Barriers Between
Scientists and Journalists:
Myth or Reality?

Peter Oriare

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES No. 35

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100
General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2008 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
Printed by Newtec Concepts
P.O. Box 00800, Westlands
14180 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399
newtec@mitsumi.net

ISBN: 9966-916-36-9

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in
Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the ATPS Special Paper Series are those commissioned as concept
papers, think pieces, leading conference papers and keynote addresses. In keeping with
our knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes, with permission of the author(s) or
journal editors, papers (published or unpublished) produced by distinguished academics/
researchers for a different purpose but judged by ATPS to be of excellent quality. Thesepapers address significant policy questions relevant to the work of ATPS and/or support
the Southern voice or an African perspective. ATPS also considers theoretical papers that
advance our knowledge of science and technology policy issues.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev,
European Union and the Royal Dutch Government.

Acronyms

AAAS
BBC
SIRC

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
British Broadcasting Corporation
Social Issues Research CentreTable of Contents

1.

Introduction

1

2.

Conceptual and theoretical frameworks
2.1 Conceptual framework
2.2 Theoretical framework

2
2
2

3.

Manifestations of cultural barriers
3.1 Scientists’ image of journalists
3.2 Journalists’ image of scientists
3.3 The roots of the barriers

4
4
4
5

4.

Understanding scientific culture and journalistic tradition

6

5.

Areas of conflict between scientists and journalists
5.1 Use of scientific publications
5.2 Face-to-face interviews
5.3 Scientific meetings
5.4 Trivialization of serious issues
5.5 Language use
5.6 Loss of scientific control
5.7 Low understanding of media

8
9
9
10
11
11
11
12

6.

Complementaries between scientists and journalists
6.1 Bridging the gap

13
13

7.

Conclusion

15

References

16

1.

Introduction

This paper discusses barriers between scientists and journalists. The purpose is to increase
understanding about the inherent differences between scientists and journalists that separate themand inhibit the dissemination of scientific information to the public. The topic of the paper is actuallya question: Barriers between scientists and journalists: Myth or reality? This question makes anassumption that there are barriers between scientists and journalists. The barriers are either imaginedor real. The questions that this paper will address are:a) What are the inherent differences between scientists and journalists that separate them?
b) What are the causes, manifestations and consequences of these barriers?
c) What interventions can be put in place to bridge the gap between scientists and journalists?
This paper attests to the reality of the barriers between scientists and journalists by providing evidence
to that effect, explains why the barriers exist, their impacts on scientists, journalists and society as awhole. The paper will also make suggestions on what can be done to remove the barriers.
It is true that barriers exist between scientists and journalists because of the inherent differences
between them. “Scientists see science as a cumulative, cooperative enterprise; journalists like to write
about individual scientists who have made a revolutionary breakthrough. Journalists like controversy;
scientists thrive on consensus. Journalists like new, even tentative results with exciting potential; scientists
prefer their results to go through the slow process of peer review and settle into a quiet, moderate niche in
the scientific literature - by which time journalists are no longer interested. Scientists think that accuracymeans giving one authoritative account; journalists feel that differing views add up to a more complete
picture. Journalists’ work has to fit the space available; scientists’ academic papers can be of any length.
Scientists work at the pace imposed by the nature of the research; journalists are in a hurry to meet adeadline. Scientists must qualify and reference their work; journalists have to get to the point” (Shortland
and Gregory, 1991).

1

2.

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

2.1

Conceptual framework

Concepts such as barriers, scientist, journalist, myths, reality, and communication will be used
repeatedly in this paper. It is appropriate to provide working definitions and context upfront.
Communication as used here refers to an interaction or the exchange of information, ideas ormessages between the scientist and journalist or other audiences such as the public. Barriers incommunication refer to things that inhibit effective communication. These factors may be
psychological, social, cultural, political, linguistic or semantic and environmental. A scientist is one
who is educated in the application of scientific methods in pursuit of knowledge such as in pure,applied and social sciences. A journalist is one who is collects, packages and disseminates
newsworthy information to the general public to enable them make informed decisions. The paper
will not debate whether a journalist is a scientist or artist. Myths will be used to refer to misconceptions
that are not founded in fact. Reality will refer to verifiable occurrences that exist or occur around us.
Scientists and journalists in their various ways are engaged in activities that champion the common
good. As such barriers that exist between them compromise the realization and enjoyment of thecommon good. This paper will make suggestions on how the inherent differences between thescientists and the journalists may be reduced or removed all together.

2.2

Theoretical framework

There are several communication theories that attempt to explain the barriers of communication
among people. However, the paper will use the uncertainty reduction theory as proposed by Charles
Berger. This is a theory of interpersonal relationship which makes it relevant to the study of therelationship between scientists and journalists. A lot of times, scientists encounter journalists as
individuals hence the need to use an interpersonal communication theory.
The theory asserts that when strangers meet, their primary concern is to reduce uncertainty about
the other person and their relationship. It also asserts that uncertainty is culturally dependent us thebarriers between scientists and journalists are culturally based. This paper will show that there arescientists and journalists experience high uncertainty about one another. According to the uncertainty
reduction theory, individuals are self aware, both objectively and subjectively; this affects the way they
relate to others. This theory makes distinction between high self monitor and low self monitors
where high self monitors guard what they say and are sensitive to feedback and low self monitors are

2

BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCTISTS AND JOURNALISTS - MYTH OR REALITY?

3less sensitive to feedback. In this case, we are dealing with scientists and journalists who are both
high self monitors. The theory can be appropriately applied to this paper as it discusses informationpassive, active and interactive seeking strategies. Both scientists and journalists are well versed inthese strategies of investigation and interaction. This theory can be used to resolve the problems
between scientists and journalists as it argues that uncertainty is high when strangers meet but it
goes down as verbal output, nonverbal warmth, self-disclosure, similarity, and shared communication
networks increase.

3.

Manifestations of Cultural Barriers

It is common knowledge that there are cultural barriers between scientists and journalists. Each ofthem has prejudices and stereotypical images of one another. It is these stereotypical images thatform a wall between scientists and journalists. The barriers are culturally ingrained in the mindset ofscientists and journalists. These barriers lead to miscommunication and strained working relationshipbetween scientists and journalists. These barriers manifest themselves in the perceptions andactions of both scientists and journalists.

3.1

Scientists’ image of journalists

Scientists generally have a fear or suspicion of the media1, especially if they have had little experience
with the media. On the other hand, journalists are suspicious that scientists want to control their
independence.
Scientists are particularly fearful of misrepresentation, inaccuracy, and loss of control. They often
view journalists as exploitative and manipulative (Gascoigne and Metcalfe, 1997).
When asked to state what their perceptions of journalists were, a group of scientists said that journalists
were unhelpful, unreliable, unconcerned, unprincipled, untrustworthy, rough, lazy and superficial intheir treatment of science2. According to many scientists journalists often distort and sensationalize
stories and, trivialize serious issues.

3.2

Journalists’ image of scientists

On the other hand, Journalists are suspicious that scientists want to control the media. Pallab
Ghosh, a science correspondent of the BBC and Chairman of the Association of British Science
Writers once said of scientists “Trying to change the media is like a mosquito trying to stop an
express train. You’re not going to change it, nor should you really want to.” Ghosh’s statementsummarizes the misunderstanding between scientists and journalists.

1

Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne. Media Skills Workshops: Breaking down the barriers between scientists and journalists.
http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/Metcalfe.htm
2
Jenni Metcalfe and Toss Gascoigne. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/Metcalfe.htm

4

BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCTISTS AND JOURNALISTS - MYTH OR REALITY?

5

In the mind of a journalist, scientists are poor communicators. In fact, journalists often complain thatscientists don’t speak like “normal people.” Scientists have difficulty of breaking complex issues into
something palatable and picture-friendly. Journalists, who are either gifted or trained story tellers,
agree that scientists neither knows how to translate their body of research into easily understandable
sound bites nor know how to tell stories in an interesting and captivating manner.

3.3

The roots of the barriers

Society is at the root of the barriers between scientists and journalists. Society is the origin of thestereotypical imagery that scientists and journalists have of each other. In the real world, the picture
ordinary people have of scientists is that of boring men in white coats in a world of their own, people
whose actions and motives are to be regarded with suspicion or distaste (Gascoigne and Metcalfe,1997). On the other hand, ordinary people also view journalists as untrustworthy and jack of all
trades. The problems scientists and journalists have with one another is merely an extension of the
problems the wider society has with each of them.
Scientific culture and journalistic tradition is also at the heart of the differences between scientists
and journalists. Scientists and journalists are mutually suspicious of each other because they comefrom two different worlds. One side is characterised by a methodical and precise assessment of datafrom close analysis over an extended time period. The other side wants simple, direct and speedy
answers uncluttered by qualifying statements.
A brief summary of both is necessary for us to understand the motivations behind scientific andjournalistic behavior.

4.

Understanding Scientific Culture andJournalistic Tradition

Science is a methodical process which seeks to determine the secrets of the natural world by using
the scientific method. The scientific method is a process scientists must follow in determining theworkings of the universe. There are five basic components to the scientific method: Observation,
developing hypothesis, devising methods to test the hypotheses, collecting the data, modification
and repetition. Scientists rigorously adhere to the scientific method in the pursuit of their career
objectives and goals. Scientific culture determines the behavior of scientists across the board.
Indeed, scientists believe in evidence, scientific reasoning, scientific claims, peer review, replication,
simplicity of arguments and theories and conclusions. They also believe that science is selfcorrecting, scientific conclusions are reliable but tentative, and that science is non-dogmatic andincapable of making moral decisions.
On the other hand, journalism is story telling with a purpose, a business, a public service and awatchdog, craft and ego gratification. The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens withaccurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society. This purpose also involves
other requirements, such as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to thevoiceless3. From the above definition, a journalist is therefore anyone who provides, citizens throughmedia with accurate and reliable information they need to make informed decision.
The principles of journalism that guide journalism practice and the work of journalists include thefollowing:• obligation to the truth• loyalty to the citizens• It is a discipline of verification• practitioners must maintain independence from those they cover• serve as an independent monitor of power• provide a forum for informed public criticism• make the significant aspect interesting and relevant

3Bill Kovach and Tom Rosentiel. The Elements of Journalism. Amazon, http//www.amazon.com

6

BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCTISTS AND JOURNALISTS - MYTH OR REALITY?

••

7

keep the news comprehensive and proportional
practitioners must be allowed to exercise personal conscience

The above principles dictate the behavior of the journalist. Therefore, journalist must seek truth andreport it as fully as possible4; be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting
accurate information. In their daily routine, journalists must act independently, endeavor to give voice
to the voiceless, and hold the powerful, including scientists, accountable.
Although the journalist must inform, engage, and educate the public in a clear and compelling way
on significant issues, he must also seek out and disseminate competing perspectives without being
unduly influenced by those who would use their power or position, be they politicians or scientists, tocounter the public interest.
Like many professionals, journalists are required to remain free of associations and activities that
may compromise their integrity or damage their credibility. They must take responsibility to minimize
any adverse potential harm to people through their activities, whether they are politicians or scientists.
Journalists are required to treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving ofrespect, not merely as means to their journalistic ends.
Journalists are called upon to adhere to highest levels of accuracy and balance. The moment ajournalist lacks accuracy, he or she has betrayed the reader. A journalist’s job is to inform people ofthe issues in order to help them make the best choices and decisions. In fact, a misinformed
journalist is like a loaded gun placed into the hands of a curious child5. Such a journalist is up to nogood in society and is a threat to scientific advancement.

4

Bob Steele and Nelson Poynte. Guiding Principles of Journalism. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=36&aid=4349

5Ashley Kelly (2004). The Role of a Journalist. Perspectives (February 2004)

5.

Areas of Conflict between Scientists andJournalists

The scientific culture and journalistic culture are areas of conflict between scientists and journalists.
By their training and practice, scientists and journalists place emphasis differently. The scientist puts
emphasis on detail while the journalist focuses on newsworthiness. This triggers a lot of conflict
between the scientists and journalists.
Scientists hate ambiguity arising from science news and stories. By training scientific rigor does notentertain ambiguity. Distortion may occur because of journalistic mistakes such as failure tounderstand the story, failure to link story to audience, failure to translate scientific complexities intowords readers understand, failure to convince editors of the significance of the story and some times
lack of graphics needed to do a good job on a story. For instance, scientists often complain of
distortion of headlines. This type of mistake may occur because the journalist and editors often lookfor color and impact to sell the paper while scientists put emphasis on accuracy and significanceJournalists may distort scientific information while writing about scientific hypothesis and reporting
scientific uncertainty. Hypotheses are tentative until proven while journalists want facts. Scientists
use a lot of claims, assertions and qualifications in their writing of hypotheses and propositions.
Journalists hate qualifications and hedging because it dilutes the hotness of the story.
The failure of journalists to draw their points of their stories plainly and clearly for the editors irritates
most scientists. This happens when journalists are confronted with very technical scientific workwith complicated methodology.
The whole question whether science news published in journals should be news at all is a point ofcontroversy. There is a long period between a scientific breakthrough and its review in scientificpublications, at which point the news media may get to hear of it. According to scientists news is abreakthrough published in a scientific journal while according to the journalists, news is any piece of
information nor event that meets the newsworthiness criteria of timeliness, proximity, impact,significance, uniqueness, human interest, prominence, conflict and innovation. A lot of what scientists
call news are stale news that violate the journalistic value of timeliness. According to journalists,scientific news must conform to standard news values in order to qualify for publication in news
media.

8

BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCTISTS AND JOURNALISTS - MYTH OR REALITY?

9

Conflicts often arise when journalists report violations of the norms of scientific research such as
dishonesty in recording information, inaccuracy of data, incompleteness of reporting and partiality inpeer review.
Scientific reporting is a laborious work that takes long periods of time. Scientists are very uncomfortablewith journalists who take less than three hours to summarize their work into journalistic pieces soldas news. Most scientists do not understand how a 20-page article in a scientific journal can besummarized into a 600-word news article by a journalist.
Scientists do not respect journalists because they think they are not properly educated. Scientists go
through many years of specialized training unlike many journalists. As such they do not think journalists
have the ability to comprehend their complex scientific reasoning, claims and methodologies (Burkett,1986).
Scientific norms often place obstacles on the path of journalists during the gathering of scientificnews. Journalists face special challenges with regard to the utility of scientific publications, interviews,
and scientific conferences as sources of scientific news.

5.1

Use of scientific publications

All scientists desire their work to be published in scientific publications because they cherish peer
review. They have a tendency to refer journalists to the publications rather than giving interviews.
Journalist hate this because they need sound bites, quotes and attribution to give their stories asense of authority and legitimacy.
The structure of a scientific paper is different from a journalistic story. Scientists start with abstracts,
statement of the problem then research questions, purposes, assumptions, justifications, theories,
research methods, data presentation and conclusions. This structure is not logical to a journalist
who presents their most important information at the beginning of the story.
Scientific journals have journalistic handicaps in the sense that they could be depositories of stalearticles with no news value. Scientific publications hit the street many months after the scientificbreakthroughs in scientific laboratories, by which time the breakthrough is no longer newsworthy. To
make matters worse, many scientists and their readership may already have read the publication.
According to journalists, whatever information is already in public domain is not newsworthy enoughto qualify for publication.
5.2
Face-to-face interviews
Scientists are reluctant to give interviews to journalists about scientific work that has not been peer
reviewed in scientific publications. It amounts to premature disclosure. Some scientists believe thatthe journalists should get all their news from scientific journals and not through interviews. The
majority believe that interviews are a waste of time as all the information is already in the journal.

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 35

10

Scientists get impatient when journalists ask questions already answered in their publications because
they think the journalists are either lazy or merely ignorant of the facts. This shows their ignorance ofthe value journalists place on sound bites, quotes and attributions in their work.
Some scientists demand to edit stories arising from interviews with them before press. Once again
this shows the mistrust between scientists and journalists and, also the level of scientific ignoranceof journalistic independence that states that journalists must act independently without undue
interference.
Scientists covet peer review but loath peer criticism. They are reluctant to permit interviews or
activities that may lead to negative peer criticism which may jeopardize their scientific careers.
Journalists often use probing technique to get deeper insight into issues under discussion during
interviewing. At such times, the journalist’s line of questioning when they are shaping a story can be
disturbing to scientists when it is not exactly clear what turn the conversation will take next.
Scientists take offence when questioned regarding moral and ethical implication of their work.
Scientists are objective and not used to questions that want them to discuss their opinions andfeelings as journalists are in the habit of doing when they intend to profile a scientist.

5.3

Scientific meetings

Meetings honor the scientific tradition of open discussion and criticisms of research that gives
scientists an opportunity to discuss issues of interest to them. Depending on the goals of the meeting,journalists may be barred from such meetings. Scientific meetings present two problems that influence
the relationship between scientists and journalists. The publication of scientific results that have notbeen reviewed in a scientific journal in the mass media amounts to premature disclosure. Suchbehavior on the part of the journalist dents the credibility of the scientist. The journalists may also rely
on oral presentations during the meeting to write their stories. Scientists do not appreciate thisbecause they think they may be quoted out of context.
Of course scientists are happy when journalists write about the culture of science that highlightscientific genius behind the innovations, the rational scientific thought and logic, the careful planningand executions of experiments. Unfortunately, conflict arises when journalists write about the failuresbehind the innovations, the frustrations, the broken test tubes and dirty labs, power failures and the
cut-throat competition between scientists. Scientists are rarely amused when journalists report about
scientific deceit, plagiarism, theft, arrogance and conceit.

BARRIERS BETWEEN SCIENCTISTS AND JOURNALISTS - MYTH OR REALITY?

5.4

11

Trivialization of serious issues

Scientists often complain about journalistic tendency to ignore serious issues and highlight what
they see as trivia. Jim McWhir from the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh of the Dolly the Sheep fame6
once complained that “So after being grilled about lots of serious issues all that appeared on the
Spanish news that evening was 10 seconds of me saying that I wasn’t worried about getting pregnant.”
This kind of remark shows that scientists and journalists place emphasis differently owing to theirdifferent professional traditions. The scientist is focused on detail of the perceived real issues while
the journalist is prioritizing hot news or newsworthiness that would sell the paper.

5.5

Language use

Most scientists have serious difficulties in avoiding using jargon and scientific terms during interviews
meant for popular dissemination in the mass media. Many journalists do not understand thesejargons and require studying them before putting them to effective use.
On the other hand, scientists cite oversimplification as the cause of their frustration with journalists.
Scientists fear that oversimplification result in loss of important details critical for other scientists tofavorably assess their work. Journalists often edit redundant details.
The use of sensational language is also of great concern to scientists. Journalists often use colorfulwords, figurative language and idiomatic expressions that scientists perceive do not depict perceived
scientific reality. For instance, scientists complain that journalists often write misleading headlinesthat read “breakthroughs” when there is hardly any breakthrough in scientific investigations under
scrutiny.

5.6

Loss of scientific control

A major causal problem is loss of control by the scientist over the content of the article published ina news media. Scientists have a strong sense of ownership of their work because they spend a lot oftime and make difficult sacrifices during their investigations. Their ownership and control over theirwork is preserved through scientific reporting and attribution procedures in scientific publications.
However, in journalism the journalist becomes the author of the story obtained from a journalist withthe scientist relegated to a mere motor-mouth.
This very loss of control over the outcome of media encounters leads many scientists to be reluctant
to even speak to journalists in the belief that they are exploitative, manipulative and—the ultimate
sin—inaccurate in their representation of the facts (Owens, 2002).

6
Susan R. Owens (2002). Its Good to Talk, European Molecular Biology Organization. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/
v3/n8/full/embor091.html

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 35

12

5.7

Low understanding of media

Most scientists do not understand how media operate. This is understandable because scientists
are not communication professionals. For instance, scientists do not know how to translate research
into easily understandable sound bites. In any case, scientists are not story tellers.
Rarely do scientists appreciate the fact that journalists have short and strict deadlines. They fail toappreciate that a journalist may have only three hours within which to research the background of astory, conduct interviews, draft the story and proof read it before publication. This contrasts sharply
with scientific reporting process which takes longer period of time.
Journalists claim that scientists overact when exposed to media spotlight. It may be right to say thatscientists find it difficult to handle sudden media attention and scrutiny. After such exposures, scientists
often complain that the media are unfair to them. Rather than grumble as is the practice with many
scientists, they should be proactive and demand their rights or use alternative media to get theirmessages out.
In Africa, journalists and many media houses have credibility gaps. Poor training background is theroot of these problems. Few journalists in Africa have degree level education with the majority havingbasic mass communication training at tertiary level. Few of the training institutions have science
communication related courses. The implication is that few editors are qualified to edit science
stories. In fact, some editors are known to encourage scientific jargon in popular media. To makematters worse, their writing orientation is toward reporting politics and public affairs. Few of these
media houses have editorial policies on science reporting. To make matters worse, many journalists
and media houses are partisan making it difficult for scientists to trust them as reliable partners.

6.

Complementaries between Scientists andJournalists

Scientists and journalists have common areas of interest. They both seek to know the reality, seek toknow the truth, need timely and specific information, believe in accurate and honest reporting,believe in verification of facts, and espouse timeliness in reporting.

6.1

Bridging the gap

Capacity building through training programs targeting journalists and scientists is the best means ofbridging the gap. Scientists need to learn more about journalists and the mechanics of their work inorder to know how to effectively use them to pass on their scientific breakthroughs. Similarly, journalists
need to learn more about scientific methodology and principles guiding scientific practice.
Workshops that use participatory and experiential techniques of learning are useful in improving theunderstanding relationship between scientists and journalists. More scientists should be encouraged
to train as journalists in order to build a cadre of reliable science reporters or journalists. Training
institutions offering science should include specialized communication and journalism coursesthat would help narrow this gap. On the other hand, communication and journalism training institutions
also need to develop comprehensive and specialized curriculum for various science communication
courses. This would nurture the development of science communication and help reduce thevariance between scientists and journalists.
There is need for special training for editors because they are the ones who set the agenda for news
in media houses. If they are well informed, they would encourage the development of a reliablecadre of science writers in media houses.
In Africa, there is need for intensive capacity building for mass communication training to improve
the quality of journalism. Journalists in Africa lack credibility because of their poor training background.
Scientists need to understand that the media is not there to enthuse, it’s there to challenge andquestion what is going on in the scientific community. The job of a journalist is not so much to
explain in an artful manner, but to reflect the debate that is going on both within the scientificcommunity and in the wider society. Scientists need to understand that journalists are driven by thecommon good and public interest in the pursuit of their stories
On the other hand, journalists need to understand that misleading information is dangerous.
Information that is misleading or factually inaccurate can cause real distress not only to scientific13

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 35

14community but also to vulnerable groups. Misleading information may also provoke unfoundedpublic reactions that can lead to various injuries or loss of lives.
There is need to publish guidelines for both scientists and journalist that explain how they should
approach one another in pursuit of the common good. For journalists such guide guidelines should
clearly give counsel on the following issues that are the bone of contention between scientists andjournalists:• Credibility of sources• Scientific procedures and methods• Findings and conclusions• Significance of the study• Communicating risk
• Anticipating impacts• Role of sub-editors, correspondents, editors and journalists• Expert contacts
For scientists such guidelines should give counsel on how to deal with the media, credibility of thestudy, accuracy, communication of risks and benefits, safety issues and right to complain.
A good example of a guideline is the Guideline on science and health communication prepared by
the Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) in partnership with the Royal Society and the RoyalInstitution of Great Britain7.
The scientific and journalist community should put in place motivation schemes that recognizeorganizations and individuals who have shown remarkable improvements in either dealing with
scientists or journalists. Such schemes may include awards such the AAAS Science JournalismAwards8.

7
8

Guidelines at: http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml
Award scheme at: http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/awards

7.

Conclusion

There is evidence that the barriers between scientists and journalists are real and culturally based.
There is need to bridge the gap through advanced degree and professional training programs thatuse participatory and experiential strategies.

15

References
Burkett, Warren (1986). News Reporting: Science, Medicine and Technology. The University of Texas
at Austin: The Iowa State University Press/AMES.
Gascoigne, T.H. and Metcalfe, J. E. (1997) Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating
through the media, Science Communication, Vol 10 No 3
Shortland, M. and Gregory, J. (1991) Communicating Science, Longman, New York
Metcalfe, Jenni and Gacoigne, Toss. Media Skills Workshops: Breaking down the barriers between
scientists and journalists. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/Metcalfe.htm
Kovach, Bill and Rosential. The Elements of Journalism. Amazon: http//www.amazon.com
Steele, Bob and Poynte, Nelson. Guiding Principles of Journalism. http://www.poynter.org/
column.asp?id=36&aid=4349
Owens, R. Susan (2002). Its Good to Talk, European Molecular Biology Organization. http://
www.nature.com/embor/journal/v3/n8/full/embor091.html.
Kelly, Ashley. (2004). The Role of a Journalist. Perspectives (February 2004)

16

Other Publications in the ATPS Special Paper SeriesSpecial Paper Series 1: Globalization and Technology: Africa’s Participation and Perspectives: Concept Paper andResearch Agenda by Melvin Ayogu &Osita Ogbu (2002)
Special Paper Series 2: Globalization, Markets for Technology and the Relevance of Innovation Policies in Developing Economies by Sunil Mani (2002)
Special Paper Series 3: Biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a Policy Research Agenda by John Mugabe(2000)
Special Paper Series 4: The Impact of Globalization in sub-Saharan Africa Countries by Mwindaace N. Siamwiza(2002)
Special Paper Series 5: A Blueprint for Developing National ICT Policy in Africa by Clement Dzidonu(2002)
Special Paper Series 6: Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Technology Transfer in Africa by Moses M.
Ikiara (2002)
Special Paper Series 7: Pursuing Technology Policy Research in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on the Dimensions, Applications and Implications of a Methodological Framework by M.H. Khalil-Timamy (2002)
Special Paper Series 8: African Response to the Information Communication Technology Revolution by G. Olalere
Ajayi (2002)
Special Paper Series 9: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): Poverty Alleviation and Universal
Access Policies by Andrew Dymond & Sonja Oestmann (2002)
Special Paper Series 10: ICT Human Resource Development in Africa: Challenges, Strategies and Options by
T.M. Waema (2002).
Special Paper Series 11: Applications of ICTs in Africa: Development of Knowledge Workers in Centres of Learning
by John Muraguri Waibochi (2002).
Special Paper Series 12: State of Science and Technology Capacity in sub-Saharan Africa by Khalil-Timamy(2002).
Special Paper Series 13: Strengthening National Information and Cmmunication Technology Policy in Africa:
Governance, Equity and Institutional Issues by Melvin Ayogu
Special Paper Series 14: A Science Agenda from An Afrian Perspective by Turner T. Isoun
Special Paper Series 15: International Trends in Modern Bio-technology: Entry by and Implications for African
Countries by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 16: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), technology Transfer and Poverty Alleviation: Africa’s
Hopes and Dilemma by Moses Ikiara
Special Paper Series 17: Global Governance of Technology and Africa’s Global Inclusion by Banji Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 18: Science and Technology and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa byO.
Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 19: An Assessment of Science and Technology Capacity Building in sub-Saharan Africa byO.
Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 20: Network as Determinants of Manufacturing SME Cluster Growth in Nigeria Networking
Technical Change and Industrialization: The Case of Small and Medium Firm in Nigeria by Banji OyelaranOyeyinka
Special Paper Series 21: Technology Transfer in a Globalizing World: Many Promises, Lack of Responsibility, andChallenges for Africa by M.H. Khalil Timamy
Special Paper Series 22: Integrated Value Mapping for Sustainable River Basin Management by Kevin UramaSpecial Paper Series 23: Wastewater and Irrigated Agriculture Lessons Learned and Possible Applications in Africa
by Frans Huibers, Lucas Seghezzo and Adriaan Mels
Special Paper Series 24: Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications

for Knowledge and Technology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 25: Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications
for Knowledge and Technology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 26: Water Management and Conflict in Africa: The Role of Management and Technology by
Chris Huggins
Special Paper Series 27: Markets, Institutions and Agricultural Performance in Africa by Julius Mangisoni
Special Paper Series 28: The Biotechnology Revolution and its Implication for Food Security in Africa by Victor
Konde
Special Paper Series 29: Why Africa has Fallen Short of Building Dynamic Agro-processing Capabilities: Constrains, Options and Prospects by Wellington A. Otieno and Ada Mwangola
Special Paper Series 30: Promotion of Public Health Care Using African Indigenous Knowledge Systems and
Implications for IPR: Experiences from Southern and Eastern Africa by Hassan O. KayaSpecial Paper Series 31: The Place of Policy in Applied Health Care and Technology with Special Reference toAfrican Tradition Medicine by Daniel Noni Lantum
Special Paper Series 32: A Framework for the Strategic Analysis and Management of the Brain Drain of African
Health Care Professionals: An Innovative Systems Approach by Rubin Pillay
Special Paper Series 33: ICTs and Healt Technology at the Grassroots Level in Africa by Margaret Nyambura
Ndung’uAcknowledgement

This paper is based on research carried out under the auspices of the African Technology Policy
Studies Network’s (ATPS), Water and Environment Programme funded by the Royal Dutch Government– Activity no: 10385-DCO0020791. The authors thank Dr. Kevin Chika Urama of the Macaulay
Institute, Aberdeen, UK for his contributions to the study in his capacity as the ATPS Lead Resource
Person for the W&E programme. The authors also thank the ATPS Communications and Outreach
Department for their editorial support.

Peter Oriare is a consultant, journalist and a lecturer at the School of Journalism, Universityof Nairobi.

For more information on this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org