NASW President Laurie Garrett reopened a long-standing debate on ethics in science writing in the last issue of ScienceWriters. Readers were promised a discussion of an issue "that should be studied in a spirit of openness, candor and goodwill. It involves the best and brightest among us. And although no malevolence or ill-will was involved in this case, ethical questions have been raised.
"The "issue" that prompted this new round of discussion involves the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing and its handling of a grant from the Kellogg Foundation to support a group of five science journalists on a survey of agricultural research centers in Africa. They were David Baron, science correspondent of National Public Radio's WBUR-FM (Boston); Jerry Bishop, science writer and deputy news editor of The Wall Street Journal; Rachel Nowak, news writer, Science magazine; Paul Raeburn, then science editor of Associated Press; and Cindy Schreuder, health and science writer, The Chicago Tribune.
Some time after the conclusion of the trip, David Zimmerman, editor of Probe newsletter, complained to NASW officers that his application to CASW, one of about 45, had been unfairly rejected because he represented a periodical of small circulation, while those chosen represented relatively wealthy corporations with broad audiences. His protest also included a reference to the fact that two of the individuals chosen were long-time members of CASW.
His complaint was also submitted to ScienceWriters for publication. After a good deal of consideration by the authors of this report, his manuscript was rejected because we felt that his charges were not substantiated. The announcement of the competition stated plainly that one of its chief goals was to "increase public awareness" of agricultural research activities in Africa; it seemed to us that the selection panel would have been remiss not to consider audience size (although that could have been plainly stated). Furthermore, there is no reason working reporters who happen to be members of CASW should have been excluded.
End of story?
Not as far as some are concerned. First of all, although most or all of the journalists selected for the trip consulted with and received approval from their news editors on the possible conflict of interest involved in accepting travel support from an outside source, journalists on other publications (e.g., New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Newsday) said that that they would not have sought permission and had it been sought, it would not have been granted.
Garrett thinks, "ethical questions have been raised."
It clearly shows that print and broadcast media of high integrity can and do have different policies about accepting or rejecting grant support.
It turns out that it is easier to raise ethical questions than to deal with them in a way that satisfies everyone. The success of ScienceWriters is an example close to home. For more than a dozen years, ScienceWriters has received an annual grant from CASW, a grant that was initiated when Barbara Culliton, past president of NASW, was president of CASW. CASW is supported by grants destined to advance science writing. Should NASW have rejected CASW's support?
In an effort to bring some distance to the whole "ethical" issue, ScienceWriters commissioned a consultant with more than adequate credentials: Stephen Klaidman, a former reporter, editor and editorial writer for The New York Times, The Washington Post and the International Herald Tribune, a fellow of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and author with Tom L. Beauchamp of The Virtuous Journalist, published by Oxford University Press.
Klaidman sought to define a potential conflict of interest in journalism:
With respect to the generic issue raised by Garrett, Klaidman concluded that "if the potential for moral compromise is low, and the potential for producing valuable stories is high, the trip might be justified in the public interest." He added a suggestion of full disclosure: "Why not tell readers or viewers that the reporting was done under a grant from the X Foundation and list the relevant conditions?" (In point of fact, several of the reporters on the Africa trip did identify the source of the funding.)
Is that the end of the story?
Not exactly. On the following pages of this issue of ScienceWriters is a commentary from Jerry Bishop, one of the participants in the CASW trip. In sharp disagreement with Garrett, he says: "Codes of ethics have never worked in American journalism and would never work if anyone tried to impose them... A code of ethics would be an insidious form of censorship."
By a strange coincidence, Bishop's commentary arrived at about the same time as the October 1996 issue of Quill, containing the "Code of Ethics" adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists, September 21, 1996. Following a preamble declaring that the 30,000 or so members of SPJ "share a dedication to ethical behavior," the Code includes this pertinent directive:
"Journalists should refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity. [Our italics. How is that for an unambiguous statement?]
Are we back at Square One? Not exactly.
Conversations with a number of NASW members, by telephone and e-mail, suggest that many are not comfortable with the concept of "ethical" guidelines, especially when they involve some sort of financial dealings. In response to a series of such scenarios posted on the NASW website, respondents offered a tangle of questions--
Lee Hotz, of the Los Angeles Times, said that we all must shape our own professional code of ethics, the operative word being "professional." Jon Van, immediate past president of NASW and a reporter for The Chicago Tribune, volunteered, "These discussions about who pays for travel under what circumstances strike me as remote from central issues of ethics for science writers. The issue of how we maintain a viewpoint that represents our reader while working very closely with the scientific establishment is far more important."
Perhaps Garrett was thinking along the same lines when she mused on the NASW board about the ethics of subsidized travel: "Overall, if one puts very high ethical standards on such issues, is there a risk of creating a monopoly system in which reporters fortunate enough to work for major news organizations that by their travel costs get the story, while freelancers and those who work for smaller organizations lose out?"
The fact of the matter is that the only code that could possibly work for this association of journalists, freelance writers, and public information officers is one that says, "Behave like professionals." Reject grant support or honoraria that might influence your coverage. Disclose to editors and readers any pertinent information. And most important, always ask yourself if you have approached a story with integrity and an open mind. If you have, you are then entitled to have a point of view.
Barbara J. Culliton is editor of Nature Medicine and adviser to ScienceWriters; Howard Lewis is editor of ScienceWriters.