| 17 April 2007 | ||
| 9:00 am | to | 10:15 am |
PRODUCER: Tim Thwaites, Melissa Trudinger
CHAIR: Robyn Williams
INTRODUCTION: John Brumby,
SPEAKERS: Chris Mooney, Jia Hepeng
SESSION REPORT: Speak out scientists. Speak out Chinese
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.
As a speaker of the session, I highly appreciate the theme and people’s interest in it. But personally, I think some information has not been stressed while others get expanded. I did say propaganda is a barrier to Chinese science journalism, but I wanted to disucss the theme futhur: Why, despite seemingly great support from the government to science journalism, it is still suffering a great regression. I think it is propaganda, together with the institutions set for this purpose, that have resulted in this situation. With a propaganda purpose, 1. most information flow is always single-way, lacking participation from readers; 2. a lot of information is always focused for the science community; 3. Always good news which has led some ads-style science news for commercial interests; 4. Science PIO only favours official news outlets which, without a strong market competition, are less likely to think for the public taste.
Although my presentation is focused on situation in China, I think this could be inspiring to other situations where science communication is done simply to boast scientific community and achievements.