SciDev.Net

This report, published by the Center for International Development at Harvard University and the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, asks which institutions and approaches are most effective in using scientific knowledge to inform development strategies.

The authors evaluate five agricultural projects in Africa and Asia and suggest that the best strategies for closing the gaps between knowledge and action include: 'boundary-spanning' efforts such as creating partnerships to improve dialogue between researchers and local communities; 'use-driven' research directed at solving particular problems for particular groups of people; engaging stakeholders from the outset of a project; providing incentives for risk-taking; and improving project management and communication skills.

The WHO has provided its own estimates of how non-communicable diseases are set to rise in developing countries. These authors pool data from national registries and international databases to compare data on the differing burden from individual diseases. They outline the risk factors associated with the diseases.

The main three killers are cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. The paper ranks different types of cancer by how many people in developing countries they kill (lung and breast cancer are the deadliest) and also ranks diabetes prevalence by country (India, followed by China, has the highest prevalence).

To tackle these diseases, say the authors, people need to look closely at the risk factors in their life – eating healthily and exercising can do much to reduce the chances of getting one of these diseases.

The way discussions about biotechnology are framed is also dealt with, concluding that innovative, new techniques are required to create a rational dialogue with the public.

The mass media is an effective way of getting policymakers interested in a research issue, but only if communicators are able to make the issue attractive. Ways to increase the media appeal of research policy related news are suggested, as is the need to equip researchers and analysts with improved communication skills that will help bridge the research-policy gap.

This is a thorough and in-depth analysis of the link between media coverage of science stories and the public understanding of science. The 56-page document was prepared for the UK Economic and Social Sciences Research Council by British media experts Ian Hargreaves and Justin Lewis, with the support of PhD student Tammy Spears.

The study, published in 2002, was based on data collected from a seven-month media analysis of over 2,000 science stories from radio, television and the press, and two nationwide surveys. It focuses on climate change, the MMR vaccine and cloning/genetic research.

Key findings include:

• there is a clear link between media coverage and the way people understand science
• only the broad patterns of coverage (whether a story or one side of a controversy receives more or less media attention than another) inform opinions;
• the presence of more scientists in the media does not appear to increase public understanding of science issues; and
• a clear and consistent narrative behind an issue helps generate public engagement.

This study continues the work that Hargreaves began in his 2000 report Who's Misunderstanding Whom? in which he discusses the idea of 'dialogue' with the public regarding science, and the possibility of enforcing a code of practice for science journalists.

The South African press has often been criticised for its lack of science and technology coverage. This is the report of a study which aimed to determine how and to what degree science and technology were reported in a representative sample of the South African press.

The study surveyed the amount of science coverage in 15 South African publications over three months in 2002. Around 1000 science and technology articles were sampled and studied for profiles of the science reporters, tone of reporting, use of visuals, prominence of coverage and of controversies, and the nature of the reported science.

There were a number of key findings:

• under 2 per cent of the editorial content studied was dedicated to science and technology;
• a large number of science articles came from foreign sources, including foreign publications and wire services;
• on average, each of the 15 publications had two science correspondents, although this varied greatly according to the type of publication, and none of the regional publications had dedicated science reporters;
• overall, the tone of reporting was positive, with 42 per cent of the articles appearing to promote the benefits of science;
• contrary to expectations, the majority of science articles did not deal with controversy;
• together, biomedicine, astronomy, HIV/AIDS and technology constituted the majority of coverage (although Mark Shuttleworth's visit to the International Space Station during the sampling period no doubt boosted astronomy ratings).

The report concludes with a recommendation to repeat the study at regular intervals and over longer periods.

Anil Gupta, Founder Coordinator of the Honey Bee network and Founder President of the Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions, describes the barriers to communication that stand between researchers, policy-makers, policy analysts and the public. He deplores how "big" (formal) science fails to appreciate "small" (local knowledge-based) science, and particularly the part it plays in creating sustainable lifestyles. Other barriers include a reliance on jargon, problems with communicating about risk, and a lack of science funding.

Based in India, Gupta specialises in providing support for small technological entrepreneurs.

The text is also downloadable in Word format.

These guidelines, produced by the UK Social Issues Research Centre, the UK Royal Society and the Royal Institution of Great Britain, address the issues of health reporting and science reporting on health-related issues such as new drugs and medical technologies.

The first section is addressed to print and broadcast journalists reporting on health matters, laying out fundamental questions – credibility of sources, significance of findings, accuracy and communicating risk – that need to be addressed when reporting on science or health issues. The section for journalists also includes guidelines for editors and subeditors.

The US National Association of Science Writers has produced this guidance communicating science news. It introduces the different types of media and their different journalistic techniques; the role of the public information officers in creating science news; the dos and don'ts of media arrangements and some of the pitfalls in reporting science news that can generate misunderstanding and tension between science writers, scientists and public information officers.

This is the Association of British Science Writers' booklet on how to enter the field of science journalism. It is addressed to all aspiring science journalists, including researchers and science graduates who are considering a move away from academic research and into science writing.

Prepared by Natasha Loder, science correspondent at The Economist, the practical advice (for example, lists of training courses) is in part specific to a British audience. However, the bulk of the text describes different entry points (specialist courses, journalism courses, informal experience, internships, freelance work and so on) into science journalism, and their advantages, disadvantages and difficulties. These will likely apply to most countries where science journalism is an established profession.

The booklet includes two essays by Pallab Ghosh, science correspondent for the BBC, and Wendy Grossman, freelance science and technology writer, on broadcast journalism and online journalism. Each contains advice on entry into these media. There is also a 'People' section with biographies of various British science journalists, which provide illustrations of the different routes that can be taken into the profession.

In this paper, G. Pascal Zachary, an experienced development journalist, discusses the challenges to quality development reporting from both developed and developing countries.

He explores the different interpretations of what development is, whether it is positive or negative and how journalists can and should navigate different opinions and ideologies to produce objective pieces, be they in print, web, radio or television.

Though not with specific reference to science journalism, Zachary discusses many issues that are common to all forms of development journalism: issues of free speech, corruption, sensationalism, condescension, the influence of the media, and the importance of giving a voice to the voiceless — the poor that development is trying to reach.

Many of the challenges are shared by Western and developing country journalists alike, others are more specific. Zachary provides suggestions on how these challenges can be overcome, with six other development journalists giving their views on his guidance and adding recommendations of their own.

Produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), this handbook is an introduction to the science behind bird flu and the potential for an influenza pandemic. It contains background information including influenza pandemics of the 20th century, general questions about pandemics, the uncertainty surrounding bird flu, the six global pandemic phases identified by the WHO, how antiviral drugs and vaccines work, and how nations can prepare for a pandemic. It also contains an extensive list of WHO regional contacts. The 24-page handbook is regularly updated and is useful as a fact checking reference and background information source for journalists.

This report analyses key issues surrounding decision-making on GM crops in developing countries. The document was written by Ehsan Masood and others as part of Panos’ Communicating Research through the Media Programme, Relay.

Using case studies from Brazil, India, Kenya, Thailand and Zambia, the report explores how policies and regulations are developed, and who is involved in decision-making processes around GM technology. The authors look at the role played by scientists, international bodies, industry and farmers’ groups and the degree of public participation in decision-making, noting that scientific expertise is most influential throughout the process.

The document also examines the degree to which the media succeeds in performing its key role as facilitator of informed debate. In presenting evidence from their survey of media coverage of GM issues in the countries studied, the authors find a general lack of analytical reporting, with many journalists simply relaying government announcements. Farmers’ viewpoints are generally under represented.

This useful and informative report provides real-world examples of decision-making processes on GM in a variety of developing countries. It will be valuable to anyone interested in such processes or in how well the media supports them.

This document summarises the 12th email conference of the FAO’s e-forum on biotechnology, which took place during January and February 2005. The topic was public participation, and particularly the involvement of people in rural areas. Some 70 international participants contributed to the discussion, and the points they raised are summarised here.

These include the appropriate degree and nature of involvement by rural people in policy-making on issues to do with genetically modified organisms (GMOs); the type of information such groups would need in order to participate effectively; the quality of such information and the problems caused by ‘misinformation’ about GMOs; and the appropriate channels and mechanisms for engaging with rural groups, along with the costs involved.

As with all the FAO e-forum conferences, this discussion provides a valuable insight into the range of opinions, experience and expertise involved in the process of public participation, seen from both an international an local perspective. The document therefore provides a valuable introduction to the areas of consensus and disagreement, which policy-makers, journalists, educators and others will all find useful.

This is the written evidence given by Britain's largest science and technology publisher to a UK parliamentary inquiry on scientific publications.

In the statement, Reed Elsevier defends the traditional 'user-pays' model of scientific publishing.

It argues that by introducing an 'author-pays' model, open access "risks undermining public trust in the integrity and quality of scientific publications that has been established over hundreds of years". Furthermore, the financial viability of open-access models of scientific publishing has yet to be proven, it says.

This is an extract of a letter from Richard Charkin, chief executive of Macmillan publishers, which was submitted as written evidence to a UK parliamentary inquiry on scientific publications.

In the letter, Charkin argues that the 'author-pays' model used by open-access journals "potentially undermines the integrity of the world's highest quality journals, with unwelcome consequences for the scientific community, and for the wider public".

The publisher estimates that it costs £10,000-30,000 to publish a research paper in Nature. "Such an amount would be hardly affordable to most research scientists, and so journals such as Nature would be forced to reduce editorial criteria, and publish more, lower quality papers, and/or favour wealthy authors that were in a position to afford such a fee," the statement says.

This is an overview of the open-access movement and its potential, designed for members of the research and academic communities.

It highlights the key points to consider in thinking about and discussing open access, gives examples of open-access implementation, and provides sources for more information.

Issues addressed by the document include: why access to information is important, and what obstacles limit access. It also lists initiatives that call for open access and gives links to other resources.

This is a statement of principle that was drafted at a meeting in April 2003 at the headquarters of the US-based Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The statement spells out significant concrete steps that all relevant parties — including scientific research organisations, scientists, publishers and librarians — can take to promote the rapid and efficient transition to open-access publishing.

Signed by more than 20 senior figures, the document includes statements from working groups on institutions and funding agencies, libraries and publishers, and scientists and scientific societies.

This document is designed to guide institutions on how to create digital collections of the intellectual output of a single university or a multiple institution community of colleges and universities in an 'institutional repository'.

It outlines the benefits of this approach to organising and disseminating information, and addresses cost and intellectual-property issues.

The document also gives guidance on: organisational, administrative and cultural issues; content policies; faculty outreach and participation; and technical and infrastructure issues.

This is a list of frequently asked questions on self-archiving of research papers.

It provides information on what self-archiving is, and gives advice on how researchers, libraries, publishers and research funders can facilitate self-archiving. 

The questions also address concerns that researchers may have about self-archiving their research, including issues about copyright and peer review.