5th World Conference of Science Journalists

 Water Wars [90:55m]: Download

PRODUCER/CHAIR: Jenni Metcalfe

SPEAKERS: Tim Flannery, Asa Wahlquist, Mike Young, Mike Rann

SESSION REPORT: Is Australia running out of water?

By Imelda V. Abano

Water in Australia is emerging as a scarce commodity, fueled by population pressures, intensive irrigation and erratic weather patterns brought on by global warming.

Addressing science journalists at this session, climate change expert and author Tim Flannery said Australia’s drought was part of a global dry spell that threatened the planet’s future.

“While water shortage is a global phenomenon not just in Australia, the present drought had already put huge strain on river systems,” Flannery said adding that scientists have found a 10 to 15 percent decrease in rainfall over a 50 year period.

He warned that climate change will likely make things worse for water resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin. “The water that’s available for us to use is declining because of this warming trend.”

The Murray-Darling Basin is one of Australia’s foremost river systems responsible for irrigating the country’s crops. Australia is faced with water scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of diverting large quantities of water for use in agriculture.

University of Adelaide Professor Mike Young said managing water supply is the biggest climate-change adaptation facing Australia.

“We need to build mechanisms that make people aware of the value of water and to cope with these changes,” Prof. Young said.

Prof. Young said there is an urgent need for “well-designed urban and rural water allocation: and trading systems that offer ways of ensuring that this system will be effective.

“We need to work-out with the government and talk to the community about this problem,” he said.

On the other hand, South Australia’s premier, Mike Rann said the issue of water has been paramount. He suggested a need to introduce legislation next year and adaptation with the prevailing issue of water in Australia.

“What we’re seeing with this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming,” Rann said.

PRODUCER: Ruth Armstrong

CHAIR: Fiona Fox

SPEAKERS: David Vaux, David Henry, Martin Van Der Weyden

PANEL: Chris Del Mar, Julie Robotham, Ruth O’Halloran

SESSION REPORT: Lost in translation

By Andreas von Bubnoff

The problem is well known: Often reports in the media on medical studies are misleading or even wrong. Whose fault is it and what can be done about it?

Both scientists and journalists are to blame, according to the panelists of this session.

Martin Van Der Weyden, editor of the Medical Journal of Australia, said that media reports often don’t mention conflicts of interest of experts they quote and that they often report research from scientific meetings that later never gets published. “You have to take this all with a grain of salt,” Van Der Weyden said. “There has to be skepticism.”

To address such problems, David Henry, professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Newcastle, and others have created an Australian Web site called media doctor (www.mediadoctor.org.au).

The site uses ten criteria to assess medical reports in the media. The criteria include whether an article mentions the costs and harms of a treatment, or whether it mentions the kind of evidence used for claims made in a study. Many published articles don’t satisfy these criteria, Henry said.

But journalists are only a part of the problem. David Vaux of La Trobe University said that scientific papers often leave out or don’t explain error bars, which makes it impossible to know the quality of the data. Other times images are digitally manipulated, sometimes so much that the data is changed.

Julie Robotham, medical editor of the Sydney Morning Herald claims that mistakes in newspapers are unavoidable, given budget cuts and the time constraints to put out apaper every day. “You have to be realistic,” she said, “it’s only a newspaper. The next day you throw it out. You will hopefully get it right next time.”

Van Der Weyden said scientific journals take such errors very seriously. More than half of the proceedings of the last meeting of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in Sydney, he said, was devoted to scientific misconduct.

PRODUCER/CHAIR: Natasha Mitchell,

SPEAKERS: Deborah Blum, Jonica Newby, Fred Mendelsohn

SESSION REPORT: The brain: The final frontier of science

By Hannah Hoag

For the journalist, there’s a certain amount of seduction in covering the brain. It’s mysterious and carries cachet, perhaps because it is hidden from view. Covering the brain sciences is a sexy beat, but do journalists risk losing our skepticism when reporting on the brain and the mind sciences, Natasha Mitchell of ABC Radio, and the producer of You are not your brain scan: critical reporting on the mind sciences, asked her panel.

“We’re fascinated how this lump of jelly can give us consciousness and behavior,” said Fred Mendelsohn, director of the Howard Florey Institute, Australia’s leading brain research centre. Now, technology and other scientific advances have enabled scientists to dig deeper into the brain’s complexity and transmit colorful images of its activities.

These brain scans provide a way to visualize the information and suck consumers of television and print media into the story, said Jonica Newby, a reporter and producer for ABC’s Catalyst. But the tools can be misused too.

Brain scans risk simplifying the science and equating our brain scans with destiny, much like the early years of genetics and reporting on genetics.

Biological destiny appeals to certain groups and fuels debates on nature and nurture. Brain science risks following the same trajectory, even though the nature/nurture dichotomy is unreal, says Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-prize winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the university of Wisconsin-Madison. “It’s a dance. Nature and nurture dance together,” she said.

Journalists have to remember that brain science, like health science, is about statistics, and that while the information can help reveal why there is variation among people, that there will always be exceptions to the rule. “Some of [the challenge] is getting journalists to be less afraid of statistics,” said Blum.

PRODUCER: Tim Thwaites, Melissa Trudinger

CHAIR: Robyn Williams

INTRODUCTION: John Brumby,

SPEAKERS: Chris Mooney, Jia Hepeng

 Biasing scientific information [79:29m]: Download

By Boonsri Dickinson

The Science Show’s Robyn Williams opened the session by asking the audience if the biased science communication in the Bush Administration could happen in Australia.

Far from it. Here, John Brumby, Victoria’s Minister for Innovation, welcomed the science communicators to this session and to Melbourne, the innovation and technology capital of Australia.

Seed Magazine correspondent Chris Mooney says that unlike Melbourne where the relationship between science and society is embraced, his hometown DC has divorced the relationship.

“Instead of calling a lawyer, the politicians call a think tank,” Mooney says. His talk — Fighting back (Aussie Rules) — illustrates why even though scientists today have figured out knowledge, the problem lies in knowledge translation.

“Scientists need to figure out how to play the rules,” Mooney says.

As Mooney plays a recording of Bush’s press conference answer in response to a question about the 2004 Tsunami, “I’m not a geologist as you know.” Mooney’s responds, “Today we don’t expect him to be a geologist…but we do expect Bush to consult with one.”

When scientific papers are edited and scientists muted — communication is impossible. When science has to compete for airtime with Anna Nichole Smith’s death and Britney Spears’ shaved head, science can’t be so passive, Mooney says.

Scientists need to take on a new approach — such as ultimate fighting, Mooney suggests. Facts don’t speak for themselves; they will be suppressed by politicians or will be misused by advocates.

“Scientists have the power to shape policy,” Mooney says.

In China, where the government controls scientific development, the biased science information is used for propaganda rather than for communication. Jai Hepeng, reporter for SciDev.Net, talks about the one-sidedness of science reporting in China.

Currently, the process isn’t supportive. Science communication requires mutual interaction between the dominant side of science (which is the Chinese government) and the public side. Because the Chinese public is hushed from speaking out, it’s hard for scientists to direct research so that it will impact the public, Hepeng says.

“Science journalism in China has been used to boast the government’s achievements,” Hepeng says, “instead of exploring nature and explaining human life and health.” What appears to be a booming market in science news, where more than 40 daily newspapers are devoted to science, is nothing more than propaganda.

During question and answer time, COSMOS editor Tim Dean asked about the balance in the media and suggested ways entertainment media might help. The answer: put science on stage with an athlete.