample of doctors learn about new
developments in their field from the mass media. The authors suggest
that doctors may rely on mass media to find out about new developments.

### Interest in science

Another approach to the study of audiences is to deal with questions
concerning the kinds of news for which the public has interest, both in
terms of science news as compared to other types of news, and in terms
of specific topics within science news. A repeated finding from the
literature suggests that the perceived relevance of news is important to
news consumers. Atwater (1988), for example, finds news consumers are
interested in environmental information primarily because they perceive
a link between such information and their lives.

Overall, science news appears to occupy a place of moderate importance
to audiences. For example, Burgoon, Burgoon, and Wilkinson (1981) in a
study of four newspaper markets find relatively great interest in sports
and politics and relatively less interest in business news. Science,
health, and psychological news have high appeal. The interest of news
consumers in science stories may, in part, hinge on the specifics of the
story. The same authors (Burgoon, Burgoon, & Wilkinson, 1983), examining
readership within a larger number of newspaper markets, find greater
reader interest for stories about disasters, the environment, and
health, but relatively low interest in space and science stories.

When people are asked about their preferred sources for news about
science and technology, television tends to be mentioned most often,
followed by magazines and newspapers, respectively (Howard, Blick, &
Quarles, 1987). Several authors present primers on more effective
communication for purposes of increasing interest in science. Typical of
this research is Rowan (1989, 1991a, 1991b), whose research emphasizes
the importance of problem-solving frames, graphs, organization, and
writing for effective comprehension by non-literate science publics.

### How well does the public understand science?

It is often assumed that greater science sophistication within the
public at large will result in greater public support of scientific
expenditures. This assumption ignores another possibility, that greater
familiarity might breed contempt. Mazur (1981a, 1981b, 1984), summarizes
results over several heavily covered scientific controversies and
concludes that media coverage tends to crystallize public opposition to
controversial technologies. His argument is that it is not the tone of
such coverage per se, but rather the quantity of coverage that leads to
negative public attitudes.

In any event, remarkably few studies examine the issue of science
literacy and support for science directly. One survey (Durant & Evans,
1989) compared British and American survey respondents on both knowledge
and support for science. While British citizens were less knowledgeable
across the range of science questions, they were generally more
supportive of increasing government spending on science.

In general, the public has not been portrayed as understanding a great
deal about science. Exactly what kinds of knowledge will lead to
increased science support is unclear. The public\'s familiarity with
issues of science varies across domains, with understanding of theory
and method being especially low (Durant, Evans, & Thomas, 1989).
Additionally, it is unclear how changes in one domain of knowledge
affect other domains. It may be that people generalize from specific
science topics to the more general domain of scientific inquiry.
Consistent with this notion, Durant, Evans, and Thomas (1992) find that
people's understanding of medicine influences their overall evaluation
of science.

Research from an audience perspective can examine the characteristics of
science writing that leads to greater learning or more accurate
inferences about science. Bostian (1983: Bostian & Byrne, 1984) finds
that science writing in the active voice is easier to comprehend as
compared to other styles. Intriguingly, greater comprehension fails to
translate into enhanced reader recall of story material. Friend, Karsch,
and Siegal (1989) investigate how different approaches to science
newspaper reading would affect the learning of high school students
about science. Reading the articles leads to greater learning in
comparison to a verbal presentation or to reading in conjunction with
supporting materials.

Studies on the use of reading aids suggests that their effectiveness may
hinge upon the nature of the audience. Different audiences may benefit
more from the use of analogies as compared to examples in science
writing (Funkhouser & Maccoby, 1973). Grunig (1974) also finds that
analogies stimulate thinking and understanding, but only for readers who
believe that an article\'s content is relevant. Hunsaker (1979) examines
the effects of systematically varying science news articles in terms of
language simplicity. While subjects learn equally from simpler versus
complex writing styles, enjoyment is greater for the simpler style.
O'Dowdey (1987) attempts to uncover the rhetorical techniques of science
"celebrities," both through content analysis of their writing and
through personal interviews with the scientists. She finds there are
common writing strategies used by the authors.

### How favorable are the publics\' attitudes towards science?

Lewenstein (1992) wonders whether some science literacy efforts are less
concerned with the outcome of public understanding of science than in
improving the public's attitude toward science, at least during the
period following World War II. As suggested earlier, despite the
importance of this topic, there have been few attempts to quantify the
impact of science coverage and education on the attitudes of the public
toward science.

While many assume that the attitudes of the population toward science
are favorable, Schibeci (1990) finds that over one-third of his sample
expresses ambivalent feelings toward science. Moreover, a large majority
believe that scientists lack concern about the future of the world.
Consistent with other research, this study finds widespread ignorance of
science.

Some authors offer suggestions for reducing the numbers of individuals
who lack an interest in or who are uninformed about science. Morrison
(1992) suggests that science be portrayed more like sports. He argues
that sports has quick closure, a certain winner, and a score at the end
that identifies winners and losers. Furthermore, the world of sports has
stars and heroes. He notes that sports reporting is quantitative, while
science reporting rarely is. Sports has real-time competition with
uncertain outcomes. And sports are almost wholly perceived with unaided
human senses. He concludes that science must overcome these perceptual
barriers and make more inviting the instruments and scales of science.
Science should be personalized, and emphasis should be placed upon its
giants and heroes (Morrison, 1992). As a counterpoint, LaFollette (1990)
writes, "Science is in fact ready-made for presentation as drama; it has
suspense, action, and resolution, and the early popularizers
enthusiastically exploited these characteristics" (p. 111).

### What is known about science communication and risk?

The study of risk provides an intersection between traditional media
research and other important disciplines, such as psychology, sociology,
and anthropology. Particularly within psychology an active
sub-discipline has concerned itself with decision-making under
uncertainty and perceptions of risk (Krimsky, 1982).

Many studies in science communication deal with audience responses to
risk information. The reasons for this are obvious. Scientific
discoveries can help people to avoid health threats (encouraging people
to eat better, exercise more), detect threats (new technologies can help
with early diagnosis of disease or illness), identify threats (link
radon, power lines, or smoking to cancer), or even introduce new threats
(meltdowns at nuclear power plants). The press plays an important role
in delivering information about risk to the public and a good deal of
research has dealt with how audiences respond to such information.

There seems to be broad agreement that a distinction can be made between
the "objective reality" of risks, as evidenced by statistical estimates
from experts, and social perceptions of risk (Bradbury, 1989, Golding,
1992; Renn, 1992). The divergence of the two may be, in part, an issue
of the extent and the way in which risk is covered by the press
(Viscusi, 1992).

Papers dealing with risk issues cover a diverse set of phenomena.
Prominent are coverage of the Chernobyl incident and other nuclear
issues (Burkett, 1986; Dunwoody & Rossow, 1989; Nimmo & Combs, 1985;
Norstedt, 1991; Peters, 1992; Peters, Albrecht, Hennen, & Stegelmann,
1990; Rossow & Dunwoody, 1991; Rothman & Lichter, 1987; Stephens &
Edison, 1982), AIDS and HIV precautions (Dunwoody & Neuwirth, 1991;
Singer, Rogers, & Glassman, 1991; Stroman & Seltzer, 1989; Witte, 1995),
asbestos (Freimuth & Van Nevel (1981), radon (Ferguson & Valenti, 1991),
natural disasters like Mount St. Helens (Burkett, 1986) and earthquakes
(Atwood, 1998), the environment (Schoenfeld, 1979), technology generally
(Pilisuk & Acredolo, 1988), water safety (Griffin, Neuwirth, & Dunwoody,
1995; Kahlor, Dunwoody, & Griffin, 1998), and food safety (Juanillo &
Scherer, 1995), including pesticides, color additives, dioxin leaching
into milk from containers, and growth hormones in animals (Juanillo &
Scherer, 1995)[^1].

Whereas the literature on science communication often portrays the
reader as relatively passive and uninvolved, audiences for information
about risk are often portrayed as quite active (Grunig, 1974). For
example, in 1989 there were 250 organized boycotts of food products, up
from 100 to 150 in typical year (Juanillo & Scherer, 1995). Consumer
confidence about the safety of food dropped from 81% to 65% between
January and June of 1989 (Mueller, 1990). Policies about nuclear energy,
food irradiation, tobacco legislation, waste disposal, needle exchanges,
disease prevention, and many other concerns, are often more affected by
the perception of risk than by the quantified predictions of experts.
Perceptions of risk are affected not only by statistical probabilities,
but by feelings of dread about the threat, and by the extent to which
threat is well understood or unknown (Slovic, 1992).

Since any society must tolerate a degree of risk, "classical risk
communication essentially translates as advocacy for determining which
risks are acceptable" (Juanillo & Scherer, 1995, p. 278). When risks are
identified or labeled as concerns, stakeholders which include "experts,
policy makers, interest groups, and the general public" (Juanillo &
Scherer, 1995, p. 279) become involved in debates about policies that
are designed to increase safety. Media, though not explicitly mentioned
in the list, deserve a place at the table as well, because media
activities translate into social perceptions (Slovic, 1992; Viscusi,
1992).

Research suggests the relationship between reports of risk and audience
responses can be quite complex. Coverage may even influence audience
perceptions about issues only tangentially related to a story topic.
Johnson and Tversky (1983) present subjects in an experiment with news
stories about risks. Later, subjects exposed to the stories gave higher
estimates for different kinds of risk than did subjects who had not read
the articles. Moreover, they did so even for risks that were not
mentioned in the article. Morgan, Slovic, Nair, Geisler, MacGregor,
Fischoff, Lincoln and Florig (1985) give respondents a non-alarming
briefing about health effects of power line fields. The briefings
suggest that while much research has been done on power line fields, no
adverse health effects have been demonstrated. A retest shows that the
briefing, far from reassuring audiences, results in greater perceived
risks of fields, more dread, and a greater perception that fields are
likely to be fatal.

Such complicated responses to messages that inspire fear have long been
noted in the attitudes and pesuasion literature (Janis, 1967; Leventhal,
1970; McGuire, 1969). Witte (1995), influenced by Leventhal\'s (1970)
approach, recently has introduced a model of competing responses to risk
information that holds great promise for understanding how audiences
react to threats portrayed in media coverage.

## How is science policy made?

The study of how policies are developed and implemented is difficult
using the traditional methods of mass communication scholarship. Yet
this appears to be a vital area given the importance of science policy
as a dependent variable in models of science communication. Miller
(1986) lays out a hierarchy of groups of descending importance for
science policy that includes decision makers, policy leaders, attentive
public, interested public, and the non-attentive public. This approach
assumes that science policy is made by a small number of decision makers
who have the power to make binding decisions. "The decision makers for
science policy would include the president, relevant executive officers,
congressional leaders, and relevant committee and subcommittee chairs
and members. Judges may occasionally become science policy decision
makers" (Miller, 1986, p. 57).

Scientists themselves exist at the second level, the group known as
policy leaders. This includes persons from universities, corporations,
independent research centers, and media. They define the science policy
agenda, present policy requests to decision makers, and engage in
negotiations meant to resolve policy differences. When there is
agreement between the decision makers and the science policy leaders on
a matter, Miller suggests that policy decisions are made without the
need for wider public participation in the process.

There are three situations in which a broader segment of the public is
involved in public policy: when differences exist among science policy
leaders over a specific issue, when agreement exists among science
policy leaders but decision makers reject specific policy demands, and
when issues become electoral issues (drinking water fluoridation). In
these instances, competing groups may seek to generate support among
science attentives, or even the general public.

Authors have examined the extent to which issues are covered as
scientific and technological versus philosophical or political. Altimore
(1982) contends that coverage of recombinant DNA in elite papers
emphasizes the former, while Kevles's (1998) analysis of the Baltimore
case emphasizes the latter. Molotch and Lester (1975) suggest that
coverage of an oil spill in California was heavily influenced by
information the government and industry wished to put forward, while
only the local paper gave equal coverage to environmental groups.

Special interests have also been examined. Anderson (1991) suggests
environmental groups are less effective in managing news coverage than
they might be. Griffin and Dunwoody (1995) find only modest outcomes of
efforts by an environmental group to get newspaper coverage of pollution
issues through information subsidies. Sachsman (1976) finds that
government and interest group publicity efforts are influential in
coverage of environmental issues in California. Grunig and colleagues
test their "situational theory" of public relations in the context of
environmental activism. Activists in the environmental movement appear
to be those with high levels of interest in a problem and high levels of
efficacy about their ability to influence policy (Grunig, 1989a, 1989b,
L. A. Grunig, 1989).

Kauffman (1991) presents a case analysis of the relationship between
science publicity efforts and funding in his review of the manned space
program. He suggests that these efforts were ultimately successful in
ensuring funding for the program. However, Kiernan (1998) takes a less
favorable look at more recent NASA publicity efforts in research on
Martian meteorites, and suggests that NASA efforts to generate support
for space travel via publicity about \"Martian life\" may have
backfired.

At a philosophical level, questions have been raised about how the
influence of politics may distort the scientific process. Mellican
(1992) argues that commercialization of scientific research has
shattered the effectiveness of traditional scientific norms. Other
authors (Prewitt, 1982; Yankelovich, 1982) suggest that greater public
involvement in the scientific process is inevitable, and that science
would do well to anticipate this involvement.

# Suggestions for future directions in science communication

As this review makes clear, both great progress and continued problems
are present in science communication. This brief critique is offered as
a foundation for the next section, which details suggestions for future
directions in science communication research. I begin with a brief
review of what others have suggested should be the priorities of science
communication scholarship

## What are the priorities for science communication scholarship?

As indicated in the introduction to this paper, one important purpose is
to set an agenda for the future of science communication scholarship.
Major questions include:

-   What are the important issues for the discipline?

-   What deficiencies exist in the current approach to science
    communication?

-   Where can scholars most productively turn their attention in over
    the next twenty years?

Some of the scholars reviewed herein have raised important issues and
these are reviewed briefly before I turn to a final set of
recommendations. Lewenstein (1992) raises these issues for future
research:

-   What does the public perceive when it encounters science?

-   What methods of news production are most suitable for informing the
    public?

-   And what training is most appropriate for science communicators?

Miller suggests that greater attention be paid to the attentive public,
which he sees as the critical group in determining science policy:

> While I believe that the improvement of the scientific literacy of the
> attentive public is the highest priority for scientific communication,
> the improvement of scientific literacy among the interested and
> nonattentive publics is also desirable . . . Efforts to increase the
> scientific literacy of the nonattentive public face formidable
> barriers, because the nonattentive public is not interested in
> scientific and technological matters. If a magazine article or a
> television show deals with science or technology, the nonattentive
> public may not even read or view it. So a major communication task in
> regard to this segment of the population is to persuade them that it
> is important to be scientifically literate. An increase in the volume
> of science programming or articles will have little effect on the
> nonattentive citizen until he or she first develops an interest in the
> subject area" (Miller, 1986, pp. 66-67).

Hartz and Chappell (1997) in their recent review suggest the following:

-   Scientists should demonstrate the relevance of their research to
    people \"walking the street.\" They argue that the nation is in
    danger of losing science funding because the American taxpayer
    doesn't really understand what the investment in research and
    development is buying.

-   Scientists should \"take initiative and open a dialogue with
    reporters and editors in their own communities.\"

-   Scientists should receive media training that addresses special
    needs of scientists. When addressing the public, their remarks
    should be prepared carefully, perhaps with help from public
    information specialists. Messages provided to the public should be
    kept simple and stay \"on strategy.\" The authors even suggest that
    scientists be required to take a course in undergraduate speech
    communication.

-   Scientists should develop long-term relationships with reporters.

-   The science community should expand its Internet resources
    significantly.

-   Science journals should find ways to indicate which articles they
    publish are most noteworthy.

-   Journalists should endeavor to help publics to become more literate.

-   Reporters and news organizations should attend to the current
    \"crisis\" of media credibility. They should give a public what it
    wants, particularly more science stories.

-   Reporters should be careful to prepare for interviews with
    scientists and not ask uninformed questions.

-   The issue of bolstering the science backgrounds of reporters is left
    unresolved. However, they do advocate that reporters should be more
    clear about whether research has been peer reviewed.

-   Use of a second source should be more habitual in science reporting.

## My own suggestions for scholars

In this section I present some of my own recommendations for science
communication. My hope is that this review has identified important
questions that can profit from the attention of science communicators
and scholars.

### Problem: The isolation of science communication scholarship

A characteristic of the science communication literature that may
inhibit greater understanding is the somewhat isolated nature of the
research. For example, issues that may appear to be unique problems to
science communicators seem quite related to concerns from other areas of
mass communication. An example of this is the notion of a
\"science-illiterate\" public. While it is doubtless true that the
public knows very little about science, it seems equally true that this
illiteracy is not restricted to science. Political communication
scholars dating back to Converse (1964, 1970) bemoan the lack of
knowledge and consistency that people show about their political
environments, politicians, issues, and political events. Ignorance
flourishes despite the fact that political topics receive substantially
heavier coverage in newspapers than does science. In addition, reporters
typically are quite familiar with politics, and often have college
coursework in political science.

Americans appear pretty ignorant in other areas too. Popular books
assure us that Americans don\'t know much about history (Davis, 1991),
geography (Davis, 1993), computers (Gookin, 1997), mathematics (Paulos,
1988; 1995), or almost any specialty area. In fact, the books by Davis
(*Don\'t know much about history, Don\'t know much about geography*),
and Gookin (*PC\'s for dummies*) are marketed on the basis that a) a
mass audience exists that lacks almost any understanding of the topic
area and b) this audience is happy to acknowledge its ignorance. Most of
the science that is relevant to people\'s lives is considerably more
complex than operating a computer or understanding the basics of
history.

The field of political communication may have other useful ideas for
science communication scholars. Excellent texts exist that provide
detailed information about what people do when they encounter
information about politics (see for example, Graber, 1988). This
literature can provide rich hypotheses concerning the incentives that
people have for learning about science, their strategies for selecting
and processing science information, and the kinds of schemata they use
to interpret and store science information. These remain core issues for
science communication.

Political scientists and politically oriented psychologists have
developed the concept of political expertise, which refers to
individuals with relatively greater levels of knowledge about the world
of politics. This approach is similar in some ways to that of Miller
(1986) and the attentive public. However, whereas the attentive public
is defined in terms of the group\'s motives for information, expertise
is a cognitive variable. The question for an attentive public is what
information do they want so that they can learn more? The question for a
science expert is where and how did he or she acquire information that
permits such high levels of understanding. Knowledge about the
psychology of experts can help us to better understand how literacy can
be improved among less expert publics.

In the same way, the growing areas of health communication, social
marketing, and public relations scholarship may offer insights, models,
and theories that address core questions of science communication. To
consider just a few examples, several models in the health communication
literature attempt to model the motivations for a decision maker to seek
or not seek information about personal health. These models, including
Rogers (1975, 1983) protection motivation theory and Janz and Becker\'s
(1984) health belief model, suggest constructs (perceived barriers,
personal efficacy, perceived vulnerability, threat severity) that may
also play a role in a person\'s decision to seek information about
science and technology. In addition, these disciplines would doubtless
benefit greatly from measures, constructs, and approaches developed by
science communication scholars.

### Problem: What is science news?

The label \"science news" is used to describe a number of discrete, and,
in some cases, quite diverse phenomena. The scientist who believes that
science news is predominantly concerned with presenting news of
cutting-edge research or new journal research findings is likely to be
sadly disappointed. While it is true that these things qualify as
science news, they do not seem to be representative examples of science
news. Instead, science \"news\" is coverage of some real-world
phenomenon (this year\'s favorite being \"El Nino\"). The existence of
El Nino is, in itself, not \"science,\" any more than the fact that it
might rain tomorrow is science. Rather, the relationship of El Nino to
science is that news reporters and readers expect scientists to be able
to explain the phenomenon, and make predictions about its effects. The
scientist acts a source, in the same way that a political scientist is a
source for the outcome of a presidential debate, an investment banker is
a source for a story on changes in stock prices, and a feminist is a
source for an explanation of why women support President Clinton. The
point here is that in these instances, the audience is probably not
seeking to learn about political science, investment banking, or
feminism. Rather, they are interested in a functional explanation of
some issue or event that they find relevant to their lives, at least in
the short run. For these kinds of stories, it seems unlikely that
readers or viewers can expect to learn much of anything about science.

In fact, it is not even clear that viewers consider such stories to be
\"science\" stories. A story on a proposal to build a nuclear power
plant may be viewed as a political story, a big-business story, or an
economic story as easily as a science story. The importance of science
or scientists to many science-related stories may be quite small. For
example, recent coverage of lawsuits over breast implants and Gulf-war
diseases gave relatively little attention to scientific efforts at
determining whether victims have suffered injuries to any greater extent
than might be expected by chance (in both cases there was considerable
evidence that they had not). Science was a part of the stories, but just
a small part.

Even stories in which science played a far greater role, such as the
Apollo missions, might not have been interpreted within a science frame
by publics. The science of the Apollo flights was mixed with a healthy
dose of Cold War competition and national pride. Taking to heart
Ziman\'s notion that science communication scholarship be more
audience-centered, research should explore when and why science is the
predominant frame of an issue or story.

### Problem: Need for attention to media besides newspapers

Effects of newspapers as a medium of science communication have received
a great deal of attention. Unfortunately, other media are not so well
represented. Perhaps this reflects the print journalism backgrounds of
science communicators, or it may represent a belief that newspapers are
of great importance in bringing science to the public. It does not
detract from the importance of newspapers to suggest that the science
communication effects of other media should be an increasing area of
study.

Among the media that deserve greater attention are television, radio,
and most especially, books. The popularity and prevalence of quite
sophisticated books on science topics suggests that there is definitely
an audience interested in science issues.

-   Who are the readers of these books?

-   What are they learning?

-   What is the quality of science in such books?

-   What are the opinions of readers of science books about science
    policy?

-   Are science book readers interested in specialty areas of science,
    or science generally?

In addition, science communication scholars should be at the vanguard of
exploring the potential of new media technologies. These technologies
hold great promise for bringing information about science to the
interested and attentive publics. It is almost trite acknowledge the
great potential of the World Wide Web, but there are several reasons to
believe the Web holds special promise for science communication:

1.  The Web allows sources to communicate directly with audiences.

2.  The Web allows communicators to develop ideas in greater detail and
    complexity.

3.  The Web allows communicators to illustrate and demonstrate.

4.  The Web allows for two-way communication between source and public.

> I will elaborate on each of these ideas in turn.

[Direct communication]{.underline}.

The conflicts reviewed in this paper that occur between journalists and
scientists are, for the near future, not likely to change. Reporters and
scientists have very different values and motives for science news. In
the end, this may be quite healthy. It is not the reporter\'s job to
\"sell\" science anymore than it is the scientist\'s job to sell
newspapers.

The Web allows the scientist interested in fostering science literacy to
reach audiences in a direct, inexpensive way. The presentations of
scientific information can be as simple or complex as the scientist
wishes. Indeed, the Web makes it easy to transmit multiple messages on
the same topic, allowing audiences to select the one with which they are
most comfortable. The need to link ongoing events to a news peg is
unnecessary with the Web.

The Web also can be a tremendous resource for journalists who report on
science. Well-constructed sites would allow reporters to bolster their
understanding of science, and to report on science in a more accurate
fashion.

It is worth remembering that the Internet originated in an effort to
increase communications among scientists and researchers. It continues
to play this important role today. The extent to which Internet
communications foster collaboration, data and idea exchange, news
groups, and informal dialog among scientists is almost taken for
granted. Yet this is an important and under-researched topic in science
communication.

[Detail and complexity]{.underline}.

The World Wide Web helps to overcome a limitation present in almost all
major media: limits of the news hole. Space and time are infinitely
precious commodities in print and broadcast media. However computer
storage is, by comparison, limitless. As an example, Microsoft has
recently put online satellite images at the city block level of the
entire United States. This huge database hints at the different nature
of space on the Web.

Space is important because science stories, as suggested in this review,
often require considerable background. Should the reader encounter
terms, concepts, ideas, or individuals with which he or she is not
familiar, he or she can click links to provide this context. Other
readers, familiar with the same terms and ideas, can simply read through
the article unimpeded.

[Illustrate and demonstrate]{.underline}.

The Web holds great potential for teaching science because it is a
versatile and useful pedagogical tool. Well-known sites already permit
students to dissect a frog and to view the human body. Simulations of
this kind are impossible to match outside of a computer medium or a
laboratory. The messages carried by the Web are most commonly found in
print form today. But increasing bandwidth will bring increased
capabilities to provide messages in alternative formats. Science will
benefit tremendously by using a medium that permits message receivers to
\"do\" science as well as read about it.

[Two-way communication]{.underline}

The Web allows scientists to interact with interested publics. For those
scientists committed to developing and fostering children\'s interest in
science, the Web offers a unique way to educate and inspire. Among the
best examples of how this is already being done are: *Ask Dr. Universe*
([www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse](http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse)), *The Mad
Scientist Network* ([www.madsci.org)](), *Ask an Expert: Science and
Technology*
([www.askanexpert.com/askanexpert/catscitec.shtml)](http://www.askanexpert.com/askanexpert/catscitec.shtml)),
and *The Junk Science Homepage* ([www.junkscience.com)]().

The Web also can be used to make available expert sources to reporters
working on science stories. As suggested in this report, journalists
sometimes use a limited number of sources in part because of ignorance
about who to contact. Sites on the Web could be used to help reporters
contact recognized experts quickly and efficiently. E-mail
correspondence may reduce errors in reporting the opinions of scientists
and technology experts as well.

A general enthusiasm for the capabilities of the World Wide Web should
not obscure the challenges that the medium presents. A potential
downside is that the medium allows almost anyone to act as a source.
Scientific issues may be addressed by a range of groups and individuals,
only some of whom possess scientific credentials. Research reports may
be presented without benefit of peer review or close scrutiny. What will
be the potential ramifications of these things should they occur?

### Problem: A multitude of outcomes and untested assumptions

Science communicators have mapped out an ambitious agenda. It would be a
tremendous oversimplification to say that the field of science
communication is concerned only with what people learn about science.
This is a central problem and scholars working on this issue can benefit
from theories of learning and cognition.

Mass media, and especially newspapers, have been assigned a prominent
role in dealing with issues of science literacy. Science communicators
may wish to examine this assumption more closely. Given the limitations
of news coverage, how likely is it, according to theories of learning
and memory, that people can reasonably be expected to understand the
complex ideas of science? If a more literate public is the goal, are
mass media really the solution? If so, is their relevance primarily at
the level of pedagogy, or can their contribution take place in some
other way (i.e., inspiring further information seeking, guidance to
other resources, enhancing attitudes towards science, etc.)?

Because publics can choose the kinds of information to which they will
expose themselves, science communicators also have studied questions of
when and how people learn. These issues of attention and exposure draw
from traditions in persuasion, social psychology, and mass
communication. A larger role for exposure and information seeking models
such as theories of selective attention and selective exposure (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993), uses and gratifications, and other motivational
approaches to media consumption (for example, Zillmann, 1991) seems
warranted. As suggested earlier, models from health communication and
political communication that specify the motivations related to
information seeking may benefit science communicators as well.

Science communication research has long been concerned with what people
do with the knowledge they gain from media. This strong record of
achievement is most clear in the area of risk communication, where
investigations try to discover how people react to information about
technological threats. More research might be devoted to how people use
other kinds of science knowledge. For example, how do people use
information about health, product innovation, psychological well-being,
nutrition, and other topics that do not necessarily or directly involve
risk. And how should science activities with no immediate payoff be
conceptualized? The literature is unclear on how people evaluate basic
scientific activities. Some advocate that audiences are only interested
in science with immediate relevance, while others believe the public has
great tolerance for quality science with no payoff other than a greater
understanding of the world or universe.

Even learning, as defined above, is too restrictive for representing
science communication scholarship. A broad set of attitudinal questions
is also present in the literature. These questions concern how people
form attitudes towards science, scientists, technology and specific
technologies, funding of science, science education, and science policy.
Attitudinal and opinion issues such as these find their intellectual
roots in persuasion theory, in theories of public opinion, and in
political science. Especially important and useful would be efforts to
link specific science and technology attitudes to the types of knowledge
that people have about science.

A prevalent assumption in the literature is that high levels of
knowledge correspond to favorable attitudes towards science. But this
appears to be more an article of faith than an empirically supported
fact. It may be just as logical to assume that moderately high levels of
knowledge are associated with anti-science attitudes. It does not seem
unreasonable to hypothesize that environmentalists, anti-nuclear
activists, opponents of cloning and genetic research, animal rights
protesters, humanists, and others who express narrow or broad opposition
to scientific research efforts, will actually possess greater levels of
understanding of science and the scientific method than will members of
the non-attentive public. This is not to say that these groups possess
high levels of understanding, merely that they have at least some
understanding, if for no other reason than because they are frequently
forced to defend their beliefs. A little knowledge can be a dangerous
thing. This prediction suggests there may be a curvilinear (U-shaped)
relation between science knowledge and science attitudes. At the very
least, if science communication is concerned with the kinds of knowledge
that foster greater appreciation of science, it also must be concerned
with the kinds of knowledge that foster anti-science sentiments.

Attitudinally related questions should also be more specifically framed.
One\'s general attitude toward science (i.e., \"science is good\") may
be very different from attitudes towards specific issues (cloning, space
exploration), scientists (\"odd characters,\" \"role models\"), general
science support (\"we are spending enough on science now\"), and
specific support (\"we need to spend less on AIDS research and more on
cancer,\" or \"we should fund a greater number of modest physics
experiments and fewer big experiments,\" or \"too much money is spent on
medical research and not enough on chemical research\"). Understanding
the cognitive map of people\'s beliefs and attitudes about science would
give us a much better understanding of science publics. Attention should
be given to the implicit notion described by Ziman's deficiency model,
namely that knowledge  attitude  funding. A failure to find such
predicted links would confirm that issues of science literacy and
support are quite different, and should be treated as distinct problems.

Science communication research has examined many sociological and
public-policy questions. These include the sociology of news, factors
affecting the behavior of reporters, sources, news organizations,
scientists, and news publics. Increasingly, scholarship in this area is
examining the impact that non-scientists have on science-related
questions. This is an extremely important area of research, because it
is centrally related to science policy. What role do activists play in
science communication? How do Miller\'s (1986) decision makers obtain
their science news? How is science policy made? When does the public
play a role in science policy? What issues do policy makers contend with
in decisions to support science and specific research activities? How do
journalists balance their needs for close working relationships with
scientists with their needs for autonomy? Do journalistic norms for the
coverage of government and policy makers hinder or enhance the quality
of coverage of scientists? What is the effect of a reporter\'s own
science literacy on his or her coverage of science, selection of
stories, choice of sources, and quality of reporting?

Science communication has immeasurably enhanced our knowledge not only
about how science information is communicated, but also about mass
communication processes more generally. This healthy and vibrant area of
scholarship is likely to become even more central to the discipline. The
special challenges presented by communicating the complex and important
issues of science will only grow in importance heading into the next
century.

# References Consulted

Albert, E. (1986). Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: The victim and
the press. In T. McCormack (Ed.), Studies in communications (Vol. 3, pp.
135-158). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Althoff, P. Greig, W. H., & Stuckey, F. (1973). Environmental pollution
control attitudes of media managers in Kansas. Journalism Quarterly, 50,
666-672.

Altimore, M. (1982). The social construction of a scientific
controversy: Comments on press coverage of the recombinant DNA debate.
Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7, 24-31.

Anderson, A. (1991). Source strategies and the communication of
environmental affairs. Media, Culture and Society, 13, 459-476.

Angell, M. (1996). Science on trial: The clash of medical evidence. New
York: W. W. Norton.

Altheide, D. L. (1976). Creating reality: How TV news distorts events.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Atkin, C. K. Research evidence on mass mediated health communication
campaigns. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 3, pp.
655-668). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Atwater, T. (1988). Reader interest in environmental news. Newspaper
Research Journal, 10, 31-38.

Atwater, T., Salwen, M. B., & Anderson, R. B. (1985). Media
agenda-setting with environmental issues. Journalism Quarterly, 62,
393-397.

Atwood, L. E. (1998, August). Risk perception and information management
responses to a predicted earthquake. Paper presented to the SCI Group,
Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Bader, R. G. (1990). How science news sections influence newspaper
science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 88-96.

Baker, A. J. (1986). The portrayal of AIDS in the media: An analysis of
articles in the *New York Times*. In D. A. Feldman & T. M. Johnson
(eds.), The social dimension of AIDS: Method and theory (pp. 179-194).
New York: Praeger Publishers.

Banks, J., & Tankel, J. D. (1990). Science as fiction: Technology in
prime time television. Critical Studies in mass communication, 7, 24-36.

Belak, E. R. (1972). The outdoor magazines revisited. Journal of
Environmental Education, 4, 15-19.

Bendix, J. & Liebler, C. M. (1991). Environmental degradation in
Brazilian Amazonia: Perspectives in U. S. new media. Professional
Geographer, 43, 474-485.

Biagi, S. (1998). Media impact. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The discoverers: A history of man\'s search to
know his world and himself. New York: Random House.

Breed, W. (1980). The newspaperman, news, and society. New York: Arno
Press.

Borman, S. C. (1978). Communication accuracy in magazine science
reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 345-346.

Bostian, L. R. (1983). How active, passive and nominal styles affect
readability of science writing. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 635-640, 670.

Bostian, L. R., & Byrne, T. E. (1984). Comprehension of styles of
science writing. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 676-678.

Bowes, J. E., & Stamm, K. R. (1972). Communicating during an
environmental decision. Journal of Environmental Education, 3, 49-55.

Bowes, J. E., & Stamm, K. R. (1979). Science writing techniques and
methods. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 2-11.

Bowman, J. S. (1978). American daily newspapers and the environment.
Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 25-28.

Bowman, J. S. & Hanaford, K. (1977). Mass media and the environment
since Earth Day. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 160-165.

Bradbury, J. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of
risk. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14, 380-399.

Broberg, K. (1973). Scientists' stopping behavior as indicator of
writer's skill. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 763-767.

Brown, M. L., & Potosky, A. L. (1990). The presidential effect: The
public health response to media coverage about Ronald Reagan's colon
cancer episode. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 317-329.

Burgess, J., Harrison, C., & Maiteny, P. (1991). Contested meanings: The
consumption of news about nature conservation. Media, Culture & Society,
13, 499-519.

Burgoon, M., Burgoon, J. K., & Wilkinson, M. (1981). Dimensions and
readership of newspaper content. Newspaper Research Journal, 3, 74-93.

Burkett, W. (1986). News reporting: Science, medicine, and high
technology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Burnham, J. (1987). How superstition won and science lost: Popularizing
science and health in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Caudill, E. (1989). The roots of bias: An empiricist press and coverage
of the Scopes Trial. Journalism Monographs (114).

Caudill, E. (1987). A content analysis of press views of Darwin's
Evolution Theory. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 782-786.

Caudill, E., & Ashtown, P. (1989). The *New England Journal of Medicine*
as news source. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 458-462.

Cole, B. J. (1975). Trends in science and conflict coverage in four
metropolitan newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 465-471.

Collins, H. M. (1987). Certainty and the public understanding of
science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 689-713.

Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: The continuation of
a dialogue. In E. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social
problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In
D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

Council of Scientific Society Presidents (1991). Bridging the
communication gap: A wingspread conference on strengthening the link
between scientists and journalists. Washington: Council of Scientific
Society Presidents.

Cousteau, J. (1986). Whales. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Crane, V. (1992). Listening to the audience: Producer-audience
communication. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Crisis Public Relations (1991). Special issue of Public Relations
Review, 17.

Crisp, D. W. (1986). Scientists and the local press. In S. M. Friedman,
S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists:
Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press.

Cronholm, M. & Rolf, S. (1981). Scientific information: A review of
research. Journal of Communication, 31, 85-96.

Culbertson, H. M., & Stempel, G. H. (1985). "Media malaise": Explaining
personal optimism and societal pessimism about health care. Journal of
Communication, 35, 180-190.

Culbertson, H. M., & Stempel, G. H. (1984). Possible barriers to agenda
setting in medical news. Newspaper Research Journal, 5, 53-60.

David, P. (1996). Role of imagery in recall of deviant news. Journalism
and Mass

Communication Quarterly, Winter, 804-819.

Davis, K. G. (1993). Don\'t know much about history. New York: Avon.

Davis, K. G. (1993). Don\'t know much about geography. New York: Avon.

Dearing, J. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating
controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, Vol 4.

Dearing, J. W. (1989). Setting the polling agenda for the issue of AIDS.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 309-329.

Dennis, E., & McCartney, J. (1979). Science journalists on metropolitan
dailies. Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 10-11.

Dornan, C. (1988). The "problem" of science and media: A few seminal
texts in their context, 1956-1965. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 12,
53-70.

Dornan, C. (1990). Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of
"science and the media." Critical studies in Mass Communication, 7,
48-71.

Dubas, O., & Martel, L. (1975). Media impact: A research study on
science communication. Ottawa: Ministry of State.

Dunwoody, S. (1992). Comparative strategies for making the complex
clear. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dunwoody, S. (1986a). When science writers cover the social sciences. In
J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dunwoody, S. (1986b). The scientist as source. In S. M. Friedman, S.
Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting
science as news. New York: Free Press.

Dunwoody, S. (1982). A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, PC-25, 196-199.

Dunwoody, S. (1979). News-gathering behaviors of specialty reporters: A
two-level comparison of mass media decision-making. Newspaper Research
Journal, 1, 29-41.

Dunwoody, S. (1980). The science writing inner club: A communication
link between science and the lay public. Science, technology, & human
values, 5, 14-22.

Dunwoody, S. & Ryan, M. (1983). Public information persons as mediators
between scientists and journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 647-656.

Durant, J. & Evans, G. A. (1989). Understanding of science in Britain
and the U. S. A. In R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, & L. Brook (Eds.),
British Social Attitudes: Special International Report. Aldershot:
Gower.

Durant, J., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1992). Public understanding
of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular
representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161-182.

Durant, J. Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). Public understanding of
science. *Nature*, 340, 11-14.

Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Einsiedel, E. F. (1992). Framing science and technology in the Canadian
Press. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 89-101.

Eliott, W. R., & Rosenberg, W. L. (1987). Media exposure and beliefs
about science and technology. Communication Research, 14, 164-188.

Entwistle, V. & Hancock-Beaulieu, M. (1992). Health and medical coverage
in the UK National Press. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 164-188.

Evans, W. A., Krippendorf, M., Yoon, J. H., Posluszny, P., & Thomas, S.
(1990). Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social
Science Quarterly, 71, 105-117.

Eron, L. D. (1986). The social responsibility of the scientist. IJ. H.
Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Evered, D. & O'Connor, M. (1987). Communicating science to the public.
Chichester, England: Wiley/Ciba Foundation.

Ferris, T. (1997). The whole shebang: A state-of-the-universe(s) report.
New York: Touchstone.

Fico, F., & Soffin, S. (1995). Fairness and balance of selected
newspaper coverage of controversial national, state, and local issues.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, ,621-633.

Friedman, S. M. (1986). The journalist's world. In S. M. Friedman, S.
Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting
science as news. New York: Free Press.

Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. & Rogers, C. L. (1986). Introduction. In
S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and
journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press.

Friemuth, V. S., Greenberg, R. H. DeWitt, J., & Romano, R. M. (1984).
Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of
Communication, 34, 62-73.

Friemuth, V. S. & Van Nevel, J. P. (1981). Reaching the public: The
asbestos awareness campaign. Journal of Communication, 31, 155-167.

Fuller, J. (1996). News values: Ides for an informaiton age. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what's news. New York: Random House.

Ganz, C. (1976). The role of scientific communication in the process of
technological in*Nova*tion. Aslib Proceedings, 28, 385-391.

Geiber, W. (1960). Two communicators of the news: A study of the roles
of sources and reporters. Social Forces, 39, 76-83.

Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public
conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The
\"mainstreaming\" of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of
Communication, 30, 10-29.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.

Glynn, C. J. (1988). Science reporters and their editors judge
"sensationalism." Newspaper Research Journal, 6, 69-74.

Goldman, , S. L. (1989). Images of technology in popular films:
Discussion and filmography. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14,
275-301.

Goldstein, J. H. (1986). Social science, journalism, and public policy.
In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Golding, D. (1992). A social and programmatic history of risk research.
In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport,
CT: Praeger.

Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. Boston: Little, Brown, &
Company.

Gookin, D. (1997). PC\'s for dummies. New York: IDG.

Gorney, C. M. (1992). Numbers versus pictures: Did network television
sensationalize Chernobyl coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 455-465.

Gould, S. J. (1995). Dinosaur in a haystack: Reflections in natural
history. New York: Crown.

Graber, D. A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the
information tide. New York: Longman.

Greenberg, M. R., Sachsman, D. B., Sandman, P. M., & Salomone, K. L.
(1989). Risk, drama and geography in coverage of environmental risk by
network TV. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 267-276.

Greenberg, M. R., Sandman, P. M. Sachsman, D. B., & Salomone, K. L.
(1989). Network television news coverage of environmental risks.
Environment, 31, 16-20, 40-44.

Greenberg, M. R. & Wartenberg, D. (1990). Network television evening
news coverage of infectious disease events. Journalism Quarterly, 67,
142-146.

Greenberg, R. H., Freimuth, V. S., & Bratick, E. (1979). A content
analytic study of daily newspaper coverage of cancer. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),
Communication Yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 645-654). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.

Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication,
culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.

Griffin, R. J. (1990). Energy in the eighties: Education, communication,
and the knowledge gap. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 554-566.

Griffin, R. J., & Dunwoody, S. (1995). Impacts of information subsidies
and community structure on local press coverage of environmental
contamination. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 271-284.

Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., & Dunwoody, S. (1995). Using the theory of
reasoned action to examine the impact of health risk messages.
Communication Yearbook 18 (pp. 201-238), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Groebel, J. (1986). Determinants of science reporting in Europe. In J.
H. Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grube, A., & Boehme-Duerr, K. (1988). AIDS in International News
Magazines. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 686-689.

Grunig, J. E. (1989a). Sierra club study shows who become activists.
Public Relations Review, 15, 3-24.

Grunig, J. E. (1989b). A situational theory of environmental issues,
publics, and activists. In L. Grunig (Ed.), Monographs in environmental
education and environmental studies, 5, 50-82.

Grunig, J. E. (1983). Research on science communication: What is known
and what needs to be known. Journalism Monographs, 81.

Grunig, J. E. (1979). Research on science communication: What is known
and what needs to be known. The ACE Quarterly, 62, 17-45.

Grunig, J. E. (1974). Three stopping experiments on the communication of
science. Journalism Quarterly, 51, 387-399.

Hartz, J. & Chappell, R. (1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between
science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville: First
Amendment Center

Hawking, S. W. (1988). A brief history of time: From the big bang to
black holes. New York: Bantam.

Hawkins, R. P., Pingree, S., & Adler, I. (1987). Searching for cognitive
processes in the cultivation effect: Adult and adolescent samples in the
United States and Australia. Human Communication Research, 13, 553-577.

Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social
problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
53-78.

Hornig, S. (1992). Framing risk: Audience and reader factors. Journalism
Quarterly, 69, 679-690.

Hornig, S. (1990a). Science stories: Risk, power, and perceived
emphasis. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 767-776.

Hornig, S. (1990b). Television's *NOVA* and the construction of
scientific truth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 11-23.

Hornig, S. (1989). News frames and the nature of truth: The effects of
quotation use and controversy in stories about science. Southwester Mass
Communication journal, 5, 41-49.

Howard, H. H., Blick, E., & Quarles, J. P. (1987). Media choices for
specialized news. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 620-623.

Hunsaker, A. (1979). Enjoyment and information gain in science articles.
Journalism Quarterly, 56, 617-619.

Ismach, A. H., & Dennis, E. (1978). A profile of newspaper and
television reporters in a metropolitan setting. Journalism Quarterly,
55, 741.

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? : How Television Frames
Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jacoby, J. (1980). Miscomprehension of televised communications. New
York: Educational Foundation of the American Association of Advertising
Agencies.

Janis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent
developments in theory and experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade
later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47.

Jerome, F. (1986). Prospects for science journalism. In J. H. Goldstein
(Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Johnson, K. G. (1963). Dimensions of judgment of science news stories.
Journalism Quarterly, 40, 315-322.

Jones, G., & Meadows, J. (1978). Sources and selecton of scientific
material for newspaper and radio programs. Journal of Research
Communication Studies, 1, 69-82.

Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (1998, August). The role of
attribution and framing in rationalizing about risk estimates. Paper
presented to the SCI Group, Association for Journalism and Mass
Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Karpf, A. (1988). Doctoring the media: The reporting of health and
medicine. London: Routledge.

Kauffman, J. (1991). NASA's PR Campaign on behalf of manned space
flight, 1961-63. Public Relations Review, 17, 57-68.

Kevles, K. J. (1998). The Baltimore case: A trial of politics, science,
and character. New York: W. W. Norton.

Kidd, J. S. (1989. The popularization of science II: Patterns of topical
coverage. Scientometrics, 15, 241-255.

Kiernan, V. (1998, August). Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on
dissemination of science news. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
Baltimore.

Klaidman, S. (1991). Health in the headlines: The stories behind the
stories. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kleinman, D. L. & Kloppenburg, J. (1991). Aiming for the discursive high
ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology controversy. Sociological Forum,
6, 427-447.

Kiernan, V. (1998, August). The Mars meteorite: A case study in controls
on dissemination of science news. Paper presented to the Science
Communication Interest Group at the annual convention of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore.

Krieghbaum, H. (1967). Science and the mass media. New York: NYU Press.

Koren, G., & Klein, N. (1991). Bias against negative studies in
newspaper reports of medical research. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 266, 1824-1826.

LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of
science 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larsen, J. A. (1973). Science, communications, society. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 5, 21-22.

Larson, M. A., Zimmerman, D. & Scherer, C. (1982). Communication
behavior by environmental activists compared to non-active persons.
Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 11-20.

Lassahn, P. H. (1967). Comparison of judgments about agricultural
science news. Journalism Quarterly, 44, 702-707.

Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear
communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 5). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lewenstein, B. V., Allaman, T., & Parthasarathy, S. (1998, August).
Historical survey of media coverage of biotechnology in the United
States: 1970 to 1996. Paper presented to the Science Communication
Interest Group at the annual convention of the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore.

Lewenstein, B. V. (1992). Introduction. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When
science meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Liebler, C. M., & Bendix, J. (1997, August). How distant the forest?
Proximity, environmental controversy and source status conferral. Paper
presented to the SCI Group, Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, Chicago.

Lispari, L. (1996). Journalistic authority: Textual strategies of
legitimation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, ,821-832.

Logan, R. A., Zengjun, P., & Wilson, N. F. (1998, August). Evaluating
assertions about science writing, reporting, and new selection: A
content analysis of the *Washington Post* and *Los Angeles Times*. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Logan, R. A., Fears, L., & Wilson, N. F. (1997). Social responsibility
in science news: Four case studies. Washington, DC: The media institute.

Liu, J. T., & Smith, V. K. (1990). Risk communication and attitude
change: Taiwan's national debate over nuclear power. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 3, 332-349.

Lucas, A. M. (1983). Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies
in Science Education, 10, 1-36.

Luke, T. W. (1987). Chernobyl: The packaging of transnational ecological
disaster. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 351-375.

Maher, T. M. (1998, August). Does media framing keep population off the
public agenda? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Marlin, C. L. (1987). Space race propaganda: U. S. coverage of the
Soviet Sputniks in 1957. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 544-549.

Mazur, A. (1984). Media influences on public attitudes toward nuclear
power. In W. R. Freudenburg & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public reactions to
nuclear power. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Mazur, A. (1981a). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific
controversies. Journal of Communication, 31, 106-115.

Mazur, A. (1981b). The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington,
DC: Communications Press.

Mazur, A., & Conant, B. (1978). Controversy over a local nuclear waste
repository. Social Studies of Science, 8, 235-243.

McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. S. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting
research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of
Communication, 43, 58-67.

McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. S. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 176-187.

McGeachy, L. (1988). Trends in magazine coverage of environmental
issues, 1961-86. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 28-37.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In
G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Miller, J. D. (1987). Scientific literacy in the United States. In Ciba
Foundation Conference: Communicating Science to the Public. New York:
Wiley.

Miller, J. D. (1986). Reaching the attentive and interested publics for
science. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.),
Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free
Press.

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical
review. Daedalus, 112, 29-48.

Miller, J. D. (1982). Attitudes toward genetic modification research: An
analysis of the views of the Sputnik generation. Science, Technology,
and Human Values, 7, 37-43.

Molotch, H. & Lester, M. (1975). Accidental news: The great oil spill as
local occurrence and national event. American Journal of Sociology, 81,
235-260.

Moore, B., & Singletary, M. (1985). Scientific sources' perceptions of
network news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 816-823.

Morris, L. A., Brinberg, D., Klimberg, R., Rivera, C., & Millstein, L.
G. (1986). Miscomprehension rates for prescription drug advertisements.
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 9, 93-117.

Morgan, M. G., Slovic, P., Nair, I., Geisler, D., MacGregor, D.,
Fischoff, B., Lincoln, D., and Florig, K. (1985). Powerline frequency
electric and magnetic fields: A pilot study of risk perception. Risk
Analysis, 5, 139-149.

Morrison, P. (1992). Creating the culture of science. In B. V.
Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.

National Association of Science Writers (1992). Communicating science
news: A guide for scientists, physicians, and public information
officers.

*National Geographic* Society (1976). Our continent: A natural history
of North America. Washington, DC: *National Geographic* Society.

Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: how the press covers science and
technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Nimmo, D., & Combs, J. E. (1985). Nightly horrors. Knoxville: University
of Tennessee Press.

Norstedt, S. A. (1991). The information crisis in Sweden after
Chernobyl. Media, Culture, & Society, 13, 477-497.

Novic, K. & Sandman, P. M. (1974). How use of mass media affects views
on solutions to environmental problems. Journalism Quarterly, 51,
448-452.

Nunn, C. Z. (1979). Readership and coverage of science and technology in
newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 27-30.

O'Dowdey, D. (1987). Rhetorical techniques of advanced adaptation in
popular science writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
17, 275-285.

O'Keefe, T. (1970). The mass media as sources of medical information for
doctors. Journalism Quarterly, 47, 95-100.

Palen, J. (1998, August). Objectivity as independence: Creating the
society of environmental journalists, 1989-1997. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Baltimore.

Palen, J. A. (1994). A map for science reporters: Science, technology,
and society studies concepts in basic reporting and newswriting
textbooks. Michigan Academician XXVI, 507-519.

Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its
consequences. New York: Vintage.

Patterson, J. (1982). A Q study of attitudes of young adults about
science news. Journalism Quarterly, 59, 406-413.

Peters, H. P. (1992). The credibility of information sources in West
Germany after the Chernobyl disaster. Public Understanding of Science,
1, 325-343.

Peters, H. P., Albrecht, G., Hennen, L., & Stegelmann, H. U. (1990).
"Chernobyl" and the nuclear power issue in West German public opinion.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 121-134.

Pfund, N., & Hofstadter, L. (1981). Biomedical in*Nova*tion and the
press. Journal of Communication, 31, 138-154.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how the mind creates language.
New York: William Morrow.

Phillips, D. P., Kanter, E. J., Bednarczyk, B., & Tastad, P. (1991). The
importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to
the scientific community. *New England Journal of Medicine*, 325,
1180-1183.

Pilisuk, M., & Acredolo, C. (1988). Fear of technological hazards: one
or many? Social Behavior, 3, 17-24.

Prewitt, K. (1983). Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory.
Daedalus, 112, 49-64.

Prewitt, K. (1982). The public and science policy. Science, Technology
and Human Values, 36, 5-14.

Pulford, D. L. (1976). A follow-up study of science news accuracy.
Journalism Quarterly, 53, 119-121.

Ramsey, S. A. (1989). The role of technological development in setting
the stage for expanded local science coverage. Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal, 5, 33-40.

Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D.
Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rogers, C. L. (1986). The practitioner in the middle. In S. M. Friedman,
S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists:
Reporting science as news (pp. 42-54). New York: Free Press.

Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear
appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation.
In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A
sourcebook. New York: Guilford Press.

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of rear appeals and
attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.

Rossow, M. D., & Dunwoody, S. (1991). Inclusion of "useful" detail in
newspaper coverage of a high-lvel nuclear waste siting controversy.
Journalism Quarterly, 68, 87-100.

Rothman, S. & Lichter, S. R. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception
in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review, 81,
383-404.

Rowan, K. E. (1995). What risk communicators need to know: An agenda for
research. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 18. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rowan, K. E. (1992). Strategies for enhancing comprehension of science.
In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public. Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Rowan, K. E., (1991a). Goals, obstacles and strategies in risk
communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication
about risk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, November,
300-329.

Rowan, K. E. (1991b). When simple language fails: Presenting difficult
science to the public. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
21, 369-382.

Rowan, K. E. (1989). Moving beyond the what to why: differences in
professional and popular science writing. Journal of Technical Writing
and Communication, 19, 161-179.

The Royal Society (1985). The public understanding of science. London:
Royal Society.

Rubin, D. M., & Hendy, V. (1977). Swine influenza and the news media.
Annals of internal medicine, 87, 772-773.

Russell, C. (1986). The view from the national beat. In S. M. Friedman,
S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists:
Reporting science as news (pp. 42-54). New York: Free Press.

Ryan, M. (1979). Attitudes of scientists and journalists towards media
coverage of science news. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 18-26.

Ryan, M. & Owen, D. (1977). An accuracy survey of metropolitan newspaper
coverage of social issues. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 27-32.

Saari, M. A., Gibson, C., & Osler, A. (1998). Endangered species:
Science writers in the Canadian Daily Press. Public Understanding of
Science, 7, 61-81.

Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House.

Schibeci, R. A. (1990). Public knowledge and perceptions of science and
technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 10, 86-92.

Schoenfeld, A. C. (1979). The press and NEPA: The case of the missing
agenda. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 577-585.

Shapiro, M. A. (1991, July). Television reality and experience in
constructing social and personal estimates of risk. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication, Boston.

Shaw, D. L., & Van Nevel, P. (1967). The informative value of medical
science news. Journalism Quarterly, 44, 548.

Shepard, G. R. (1981). Selectivity of sources: Reporting the marijuana
controversy. Journal of Communication, 31, 129-137.

Shepard, G. R. (1979). Science news of controversy: The case of
marijuana. Journalism Monographs, 62.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories
of influences on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Shortland, M. & Gregory, J. (1991). Communicating science: A handbook.
New York: Longman.

Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation
effects: Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication
Research, 22, 482-509.

Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of
television consumption on social perceptions: The use of priming
procedures to investigate

psychological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447-458.

Siegfried, T. (1992). Newspapers. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When
science meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials. Lexingon, MA: D. C. Heath.

Singer, E. (1990). A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientiss
report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40, 102-116.

Singer, E., & Endreny, P. (1987). Reporting Hazards: their benefits and
costs. Journal of Communication, 37, 10-26.

Singer, E., Endreny, P. & Glassman, M. B. (1991). Media coverage of
disasters: Effects of geographic location. Journalism Quarterly, 68,
48-58.

Singer, E., Rogers, T. F., & Glassman, M. B. (1991). Public opinion
about AIDS before and after the 1988 U. S. Government public information
campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 161-179.

Small, W. J. (1991). Exxon Valdez: How to spend billions and still get a
black eye. Public Relations Review, 17, 9-26.

Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1990). The IQ controvesy, the media and
public policy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Soumerai, S. B., Ross-Degan, D., & Kahn, J. S. (1992). Effects of
professoinal and media warnings about the association between aspirin
use in children and Reye's Syndrome. Millbank Quarterly, 70, 155-182.

Spencer, J. W., Seydlitz, R., Laska, S., & Triche, E. (1992). The
different influences of newspaper and television news reports of a
natural hazard on response behavior. Communication Research, 19,
299-325.

Steele, D. L., & Hallahan, K. (1998, June). Media framing of the
Canadian tainted blood controversy, 1983-1993. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the PRSA Educators Academy Research Conference,
College Park, MD.

Stephens, M., & Edison, N. G. (1982). News media coverage of issues
during the accident at Three-Mile Island. Journalism Quarterly, 59,
199-204.

Stocking, S. H. (1985). Effect of public relations efforts on media
visibility of organizations. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 358-366.

Stroman, C. A., & Seltzer, R. (1989). Mass media use and knoweldge of
AIDS. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 881-887.

Tankard, J. W., & Ryan, M. (1974). News source perceptions of accuracy
of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 51, 219-225, 334.

Tavris, C. (1986). How to publicize science: A case study. In J. H.
Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of aggression. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, C. A., & Condit, C. M. (1988). Objectivity and elites: A
creation science trial. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5,
293-312.

(1979). Television evening news covers nuclear energy. Washington, DC:
The Media Institute.

Tobey, R. (1971) The American ideology of natural science. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

Trachtman, L. (1981). The public understanding of science effort: A
critique. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 36, 10-15.

Trench, B. (1998, September). Science reporting in Europe: From
comparison to critique. Paper presented at the PCST Conference, Berlin.

Turow, J. (1989). Playing doctor. New York: Oxford.

Viscusi, K. (1992). Smoking: Making the risky decision. New York:
Oxford.

Weigel, R. H., & Pappas, J. J. (1981). Social science and the press.
American Psychologist, 36, 480-487.

Weigman, O., Gutteling, J. M., Boer, H., & Houwen, R. J. (1989).
Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers. Journalism
Quarterly, 66, 846-852.

Wilkes, M. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (1992). Medical researchers and the
media: Attitudes toward public dissemination of research. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 268, 999-1003.

Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1991). Science as symbol: The media chills
the Greenhouse Effect. In L. Wilkins, & P. Patterson (Eds.), Risky
business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy. New
York: Greenwood Press.

Ward, J. (1992). Television. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science
meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Weaver, d. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1991). The American journalist: A
portrait of U. S. news people and their work (2^nd^ ed.). Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.

West, L. J. (1986). How not to publicize research: The UCLA violence
center. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Reporting science: The case of
aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1991). Risky business: Covering slow-onset
hazards as rapidly developing news. Political Communication and
Persuasion, Vol 7.

Wilkins, L. & Patterson, P. (1987). Risk analysis and the construction
of news. Journal of Communication, 37, 80-92.

Wilmoth, S. (1984). Personal health information in the daily paper: A
readership survey and a health status comparison between readers and
nonreaders. Dissertation.

Witte, K. (1995). Generating effective risk messages: How scary should
your risk communication be? Communication Yearbook, 18, pp. 229-254.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, D. M. (1950). The "gatekeeper": A case study in the selection of
news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.

Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: Why we are the way we are. New
York: Vintage.

Yankelovich, D. (1982). Changing public attitudes to science and the
quality of life: Edited exerpts from a seminar. Science, Technology, and
Human Values, 7, 23-29.

Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Zillmann, D. (1991). Television viewing and psychological arousal. In J.
Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and
reaction processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ziman, J. (1992). Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In
B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[^1]: The list of topics provided above suggests an agenda-setting
    effect of another kind, as headline issues filter down to the
    research programs of science communication scholars.