by Richard Harris
The constitutional matters touch close to home, because they make us examine who we are as a professional organization, and — even more significantly — where the entire profession of science writing is heading. It’s reminiscent of those trend stories in which we boldly identify a broad movement in science or society and, by extension, suggest where we are headed. Journalism is thankfully a forgiving profession (or more precisely, a forgetting one). Most of the time, our grand predictions end up in the recycling bin or in the electromagnetic ether as soon as they have been dispatched. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same cover when it comes to our constitution. This document will persist. How long will it be before our successors look back on our work, as we are doing now, and recognize its shortcomings? We must take care to do our best.
I’m not going to devote another column to debating over the substance of our constitution. I will, however, make a few observations about the debate as it stands. Most notable to me is that less than 5 percent of our membership has spoken up about it. To be sure, there are a few strong voices and well-defined positions. Undoubtedly, there will be a few souls unhappy with whatever we decide to do. But I don’t choose to view the overall quiet as apathy. I like to think that members following the debate recognize that it’s no simple matter to balance the interests of the journalists, PIO’s, professors — and the freelancers who may slip into and out of our rigid membership categories from one day to the next. This problem seems to be just the sort of matter best suited for NASW’s elected representatives to hash out. I hope the board will do just that in the coming months. Of course, we can only hope to come up with a recommendation. Our constitution states that members must vote in a mail ballot to make any changes to our guiding document.
Whatever happens with the constitution, it is reassuring to note that NASW is not in crisis — in fact, just the opposite. Our membership continues to grow — it’s now approaching the 2,000-member mark. And we are offering our members more than ever before. I continue to be impressed and amazed by the on-line discussions. I subscribe to a daily e-mail digest of these conversations, which include practical advice about matters such as taxes and tape recorders; thoughtful ethical discussions about real-life quandaries; and of course, a fair amount of sheer chit-chat. Not surprisingly, freelancers toiling in their lonely garrets are most likely to join these discussions, but members of all stripes “lurk” on these lists and chime in from time to time. It is deeply satisfying to realize that these lists allow NASW to provide something for its members every day of the year. If you haven’t looked into this, you’re missing a major benefit of membership. See the NASW web site for details, or e-mail me (rharris@nasw.org) for more information about getting on one of the e-mail lists.
We have also broken new ground this year with NASW’s Science-in-Society Award. A new batch of members volunteered to judge this annual enterprise —a west-coast contingent, for a change. I thank them for all their hard and careful work. New judges offer a fresh perspective on the material to be judged. And of course, we are always listening for fresh new voices to honor — so I encourage anyone who’s particularly proud of a piece he or she has produced to submit it for this award. Please remember, this is not simply another version of the AAAS/Whitaker award: NASW specifically recognizes science writing that has made a difference in the relationship between science and society. If you haven’t written anything that fits this definition, perhaps you should. Our forebears established this award to encourage and recognize this, the highest calling of a science writer.