While many South African reporters seem to be oscillating between cheering on science and plying a New Age-type sensationalism, acrimonious debate abounds in the halls of science and journalism on the need for better ways of writing science. The question remains: Where do we go from here?

"The journalist who can strike the balance between technical correctness and readability is a rare breed," says Sean Falconer, Journalist and Media Liaison Officer for the World Wide Fund For Nature South Africa (WWF-SA). Journalists are either in awe of science, or they latch onto familiar sensational images. Scientific journals are compressed into headline-friendly stories, resulting in scientists shunning reporters, puzzled journalists who skulk around the fringes of real-life science, and a public grappling with global advancements.

David Shapshak, Science and Technology Editor for the Mail & Guardian, outlines the bridge a technology writer must cross: "Scientists perceive journalists' writing methods as hurried and as simplifying complex issues. Their life's work may be misrepresented, condensed into an article of 400 words, whereas journalists think scientists are slow, guarded and stifling, often inaccessible."

Scientists distrust simplicity, and, in turn, journalists may misunderstand the scientific community. A scientist perceived as flaunting his work as a breakthrough, could be shunned by his colleagues.

Hence the constant, almost overbearing, concern among scientists about how their work is covered. In some cases, it has led to a kind of big-daddy approach of channelling journalists' access to information and promoting their work solely through public relations officers.

Popularising science, according to Cape Times environmental reporter, Melanie Gosling, does not mean simplification and sensation but relies on "telling readers how it affects them, bringing the human element into the story." She says readers can be "enticed by stories we know have a big public following, like astronomy, placed alongside stories from the more neglected disciplines on the same page." Humanising; localising; selling.

In the scuffle between the facts and their sometimes overblown implications, the media have harnessed a new hobby horse: dramatic interpretations of so-called "phenomena" - UFOs, alien abduction, supernatural communication and more, which masquerade as science. Let's call it pseudo-science. By blurring the lines between New Age euphoria and scientific fact, journalists may lead the public to believe in all sorts of paranormal activity propped up by "scientific evidence" that is wrapped in neat entertainment packages; look no further than The X-Files.

Because pseudo-science is flaunted by many media, especially TV, as the real thing, the public's threshold for science is raised to such a level that journalists find it hard to capture audiences without employing similar tactics. "Of late, one of the greatest challenges for science journalists comes from pseudo-science. If scientists and journalists don't manage to lift the level of debate, the Trekkies will inherit the earth," says Bun Booyens, lecturer at Stellenbosch University's Department of Journalism.

The solution to this seems to lie in research - journalistic research, that is. In the mid-1920s an American daily newspaper came up with this resolve: "News gathering [on science] cannot perhaps be as accurate as chemical research, but it can be undertaken in the same spirit." By leaning on multiple sources and gleaning both sides of the story, journalists will inevitably turn out a fair and accurate report of a scientist's work.

The public interest will be well served by such a specialist approach, not only because science articles would be more informative, but also because reporters could then fulfil their watchdog function better.

Knowledge bears with it a healthy scepticism that allows science writers to, as Graeme Addison of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism says, "question the funding allocations, methods and concepts of science communities."

The need for specialist reporters raises the question whether journalists should receive formal training for the science beat. Whether there is consensus is still unclear. Many journalists say that reporters with a science background could be more critical of shoddy research methods, others say a certain level of ignorance is necessary to avoid overly technical writing that would blast past average readers.

In South Africa, Stellenbosch University, Rhodes University, Peninsula Technikon and the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism all have science reporting modules in their journalism courses to foster accurate reporting of science into the next century.

Science tends to win the most recognition in academic communities. This is exacerbated by journalists, either intimidated by scientists or too cosy with the scientific community, who tend to short-cut to official sources, rather than reporting on communities that may be affected - environmentally, socially or politically - by scientific research. What appears is a tendency, as Dorothy Nelkin reports in her book Selling Science: How the Press covers Science and Technology, among science reporters to "define their role more as explaining science than as analysing its politics."

Yet it is the "underdeveloped" areas in South Africa that need to learn the most about the environment, its history and how technology can improve their lives. Cape Argus environmental reporter, John Yeld, says, "Most under-educated people are not readers of newspapers. Science writers need to target the electronic media, make science entertaining and user-friendly, without over-emphasising the educational focus and always reporting accurately."

Janis O'Grady at the Natal Witness chides science reporters for focusing too much on technology and stresses the importance of "conveying science as a way out of environmental degradation, over-population and poverty."

Science can also encourage moral debate and tolerance, provided it is borne by pens cradled in careful hands. Stellenbosch palaeontologist Dr Jurie van der Heever, currently embroiled in a local debate on evolution and hoping to write a book on the subject, has had first-hand expe-rience with public moral disputes. He cites learned science reporters as integral in resolving moral conflict stemming from science, rather than provoking it:

"By more factual reporting, science journalists can erode fundamentalist opinions. By illuminating [morally loaded] science issues, like evolution, the media can help cultivate a tolerant society."

A society rippled by debate is a healthy one, but when the disputes are spawned by sensation, tempers can flare far too hotly, the scienti-fic facts are blurred, and the gap between scientists and journalists can widen even more.

Recognising the uniqueness of the scientific community, and carefully dissecting the facts could do wonders for the coverage of science in the 21st century. And as far as scientists and the journalists who popularise their work are concerned, it's three cheers for the well-versed reporter.

Source: Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, by Dorothy Nelkin

1800s Science stories were punctuated with practical information about the latest farming techniques and home remedies but were mostly permeated by far-fetched tales more worthy of today's tabloids: the earth was flattening out; a woman with no stomach could eat without digesting. This was the heyday of the science hoax. Later in the century, science was assigned a remote and mystical quality by journalists, congruent with characters like Frankenstein.

1835 Reports that astronomer John Hershel observes bat-like human beings on the moon.

1844 Press releases articles of a three-day Atlantic crossing by balloon.

Early 1900s With the onset of World War I, the Industrial Revolution and its proliferation of consumer goods, the press focused on new machines and devices being pieced together in labs. The press was also a vehicle for anti-scientific views spurred by religious fundamentalists who saw Darwinism as a threat to their values.

1919 The New York Times publishes an article on the obscurities of physics - Einstein's theory of relativity was a focal point of this - and the danger of the small all-knowing scientific community to democracy.

1921 The Science Service was formed by newspaper magnate Edwin Scripps. It was the first syndicate for the distribution of science news. Scripps believed that "science was the basis of democratic life". His service sought to publicise science as a new frontier with scientists as pioneers, and it coined phrases like "Drama lurks in every test tube".

Post-WWII Journalists wrote of the "promise" of applications of peacetime atomic energy, the "progress" in aviation, the "revolutionary developments" in drugs, vaccines and pesticides and hailed the "cosmic breakthroughs" of the space program.

1960s Debates about the necessity of objectivity in press circles, gave way to advocacy journalism, which was reflected in science reporting; scientists were put on pedestals that were hard to knock down. In 1966 Henry Pierce of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette exclaimed of science reporters, "we go in with our bright blue baby pencils poised, faithfully recording anything our scientists - gods - tell us. Never does it occur to us that these guys too may have motives that are less than noble."

1970s Sympathy with environmental controversies and a growing concern with the social impact of science and technology moved the press to a role of critics, and scientific disputes were the primary news of the day.

1980s Science writing again shifted to a more promotional style, in tune with an image-conscious decade, focusing especially on the upper-middle classes who reflected a renewed technical optimism.

1990s A return to a more overtly critical style of science reporting has emerged, with reporters focusing on scientific misconduct, the costs of megascience and moral dilemmas related to science research.

THE BOOBOO BIN ... THE WORST IN SCIENCE REPORTING

* "Does it come as a surprise to hear that the media was more interested in whether Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk or P.W. Botha use Viagra than the near extinction of several species of Fynbos?" - Sean Falconer, WWF-SA

* "Cloning humans in The Star was horrendous ... the beginnings of the Virodene saga was totally misunderstood." - Lesley Cowling, M&G

* Journalists who don't send copy to scientists to check, nor re-check their own work.

* "Virodene was particularly badly reported. People were misinformed, there was a lack of critical reporting, decent analysis, and scientists opinions were ignored ... Cloning was handled badly - the cloning technique is only successful in one or two instances. Dolly may still be bona fide!" - David Shapshak, M&G

* "Die Burger is very apathetic. they didn't take up stories after being handed information." - Dr. Jurie van der Heever, Palaeontologist and Evolutionary expert.

* "As far as I am aware, there has not been a dedicated [pure] science writer at Cape Newspapers (Argus and Times) for about a decade." - John Yeld, Cape Argus.

QUOTABLE QUOTES: CULTIVATING THE NEW SCIENCE REPORTING

* "I am heartily sick of reading badly reported Ôfacts' on some breakthrough/ disaster/ threat, together with some half-baked and usually doomsday-type pronouncements by the journo."

Ed Rybicki, Microbiologist at UCT.*

* "Journalists should know that scientists are usually more nervous about the first encounter than they are." Patricia Whitelock, SA Astronomical Observatory.*

* "Scientists get funded by public money most of the time but are unable to explain in layman's terms to the public who are in reality funding them." Prof. George Claassen, Stellenbosch University Department of Journalism.*