Talks

Science & Journalism

Thursday June 23, 16:00, Lobby NLG

Efi Simou, Associate Professor of Mass Media and Health Communication, University of West Attica Department of Public Health Policy
Lauren Gardner, Alton & Sandra Cleveland Professor in the Department of Civil and Systems Engineering at Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering
Ioanna Soufleri, PhD of Molecular Biology, Chief Editor of To Vima Science

Moderated by:
Emma Ross, Senior Research Fellow, Global Health Programme, Chatham House

The panel is curated by iMEdD (incubator for Media Education and Development)

A special workshop held as part of SNF Nostos aimed to map the relationship between science and journalism. The coverage of front-page stories related to the pandemic has raised many questions about the ability of journalists to communicate complex scientific issues, as well as the ability of scientists to explain a topic that is critical for people's lives in a way that is simple and easy to understand for the general public. In this context, Emma Ross posed the questions and Efi Simou, Lauren Gardner, and Ioanna Soufleri tried through their answers to bring some clarity into a relatively murky landscape.

The first question concerned the communication cycle of the pandemic, what we saw and heard and whether it ultimately helped the public understand science.

Gardner took the floor and stressed that for about two and a half years now they have been collecting data on COVID in order to make it available to the public, politicians, and the media. She noted that the biggest lesson they learned was the power of information; at a time when no vaccines and effective remedies were available, scientists had to operate in a completely politicized and polarized climate around the pandemic. Certainly the lockdown affected people's behaviors, and this change led to a change of policies around the pandemic. The following year, in 2021, we realized the power of disinformation, and although we had the tools (vaccines) and the scientific data, we also had a lot of disinformation on health issues and as a result several thousand Americans lost their lives because of it. Gardner stressed that we need better information and data to identify the groups that are vulnerable to disinformation and to work for them. Information should come from the scientific community, which in turn should adapt to the new situation and evolve to this level. What we ultimately need is a better scientific information environment to avoid recycling information from inappropriate sources. Scientists must therefore be trained to communicate with the media, the public, and politicians.

The next topic was about who is ultimately responsible: is it the journalists? The vagueness of the message?

Gardner noted that the problem is real and that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the part of scientists, but on the other hand the public and the media should also monitor and analyze the scientific studies they deserve. It is kind of like seeing scientists trying to be journalists and journalists becoming scientists.

As regards science literacy and whether the pandemic eventually improved the level of science literacy to both journalists and the public, Simou stressed that the answer is complicated and not a simple yes or a simple no. She noted that it would be good to define science journalism as the branch that gives the information of science to the public, and define public science literacy as the understanding of information and scientific data. She noted that journalism focuses on the evidence. The problem during the COVID era was that they could not communicate the absence of evidence, the scientific uncertainty, the contradicting information from the authorities and scientists. A typical example is that of masking. During the first months of the pandemic, we were told that it is not necessary to wear masks, despite the fact that there was evidence suggesting that we should use them. A few months later the narrative changed and the use of masks became mandatory, while now in some countries the authorities say again that there is no need to wear a mask. These different messages were communicated by the media and led to distrust, both of official information and of science by a large part of society. All this affected the minds of the public. If you were to ask anyone what science was before the pandemic, they would answer something clear, certain, undeniable. Ask the same question now, after the pandemic, and both the public and the journalists are more conscious about science, but also confused at the same time. We need to explain to the public what science is, but also how to perceive and understand science. People need to understand that science is full of uncertainties, it has limitations, statistical errors, traps, statistical bias, selection bias, limitations of studies. People must be trained to understand science, to ask questions to check the reliability of information. Tools must be developed to help people understand all this, and finally journalists need to be trained on what epidemiological method, statistical error, etc. are.

The next question was about whether we need specialists in science journalism.

Soufleri took the floor pointing out that any journalist who wanted to could learn. “When I started, 25 years ago, I was a biologist,” she noted. “The reason I started working on science was the story about Dolly and the concept of cloning in the public discourse. Being a biologist helped me understand what was going on. Now, many journalists have been trained with the pandemic. Health journalists already had a very good understanding of the ministry's politicians, and over the last two years they have learned a lot more about science. I could understand this from the quality of the questions being asked day by day at the beginning of the pandemic, and how these became more specific every month that passed. The pandemic certainly educated many journalists. But I am not sure that the owners of the media are necessarily happy about this and recognize the value in it”.

Finally, Emma Ross raised the issue of reliability and sources. What happens with sources and the need to find the right source, especially in the field of science? Should scientists be available to talk to journalists? What happens if the experts “hide”? Do they force journalists to turn to the wrong sources?

To this question, Soufleri stressed that as citizens, scientists should have this obligation. In Greece, scientists in the know did not speak so as not to confront those who talked a lot and said nothing. In the pandemic we had a bit of everything: scientists hiding, scientists being after their 15 minutes of fame, those who followed the government agenda—not everything was nice.

Ross said she couldn’t help asking if the COVID experts were also monkeypox experts.

Soufleri answered that some are, but not all of them. “Imagine, however, the difficulties for a Greek journalist who sends an email to a scientist at Harvard who is fighting the pandemic, and who only has 30 minutes. Why should this scientist spend the little time they have to speak to a Greek and not to an English-speaking journalist who will offer a more international aspect to the story? However, what I want and wish for is that I did not see the same people express their wrong or hasty views in TV.”