SCIENTISTS LEARN RULES OF THE ROAD IN MEDIA TRAINING

by Suzanne Clancy

During the 2002 NASW workshops in Boston, approximately 200 members gathered in a special PIO session on "Helping Scientists Communicate" and received practical advice on how to transform scientists, in the words of U.S. Geological Survey's Diane Noserale, from "not on your life" to media darling.
Noserale stressed that there are a number of valid reasons why scientists might decline an interview: concerns about publication dates and embargoes, plans
to file patent applications, and considerations for collaborators who may not have been consulted regarding media coverage.

"These reasons need to be respected," said Noserale, "and respecting them will gain you the trust of the researcher."

But PIOs can and should address the standard excuses for avoiding interviews, which fall into the dog- ate-my-research category: reporters never get it right, they're biased, I have no control in an interview, I'm not really the expert, and my peers will be critical and/or jealous.

To allay fears and correct misperceptions, Noserale emphasized the success of training workshops to familiarize investigators with the interview process. She advises scientists individually when they receive media requests and encourages them to attend workshops that the USGS has held at various locations around the country, since 1997, where they can tap the expertise of USGS communication professionals and private firms contracted to provide training.

Terry Devitt, director of research communication for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, affectionately described his institution's media training program as "Charm School for Scientists." In the last ten years, hundreds of UW-Madison researchers have participated.

Both the USGS and UW-Madison training programs seek to help scientists "navigate the media experience," Devitt said, by explaining how journalists do
their jobs. Noserale recommended starting slowly, with local press or publications oriented toward a scientific audience, where researchers might feel more at home.

Devitt emphasizes to scientists the need to develop a concise message and to stick with it. In his workshops, investigators participate in mock videotaped
interviews which are later critiqued. These opportunities help, he said, "level the playing field for scientists."

Devitt cautions scientists against speaking off the record. An audience member wanted to know why he gives this advice, since this type of background can be
very helpful to reporters.

"[Off the record] is a subtle game that reporters know very well but scientists don't," said Devitt. Therefore, it's important that scientists understand they cannot make a remark and then simply say "by the way, that's off the record," if they have not worked out this arrangement with a reporter beforehand.

He also suggested that scientists can try to maintain a sense of control by asking their own questions of the interviewer, such as "what's your angle on this story?"
Stressing [a scientist's] obligation to keep the public informed received mixed reviews.

The thorny "need to see the copy" issue was discussed. Devitt advises scientists not to expect this courtesy but to convey their availability to verify information. He and others felt that a reporter reading back quotes or reviewing the coverage of technical points was acceptable, but some in the audience disagreed. One participant said he "would be reprimanded for going back to a source," stating that it gives the appearance of compromising journalistic independence.

According to session organizer Nancy Serrell, associate director for outreach at the Center for Environmental Health Sciences at Darmouth, both issues come up for discussion often and may never fully be resolved.

In addition to helping scientists navigate the media experience, the participants discussed how they seek to motivate investigators to overcome their reluctance
to interact with the media.

Stressing an obligation to keep the public informed received mixed reviews. "Smacks of accountability," said Robert L. Wolke, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh and author of several books including What Einstein Told His Barber: More Scientific Answers to Everyday Questions. Noserale, find it useful to point out that an uninformed public means one less willing to support research with dollars. An argument she termed the "reduction in force threat."

The session concluded with audience discussion and a number of carrots-rather-than-sticks ideas being offered. For example, letters of thanks for media participation, signed by the university president, are well received by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, according to Senior Science Writer Jim
Scott. Also mentioned was the importance of feedback -- letting scientists know when clips appear. Other audience members volunteered suggestions for sharing
media coverage within their institution, such as e-mail messages or the posting of clips on intranets.

#

Suzanne Clancy is a science writer at The Salk Institute, in La Jolla, Calif.

---

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.