It’s been particularly interesting to watch the “Ida” story play out in the blogosphere over the past week, because I’ve been at the Santa Fe Science Writing Workshop and “scientist-media relations” have been a frequent topic of discussion both in our lectures and around the dinner table.
If you’ve somehow missed the media circus surrounding the fossil, its story can pretty much be summed up by “gorgeous specimen introduced with excessive hype.” (You can get up to speed pretty quickly by looking at reactions from P.Z. Myers, Brian Switek, Henry Gee, and Carl Zimmer.) In this case – as reported by Elizabeth Cline in SEEDMAGAZINE.COM – when Jorn Hurum (University of Oslo) rediscovered the fossil (it had been in a private collection), he didn’t just describe it, he went looking for a filmmaker to build a media event around it. So when the description of Darwinius masillae appeared in PloS Science on May 19th, it was accompanied by a press conference, a TV documentary, a companion book and website, and a whole raft of misrepresentation about its scientific importance. It may be an effective way to get a lot of quick public attention, but it doesn’t help more run-of-the-mill relations between scientists and writers one bit.
Ideally, when a new and significant bit of data comes along, scientists and reporters should be partners in getting the word out. But there’s suspicion on both sides of the aisle: scientists want to know how to get writers interested in their discoveries, but are often afraid that their research will be misrepresented in the story that goes to press (and believe me – your colleagues tease you mercilessly when that happens). Writers want to create a clear and compelling story that the average person will want to read, but are faced with the task of simplifying multi-layered explanations filled with potentially confusing details and qualifications. It’s a difficult balancing act, which works best when there’s trust and mutual respect between the writer and the scientist. There are certainly short term benefits to a media circus like ‘Ida’s’ debut, but in the longer term they reinforce public misunderstandings about science – which then fuels distrust on the scientist end and annoys the writers who work the hardest to get things right.
*Image from Figure 1 of Franzen, J. L. et al. 2009. Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS One.
(You can get up to speed pretty quickly by looking at reactions from P.Z. Meyers,...
My, my, tell me you didn't do that to P.Z.
(Myers)
Posted by: Thom H. | May 27, 2009 at 02:52 PM
Speed typing -- not my strong suit.
(Thanks for the typo spot Thom.)
Posted by: DianeAKelly | May 27, 2009 at 03:56 PM
It occurs to me that the problem with this story isn't a lack of trust and respect between scientist and media, but a lack of respect for the general public.
Posted by: Cambias | May 31, 2009 at 10:16 AM
From which end, Jim? The paleontologists, or the people making the documentary?
Posted by: DianeAKelly | May 31, 2009 at 09:49 PM