Archive for the 'Session' Category

Vaccines: politics vs science

Published by
admin
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
4:00 pmto5:30 pm

PRODUCER: Rada Rouse, Medical Observer
CHAIR: Pallab Ghosh, BBC (UK)
SPEAKERS: Gus Nossal, consultant, WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Ian Frazer,UQ Director, Diamantina Institute for Cancer Immunology and Metabolic Medicine

“Vaccines buy you a lot of health for a small amount of money,” says renowned immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal.

Trouble is, there are still not enough dollars devoted to vaccine research and development, let alone to delivering products to countries where they matter most to counter the global burden of disease.

And it’s not just money or science that governs the place of vaccination in public health: emotion is a potent driver. Public support for vaccination ebbs and flows. Fear that polio vaccine is being used as a genocidal weapon has plunged vaccination programs into chaos in Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent. Fear that vaccines were causing an epidemic of autism led millions in the USA and UK to reject vaccination of their children.

The production and distribution of vaccines can also become mired in public relations battles, patent wars and politics.

This session will examine how science can be overwhelmed by other forces, and what may be in store in future.

Gus Nossal is a leading figure in immunology and has played a prominent international role in disease eradication through the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ian Frazer is the co-inventor of the virus-like particles technology that underpins the world’s first vaccine against the human papilloma virus which causes cervical cancer.

Pallab Ghosh is science correspondent for BBC News and a member of the executive board of the World Federation of Science Journalists.

How to make a big story bigger

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
4:00 pmto5:00 pm
icon for podpress  How to make a big story bigger [77:34m]: Download

PRODUCER: Emma Young

CHAIR: Bob McDonald

SPEAKERS: Fiona Fox, Kim Griggs, Amy Forbes

SESSION REPORT: Get it onto page one

By Boonsri Dickinson

Bob McDonald, Quirks & Quarks (Canada) opened this fast-paced session by describing how making a story bigger doesn’t mean you have to sensationalize it. Describing how the hobbits story changed from a mere discovery of fossils found on the remote Indonesian island of Flores to scientific debate over if the fossils were really a new species of humans to a controversy over who owns the fossils. “Now that’s sensationalism. We are not talking about that today,” McDonald says.

When Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre (UK), was told that she had three years to land third-world debt on the front page, she made the story bigger by getting the church involved. After Fox had 20 catholic bishops play tug of war to symbolize debt, three major newspapers had third-world debt on the front page.

Fox’s five tips for making a story bigger:
1. Link to topical picture of the day – SARS or global warming
2. Speak out in numbers – use 5 institutions instead of 5 scientists
3. Be an opportunist – “Any sting ray experts, you had your moment.”
4. Take the journalist to the story – “Day trip to an exotic location, like this.”
5. Embrace celebrities.

Now, at Science Media Centre, Fox says getting Dengue Fever and Malaria on the front page is “just as difficult” as getting third-world debt in the paper.

Kim Griggs, freelance science writer in New Zealand, has to make stories bigger “to make a living.”

The green fat nocturnal parrot — Kakapo — sold well. In one trip, Griggs sold the Kakapo story to COSMOS magazine for a feature, to the BBC by interviewing UK volunteers, and to New Scientist for artificial insemination. Though the real reason to pursue stories like the Kakapo is to hold one of the six Kakapos in her hand, Griggs says.

Griggs gave out some handy advice: develop relationships with editors and exploit resources such as list serves. Most importantly, show your credentials by creating a Web site.

A journalism lecturer at Monash University, Amy Forbes, had her start as a science journalist in the Philippines. Forbes stated clearly that “science journalism is not a big thing in the Philippines,” where most newspapers have no dedicated science page.

Forbes described how early coverage of the possibility of Pinatubo erupting, months before it actually erupted, helped save at least 5,000 lives.

Forbes warned reporters to keep away from wacky science stories and instead to personalize stories. Forbes ends on a light notes, the Philippines are full of epidemics according to the media, but the country has something better — not all the stories are tragic.

During question and answer session, all the speakers agreed that as a journalist, you’ll have to do things that make you uncomfortable. The key to making a story bigger (in terms of longevity) — is a timely news hook. It’s a mystery why some headlines stay in the news for weeks, while a briefing on the AIDs vaccine will only be a one hit wonder.

Front-page news is not the only way to get the news out, try magazine features and documentaries. As for tips for dealing with skeptics — well, the media is “allergic to closing down debates.”

The challenges of reporting suicide and mental health issues

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
4:00 pmto5:30 pm

PRODUCER/CHAIR: Jacinta Miller,

SPEAKERS: Jaelea Skehan, Jane Pirkis, Steve Waldon

SESSION REPORT: Sensationalist or sensitive?

By Christine Dell’Amore

Suicides should appear in the media as a way to increase understanding of mental illness, but journalists should be cautious in how they portray them, experts said Thursday.

Several health organizations worldwide, including one in Australia, provide journalists with media guidelines for reporting on suicide and mental health.

The guidelines are mostly universal – for example, they suggest reporters avoid glamorizing suicide and describing the method of death in detail. (Giving details could encourage readers to replicate the method themselves, a phenomenon called “The Werther Effect.”)

Jane Pirkis of the University of Melbourne studies suicide coverage in the media. In 2000, she began a Media Monitoring Project, which reviewed all Australian TV, newspaper and radio reports for one year and retrieved 4,813 references to suicide.

Once she compared this to national suicide statistics, only 1 percent of suicides were reported in the media — a surprising find, Pirkis told a panel at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Melbourne.

On balance, most of the reporting was sensitive and accurate — for instance, the word suicide was not often used in the headline, and few reporters tried to interview the bereaved against their will. However, many of the stories could have been improved by mentioning suicides’ link to mental illness — depression is the No. 1 risk factor for suicide — and printing information on helplines at the bottom of the article.

Pirkis is now six months into a follow-up study, in which she hopes to find a correlation between reporting well on suicide and a reporter’s knowledge of the media guidelines. The guidelines are distributed to all Australian media outlets, but it’s unknown how many in the media actually refer to them.

For most Australians, the media is the only source of information on mental health and suicide, said Jaelea Skehan, program manager for the National Mindframe Media and Mental Health Project at the Hunter Institute of Mental Health.

The Australian Press Council has deemed suicide a matter of legitimate public interest — and so as long as suicide remains a front-page story, journalists must be careful in how they approach it, Skehan said.

Steve Waldron, a writer for “The Age,” ended the panel with an account of his personal experiences writing about the suicides of a friend and a co-worker. His stories brought up a dilemma over where media responsibility begins and ends, he said.

Although Waldron has won awards for his reporting on suicide, he still wondered if he was “trading in on other peoples’ grief.”

Building and maintaining science journalist associations (Part 1 and 2)

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Session. 0 Comments
icon for podpress  Building and maintaining science journalist associations (Part 1) [89:39m]: Download

PRODUCER: Jean-Marc Fleury

CHAIR: Toss Gascoigne

PRESENTER: Barbie Drillsma

PANEL: Kathryn O’Hara, Julie Martineau, Fida Aljundi, Gervais Mbarga, Jenni Metcalfe

SESSION REPORT: Build your own network army

By Ochieng’ Ogodo

Forming science journalist associations is an important aspect of science journalism, but it requires conforming to some basics.

“The first step is to discover how many potential members you can attract,” said Barbara Drillsman from the Association of British Science Writers.

She said that it’s also important to stress that the association’s intention is to improve standards and to promote a network of science communicators, in case some people think you are forming a body that may be more demanding.

“It’s important to have large numbers. There is strength in numbers. Press clubs, if they exist, could also be used.”

Another important thing is fixing the first meeting after enough interest has been generated. “This can be a formal event or an informal gathering.” At this meeting it is key to discus what members expect from their own science journalist association — for example, sharing knowledge, the support of fellow members or even the possibility of taking part in larger international meetings.

It is also important to appoint officials at the first meeting. And it’s essential to be able to fund the association. “Right from the start you will need some money — even if it is only to pay for advertisements. If you do not have any, seek funding,” she said.

A constitution that lays down the rules and regulations controlling how the association will be run has to be put down. “It is easy to be bogged down when preparing a constitution but keep it as short and simple as possible.”

From the start, she said, it is important to keep strict financial records. “Nobody is willing to invest in, or support, an organisation which is not completely open about its accounts.” Often, you must establish just how much funding you will need to support the first years’ operation before launching the association.

When starting, she pointed out, it is crucial to let members get used to the idea of a subscription that will enable the association to run its basic functions.

According to Tim Louhgeed, President of Canadian Science Writers Association, association events should be sociable. “Make it a very social affair, like having parties during weekends and speaking science in a manner that doesn’t make feel like it’s a job.”

Lougheed said it is also important to have events that profile the organisation the way it wants to be seen. “For us, an award was the best way to go. But we now want to set up scholarships for young people,” he said.

According to Nadia El-Awady from the Arab Science Journalist Association, combining associations offers an invaluable opportunity for different associations to work together, especially for the young ones.

She said a lot of scientific knowledge is coming out each day and networking was one of the best ways of keeping in touch with what’s happening in other parts of world.

Ochieng’ Ogodo, a Nairobi based journalist whose works have been published in various parts of the world, is the chairman of the Kenya Environment and Science Journalists Association (Kensja). He can be reached at ochiengogodo@yahoo.com

Quantum quest – The rise of quantum information

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Session. 0 Comments
icon for podpress  Quantum quest – The rise of quantum information [87:53m]: Download

PRODUCER: John Matlock, Kali Madden,

CHAIR: Stephen Pincock

SPEAKERS: Gerard Milburn, Howard Burton, Raymond Laflamme, Andrew White

SESSION REPORT: THE REVOLUTION’S HERE!

by Raphaëlle Derome

Having trouble writing about quantum computing in a simple way? Well, keep working on it, because the quantum revolution is happening, and it’s here to stay, said experts at this session.

At the heart of this revolution is the concept that information is a physical entity, explained Howard Burton, Executive Director of the Perimeter Institute (Canada). “Information has to be stored somewhere, so it has to deal with the basic underlying laws of reality, laws which are different from the classical mechanics that govern the computers of today.”

One useful application of quantum information technology is the secure transmission of information. Thanks to quantum cryptography (also called quantum key distribution), no one can eavesdrop on your transmission without leaving a footprint. “Companies from Geneva, New York and Paris already have quantum cryptography systems on the market,” said University of Queensland professor Gerard Milburn.

Powerful quantum computers will take longer to develop — maybe 10 or 20 years. “For the moment, we can control about 10 quantum bits,” said Raymond Laflamme. Quantum bits (qubits) are the fundamental units of a quantum computer — equivalent to the transistors in today’s computers. “Around 40 or 50 qubits, classical computers will not be able to follow quantum computers anymore.”

Until then, which milestones should journalists look for while covering the quantum quest?

Long-range teleportation, for one. American scientists have already succeeded in emitting a single photon and detecting it from a distance of nearly 150 km… all in broad daylight. “Over the next few years, there will be attempts at transmitting a photon from ground to satellite and back,” predicted Andrew White. The military is especially keen on this because successful transmission would hold the promise for long-range, 100 percent secure communications.

Improved lab devices, such as single-photon light-sources or better light detectors, will give better control of quantum systems.

As for the rest, scientists cannot predict for sure what the current quantum revolution will bring. But they are eager to find out.

raphaelle.derome@gmail.com

Risky business – perception of risk

Published by
admin
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
2:00 pmto3:30 pm

PRODUCER: Craig Cormick

CHAIR: Fiona Fox

SPEAKERS: Mark Burgman, Lydia Buchtmann, Pallab Ghosh, Rosemary Robbins

SESSION REPORT: Progress: It’s a risky business

By Wu Chong

Food safety, nuclear power and chemical pollution… We live in a risk society where the hazards of scientific and technological progress step into highlight.

And in the public perception of risks, institutional context is important, according to a Melbourne scholar, who spoke at “Risky business — perception of risk,” on Thursday.

Rosemary Robbins, a researcher at University of Melbourne, said nuclear power scores highest in all risks in people’s psychological assessment. Food safety also scores high, she said.

Robbins said people always perceive nuclear power and chemical pollution as institutional failures in controlling risks. And when they perceive technological development, they question things such as, who is benefiting and how does it impact farmers and developing countries.

“We live in a risk society where modernization risks present qualitatively different dilemma,” Robbins said.

Genetically modified (GM) food is an example. “The issue is driven by sub-politics,” she said. “Even experts disagree with each other. We don’t know who we should trust.”

Lydia Buchtmann, a senior employee with Food Standards Australia New Zealand agrees that GM food is an actual risk. “It has continued to be a problem,” she said.

Other risks that are easy to ignore involve the so-called scientists who obtained their PhD degrees from unauthorised backgrounds, she said.

But she emphasized that no action is actually risk free. The difference is whether the risk is acceptable or not. “There are perceived risks from consumers and actual risks,” she said.

For example, consumers always worry that diseases in beef would pass on to humans, or pesticide residues are accumulated on fruit and vegetables.

Also, media play a role of shaping the public perception of risks, according to Mark Burgman from the Australian Center of Excellence for Risk Analysis.

Stem cells and bioethics

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
11:00 amto12:30 pm

PRODUCER: Chee Chee Leung

CHAIR: Robin Marantz Henig

SPEAKERS: Geoff Carr, Mal Washer, Janet Salisbury, Peter Mountford

SESSION REPORT: Stem cell research: The debate rages

by Robert Frederick

From Plato’s Euthyphro to UNESCO’s Universal Ethics Project, ethicists have failed to define a universal ethic. Unsurprisingly, today’s discussion on the ethics of stem cells would have suffered that same fate. That’s because the controversy itself is not universal, as one Korean delegate stood to say.

But the task of the Stem cells and bioethics session was not to define a universal ethic for how to use stem cells, it was to describe the controversy surrounding their use. And that controversy in some countries — described by panelists as “Western” or “Christian-founded” countries — made for a lively discussion as moderated by U.S. freelancer Robin Marantz Henig.

U.K. businessman Peter Mountford of Stem Cell Sciences argued for open policies that allowed as many scientists as possible to pursue the nascent science because scientists are still “trying to understand what’s normal” among stem cells.

Medical doctor and Member of the Australian Parliament Mal Washer pushed back against Henig’s concern that swapping terms was important. He said that changing from “embryonic stem cell” to “blastocyst” this late in the discussion, for example, would cost him dearly in constituents’ trust, a democratic politician’s most important currency.

Janet Salisbury, doctor of cell biology and founder of Australia’s Biotext consulting firm, stressed that journalists should not assume ignorance of one’s audience or interviewees about the underlying science. “People do inform themselves very well,” she cautioned, even of highly technical matters.

And The Economist’s U.K. science editor Geoff Carr summarized advice for science journalists that all panelists agreed to: arguing the benefits of stem-cell research “is a surrogate for a different [ethical] argument.” Carr urged the audience of about one hundred delegates not to make that substitution, or allow others to do so, but focus on the ethical issues themselves.

Who owns science?

Published by
admin
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
11:00 amto12:30 pm

PRODUCER: Richard Jefferson

SESSION REPORT: Thinking positively patents

By Graeme Stemp-Morlock

Everything is patented, especially in the life sciences. It seems every time an institution finds a gene it immediately patents it and sells it to some company. But, this is incredibly problematic for those people who need this technology but can’t afford it.

Richard Jefferson has an idea of how to do away with patents, or at least create a sort of open source biotechnology. “A patent is a device to deny access,” said Jefferson. “You disclose your information and in return the state allows you to monopolize that information for a certain number of years.”

Jefferson believes that this system is not only outdated, but costing the health and lives of millions who can’t benefit from this knowledge. So, he suggests patenting everything.

Say what?

That’s right, he suggests patenting everything, but instead of demanding money for the use of your patent you demand a code of behavior. So, group B uses the information from group A that has a patent dictating behavior. In return, group B must allow group C, D, E, or whoever to use the information they discover from using group A’s patent. In other words, all the information becomes open access much like open access computer software.

This system would work exceedingly well if one gets around the most basic level of biotechnology, the use of the Agrobacterium for gene transfer. By using an alternate method of transfer everything discovered in this method could become open source.

In total this would mean that not only would biotechnology be available to the masses who don’t have the resources to afford the tools, but it becomes a lot more profitable. “Biotechnology is a really good way to lose your money because it has the wrong focus,” said Jefferson. “It should be focused on the building not the tools.”

If Jefferson has his way, public institutions will start patenting their discoveries with codes of behaviors, then the tools could be used by any and all and biotechnology might really achieve the promise we all dream of.

Spreading science through societies by reaching women and children

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Program and Session. 0 Comments
19 April 2007
11:00 amto12:30 pm
icon for podpress  Spreading science through societies by reaching women and children [90:59m]: Download

PRODUCER: Cathy Reade

CHAIR: Rosemary Okello-Orlale

SPEAKERS: Annmaree O’Keeffe, Jacqueline Ashby, Subbiah Arunachalam

SESSION REPORT: Empowering rural women farmers with science—key to achieving food security

by Imelda V. Abano

In many parts of the world, it is the women who are responsible for food security, yet rural women farmers have little access to the benefits of research and innovation, said Jacqueline Ashby, a development sociologist and presently the Director of the Rural Innovation Institute at the Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia.

Professor Ashby said that 80 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion poor depend on agriculture for their survival and that rural women in developing countries play critical roles in guaranteeing food security and well-being for the entire community.

“Empowering women in most developing countries with science is key to achieving food security. We should communicate with them on what new plant varieties and new technology is being developed in order for them to improve their crop production,” Prof. Ashby said.

To help the rural women farmers in the developing countries, Prof. Ashby said that a new strategy is now being introduced — the participatory plant breeding (PPB).

PPB has been proposed as a way to address three problems of conventional plant breeding, namely its low effectiveness in marginal environments, the long time needed to develop a variety and the poor level of adoption, particularly in developing countries.

“Although it is difficult to introduce this new technology to women farmers in the developing countries we are determined to help them and so we partner with several organizations,” she said.

There are currently more than 80 programs worldwide using PPB in a number of different countries and crops. These countries are in Syria, Jordan, Eritrea and Egypt on barley, durum wheat, bread wheat, lentil and chickpea. The first varieties identified through PPB are already in farmers’ fields in Syria, Egypt, Eritrea and Yemen. Other countries such as Jordan and Eritrea are increasingly using PPB as their national breeding strategy.

Reporting science in emerging economies

Published by
niall
19 April 2007 in Session. 1 Comment
icon for podpress  Reporting science in emerging economies [82:38m]: Download

PRODUCER: Julie Clayton

CHAIR: Alison Leigh

SPEAKERS: Tata Padma, Jia Hepeng, Nalaka Gunawardene, Christina Scott, Talet Ng’andwe, Luisa Massarani

SESSION REPORT: Emerging economies face different challenges

by: Aleem Ahmed

Lack of capable science journalists, communication gap between media and scientists, restrictions on reporting against the “official” opinion of the state, lesser-qualified public relations officers at S&T organizations, enormity of imported themes having little or no relevance with the society, non-existence of science-dedicated news services at local level, reluctance in media to report science, and the dearth of government interest to disseminate the scientific knowledge among the masses were the most common problems that science journalists from developing countries highlighted in this session.

Emphasizing the need for local-language science journalism, Christina Scott from South Africa revealed that there are 11 popular science magazines in her country. Among them, only one – having the smallest circulation – is in English, while the others are published in local languages.

Luisa Massarani from Brazil, who also coordinates SciDev.Net in Latin America, pointed to a huge communication gap between science journalists and scientists/ PR officials in the region: if a journalist contacts them to have their opinion regarding some S&T-related issues, generally they don’t respond. She also complained about the lack of and quality of public relations officers at R&D institutions and universities. For her, a small number of news agencies (like EurekAlert, AlphaGalileo and press.nature.com) are yet another problem that a Latin American science journalist has to face.

Voicing similar concerns, Talent Ng’andwe, a science journalist associated with SciDev.Net from Zambia, said the media in his country is free to report anything, except the opinions challenging the official viewpoint of the government – irrespective of their scientific and technical credibility. Additionally, Zambian newspapers consider political news items as the only qualifiers for the front page. And, if published, S&T-related reports find the least prominent place at the inner pages of these newspapers.

But for Nalaka Gunawardene, CEO, TVE Asia Pacific, Sri Lanka, the “immature demand for science” is an important obstacle in his country. For him, government’s unwillingness to enhance public understanding of science, arrogant attitude of concerned officials towards science reporting (using the brutal logic of with-us-or-without-us), and the sacredness of expensive ‘charismatic mega-science’ projects are the core problems that Sri Lankan science journalists are still to overcome. In other words, the lethal combination of nationalism and charismatic mega-science paralyses the real investigative science journalism in Sri Lanka. But, in the face of all these difficulties, “science (journalism) happens,” he said.

Despite making news in recent years, the overall picture of science journalism in India “isn’t completely rosy,” said Tata Padma, SciDev.Net’s South Asia coordinator from India. She noted that the science reporting in Indian media accounts for merely 3 percent of the overall coverage – heading to decrease further. Though the coverage of some scientific issues is increasing and a few investigative reports on science are getting published, the circumstances for science journalism aren’t as favorable as presented before the world. For example, there is no science-dedicated TV channel from India; most of the old Indian magazines of science are now closed while the officials are, generally, of the opinion that no one needs to know science. Like other developing countries, PR officers usually avoid media and there is no organized news service for science in India. More enthusiastic science journalists are needed to change this scenario, but the circumstances discourage new people to report science in the media.

For Jia Hepeng, regional coordinator of SciDev.Net in China, his country is facing a dilemma: China has greatly increased the spending on R&D in science and technology during recent years, yet has paid very little attention to the public communication of science – portraying a scenario almost identical to the other developing countries. But, additionally, Hepeng also suggested that science journalists might help improve the quality of science reporting in local media – by providing them with detailed coverage. He also stressed non English-speaking science journalists to improve their English-language skills, so that they can have a better international recognition.

During the discussion, various journalists from the other developing countries shared similar experiences and criticized their respective governments regarding the neglect of science journalism. Besides this, Nalaka Gunawardene observed a disparity or “non-equity” between science journalists from North and South. That is, an equally competent and capable science journalist of the developing world can only become an assistant for the (documentary-making) projects undertaken by the organizations from the developed nations. Answering a question from the audience, Christina Scott termed science magazines of the developing countries as “extremophiles” because they manage to survive in the most hostile conditions of their societies.

Finally, this plenary session ended with more voices of concern – rather than discussing the realistic, on the ground and practical strategies for the survival of science journalism in developing countries. Hopefully, during the next World Conference of Science Journalists, the WFSJ shall devote a session to discuss the survival strategies for the science journalism in the developing countries.

« Previous Entries

Podcasts

  • View in iTunes
  • Any Podcatcher

Photos


See more of our photos here on the blog, at our flickr account or simply refresh this page.

About

This is the post-conference blog for the 5th World Conference of Science Journalists which took place in Melbourne, Australia from 16 to 20 April 2007.

Acknowledgments