NASW news

Primary tabs

Thank you to the 700 members who took the time to participate in the recent votes on the NASW bylaws. The final vote, shown below, is that the general housekeeping updates to the bylaws overwhelmingly passed. The proposed Article IV amendment, which would have allowed any NASW member to be an officer, did not pass. The most important takeaway, however, is not which option prevailed, but how close the margin was.

Like the insurance company commercials that note "If you’re a parrot, you repeat things" and "If you’re a mom, you call at the worst time," it is obvious that "If you’re a science writer, you ask questions" and "If you’re a science PIO, you answer questions." But what if the questions are about research misconduct, questionable studies, plagiarism or other negative or controversial aspects of the science and technology communicated by NASW members?

While expert sources are necessary to add credibility and nuance (and, ideally, personality) to the writer’s interpretation of a scientific concept, they might not effectively tell the whole story. Non-scientists — a young stroke survivor, a bereaved parent, a victim of water contamination — can provide more context and emotional depth. They put a face to the data, illustrating how people are being affected.