Interviews for:
Credibility of Science Communication
- An Exploratory Study of Press Releases in Astronomy
A
Summary of Interviews
A.1
Peter Edmonds & Megan Watzke
A.1.1 Short Biography (Edmonds)
 Dr. Peter Edmonds is outreach scientist for the Chandra X-ray Observatory
advertising the wonderful science done with the Chandra X-ray Observatory. His
main research interests are binaries and globular clusters, with an emphasis on
Hubble and Chandra observations. He studied science at the University of Sydney
as an undergraduate, followed by a Ph.D., also at the University of Sydney,
where he studied pulsating stars using the Anglo-Australian Telescope. After
losing too many battles with clouds he was keen to change over to space-based
observing. He moved to Baltimore, Maryland for a postdoc at the Space Telescope
Science Institute, followed by a postdoc at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (CfA).
A.1.2 Short Biography (Watzke)
 Megan Watzke has been press officer for the Chandra X-ray Observatory,
which is one of NASA's "Great Observatories," since 2000. Prior to
joining Chandra, Ms. Watzke was a public affairs specialist for the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. Ms. Watzke
earned a masters degree in science journalism from Boston University after
graduating from the University of Michigan with a major in astronomy and
astrophysics.
A.1.3 Statements from Interview
Watzke: "The review process at Chandra is
pretty rigorous with up to six or seven scientists reviewing a press release
– some of the many steps are necessary but perhaps not all."
Edmonds: "It is our job as communicators to
try to see to that more astronomy and more Chandra get into the press and
public consciousness – but that said, Astronomy does tremendously well
compared to other physical sciences."
Watzke: "In the perfect world, good science
communication is science that is conveyed accurately to the general public in
such a way that it is easily accessible and digestible while not losing any of
the accuracy of the initial result."
Edmonds: "Good science communication is a
compromise – it must remain accurate and interesting at the same time."
Watzke: "Our press releases mainly target
science journalists, who then repackage the content so that the end product can
reach as many people as possible – however the general public can always access
the press release directly at our website".
Watzke: "If you want your story to make it into
TV, you must have simple punch lines."
Watzke: "We are not concerned about having
a really simplified headline because the targeted media like New York Times,
Science and Nature will not misinterpret this headline."
Edmonds: "As communicators we tell the
truth, nothing but the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth."
Watzke: "As long as you are honest about
how shaky or how firm the result is, there is not a problem."
Edmonds: "It is not embarrassing to put out
a correction, because it will mostly be the scientist's mistake – it is the
scientific process."
Watzke: "If you waited to everyone had iron
proof evidence, you could never put a press release out
– there is always uncertainty."
Edmonds: "Scientists get upset if something
is oversimplified or if credit is not given to scientists who has done work in
the field earlier – but then again we cannot mention everybody."
Watzke: "Some scientists still prefer just
to communicate their science via public journals, but I do not see that very
often any more."
Watzke: "We do not do anything without the
scientist's agreement, even though we might strongly disagree with their ideas
of about how to represent their result to the public."
Edmonds: "Scientists are to some extend
concerned about being seen as one who steals the spotlight."
Watzke: "Scientists are not going to get a
new job or more observation-time because we do a press release for them, but
there is an acknowledgement of benefits if their work is better known."
Watzke: "It can be an institutional
nightmare to do combined press releases with other observatories because of the
rigorous review process of press releases."
Edmonds: "In spirit the whole community are
in it together when communicating to the public, but you also want to see your
name."
Watzke: "If a good science story gets to
the public, it benefits everyone in the scientific community."
Edmonds: "I don't think there's a big
credibility problem in science communication today – some scientists are
being very careful and maybe too credible."
Edmonds: "NASA's 1998 extrasolar planet
didn't really hurt credibility in the general public since not much about the
mistake got very far."
Watzke: "NASA has a reputation as being
very pushy and over simplifying".
Watzke: "Did we have any idea that the
Quark-star would not come through in the press as we imagined? No, but maybe we
could have guessed."
Watzke: "The Quark-star was somewhat
controversial, but sometimes you must try to walk a line, because if everything
has to be proven you cannot do anything."
Watzke: "You end
up walking a line, because you want to be as interesting and provocative as
possible with out being wrong."
Watzke: "The way science is reported is
changing rapidly"
Watzke: "Scientists are upset to see a
wrong message in the newspaper and complain. But it's not necessarily our
fault."
Watzke: "A charter from IAU with broad
outlines to set the tone would be a good idea."
A.2
Bob Fosbury
A.2.1 Short Biography
 Dr. Bob Fosbury is head of Space Telescope European Coordinating
Facility (ST-ECF) in Munich. He is currently chairman of the ESO Astronomy
Faculty, the largest group of professional astronomers in Europe (and Chile),
and is active in the close liaison between the ESO and ESA science programmes.
He has published over two hundred scientific papers on topics ranging from the
outer atmospheres of stars, the nature of quasars and active galaxies to the
physics of forming galaxies in the most distant reaches of the Universe.
A.2.2 Statements from Interview
"I suppose credibility is a whole spectrum
of truth or misinterpretation up to the question of the highest level of
importance – a potential paradigm shift or whether one should have a look
at this because it is cool."
"I believe there is a demand or a perceived
demand for quantity of communication and perhaps less interest in identifying
aspects of quality and importance in science communication. By satisfying the
continuous demand one can blur the distinction between the important high
significance events and the run-of-the-mill ones."
"When a professional in, I guess, any
science sees a press release they think the organization must have a grant
application review coming up and therefore they are trying to create some kind
of event around this."
"To show that your idea is an important
element while neglecting other important work is something we have to live
with."
"I think it is important to expose the
public to a scientist directly without the intermediate PR-professional, but aspects
of credibility are more exposed in this direct contact, than in the processed
contact."
"There is the whole question of
misinterpretation of observations and discoveries. There are shades of
correctness or credibility in misinterpretations. Necessarily mistakes will be
made – if they are genuine honest ones, its fine."
"If one can get that idea of methodology
over to the public I think one is doing science a tremendous service."
"If the public feel they are deliberately
being misled, then I think their patience will run out."
"The public could easily remove itself from
science as an intellectual activity. Technology is a different thing, but the
public do not realise how closely coupled they are."
"It is difficult to determine what good
science communication is when dealing with the general public. I think it is
important to have a metrics to see the impact we have on the public. The people
who listen to a talk can often understand much more than you give them credit
for."
"Trying to explain without blinding people
with technicalities or cleverness but not trivialising and not necessarily
simplifying it."
"There is a problem with visibility of
science in the media. People have a very short attention span. You have to try
to reach as many people as possible without neglecting the high quality contact
with small number of people."
"Many scientists involved in making a press
release exposing their work are most worried by the reaction of their peers.
"It's certainly a problem that the science
community do not understand the work of communicators. "
"If there is no scientific paper backing a
press release there'd better be pretty good reasons and you must be prepared to
suffer the consequences."
"A recommended code of conduct in the form
of guidelines is a good idea, but rules are not."
A.3
André Heck
A.3.1 Short Biography
 Prof. André Heck is a first-class Astronomer at Strasbourg
Observatory in France and has a life-long devotion to astronomy and scientific
public outreach. He holds a D.Sc. and a degree in communication techniques and
more than 140 refereed and/or review papers on a broad range of themes. His
editorial production is impressive with some 70 books as author or editor and
more than 1400 papers, quite a few of them being directed to the public at
large – a return towards the society that he never neglected. He has also
launched a novel series of volumes devoted the organizational, strategical and
sociological issues in astronomy and related disciplines. He produced quite
recently an edited book on the multinational history of Strasbourg Observatory.
A.3.2 Statements from Interview
"Credibility
occurs if the message that you conveyed has been received credible by the receiver."
"You can
have a completely wrong message but, if it makes sense, then you are credible
– bluff works that way."
"You can be
credible without doing a good job – you can e.g. be an astrologer."
"You are
largely responsible to tailor your message in a way it is well received."
"A
credibility problem definitely exists, and it cannot be solved through golden
rules."
"Many
astronomers live in their own little crystal sphere and do not care about the
outside world, which is a lack of social responsibility."
"The
credibility problem lies at different levels – scientific information
might not be expressed properly, the message might not be conveyed adequately,
or the end-user does not understand it properly."
"Idealistic
astronomers should be reminded about their social responsibility because the
society has paid for their education and their salary is frequently covered by
taxpayer's money."
"The
general public rate astronomy first as what is most interesting science, but
life science first as where to spend the money. That is why astronomy is
getting less and less funds."
"The
scientists try to get funds by either public support or citations – both
can be influenced by non-objective factors."
"Science
communication is a matter of quality not quantity."
"Some years
ago, an announcement that life had been found on Mars made all the headlines
and even triggered some words from the US President (Clinton). Interestingly
this took place shortly before a NASA budget was to be approved by the US House
of Representatives or by the Senate. Of course, no life has ever been found of
Mars, but the subsequent rectification remained almost unnoticed in the news."
"The
problem for science communication is that the public is retaining the big news
even though it is wrong and possible subsequent rectifications remain
unnoticed."
"A good
press release informs accurately and is being well understood."
"The best
message is the short message – short, flashy, attracting, teasing."
"Behind
hype is the problem of visibility and recognition – the fight of
organisations, laboratories or people for money."
"People who
have benefited temporarily of hype can afterwards pay this very dearly, either
because they either deserve it or because a lot of people are jealous."
"An ethical
charter, not only from IAU, but also from all organisations, that would be of
application to scientists and communicators would be highly desirable."
A.4
Robert Hurt
A.4.1 Short Biography
 Dr. Robert Hurt is the visualization scientist (pubic affairs) for
the Spitzer Space Telescope, part of NASA's "Great Observatory" program.
In addition to his current work on Spitzer, Dr. Hurt has previously worked as a
staff scientist on the Two Micron All Sky Survey, and a postdoctoral fellow on
the ESA Infrared Space Observatory. Dr. Hurt received his Ph.D. in physics from
UCLA in 1993, and his research interests include gas dynamics in starburst
galaxies, local star formation, and luminous infrared galaxies.
A.4.2 Statements from Interview
"In order to make sure we keep credibility,
everything has to be correct."
"In public affairs you are pulled between
two poles, sensationalizing the results and correctness."
"Spitzer has a long review process that
relies on the scientist's approval."
"I do not think there is a credibility
problem, because most press releases are fairly much on the mark."
"If the science community loses credibility
with the general public we face a significant danger of loss of interest and
loss of ability of communicating important things they need to know."
"Science covers many things but for the
public it is a small field – misrepresenting can hurt all scientific
areas and have a kind of halo effect."
"The primary concern of scientists with
regards to credibility is to lose credibility among their peers."
"A scientist must have a public identity
before he or she is likely to worry about personal public credibility"
"If the scientists do not trust the
communicators, they will not come to them again. And equally if the journalists
lose trust in communicators, they are not going to print the story. The
credibility has to be maintained."
"What ever you do, you have to keep your
credibility with your collaborators."
"Good science communication is taking a
scientific technical result and clearly communicating it to a non-technical
audience."
"Engage the audience and give them flavour
for the processes of science and then you have succeeded."
"We primarily target the larger mass media,
but we also try to hit the more informed media."
"The most interesting and frustrating thing
about press releases is the limited space for telling the actual science story
– definitions of key terms and even some results often get left behind,
because there is not enough space."
"We try not to compare Spitzer images
directly with lower resolution or lower sensitivity ones from previous
missions. This could be perceived as trying to "show off" and devalue
the importance of prior work."
"We try not to put out a press release
without a published refereed scientific paper, but sometimes you do not have a
choice."
"You really have to clarify the nature of
the sources when you do not have a refereed scientific paper."
"Hype has been beneficial to the scientific
community, because reporters need to know why this is interesting to their
readers."
"Science communicators have learned to find
the hooks."
"It can be difficult to work under
mandatory guidelines that are applied broadly to all releases. Guidelines can
be helpful for consistency, but they should also reflect the real needs of journalists
and be applied flexibly in situations where they can be counterproductive to
communicating the story."
"Guidelines should be more how to deal with
the critical phases."
"Any chink in the armour of credibility can
make the entire scientific community vulnerable to attack."
A.5
Bruno Leibundgut
A.5.1 Short Biography
 Dr. Bruno Leibundgut is head of Office for Science at European
Southern Observatory (ESO) and an internationally recognized top researcher in
astronomy within supernovas. He has, besides his production of many scientific
papers, also written several popular science articles. He is currently chairman
of the press review board at ESO who reviews the ESO and ESA/Hubble news and
photos releases.
A.5.2 Statements from Interview
"ESO has no formal obligation to communicate ESO results to
the outside world."
"Time has changed – scientists now
also have to do science communication."
"Science communication has become more and
more important."
"Here at ESO we have followed the excellent
example of STScI/OPO."
"I don't think a credibility problem exists
at the moment. When reading a newspaper only in your own field do you see the
shortcuts taken in the communication process. However, one cannot hide behind
this really."
"You need to earn credibility every day."
"I don't think there is a large difference
between the US and Europe with respect to credibility. The US is more
aggressive, but do not necessarily do something wrong."
"The public communication works on
different time scales than the scientific process."
"In our editorial board we cannot re-reduce
the data."
"A press release targets both the public
and the fellow scientists."
"Good science communication is about the
delivery. It's about excitement. It's about answering the question why this is
important for people. It's about beauty and attraction. Good science
communication has to be correct. Analogies are for example often too simple or
even wrong. And it is important to involve the astronomers. For the actual work
it is a balance between the scientists and the PIO."
"No scientific result came out of a vacuum
– they all build on previous results."
"There ought to be a scientific paper
before the press release. The main reason for this is that someone has sat down
and thought things through carefully. A refereed paper gives an objective
opinion. If there is no paper, then the evidence has to be shown: graphs, data,
pictures . Whether a press release needs a
paper depends highly on how complex the science is. Whether it is "on/off" or a
"complex technical" result."
"If we lose credibility we lose support and
people will get disinterested. It may lead to a long-term downsizing of the
whole astrophysics."
"Fundamental science is more susceptible to
the loss of credibility than applied science."
"Credibility in science communication is
very important."
"Also PIOs can lose credibility with the
scientists and this is very bad."
"A formal code of conduct may be good, but
I am not sure how to implement it."
A.6
Mario Livio
A.6.1 Short Biography
 Dr. Mario Livio is a Senior Astrophysicist at the Hubble Space
Telescope Science Institute, and the previous head of the Institute's Science
Division. He is an internationally known astrophysicist, a bestselling author,
and a popular lecturer. He joined the STScI in 1991 as head of the Archive
Branch. Prior to coming to STScI, he completed his undergraduate studies
(majoring in both physics and mathematics) at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem,
his M.Sc. degree (in theoretical particle physics) at the Weizmann Institute,
and his Ph.D. (in theoretical astrophysics) at Tel-Aviv University. He was a professor
of physics in the physics department of the Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology from 1981 until 1991.
A.6.2 Statements from Interview
"A credibility problem does not exist in
science communication today, as the review process is very heavily scrutinized
due to several people checking the veracity of a press release."
"In the history of Hubble there have been
very few problems with accuracy."
"Most press conferences are held after the
arrival of a refereed paper. The few exceptions are indeed when the results are
being transmitted live. During these live transmissions the emphasis is not at
the results, as they do not exist at the point, but instead it is the drama of
the observation that is in focus."
"The credibility question regarding
live-events does not exist. Instead the question should be: Does the given
observation qualify for live coverage?"
"Good science communication should be
interesting to the public and make them able to understand exactly what the
importance of the finding is."
"Good science communication enhances the
public interest in science and encourages young people to go into science
– we do not always achieve that, as the public opinion sometimes differs
from that of scientists regarding the interest of a finding."
"When using words like "may", "could", "possible"
etc. the news media does not find these stories to be exciting enough, and does
therefore not print them. This results in press releases that sometimes have a
very slim chance of being interpreted right."
"The one event which is always quoted being
a failure in terms of credibility is the NASA 1998 Extrasolar Planet."
"The NASA 1998 extrasolar planet press
release actual did had cautious words like "may", "possible"
etc.. They did however not appear in the article presented by the journalist
– in hindsight we should not have made that particular release."
"You can not avoid that something is proven
wrong later – it is the way science progresses."
"Given all the information you have, you
should be convinced that this looks correct. It then might be proven wrong
later on."
"If fundamental information in your press
release is proven wrong you might have to release a new press release regarding
the revision of the results."
"It does not make sense to retract a press
release that is proven wrong, unless this occurs within a short time of the
emission of the press release. I do not believe that people remembers earlier
releases."
"We always give credit to others who has
done work before. If a specific telescope has some unique capabilities then we
emphasise the observatory. However this only occurs if the foundation of the
results is based on the specific capabilities of a telescope."
"We have a very long and rigorous procedure
for transforming research results into a press release. It involves many people
who need to approve the release."
"I do not believe that there exists a
serious problem regarding credibility in modern science communication, and does
therefore not believe that a common code of conduct is needed."
"It is very hard to gain credibility, and
very easy to lose it. "
"Losing credibility would be a disaster as
the public would not take you seriously and therefore you would achieve the
exact opposite of what you were trying to achieve."
A.7
Dirk H. Lorenzen
A.7.1 Short Biography
 Dirk Lorenzen is a senior science reporter for German Public Radio
and major newspapers since 1994. He covers astronomy and space flight. Mr.
Lorenzen graduated in astrophysics from Hamburg University. He authored five
popular books about astronomy and has given hundreds of public talks. Mr.
Lorenzen is a member of the executive board of the German Association of
Science Journalists. In 2005 he chaired the Participants' Forum "Europe in
Space: Taking off without the public?" at the conference
"Communicating European Research" in Brussels, organized by the
European Commission.
A.7.2 Statements from Interview
"I find my stories and news by checking web
pages, checking press releases, reading Nature or Science or articles on
astro-ph. In some cases I get in touch with astronomers and go to conferences."
"I do not really trust press releases
– I always have to check them."
"It is the responsibility of the journalist
to check the press releases."
"If someone issues a press release they
want you to have a special view on a case."
"Press releases do not mention errors and
sometimes they are published for political reasons."
"If I can not talk to the scientist I will not
follow the story."
"I trust the scientific paper more than the
press release, but the papers are done by humans and humans can be wrong."
"I do trust some organisations more than
others – unfortunately."
"Peer reviewing is a slow process. I think
you have to communicate fast."
"If you have a beautiful image then you do
not need a refereed paper – Hubble does this perfectly, while ESA does
not."
"If the press release is done in a perfect
way it will start with some hype, but it is ok – it is journalist's job
to question it."
"If based on sound facts hype can be
beneficial."
"Credibility is about honesty and presenting
your organization well."
"You are never allowed to lie – to me
people who lie are dead to me and to my colleagues too."
"It pays in the long run to tell about
mistakes. Only if the press release is entirely wrong, you should make a new
one."
"It sounds very nice with guidelines and
everybody will tell it sounds great, but it will not really work."
"The general trend is that the better and
the younger scientists are, the more willing they are to communicate."
"Good science communication should tell a
story and not communicate too many facts."
"Good science communication has to appeal
to the public and needs a human touch that most scientists do not like."
"The Americans are better at communicating
– but American scientists have also much more pressure to get their
research in the news and sell the story."
"You have to be more careful if you read
American press releases."
"We need a shift in the attitude towards
science communication – it is not only a problem of the PR people but
also of the scientists."
"Communication is important and it makes it
worthwhile for all including the scientists, but the scientists do not realise
that."
"Science communication is not visible enough
for the general public and in science communication it is very important to
communicate to the people that pay for it."
A.8
Claus Madsen
A.8.1 Short Biography
 Claus Madsen is head of the ESO Public Affairs Department. In 1980,
he joined ESO, concentrating on wide-field scientific imagery of the Milky Way,
the Magellanic Clouds and the Local Group galaxies. Since 1986, he has focused
on science and society issues, organising exhibitions, producing films and
giving public lectures on astronomy. He is co-author of the book 'Exploring the
Southern Sky' (Springer Verlag, 1987). Between 2000-2005, as European Affairs
Officer he coordinated the relations between ESO and the EU. He participates in
several EIROforum (a partnership of European intergovernmental research
organisations) working groups on aspects of European science policy.
A.8.2 Statements from Interview
"As far as I know, we are the only
organization, which provides an accurate description of the purpose, procedure
and underlying philosophy behind press releases including their relationship
vis-à-vis the original scientific paper – in other words a precise tool
for the proper understanding of a press release. We do this to make this
difference obvious to everybody and to support our credibility with the science
journalists."
"The communication process at ESO is as
follows: 1) Firstly, we normally require a scientific paper which has been
accepted for publication in a bona-fide scientific journal. 2) The original
paper is subjected to a further internal review at ESO by an internal review
board, which consists of 5-6 members. Their job is entirely to evaluate the
technical and scientific content of the paper. 3) Provided that the internal
review board also 'accepts' the paper, we start preparing the first draft for
the actual press release. This is done in close collaboration with the original
authors, but may also involve other parties (graphics specialists, media
people, etc.). 4) The draft press release is evaluated again by the internal
review board. This time their task is to spot possible scientific mistakes or
expressions in the release that might cause misunderstandings."
"The media – also in Europe –
gives priority to NASA news and we have the impression that the media accepts
nearly all that is published by NASA – because of this we have little
chance to be heard if we send out a press release on a particular topic at the
same time as NASA."
"When at the time of the ESOF International
Scientific Conference we published the press release about the extrasolar
planet in orbit around µ Arae, we made sure to
make the journalists aware of fact that this particular press release was based
on a submitted, but not yet accepted, paper. The urgency of publishing this
release was due to series of external factors, but the scientific paper was in
fact accepted shortly thereafter. This did not seem to bother journalists, but
later at a press conference in the US we were heavily criticized for this
– though indeed not by the journalists!"
"Given that NASA quite often appears to
make news announcements, which are not supported by an accepted paper –
which can of course be justified in the case of a scientific meeting for
example – we're indeed puzzled by criticism from NASA when, on rare occasions,
we publish a press release based on a submitted but still-to-be accepted
science paper."
"Credibility is a principal asset of ours."
"Press work is work 'in the fast lane'.
Occasionally, the lengthy procedures that we follow at ESO to prepare a press
release, including the time needed for our scientists to verify our statements,
entails the risk that we might be 'scooped' by others. However, this is a price
we are ready to pay to maintain the trust of the media."
"One of the greater conflicts is within the
search for extrasolar planets and gamma-ray bursts. Here there is very hard
competition."
"Within the confines of science, proper
referencing is an integral part of 'good conduct'. In the public domain,
especially in hotly contested fields of science, we see that both PR people and
some scientists find it hard to acknowledge achievements of colleagues."
"I do not believe that – per se
– scientific research lacks public support, but it is not 'an
unquestioning support'. The issue is confidence. It is important to remember that
great advances always have two sides. This was seen in the last century, e.g.
in nuclear physics, which of course also brought about the nuclear bomb. Today,
it is clearly a problem in the life sciences where we see a great increase in
ethical issues. Nanotechnology is an area which could pose similar problems."
"Vying for public attention is a struggle
to be fought every day. Getting into the public mass media is not simply a
question of the quality or merit of the 'news' itself. It is a question of understanding
– and mastering – the 'news game' in a climate dominated by harsh
competition with less ethical stops than we would sometimes wish. I am
concerned of what this does to the credibility of science in the long run."
"If the claim put forward in a press
release turns out to be wrong, we normally leave it at the webpage, but we do
insert a 'disclaimer' so that the press releases can be read and understood in
the light of more recent findings."
"A press release is not simply a document
which describes results of research; it documents the fact that a research
result (often associated with specific claims) has been publicized. In this
sense, the data can be wrong, but the press release will still be correct. Science
is a living process: something true one day may be proven wrong, based on new
evidence, the following day. A press release is only valid as such at the time
of its release and with the knowledge of the moment."
"It is important to realize that a press
release is not a scientific paper."
"I believe that a code of conduct will be a
good idea. It would not provide any guarantees, of course, just like the
traffic code: If may be violated, but at least it provides a set of rules for
everyone to go by."
"Because our fundamental task is to serve
European scientists, I do not have any issues with other people being mentioned
before us, as long as our role is still acknowledged."
"We are not afraid of referring to other
research teams, organizations or results obtained by other scientists."
"As the search for extrasolar planets is
directly linked to the search for life and as such is one the most fundamental
interest of many people, this field is in great danger of being hyped."
"With respect to credibility, you can
decide to implement procedures and standards just as we have done. But it must
be understood that the mediation process operates according to its own rules
and the normative idea that many scientists seem to entertain, that they should
or could somehow decide on how a certain story is reported, is simply naïve."
A.9
Govert Schilling
A.9.1 Short Biography
 Govert Schilling is a science correspondent and former programme
leader of the Artis Planetarium in Amsterdam. He writes regularly on science
topics for the Dutch newspapers de Volkskrant and Vrij Nederland, as well as
the American and British magazines Sky & Telescope, Science and New
Scientist. His previous books include Werelden naast de aarde (Worlds Near the
Earth, 1990), De salon van God (God's Salon, 1993) and Tweeling aarde (Twin Earth,
1997). He is autodidact in astronomy and journalism and has written more than
40 books on popular astronomy and many more articles.
A.9.2 Statements from Interview
"I find my news by reading magazines. This
is where I normally have my background stories from. The web is getting more
and more important. I also subscribe to mailing lists and have many personal
contacts. I talk to scientists at press conferences, lectures and sometimes the
researchers call me"
"I do not use PIOs very often to get
information. I meet them at the AAS meetings, and I know them, but I prefer to
talk to the researcher instead. In this way I can do background checks."
"The difference between a normal journalist
and a science journalist is that the normal journalist does not have the
contacts and does not know whom to call."
"As a journalist you have to keep in mind
that PIOs determine which topics get released."
"I am a trustful person and I trust the
PIOs, but there is said to be a lack of trust between PIOs and journalists."
"It is very important to work together and
it is important that journalist do not suspect the PIOs for lying."
"To me it is very important not to base a
story on misinformation. I want to be sure that everything is accurate and I
believe it is the personal responsibility of the journalist to get it right."
"As a journalist you have to be aware that
PIOs will not tell you of competitive research, and it is the journalist's duty
to check up on this."
"The difference between science journalists
and normal journalists is that normal journalists do not have time to check the
press release, because of deadlines – you can not blame them."
"Every serious science journalist knows
that press releases are made by PIOs who emphasize their own organization."
"You can not expect the PIOs to also tell
about the problems they encounter."
"It is important to get media response.
This means that the amount of press releases increases just before the
government is about to give out funding."
"The more the people from the government
see your work, the more they can relate to it and the more money they will
provide to the organization."
"NASA certainly would benefit from positive
and frequent media exposure in a time when congress is deciding on things like
Hubble maintenance."
"I believe there is a big problem with
scientist not wanting to communicate their research. As a colleague said "I
have never encountered an episode where a poet says, that "I am probably not
the right poet to ask about my poem", this happens all the time with scientists."
"The scientist is afraid
- The communicator will simplify his work.
- To receive bad response from his colleagues.
- His colleagues will think that he is too eager to get in the
press
- Being looked down upon by other scientists"
"Scientists do not understand why it is
important to make simplifications, but it is the simplification that helps you
get the message across."
"There are big differences between US and
Europe, but the biggest difference is the willingness to communicate."
"In US you need to get money every couple
of years. This makes it important to be seen in public, because this is where
the senators see you, and they might recognize your work when the funding is
being paid out."
"The younger scientists have grown up in a
world of communication, but they have to be careful not to make mistakes while
a mistake can damage their career."
"The topics that interest the public the
most are black holes, extraterrestrial life, extreme physics and cosmology."
"It is not always that a scientific paper
is needed, but if there is I will always have a look."
"I use the paper to look up literature on
the subject, for background information and I check if it has been done
before."
"Peer reviewing and a scientific paper give
no guaranties that a press release is solid facts."
"If a press release turns out to be wrong
you should put out a new press release and look for a good angle to make the
mistake more positive."
"Terebey did everything right, she had a
paper, a press release, and later a accepted peer reviewed paper and she
published a new press release when it was proven wrong."
"In hindsight the NASA 1998 extrasolar
planet press release was too strong and too confident, but because it was
published at a NASA Space Science Update, everybody believed it."
"NASA should only have sent out a press
release with an image and some background information for the 1998 extrasolar
planet."
"The public do not care if the research
turns out to be wrong – it gives the right view on science and that
searching for extrasolar planets is a high goal."
"It does not matter if results are proven
wrong – this is how science works."
"A code of conduct is not a good idea,
since there will always be a lot of competition. Scientists and PIOs will always
want to beat the other organizations."
"There will always be competition between
PIOs and PIOs, scientists and scientists and journalists and journalists."
"There is hype everywhere and everybody is
doing it."
"There is nothing wrong with hype –
it opens new fields."
"Hype can in some ways be beneficial while
it makes science less dull, because the exciting subjects are often being
hyped."
A.10 Neil DeGrasse Tyson
A.10.1 Short Biography
 Dr. Tyson has often been called "The Carl Sagan of our time" –
he is director for the Hayden Planetarium in New York and has been appointed by
President Bush to serve in the 9-member commission "Implementation of the
United States Space Exploration Policy" in 2004. Tyson's contributions to the
public appreciation of the cosmos have recently been recognized by the
International Astronomical Union in their official naming of asteroid "13123 Tyson".
A.10.2 Statements from Interview
"What matters to one person, does not matter to another
person."
"It is important to know whom you are speaking
to, when you communicate. It matters to me what matters to them, because I will
use this to communicate to them. It is harder now than ever before to know what
matters to them, because people have so many different references to many
different media."
"Money matters – NASA money is tax
money, the National Science Foundation money is tax money and I believe that
the scientists have realised this."
"The members of congress are not
scientists, and this means, that when communicating to the public you are also
communicating to the members of congress."
"After the Cold War, astronomy could not
expect money from military funding any longer."
"In America the increasing capitalism means
that the amount of money you make, defines your amount of success, which
results in science communicators needing to adapt their press releases to
reaching large crowds."
"A credibility problem doesn't exist in
America anymore, due to Carl Sagan's appearance on Johnny Carson and the
Tonight Show."
"People were astonished that Carl Sagan
would reach that far into the land of entertainment and talk about science.
Today I do that all the time, provided my content is real."
"My job description is partly to bring
science to the public."
"Many American press releases exaggerate
the significance of a finding, to the exclusion of other work, which may be of
a good quality, but lacks the machinery to publish it. It concerns me, but not
to the extent to take any action."
"Communicators need to get the attention of
the media, but unless the press release includes superlatives, they worry that
the press will not see it."
"Temptation is high to exaggerate findings."
"The
temptation for hype is huge."
"Good journalists will not only speak to you, but also to
your competing group."
"You should only make press releases with
enough superlatives to impress the public. It should not be to inform
scientists."
"There is nothing wrong with being wrong,
but you do not want a press release coming out in advance of a peer reviewed
publication of an article. Then you are breaking scientific protocol."
"95% of news is local news"
"If I, in theory, send out a press release
and the story turned out to be wrong, I should send out a retraction, if the
story started to escalate."
"If you do not have a scientific paper
backing your press release, it could turn out to be the end of your carrier
– this happened to the scientists involved in the cold fusion"
"Scientists do not want it to look as if
they are stooping to the level of the public in case one of their colleagues
sees it."
"Scientists
try to keep a high level, so they can still stay high up on the ladder."
"The publication of the retraction by Susan
Terebey is a noble gesture which would normally claim high respect."
"Susan Terebey should have published the
paper and not issued the press release, as she would still get credit if the
results proved to be true. Publishing the press release before the scientific
paper was accepted would not be tactical."
A.11
Ray Villard
A.11.1 Short Biography
 Ray Villard has specialized in communicating astronomy to the
general public for the past 20 years. As Public Information Manager for the
Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), he is responsible for disseminating
news about the most recent discoveries made with Hubble Space Telescope. He
previously was associate editor for Astronomy and Star & Sky magazines, and
has written a variety of freelance articles. He holds an M.S. in Science
Communication from Boston University.
A.11.2 Statements from Interview
"To ensure accuracy you will have to make
sure that everything you make available to the public must be true and
accurate."
"To make something interesting and
glamorous is not hype – hype is when you take credit for more than you
deserve."
"Scientists who hype will in time lose
their credibility with their peers."
"The level of accuracy is irrelevant if no
one pays attention."
"In the process of simplifying, or
glamorizing, it is easy to introduce errors."
"If you hype, you will lose credibility."
"If you try to popularize science you risk
being accused of hyping."
"The organisations have an obligation to
share its information with the public."
"I do not believe that a credibility
problem exists between science organisations and the media in general, however
there are an issue regarding NASA who is often perceived as having a tendency
to hype their results."
"Science communication needs to be exciting
in order to get the public's attention."
"In good science communication, getting the
public's attention is more important than accuracy. In order to achieve this
you should use simple language, and make the subject relevant to their everyday
life."
"Bad science communication is when you
expect the public to understand difficult technical terms, and thereby do not
get their attention."
"People are amazed of the beauty of
pictures in astronomy, which adds another aspect within science communication."
"We translate the information to an
appropriate level in order to make the public understand and to gain their
interest."
"It is a great challenge not to look like
you are diminishing other facilities when emphasising your own observatory."
"It is bad science communication if you
choose to emphasize the least plausible explanation in order to make it
interesting to the public."
"Science is a self correcting process, in
which you are bound to make mistakes. About half the published papers need some
degree of correction."
"Many astronomers accuse NASA of hyping,
partly due to the Mars meteorite suspected of containing fossil evidence for
microorganisms; I however believe that it is necessary to publish exciting
results quickly in order to get the public's attention."
"Scientists can be overly concerned about
the accurate reporting of their work due to criticism from their peers.
However, regarding the public, no one complains about mistakes being corrected
as they see it as a natural part of the scientific process."
"The biggest problem in science
communication is the fact that many scientists disagree with the need to
publish fast, due to criticism from their peers."
"A press release should not always wait for
a peer reviewed paper, as some discoveries can be too important to remain
secret for long."
"I do not put much credence in reviewed
papers, as I do not think they guarantee accuracy. Peer reviewing pleases the
scientists, but not the public. There are plenty of examples where peer
reviewed papers turned out to be wrong."
"You can be more flexible with astronomy
than other sciences such as medicine. At least if the result is later proven
wrong it will not kill anyone."
"The scientist does not understand what the
public comprehend and find interesting, and needs to accept what the public
affairs professionals bring to the table."
"If you make a terrible mistake, you should
make a correction, not a retraction."
"A long-term consequence of losing
credibility is that reporters will not pay attention to you."
"Once credibility
is lost it is very hard to achieve again."
"Science communication has to achieve
certain balance in both simplification and accuracy."
|
