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.
I am posting my presentation here for further discussion–JIA Hepeng:
What does “emerging economy” mean in the field of science:
* Rapid S&T budget increases: China: from 1.3 per cent of GDP in 2005 to 2.5 per cent of GDP in 2020
*Rapid growth in scientific output: 150,000 S&T papers, ranked the world’s fourth, after US, UK and Japan, in 2005. In terms of citations, ranked the world’s 13th. (ISTIC 2006)
* The eagerness to keep up with the international (West) scientific level.
* The strong willingness to be acknowledged by the international community.
* The strong desire of not being neglected or excluded in the international dialogue/contexts of science development
* The rising self-awareness of maintaining an integrated (somewhat independent) science community.
Then the chances in “emerging economy” to cope with problems faced by science journalism:
1. Science or research-based companies in the emerging economies could sometimes be easier to make world-leading research because the desire to keep up with the West could bring looser regulation. Journalists can make good stories of them especially when they know the international situation of it as well as the international debate on the project. Although many emerging economy scientists are reluctant to talk with journalists in general, they are eager to cope with the international doubts and questions. This is the case of China’s gene therapy.
2. Additionally, in an immerging economy like China, there are many huge science projects. The projects themselves could be an important news source, as long as journalists take more independent views to observe and research them.
Within the big projects which cannot be questioned, many details could be picked up for discussion in the journalistic contexts, because this can create a signal that journalists are helping to improve the projects by making them in accord more with international practices.
3. The government influence is strong, but scientists become growingly reluctant to be oriented or dominated by studies which might not bring international excellence. Therefore, there are more chances to get individual scientists who could comment whether certain studies/programmes are international level or are in accordance with international norms.
scientists would not form an image unacceptable by international community. Therefore, as long as a journalist knows more about international norms and background, he or she can use this to encourage or activate the responses from scientists.
4. The strong government influence is the major reason for lacking meaningful and effective debate. But in an emerging economy, the social forces becomes stronger and more diversified. There will be chances to grasp this behind the seemingly peaceful picture of academia.
5. The situation for debate is especially true when in the international community, there are already debates on certain issues in the immerging economy, such as China’s huge water diversion project. A lot of the immerging economy scientists would not make their international counterparts feel that they are indifference to these internationally heated issues. But again, journalists need to protect their sources by using anonyms or other tricks.