Story 1 - 13/10/2010
THE VIEWPOINT by Lulu Rodriguez
Why We Should All Care
The mass media are considered the most available and sometimes the only source for most of the public to gain information about scientific discoveries, controversies, events, and the work of scientists. Science reporters play a crucial role in developing a public that is literate about science so that people are able to make wise choices about issues with scientific underpinnings and become active participants in defining policy options.
about Science Writing
A problem demanding a solution. One of the major limiting factors in crop production in Asia is the heavy infestation of the corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis, yielding a 30-40% reduction of productivity. This pest already limits the food production in several asiatic countries and has a significant impact on the development of the region.
There is substantial agreement in the academic community that the levels of scientific literacy among the general public are undesirably low for our technologically driven society. A list of studies indicates that people are generally not well informed about most scientific issues, even those that are prominent and long-standing. Hazen in 2002 estimated the number of scientifically literate Americans as fewer than 7% of adults, 22% of college graduates, and 26% of those with graduate degrees.
Today, it is imperative to be literate about science not just for personal improvement or to gain perspective on the intellectual climate of our time. Everyone in modern democratic societies has the responsibility and the right to participate and make decisions regarding issues with scientific underpinnings in the local community and those that affect the entire planet. For example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate adverse climatic impacts is an undertaking that should involve every citizen in every nation of the world. Proper actions to achieve this demand a citizenry that is knowledgeable enough about basic science concepts, principles and processes to make wise choices. After all, the level of people’s support for scientific and technological undertakings determines, to a large extent, the nature and amount of public spending for research and development. Thus, a public that is literate about science can result in a range of outcomes, including motivating greater interests and concern, influencing political or personal behavior, and defining policy choices or options.
The mass media are considered the most available and sometimes the only source for most of the public to gain information about scientific discoveries, controversies, and events, and the work of scientists after formal science education ends. How ordinary citizens come to understand a new technology, a scientific event or a science-related policy issue depends, at least in part, on how the issue is covered by the media.
Scholars have found that massive media coverage, independent of content, influences public perceptions of the seriousness of events with strong scientific bases as well as the political agenda of social groups and institutions involved in these issues. In other words, the sheer volume of reporting alone arouses public attention. Others contend that filtering effects, deleting and adding information, changing the order of message presentation as well as the context, have a profound influence on public perceptions of scientific topics. It is no surprise, therefore, that many studies have provided evidence that the media, whether providing warning or reassuring messages, can extensively frame discourse, shape public perception, and determine how problems are socially constructed.
Shrinking news hole, shrinking audiences
The extent to which science issues now affect public life seems antithetical to the decline of science in the news. Many attribute this to an under appreciation of the value of science as a news topic. It may also be the result of an overall downward trend in newspaper readership and network news viewership, and demographic changes in the audience for these media. The shrinking size and the aging of audiences who use these media led to fewer pages and few on-air minutes devoted to news of any kind.
On the bright side, the public is very interested in learning about the practical applications of science. The percentage of people who follow health news very closely trails only the percentage who follow crime and community news. The reason that health and medical news is so popular is that it directly affects people. In other words, the works of wildlife ecologists, astrophysicists and oceanographers will be interesting to audiences as long as people find these works relevant to their lives. It suggests that although scientists may not be able to change the culture of the mass media, they can help improve the way science is covered.
A low grade for science reporting
Genetically modified corn ears are less affected by the pest. While the original corn (top) is greatly affected, the genetically modified version (bottom) is essentially unharmed by this pest. The genetically modified corn contains a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium, which leads to a specific protein which kills target insects such as the corn borer and other pests.
Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the coverage of science topics, it seems that the mass media can do nothing right. Reporters are regularly accused of bias, sensationalism, inaccuracies, indifference, and of being simplistic by highlighting only highly polarized debates—perhaps the reasons why Nobel prize winner Jonas Salk was quoted as saying, “When a reporter approaches, I generally find myself wishing for a martini!”
Indeed, casual conversations with scientists reveal a certain sense of trepidation on the prospect of getting interviewed by yet another reporter. The results of disparate studies science reporting may point to some of the reasons behind this apprehension.
Communication researchers have found evidence to support the allegations that journalists (1) make science more certain that it is, (2) tend to transform provisional findings into certain findings by eliminating caveats or omitting qualifiers to scientific results, (3) neglect historical context, failing to indicate, for example, whether a new study departs from or extends prior research, and (4) are more interested in the carefully crafted results that scientists produce rather than in the messy interpretive and often social processes by which they are produced. There are times when journalists are lambasted for making science appear more uncertain and baffling than it may be. Many have observed that reporters tend to give equal weight to majority and fringe scientists, and to scientists and non-scientists.
Given these findings, it is tempting to make the categorical statement that journalists distort science by doing what they do.
Genetically modified corn leaves are not affected by the pest. The pest problem can be solved by genetic manipulation, as this side-by-side comparison shows. The benefit/risk assessment, however, has to be made by the informed public, as the decision for or against the use of genetically modified crops affects everybody.
Many lament, for example, that the media’s coverage of scientific and technological issues have looked more intensively at the products
rather than at the process
of story construction. Two patterns are often detected. The first is that media coverage of science does not mirror reality, as defined by the researcher. The second is that stories contain very little information, as defined by science. These patterns result, many say, because science reporters lack systematic knowledge about the scientific culture and how people go about making personal judgments about what to do when confronted with topics with scientific and technological underpinnings. Many reporters lack the ability to present complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand.
In early January 2004, Lee Hanah and colleagues at the biodiversity advocacy group Conservation International released an article titled “Extinction risk from climate change” that appeared in the journal Nature. It contains an estimate that between 18 and 35 percent of the world’s species could be committed to extinction by 2050 due to habitat loss caused by global warming. “Information is not currently available on time lags between climate change and species-level extinctions,” cautioned the paper, “but decades might elapse between area reduction (from habitat loss) and extinction.”
In the subsequent days and weeks, scores of stories on the research were published and broadcast by many of the world’s major newspaper and broadcast outlets, including National Public Radio, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angels Times, and the San Jose Mercury News. The headlines of many of these reports erroneously misstated the conclusions of the paper. A typical example was one that stated, “Dire warming warning for earth’s species—25 percent could vanish by 2050 as the planet heats up, study says.” In fact, the original scientific paper did not actually say that even a single species would be extinct by 2050.
Not surprisingly, scientists bemoaned the “damaging simplifications” that appeared in “sensationalist” news reports about the extinction paper. A content analysis found errors in 29 newspaper articles published in the United Kingdom alone, leading to the conclusion that the press coverage was “highly inaccurate.”
Reporters disseminate scientific information. Science reporters face the daunting task of explaining the complicated process and rationale, as well as the benefits and potential risks of genetic engineering to a wide range of audiences. Due to the complexity of this task, however, not only reporters but also scientists and the general public need to make an effort to share their insight, in order to take informed decisions.
Their professional routines (i.e., their adherence to balanced reports) and organizational demands for novelty and significance aside, one cannot help but empathize with the reporter who has to deal with the barrage of scientific claims and counterclaims increasingly becoming inherent in today’s scientific issues. The complexity of scientific data and assertions from competing camps make it apparent that for every Ph.D., there is an equal an opposite Ph.D. It’s up to the reporter to make judgments about who is credible and who to ignore. So how does journalists deal with incessant claims and counterclaims? If you listen to the critics, the answer is about as well as Southerners deal with blizzards — which is to say, with a lot of slipping and sliding, and sometimes falling on their behinds.
The making of a science story is indeed a complex task. Any singly story is the product of a complicated dance among several actors, each trying to cast the story in ways that make sense to them. Complicating matters further is the fact that meaning is only partly under the control of these storytellers. At the receiving end waits an audience capable of interpreting the message in sometimes unexpected ways. Equipped with a formidable array of interpretative frameworks, readers and viewers are likely to construct story meanings that fit their own perceptions as easily as they wear a favorite sweater.
Toward a shared culture
Not too long ago, scientists and journalist held each other at arm’s length. The relationships between the two groups have foundered regularly on rocky shores. Although some may see the picture as virtually unchanged today, something of a revolution in this basic relationship is under way. Scientists are increasingly recognizing the value of public visibility. Journalists have always needed the information that scientists provide. Because of this, scientists understand better how reporters work and how to participate in the construction of popular images of science and their meaning. This leads to a shared culture of sorts in which both groups understand each other’s demands, the significance of each other’s work, and the ethics of both professions.
Good science stories serve to instigate conversations regarding what actions society should take regarding the development and deployment of science and scientific findings. Democratizing scientific information means that everyone in society must have access to the benefits that can be derived from scientific undertakings. Only in doing so can we cultivate a public informed enough to make intelligent choices about scientific issues that affect their lives. Such an approach will necessarily arrive at communication strategies that seek to include as many voices as possible in the process of shaping policy decisions. After all, as Thomas Jefferson (1820) said, “If we think [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”
2010 © Optics & Photonics Focus
Lulu Rodriguez is professor of journalism and communication and director of graduate education at Iowa State University (USA). She has worked as science and development communication consultant for the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development in East and Southeast Asia, and as science information officer of the Philippine government body in charge of agriculture and natural resources, research and development. Today, her research focuses on visual, science and risk communication, for example in the context of harnessing biotechnology for Africa, quantitative testing of cultural theories of risk, media coverage of biotechnology in the developing world, and the visualization of risk.
"Mwanzoni mwa mwaka wa 2010, Lulu Rodriguez aliandika kitabu chake ""The Viewpoint"" ambacho kilisema: ""Vichapo vya habari ni chanzo cha habari kuhusu uvumbuzi wa kisayansi, mabishano, matukio, na kazi ya wanasayansi." Waandishi wa habari wa sayansi wana jukumu muhimu katika kuendeleza umma ambao una ujuzi wa sayansi ili watu waweze kufanya chaguo la busara juu ya masuala yenye misingi ya kisayansi na kuwa washiriki wa kazi katika kufafanua chaguzi za sera. Kuhusu Sayansi Kuandika Tatizo linalohitaji suluhisho. Miongoni mwa sababu kuu za kupunguza uzalishaji wa mazao ya Asia ni kuambukizwa kwa wadudu wa mahindi, Ostrinia furnacealis, na kusababisha kupungua kwa uzalishaji kwa asilimia 30 hadi 40. Mnyama huyo tayari anazuia uzalishaji wa chakula katika nchi kadhaa za Asia na ana athari kubwa kwa maendeleo ya mkoa huo. Kuna makubaliano makubwa katika jamii ya kitaaluma kwamba viwango vya ujuzi wa kisayansi miongoni mwa umma kwa ujumla ni chini sana kwa jamii yetu inayoendeshwa na teknolojia. Uchunguzi unaonyesha kwamba kwa ujumla watu hawajui mengi kuhusu masuala ya kisayansi, hata yale yanayojulikana sana na ambayo yamekuwa yakijulikana kwa muda mrefu. Hazen alikadiria idadi ya Wamarekani wenye ujuzi wa kisayansi kuwa chini ya 7% ya watu wazima, 22% ya wahitimu wa chuo kikuu, na 26% ya wale walio na digrii za kuhitimu. Leo, ni muhimu kuwa na ujuzi wa sayansi, sio tu kwa ajili ya maendeleo ya kibinafsi au kupata mtazamo juu ya hali ya akili ya wakati wetu. Kila mtu katika jamii ya kisasa ya kidemokrasia ana jukumu na haki ya kushiriki na kufanya maamuzi kuhusu masuala ya kisayansi katika jamii ya ndani na wale ambao huathiri sayari nzima. Kwa mfano, kupunguza uzalishaji wa gesi za chafu ili kupunguza athari mbaya za hali ya hewa ni mradi ambao unapaswa kuhusisha kila raia katika kila taifa la ulimwengu. Hatua sahihi za kufikia hili zinahitaji wananchi ambao wana ujuzi wa kutosha juu ya dhana za msingi za sayansi, kanuni na michakato ya kufanya uchaguzi wa busara. Baada ya yote, kiwango cha msaada wa watu kwa ajili ya mipango ya kisayansi na kiteknolojia huamua, kwa kiasi kikubwa, asili na kiasi cha matumizi ya umma kwa ajili ya utafiti na maendeleo. Kwa hivyo, umma unaosoma juu ya sayansi unaweza kusababisha matokeo mbalimbali, ikiwa ni pamoja na kuhamasisha maslahi makubwa na wasiwasi, kuathiri tabia ya kisiasa au ya kibinafsi, na kufafanua chaguzi za sera au chaguzi. Vyombo vya habari ni chanzo cha habari kwa umma wote kuhusu uvumbuzi wa kisayansi, utata, na matukio, na kazi ya wanasayansi baada ya elimu rasmi ya sayansi kumalizika. Jinsi raia wa kawaida wanavyoelewa teknolojia mpya, tukio la kisayansi au suala la sera zinazohusiana na sayansi inategemea, angalau kwa sehemu, jinsi suala hilo linavyofunikwa na vyombo vya habari. Wataalamu wamegundua kuwa chanjo kubwa ya vyombo vya habari, bila kujali maudhui, huathiri maoni ya umma ya uzito wa matukio na misingi ya kisayansi yenye nguvu, na vile vile ajenda ya kisiasa ya vikundi vya kijamii na taasisi zinazohusika katika masuala haya. Kwa maneno mengine, idadi kubwa ya ripoti peke yake huamsha uangalifu wa umma. Wengine wanasema kuwa athari za kuchuja, kufuta na kuongeza habari, kubadilisha utaratibu wa uwasilishaji wa ujumbe na muktadha, zina ushawishi mkubwa juu ya maoni ya umma ya mada za kisayansi. Kwa hiyo, haishangazi kwamba masomo mengi yametoa ushahidi kwamba vyombo vya habari, iwe ni kutoa onyo au ujumbe wa kuhakikishia, vinaweza kuunda mazungumzo, kuunda maoni ya umma, na kuamua jinsi matatizo yanavyojengwa kijamii. """Kupungua kwa habari, kupungua kwa watazamaji: kiwango ambacho masuala ya sayansi sasa yanaathiri maisha ya umma inaonekana kuwa kinyume na kupungua kwa sayansi katika habari.""" Wengi husema kwamba hilo ni kwa sababu ya kutothamini sana thamani ya sayansi kama habari. Hii inaweza pia kuwa matokeo ya mwenendo wa jumla wa kushuka kwa wasomaji wa magazeti na watazamaji wa habari za mtandao, na mabadiliko ya idadi ya watu katika watazamaji wa vyombo hivi vya habari. Ukubwa unaopungua na uzee wa watazamaji wanaotumia vyombo hivi vya habari ulisababisha kurasa chache na dakika chache za hewa zilizowekwa wakfu kwa habari za aina yoyote. Jambo zuri ni kwamba, watu wanapendezwa sana na kujifunza kuhusu matumizi ya kisayansi. Asilimia ya watu wanaofuatilia habari za afya kwa karibu sana hufuata tu asilimia ya wale wanaofuatilia habari za uhalifu na jamii. Sababu ya habari za afya na za kitiba kuwa maarufu sana ni kwamba zinaathiri watu moja kwa moja. Kwa maneno mengine, kazi za wataalamu wa mazingira ya wanyama wa porini, wataalamu wa astrophysics na wataalamu wa bahari zitakuwa za kuvutia kwa watazamaji kwa muda mrefu kama watu watapata kazi hizi zinazohusiana na maisha yao. "Hata hivyo, ""ingawa wanasayansi hawawezi kubadilisha utamaduni wa vyombo vya habari, wanaweza kusaidia kuboresha njia sayansi inashughulikiwa.""" Kiwango cha chini kwa ripoti ya sayansi Masikio ya mahindi yaliyobadilishwa chembe za urithi hayaathiriwi sana na wadudu. Ingawa mahindi ya awali (juu) huathiriwa sana, mahindi yaliyobadilishwa chembe za urithi (chini) kwa ujumla hayaharisiki na wadudu hao. Uchina wa mahindi ya GM una jeni kutoka kwa bakteria ya udongo inayotokea kwa asili, ambayo husababisha protini maalum ambayo huua wadudu wa lengo kama vile corn borer na wadudu wengine. Kwa bahati mbaya, hata hivyo, linapokuja suala la chanjo ya mada za sayansi, inaonekana kwamba vyombo vya habari vya umma haviwezi kufanya chochote vizuri. "Wanahabari mara kwa mara wanashtakiwa kwa upendeleo, sensationalism, ukosefu wa usahihi, upendeleo, na kuwa rahisi kwa kuangazia tu mjadala polarized sana - labda sababu kwa nini mshindi wa tuzo ya Nobel Jonas Salk alitoa taarifa kama kusema, ""Wakati mwandishi wa habari inakaribia, mimi kwa ujumla kupata mwenyewe kutamani kwa martini.""" Matokeo ya masomo tofauti-tofauti ya ripoti za sayansi yanaweza kuelekeza kwa baadhi ya sababu za wasiwasi huu. "Wanafunzi wa habari wamegundua ushahidi wa kuunga mkono madai kwamba waandishi wa habari ""hufanya sayansi kuwa na uhakika zaidi, wana mwelekeo wa kubadilisha matokeo ya muda katika matokeo fulani kwa kuondoa caveats au kuondoa sifa kwa matokeo ya kisayansi, wanapuuza muktadha wa kihistoria, wakishindwa kuonyesha, kwa mfano, ikiwa utafiti mpya unatokana na au unaongeza utafiti wa awali, na wanavutiwa zaidi na matokeo ya kisayansi ya makini kuliko mchakato wa tafsiri na mara nyingi wa kijamii ambao hutengenezwa.""" Kuna nyakati ambapo waandishi wa habari wanashutumiwa kwa kufanya sayansi ionekane kuwa isiyo na uhakika na yenye kutatanisha kuliko ilivyo. Wengi wameona kwamba waandishi wa habari huwapa uzito sawa wanasayansi wengi na wa pembeni, na wanasayansi na wasio wanasayansi. Kwa kuzingatia matokeo haya, ni kuvutia kufanya taarifa ya wazi kwamba waandishi wa habari kupotosha sayansi kwa kufanya kile wanachofanya. Majani ya mahindi yaliyobadilishwa chembe za urithi hayaathiriwa na wadudu hao. Tatizo la wadudu linaweza kutatuliwa kwa kutumia chembe za urithi, kama inavyoonyeshwa na ulinganisho huu wa pande zote. """Hata hivyo, tathmini ya faida na hatari lazima ifanywe na umma unaofahamika, kwani uamuzi wa kutumia au kupinga mazao ya kibiolojia unahusu kila mtu." Wengi, kwa mfano, wanalalamika kwamba chanjo ya vyombo vya habari ya masuala ya kisayansi na kiteknolojia imeangalia kwa makini zaidi bidhaa badala ya mchakato wa ujenzi wa hadithi. Mara nyingi mifumo miwili hupatikana. Ya kwanza ni kwamba utoaji wa habari wa sayansi haionyeshi ukweli, kama ilivyofafanuliwa na mtafiti. Pili, hadithi zina habari chache sana, kama ilivyoelezwa na sayansi. "Wanasema kwamba ""mfano huu hutokana na sababu ya waandishi wa habari za kisayansi kukosa maarifa ya utaratibu kuhusu utamaduni wa kisayansi na jinsi watu wanavyofanya maamuzi ya kibinafsi kuhusu nini cha kufanya wanapokabiliwa na mada zenye misingi ya kisayansi na kiteknolojia.""" Waandishi wengi hawana uwezo wa kuwasilisha vifaa tata vya kiufundi ambavyo vimefichwa na kutokuwa na uhakika na kwa asili ni vigumu kuelewa. "Mwanzoni mwa Januari 2004, Lee Hanah na wenzake katika kundi la kutetea uhifadhi wa viumbe hai la Conservation International walichapisha makala yenye kichwa ""Uhatari wa kutoweka kutokana na mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa"" ambayo ilionekana katika jarida la Nature." Kwa mujibu wa ripoti hiyo, asilimia 18 hadi 35 ya spishi duniani zingeweza kutoweka ifikapo mwaka 2050 kutokana na kupoteza makazi kwa sababu ya ongezeko la joto duniani. "Hakuna habari zinazopatikana kwa sasa kuhusu muda kati ya mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa na kutoweka kwa spishi,"" ilionya karatasi hiyo, ""lakini miongo inaweza kupita kati ya kupunguzwa kwa eneo (kutokana na upotezaji wa makazi) na kutoweka.""" Vichwa vya habari vya ripoti hizo nyingi vilitoa maoni yasiyofaa kuhusu ripoti hiyo. "Hata hivyo, utafiti wa hivi karibuni unaonyesha kwamba ""Dire Warning for Earth's Species: 25% could disappear by 2050 as the planet warms up"" (Dire Warning for Earth's Species: 25% could disappear by 2050 as the planet warms up) ni taarifa ya kwanza ya utafiti wa kisayansi ambayo imesema kwamba spishi moja ya wanyama itaangamia ifikapo mwaka 2050." Haishangazi kwamba wanasayansi walilalamika kwa sababu ya "kufanya mambo yawe rahisi" ambayo yalitokea katika ripoti za habari "za kuvutia" kuhusu karatasi hiyo ya kutoweka kwa viumbe. Uchambuzi wa yaliyomo uligundua makosa katika makala 29 za gazeti zilizochapishwa nchini Uingereza pekee, na kuongoza kwa hitimisho kwamba chanjo ya vyombo vya habari ilikuwa <unk> isiyo sahihi sana.<unk> Waandishi wa habari husambaza habari za kisayansi. Waandishi wa habari wa sayansi wanakabiliwa na kazi ngumu ya kuelezea mchakato tata na sababu, pamoja na faida na hatari za uwezekano wa uhandisi wa maumbile kwa watazamaji mbalimbali. Kwa sababu ya utata wa kazi hii, hata hivyo, si waandishi wa habari tu bali pia wanasayansi na umma kwa ujumla wanahitaji kufanya juhudi za kushiriki ufahamu wao, ili kuchukua maamuzi ya ufahamu. "Kupitia utaratibu wao wa kitaaluma (yaani, kufuata ripoti zilizosawazishwa) na mahitaji ya shirika kwa ajili ya uvumbuzi na umuhimu, mtu hawezi kusaidia lakini kuunga mkono mwandishi ambaye ana kushughulika na barrages ya madai ya kisayansi na madai ya kupinga, ambayo inazidi kuwa asili katika masuala ya kisayansi ya leo. """ """Uzito wa data za kisayansi na madai kutoka kambi zinazoshindana zinaonyesha kwamba kwa kila PhD, kuna sawa na Ph.D. Inategemea mwandishi wa habari kufanya hukumu kuhusu nani anayeaminika na nani asiyeamini." Kwa hiyo waandishi wa habari hushughulikaje na madai na madai ya kupinga yasiyo na kikomo? Kama wewe kusikiliza wakosoaji, jibu ni kuhusu kama vizuri kama Kusini kushughulika na blizzards <unk> ambayo ni kusema, na mengi ya kuteleza na kuteleza, na wakati mwingine kuanguka juu ya nyuma yao. Kwa kweli, kutengeneza hadithi ya kisayansi ni kazi ngumu. "Hadithi yoyote ya moja ni bidhaa ya dansi ngumu kati ya waigizaji kadhaa, kila mmoja akijaribu kutupa hadithi kwa njia ambayo ina maana kwao. """ Jambo linalofanya mambo yawe magumu zaidi ni kwamba maana iko chini ya udhibiti wa wasimuliaji hao wa hadithi kwa sehemu tu. Katika upande wa kupokea unangojea wasikilizaji wanaoweza kutafsiri ujumbe huo katika njia ambazo nyakati nyingine hazitarajiwi. Kwa kuwa wana vifaa vya kuvutia vya kutafsiri, wasomaji na watazamaji wanaweza kujenga maana ya hadithi ambayo inafaa kwa maoni yao wenyewe kwa urahisi kama vile wanavyovaa sweta yao ya kupendwa. Kuelekea utamaduni wa pamoja Haijawa muda mrefu uliopita, wanasayansi na waandishi wa habari walishirikiana kwa mkono. Uhusiano kati ya vikundi hivyo viwili umeharibika mara kwa mara. Ingawa huenda wengine wakaona kwamba hali hiyo haijabadilika leo, kuna jambo fulani la kubadilika katika uhusiano huo wa msingi. Wanasayansi wanatambua zaidi na zaidi thamani ya kuonekana na umma. Sikuzote waandishi wa habari wamehitaji habari ambazo wanasayansi hutoa. Kwa sababu hii, wanasayansi wanaelewa vizuri jinsi waandishi wa habari wanavyofanya kazi na jinsi ya kushiriki katika ujenzi wa picha maarufu za sayansi na maana yao. Hii inaongoza kwa utamaduni wa pamoja wa aina ambayo makundi yote mawili kuelewa mahitaji ya kila mmoja, umuhimu wa kazi ya kila mmoja, na maadili ya taaluma zote mbili. Hadithi nzuri za sayansi hutumika kuchochea mazungumzo kuhusu hatua ambazo jamii inapaswa kuchukua kuhusu maendeleo na utumiaji wa sayansi na matokeo ya kisayansi. "Kujenga demokrasia katika habari za kisayansi inamaanisha kwamba kila mtu katika jamii lazima awe na upatikanaji wa faida ambazo zinaweza kupatikana kutokana na shughuli za kisayansi. """ Ni kwa kufanya hivyo tu tunaweza kukuza umma unaofahamika vya kutosha kufanya chaguzi za akili kuhusu masuala ya kisayansi ambayo yanaathiri maisha yao. Njia hii itatokea kwa mikakati ya mawasiliano ambayo inatafuta kujumuisha sauti nyingi iwezekanavyo katika mchakato wa kuunda maamuzi ya sera. "Kama Thomas Jefferson (1820-1830) alivyosema, ""Ikiwa tunafikiri [watu] hawaelewi vya kutosha kutumia udhibiti wao kwa busara kamili, tiba si kuchukua kutoka kwao, lakini kuwajulisha busara yao."" - Lulu Rodriguez, Profesa wa Uandishi wa Habari na Mawasiliano katika Chuo Kikuu cha Jimbo la Iowa, Marekani." Alifanya kazi kama mshauri wa mawasiliano ya sayansi na maendeleo kwa Benki ya Dunia na Shirika la Amerika la Maendeleo ya Kimataifa katika Asia ya Mashariki na Kusini Mashariki, na kama afisa wa habari ya sayansi wa shirika la serikali ya Ufilipino linalohusika na kilimo na rasilimali za asili, utafiti na maendeleo. Leo, utafiti wake unazingatia mawasiliano ya kuona, sayansi na hatari, kwa mfano katika muktadha wa kutumia biotechnology kwa Afrika, upimaji wa kiasi cha nadharia za utamaduni za hatari, chanjo ya vyombo vya habari ya biotechnology katika nchi zinazoendelea na uonekano wa hatari.