- ‘ II" """00.n-ogo TRAINENG O? my. SCIENCE WRZTER mass FOR ma DEGREE. or M. A; maum STATE: mummy; - w: 1.3.,va y. SMALL; .1 9 8 4 < ”Ill/l/llI/ll/II/l/Illllll/ll/I/II/lll/ll/l/l/III/II/I/UI/l/l i L/ 3 1293 10474 8417 i ’ LIBR A R Y Michigan Suite University v“ TRAINING OF THE SCIENCE WRITER BY William E. Small A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made possible through the assistance of many people and the insistence of a few. Professor James Stokley, through many months of coaxing and patient guidance, inspired the final outcome of this paper. To the National Association of Science Writers, its administrative secretary, Mrs. Howard W. Blakeslee, and partic- ularly the nearly 80 members who participated in the survey, I owe my deepest gratitude. The four men who offered the most help and consultation were: Nate Easeltine, Medical Writer, Washington Post, and Past-President of NASW; Pierre 0. Fraley, Executive Secretary, Council for the Advancement of Science Writing; Earl Ubell, Science Editor, New York HeraldaTribune; and Hillier Krieghbaum, Professor of Journalism, New York University. Partial financial support for the survey came from the Michigan State University Communications Research Center and statistical support from Jack Prather and his staff at the Center. . But the greatest force behind the survey, the paper, and myself was my wife, Ruth, who typed, edited, suggested, and otherwise assisted in my efforts. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLE Gm IS 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . IN IROD U0 II on O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. IV. VI. HISTORY OF SCIENCE WRITING . WHY THE SCIENCE WRITER? . . WHAT IS THE SCIENCE WRITER? Competency of the Science Writer What He Writes The Road to Writing Science Education The Composite EDUCATING THE SCIENCE WRITER On-the-Job Training Seminars for Writers Formal Education Conflicts Science Writing Curriculum Schools for Science Writers PROSPECTS FOR SCIENCE WRITING Employment Opportunities Science Writing Improved Editors Versus Science Better Science Writing Education A PROPOSED TRAINING PROGRAM For the Bachelor's Degree For the Graduate Student Conclusion APPm IXES O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 iii Page ii iv 14 26 45 7O 85 92 102 Table 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Page State Distribution of Subjects Surveyed . . . . 4 New York Times Coverage of Recent Science Events 11 How the Public Uses Mass Media to Obtain Science Infomationooooooooooooooobo 15 Science Writing Competency . . . . . . . . . . 31 Fields of Science in which the Writers Judged Themselves Relatively Competent (Science SerVice) O O O 0 O 9 O O O O O O O 0 O C O O 33 Sciences Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Fields of Science Covered (Science Service and NASW‘NYU)0000oooooooooooooo 36 College Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Science Courses Taken by Science Writers . . . 39 Science Catagories in which the Writers had College Courses (Science Service) . . . . . . 41 Specific Courses taken in College (NASW) . . . 42 Suggested Amount of Education . . . . . . . . . 54 Suggested Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Training Recommended for Undergraduates-- Recommended Teachers of Courses . . . . . . . 53 iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 10 Distribution Map of Responding Science Writers . 5 2. Degrees of Detail and Communicative Accuracy . . 29 5. Education of 72 Science Writers . . . . . . . . 38 4. Importance of Items in Science Writer's Training 53 5 . Courses Rated for Science Writing Curriculum . . 65 INTRODUCTION In order to gather the data for this study, I made a survey in January-February of 1963 of professional science writers throughout the United States and Canada to obtain their views about science writing and the training programs for sci- ence writers. The questionnaire (Appendix B) was sent on January 12 to the 180 active science writing members of the National Asso- ciation of Science Writers (NASW)1 with a letter of instruction (Appendix A) and an air-mail-stamped return enveIOpe to insure a high number of returns. The selection of survey subjects (science writers) was based on several factors. First, membership in the NASW is limited to those persons who are actively engaged in writing science for the lay public, devoting at least 50 per cent of their time to writing science, and who have been doing so for a minimum of two years.2 Secondly, it is generally believed that a majority of the men and women who meet these qualifications 1National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Member- ship List, Lifetime and Active Members (Port Washington, N.I.: Ifig. 2, 1962). fExcluded were two with no address, four abroad and one deceased.] 2National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Consti- tution (Port Washington, N.Y.: August, 1955). P. 1. 2 have become members of the organization.1 There are other or- ganizations of science-oriented writers, but they are mainly for technical writers (who write for a special group of sci- entists or technicians rather than for the general public) or for specialized groups of science writers, such as the American Medical Writers' Association or the Nuclear Energy Writers Association. There is also a great deal of overlapping of memberships experienced by these organizations and the NASW. A third factor in subject selection was the fact that members of NASW are primarily newspaper, magazine or wire service sci- ence writers, as opposed to the associates who are mainly public relations writers. A followuup letter (Appendix C) to my survey was mailed on February 1st because computer time was not available for analysis of results at that time and we felt more subjects would be able to participate if the period was extended. From the original 180 subjects, 72 validated returns were received by the termination date of the survey late in February. This was a healthy 40 per cent of the total subjects surveyed. The subjects were assigned arbitrary numbers in the order in which their returns were received. The 72 returns were from writers in 17 states, the District of Columbia and Canada. Figure 1 is a map of the distribution of subjects. State distribution is summarized in 1James Stokley, "Opportunities in Science Writing," (Unpublished paper, School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963). (Mimeographed.) .— Manual .Eof / . . W _ _ 3:8. 00% H s A > 3:30: rarkx (4.. CA]... rx/ lrlILTIIII/ .133 You 0 2933.... I// I4 5:0on 03311 no «a... are... 0 2.2““? x .6269 o aoaocum ougwfiwu .h& O m m .2505. E \I {I‘ll a“- II'I'I'III'I' "" 33. atom. mumtmk .3298; .mzazoamwm “.0 n2: 20:33:26 4 Table 1. Six persons, including Stokley, disqualified them- selves or were disqualified from the survey, and two other returns were received too late to be included in the results. TABLE 1 STATE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS SURVEYED Arizona California Colorado Conneticut Florida Illinois Indiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota New York Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Texas Virginia washington, D.C. Canada Total A I'D ‘1 Note: Questionnaires were sent to 180 writers in 25 states, the District of Columbia and Canada. Returns were from 72 science writers in 33 cities in 17 states, the District of Columbia and Canada. Answers were transcribed from the questionnaires onto a prepared form (Appendix D) from which Michigan State Univer- sity Communications Research Center key punch Operators could directly punch the results onto IBM cards. Three cards were prepared for each subject, including all of the data from each of the 72 questionnaires. These were fed into the Michigan State University computer, MISTIC, along with the program 5 compiled by Jack Prather and the Center staff. Ages, salaries, education, suggested curricula, and the other information was tabulated. Percentages, means and stand- ard deviations for each part of each question were computed. Cross tabulations and other manipulations intended to give an idea of how each subject felt about himself as a science writer, about science writing in general, and about the training of future science writers, were ordered from the computer. In addition, an audit list was requested in order to give general reference to all items in the survey and to verify each and every piece of information. Appendixes E and F were compiled and sent to all the subjects. These papers contained the ini- tial machined answers for first reference to the survey. Appendix F offers an easy reference to the answers to questions in Appendix B. The answers are simply averages of the answers given by the 72 subjects. This paper has been prepared to answer some of the fol- lowing questions: What are science writers? What qualities do they have? How do they become science writers and why? What Opportunities do they have? What training do they have? What training program or programs would they suggest for science writing students? I hape this paper will serve as a guide to science writing students and to the schools of journalism in this country which are attempting to educate the science writer. CHAPTER 1 HISTORY OF SCIENCE WRITING A science writer is a Hybrid1 whose curiosity for sci- ence and talent for writing are intimately blended to produce for the lay public, for "the man-on-the-street," a microsc0pic close-up of the scientific community in action. These Hybrids devote their lives to explaining the complexities of the sci- ences from astronomy to zoology, only to have their stories read over the breakfast coffee cup and rolled around the garbage before nightfall. Science writers have been around for years, knocking about dusty laboratories, probing into the hearts of giant machines, and picking the brains of scientists in government, industry and universities of the world. They have explained the theories of physicist Albert Einstein, the perplexities of educator John Dewey’s teaching psychology, the birth of the atomic bomb, the medical fight against cancer and the flights of the first men into space in the pages of the daily newspaper and the popular magazine, or on the Speakers and screens of radio and television. 1Horace G. Loftin, "Science Reporting in the American Press" (unpublished Master's thesis, Florida State University, August, 1956), p. 100. 7 To those who doubt the importance of the layman's understanding of science, heed the words of the late Einstein when he said: It is of great importance that the general public be given an Opportunity to experience--consciously and intelligently-mthe efforts and results of scientific research. It is not sufficient that each result be taken up, elaborated and applied by a few specialists in the field. Restricting the body of knowledge to a few peOple, to a small group, deadens the phiIOSOphical spirit of a people and leads to spiritual poverty.1 For the non-scientific reader, however, even if he has a curiosity about science, the progress of the sciences is inaccessible and unintelligible. A babble of specific scien- tific tongues has emerged so that even scientists often can't understand one another. It was for this reason that the profession of science writing came into being. Although science of sorts was reported sporadically in the first colonial newspaper,2 real science reporting did not evolve until the twentieth century. Three separate events several years apart marked the birth and growth of science writing in this country. The birth Of modern science writing took place more than 40 years ago, as recorded by Horace Loftin: The year 1921 can be taken as the beginning of the new era of science reporting, marking the advent of the pro- fessional science writer. During that year, Science fl..— A,— 1Science News and Newspapers, Report of the Science News Seminar for Southern Newspaper Editors (New Orleans: Tulane University, Feb. 5-7, 1962), p. 14. 2Loftin, Op. cit., p. 1. 8 Service, a unique non-profit organization whose prime Objective is the pOpularization of science, began its activities. This new organization had a full-time staff of science writers including Dr. Edwin E. Slosson and Watson Davis. That same year, David Dietz was made science editor of the Cleveland Press and later of the Scripps-Howard chain; Alva Johnston was selected to write science for the New York Times; and John J. O'Neill, who later became science editor of the New York Herald- Tribune, was writing front page science stories for the EEEEEIEE Eagle.‘ When the National Association of Science Writers was formed in 1934, twelve professional science writers became its charter members.2 All of these men and women were dedicated to "foster the dissemination of accurate information regarding science through all media normally devoted to informing the public."3 Five of the original 12 members are deceased. Lawrence Lessing, the 1962 winner of the American Chemical Society's Grady Medal for science writing, describes this first period of science writing as the "Gee Whiz" age: It wasn't much to begin with. The first stage, ex- tending into the Thirties, has rightly been called the Gee Whiz age. It was quite adolescent. Its most char- acteristic feature was the Sunday supplement story, in which scientific fact was mixed with lurid imagination and invariably lost the battle.4 The second burst of interest in science writing came fi 1Ibid. 2National Association Of Science Writers, Inc., A leaf- let bearing background information on the NASW, 1963, p. 1., 3National Association of Science Writers,A Whack for Press Arran ements at Scientific Meetin 8, (Port Was] nIEgton, E. 3.: WISE, 19%2), preface. 4Lawrence Lessing, "The Three Ages of Science Writing," Chemical & Engineering News, XLI (April 22,1963), 88. 9 late in the summer of 1945, when the United States drOpped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This second age, which Lessing calls the "reportorial age," began with the awakening of the public to the tremendous expansion of scientific and technical wealth which was gener- ated during the war years. According to Lessing: The few science writers who had been struggling to get their work accepted as a legitimate and regular part of straight news reportingu-men such as Bill Laurence of the New York Times and David Dietz of the Scripps-Howard press ...fIEally came into their own. . In the age of the atom, the electron, the computer, the solid state, and all the new complex materials pouring out of chemistry, it became quite Obvious that some new level of science reportingxwas needed. And the level through most of the country has been greatly raised.1 The great influx of science writers of that period is reflected in the comments by some of the active science writers around the country: In 1945, while serving in the Air Force in San Antonio, I read the first account of the drOpping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima. I realized I didn't know what the writer was talking about. He did not know much more than I did. So I began reading books and magazines on science--Ralph S., O'Leary, Science Editor, The Houston Post. I was assigned to cover science in 1945 following the use of an atomic bomb at Hiroshima-~Gecrge Dusheck, San . Francisco News-Call Bulletin. I began writing science when science develOped as a major aspect of American life--about 1946--or, rather, when I became aware of it as such-~Richard S. Lewis, Science Writer, Chicago Sun-Times. The third event which stimulated science writing was the first space shot; the Russian Sputnik. In 1957 the NASW 1Ibid. 10 and New York University surveyed portions of the public on readership of science news.1 Six months before the first Sputnik they found that more than half of the public answered no to the question: "Have you ever heard of an earth satel- lite, sometimes called a manmmade moon?"2 "This," Hillier Krieghbaum remarked, "is rather fright- ening when you think that Life magazine had two or three issues dealing with this, the news magazines had extensive coverage, the newspapers had coverage and radio and television had exten- sive coverage."3 However, six months later, at the time of the first Sputnik, knowledge of such a satellite rose to 92 per cent. In 1958, Krieghbaum wrote that "the typical United States daily newspaper increased the amount of Space it devoted to science news by at least 50 per cent in the year since the Russian scientists put their first satellite into orbit."4 It is interesting to compare the general increase in science news over the past few years. Krieghbaum, in 1962, 1National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Science the Press and the Citizen, Report of the Committee on Fellows. ships and ScholarshipsITPcrt Washington, N. Y.: NASW, 1957). (Humecgraphed. ) 2Hillier Krieghbaum, Science, the News and the Public (New York: New York University Press, 1958). P. 52. 3Science and the Public, Proceedings Of the Midwestern Science Cofimunications Seminar for Public Information Special- ists (Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University, March 21-23, 1962), p. 14. 4Hillier Krieghbaum, Impact of Space A e on Dell News- er Covers 6 of Science News, A Reprt'of a EISW-NYU Survey 0??? 3 BE 33 i . . nag g Ed tors, 1958, p. 1. 11 compiled some figures on significant scientific events and the amount of coverage they had, shown in Table 2. Science news appears to be gaining more than a proportionate share of the swelling Space in the mass media. TABLE 2 NEW YORK TIMES COVERAGE OF RECENT SCIENCE EVENTSa __‘,_ Event Total News Space on Space Page One First atomic bomb (Aug. 7, 1945mu38 page issue) 634 79 First Soviet satellite (Oct. 5, 1957-~36 page issue) 331 3/4 66 1/2 Soviet moon shot takewoff (Sept. 13, 1959-~Sunday issue 238 1/4 37 3/4 Soviet moon shot landing (Sept. 14, 1959-u60 page issue) 619 1/2 94 1/2 001. Glenn flight (Feb. 21, 1962e=92 page issue) 1,373 3/4 96 1/2 aHillier Krieghbaum, "It's Later Than You Think," 2h; ggill, L (November, 1962), 73. Many young people have entered the field of science writing since 19590 A typical postmsputnik science writer, Carle Heintze of the San Jose News, explained that he came into the field "because it was a field uncovered on our papers and because of the upturn of interest in science following Sputnik I." Lessing feels the third age of science writing, the 12 "interpretive age," has not yet arrived,1 despite the substan- tial number of young peOple who have turned to science writing in the last five years. But each year the NASW elects several new members.“ As a university public relations man and ex- editor puts it: For some years now, it has been obvious that every good newspaper needs at least one of these qualified science writers on its staff. There was a period when the general assignment journalist was viewed as the type of man who could handle all of the planning, writing and editing chores which were confronted. But the explosion of knowledge-~especially scientific knowledge-~in the past two decades has decimated this long-held assumption. 2 There were, in 1961, approximately 250 men and women in the United States who prepared science stories directly for the lay press.; Hundreds, perhaps thousands more work in public relations offices in industry, government and universities, helping to prepare the stories which finally reach the break- fast table. Scores of scientists and other journalists contribute enormously to the public knowledge of science through science fiction and scientific books, comic strips, radio and television shows. However, in order to prevent con- fusing the science writer with the hundreds of others who practice some form of science writing, the term "science writer" is usually taken to mean a person who is actively 1Lessing, op. cit., p. 89. 2Carl W. Larsen, "Science Writing--New Opportunities-- New Problems," Paper read at the American College Public Relations Association Convention, Chicago, June 24, 1963. 3Science Service, Report: Conference on the Role of Schools of Journalism in the Professional Trainin of Science 13 engaged in, and devotes the majority of his time to, the preparation of science stories for the lay public. This is the definition which is used throughout this paper. CHAPTER 2 WHY THE SCIENCE WRITER? Man is a curious animal. He wants to understand him~ self and his environment. He has turned his microscope on the tiny living creatures and his telescope on the vast universe. He smashes atoms and cries for more energy with which to smash the pieces. And yet, he is attempting to cure the diseases which kill and cripple his fellow man. All of these things have been done by manmaman the sci~ entist; man the humanist. It is the same man who opens the morning paper or snaps on the evening news report to learn more about the world around him. He desires more science informa- tion along with his politics, more knowledge of where his tax dollars are going and what is in it for him. This need on the part of the public for more and more science information is pointed up by a series of surveys of the public's attitude toward science news. The 1957-58 NASH and New York university surveys, although not primarily intended for this purposa.do reflect the public's interest in science news. Results from the surveys are reported in Table 3. Notice that from all the media combined, 76 per cent of the average citizens surveyed could recall reading at least one of the sciu ence items which were suggested in the survey. In fact, more 14 15 than one third (37 Per cent) could recall all the medical news which they read in their neWSpapers.1 TABLE 3 HOW THE PUBLIC USES MASS MEDIA TO OBTAIN SCIENCE INFORMATIONa (RESPONSES OF PEOPLE WHO COULD RECALL AT LEAST ONE SPECIFIC SCIENCE OR MEDICAL NEWS ITEM) All media combined Total science................ 76% Medical news................. 69% Nonmedical science news...... 52% Newspapers Total science................ 64% Medical news................. 50% Nonmedical science news...... 36% Magazines Total science................ 34% Medical neWSOOCOCOCOOCCOOOOOO 20% Nonmedical science news...... 21% Radio Total science................ 13% Medical news................. 7 Nonmedical science news...... 8% Television Total science................ 41% Medical news...’.........0°.. 25% Nonmedical science news...... 22% (Sample size: 1919) 3Science and the Public, op, cit., p. 15. Krieghbaum, in discussing the survey at the Midwestern Science Communications Seminar for Public Information Speciala ists, summed the public's interest in science: "I think that it is perfectly obvious that (1) there is an interest in science, (2) that the public reads or sees it, and (3) the public desires more of it."2 He points this out in his report of the survey by saying 42 per cent of the 1,919 1Krieghbaum, Science, the News, and the Public, p. 1. QScience News and Newspapers, op, cit., p. 9. 16 subjects surveyed wanted newspapers to print more medical news and 28 per cent wanted more science in general. Sixty six per cent, he said, were willing to give up some other news to pro- vide space for these stories. The Southern Newspaper Editors recently added that "it is evident from various studies that pe0ple want science news and they want more than they are getting."1 How the public gets science news is evident in Table 3. Newspapers are far above all other media for distributing sci- ence information. Magazines, television and radio trail at some distance, but television is gaining more in pOpularity each year. The newspaper remains the trail blazer. As John E. Pfeiffer points out, however: when it comes to science news coverage, newspapers are doing the best Job. However, even newspapers are not doing enough. Although a large portion of the public today may not be able to understand a science story which hasn't been carefully broken down for them, theie are a lot of readers who understand a lot about science. One of the reasons the public desires more and more , [science news, of course, is the fact that they, themselves, through the Federal income tax program, are sponsoring more and more of the scientific research by government, industry and universities. Percy H. Tannenbaum.makes this observation: With increasing amounts of public funds being spent in support of scientific undertakings and with scientific fact and opinion becoming increasingly significant in national and international political decisions, the wonder--and to 1Science News and News a ers, op, cit,, p. 9. 21bid,, p. 8. 17 some commentators, the pitywwis that there is as little science reporting as there is.‘ Perhaps the reason, as stated by J. Robert Oppenheimer some years ago, is that science is defined in words and phrases which are "almost impossible to translate" into conventional lay language.2 Oppenheimer recently told a group of newspaper editors that almost everything that is known in science today was not known when they went to school. This is conceivable when, historians point out, 90 to 95 per cent of all the sci- entists who have ever lived in the history of the world are alive and practicing science today. As Arthur J. Snider, Science Writer for the Chicago DailypNews, so aptly put it: . Science is bulking much faster than we are reporting it. This is of growing concern to those of us at the ring- side cf science. There is not much time to loss. Our position is well summed up by Dr. John R. Platte, Professor of Physics, The University of Chicago: "Man has suddenly found himself. He has explored all the earth and stepped outside it. He taps the sun’s source of energy and stands ready to manipulate the weather and use the oceans. He measures back to the beginnings of time and out to the ends of space, and sees his own sudden emergence, a thinking creature spun out of light and air and water and holding power in his hand, yet probably only one of millions of . such creatures on other worlds. And the power man holds is not only the technical power but something far greater still, evolutionary power. He creates new species of plants and animals, halts or speeds up evolution, manipulating heredity like chemistry and prepares to turn his own flimsy organism into whatever fantastic and brilliant and power- ful form he most desires. The whole future is Open-ended, ‘1Percy H. Tannenbaum, "Communication of Science Infor- mation," Science, CXL (May 10, 1963), S?9. 2Editor and Publisher, 1958. 18 waiting for us, From now, in every century, men will look back and say: 'This was the one...'"‘ And what of the needs of the 2.7 million persons works ing in science and technology in the United States2 for science reporting to the lay public? Does the scientist, whose work is as much the lifenblood of the science writer as it is his own, need the Hybrid as much as the science writer needs him? The increasing prominence of science in world affairs has forced the scientist out of his laboratory on to the brightly lit stage of public life. This emergence of the scientist is a comparatively recent phenomenon, accelerated by World War II and dramatized by post war security inves- tigations. By and large the scientific community has been unprepared for this sudden prominence, which many find distasteful, and is divided within itself as to the public role of the man of science.3 This reflected the views of scientists in 1955 and remains the feeling of many scientists today. Some of the larger organizations of scientists in America have gone on record to help promote a good public image of the scientist and to foster good public relations of their particular or collec- tive sciences. However, many more organizations 50 out of their way to avoid any and all kinds of publicity. The two diametrically opposing viewpoints are held by two great organizations which are considered by the general 1Arthur J. Snider, "A Writer's View of Science," South- ern Re ional Science Seminar for Universit Information Off cers (gainesville: University of Florida, Feb. 19~22, 1951), p. E5. 2"The Technical Society," Scientific American, ooxx, (September, 1963). pp. 82-83. 3Science W itin and the Public, A Report of a Pilot Study for the National issociation of Science Writers, (Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, September, 1955). P. 33. 19 public to be as close together as any of the organizations of science: the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Dental Association (ADA). The physicians are con- cerned that the public be more than Just informed about science; that they be educated to the point where they may play a part in the future drama of science, as expressed at their 1958 special meeting: The power of man through science is currently assuming a new order of magnitude. Power has always been sought avidly. Sometimes it has been used disastrously; often it has been used wisely. How the united States shall keep abreast of the developments in science and scientific tech- nology; how it shall help avoid disaster; how it shall ensure that new knowledge (the age-old synonym for power) will be used for the benefit of mankind...are among the most important questions before the American public today... Man is breaking with the past, its limitations and its safeguards. The prize is greater than ever before--so are the risks. The question is not, "Do we like this?" The The question is, "Hhat role do the people of the United States wish to play in the drama of the future?"1 The forward-looking views of the AHA with reSpect to public information are reflected in Table 3, with a high per— centage of recall of medical news. It can be seen that, in general, doctors tend to cOOperate with the press, and this gives the press an advantage it does not have in the so-called hard sciences. Many of the problems between doctors and science writers were ironed out in a series of meetings beginning in .1953.2 4 _.._ .‘ 1Dael Wolfle, Science and Public Policr (Lincoln: Univ- ersity of Nebraska Press, 1935}, p %E quoting 1958 "Parlia- ment of Science," Science, OXXVII (1958),q p. 852. 2Hillier Krieghbaum, When Docto s Meet Re orters (New York: New York university Press, 1 20 On the other side of the coin, the ADA has an unwritten policy which prohibits dentists from at least making primary contact with the press, if not from cOOperating on a news story. They view this 000peration as "publicity seeking" which would give the dentist an advantage in attracting patients. Often the license is in jeepardy if this policy is broken. This, then, somewhat inhibits the reporting of dental news. There are many reasons why scientists have mixed feel- ings about reporting of their news in the mass media. One of the most frequently heard comments from scientists is that they have been "stung" by reporters in the past--usually reporters who have had no background in science or science reporting, reporters who will take very little time to get the facts straight. Arthur J. Snider recently extended the comments of a prominent scientist, Dr. Warren Weaver, who was trying to smooth the ruffled feathers of scientists who are reluctant to release information because of the lack of "communicative accuracy:" This concept rests on the fact--not often recognized-- that the effective accuracy of a written statement depends primarily on the interpretation given it by the reader. A statement has communicative accuracy, Dr. Weaver says, if it takes the reader closer to the correct understanding-- if it gains ground in the right direction. Scientists should make a distinction between scientific accuracy and literary accuracy. Scientists are asking of the press a degree of accuracy that is not necessary for the type of audience we are reaching. I think it can be said in some instances scientists may be more tolerant of inaccuracies on the part of their own colleagues than of inaccuracies in the press. There are inaccuracies inherent in the limitations of the methods of science. There are inaccuracies in the interpretations of results. There is a frightful amount of inaccuracy even in routine laboratory tests. There are inaccuracies in the over enthusiasm of a scientist in reporting his results, in his unrecognized 21 bias, in his accentuation of positive factors and mini- mizing of negative factors. In the medical clinic, as we know, a physician may make a grave or even fatal diagnostic or therapeutic error and explain it away to his colleagues' satisfaction as resulting from his "best clinical judgement" at the time. Our errors are run off at the rate of 50,000 newspapers an hour for all to see. 1 A second comment which scientists often make against reporting their research in the pages of the mass media is that their work is not exciting or important or it does not lend itself to popularization because it is too technical. It is indeed true that some of the research being done in laboratories currently does not have the significance that other research (has. It is also true that the inherent difficulties in under- standing such technical work as the periodic rotation of some heavenly body or the wave functions of diatomic molecules limits the reporting of such subjects to those writers who have spe- cialized in that area of science or are willing to spend long hours reading and studying about the subject. However, any given piece of research, no matter how technical or seemingly insignificant, must be interesting to someone, at least the scientist, or else he would never have undertaken the study. If a science writer has enough interest in the subject to attempt doing a story, the scientist should have enough reali- zation to see that a segment of the public would be interested. Despite the handicaps which some scientists present to science writing, there are many, many more scientists who under- stand the need for popularization of their research. They know that a great deal of the research which their laboratories are kw.— 1Snider, o cit , pp. 45-46. ll [ [[1 (III-III, ‘ll Ill} nlllllllll II‘I 1" 22 doing is financed by the public. They also know that a well- informed public, in all fields of knowledge, is capable of making decisions far superior to an unSOphisticated public. In fact, many of the organizations of scientists have a para- graph written into their constitutions which specifically announces the organization's goal to educate the public in its specific area of science: "In New York State, the [State Medical] Society's goals are set forth as follows: ...'to extend medical knowledge and advance the science and art of medicine; to promote the betterment of public health; and to enlighten. and direct public Opinion in regard to the problems of medicine and health for the best interest of the people...“1 A group of 100 leading scientists and physicians who met in New York recently to discuss this problem of public communications under the guise of the National Conference for Scientific Information agreed on the needs for strengthening the public image of science and scientists. In their resolu- tions, they drafted the following statement: The accelerating progress of science provides society with growing powers which can be used for destruction or for the enrichment of life. Under these circumstances every citizen is confronted with the continuing need to participate in momentous political decisions. To make these decisions citizens need to understand a growing body of relevant scientific information, for an informed judge- ment is otherwise impossible. Therefore it becomes the special responsibiltiy of scientists to serve their fellow citizens by providing the necessary information in an understandable form. In recent years increasing numbers of scientists have accepted this new challenge and have endeavored to provide the public with factual information on major issues, such as those associated with military and civilian uses of 1Krieghbaum, When Doctors Meet Reporters, pp. 85-87, quoting Dr. Arthur H. Master. 23 nuclear energy. In performing this duty, these scientists, as represented at this conference, subscribe to certain guiding principles: (1) Information is presented unencum- bered by political or moral judgements, which judgements are the prerogative and responsibility of all citizens. (2) Information is prepared with scientific objectivity, which includes attention to divergent studies and inter- pretations. (3) Information is freely available to all.1 Krieghbaum made this additional comment: Indeed, more and more, scientists are coming to agree with Dr. Frank Fremont-Smith, of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, who explained at a conference of science writers and doctors several years ago, "It seems to me that the medical profession, the universities, and hospitals have ignored too long the fact that they can be successful only with genuine public support and they are going to get gen- uine public support only if their story, their very dramatic and thrilling story, is apprOpriately told to the public. There is no better group to tell this to the public in terms that the public can understand--because, God knows, we can- not make ourselves understood to the public-~than the intelligent, thoughtful science writers." The comment applies to non-medical scientists as well as M.D.'s.2 Science writers truly have a difficult task to perform, for the public and for scientists. But just what the purpose of science writing is, whether to entertain the public or to educate the public, even the science writers are not certain. Some of the answers to the question, "what is the role of the science writer?," revealed these varying views: Our job is simple. Tell the public what is going on. To inform the public we should entertain the public, so I believe in liberal use of analogy. The good gray New York Times style of science writing is bunk in my books. After all, the science writer is NOT the final source of infor- mation-~he is the tribune to the common man--and if you 1National Conference for Scientific Information (New York: Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Feb. 16- 179 1963)! p0 1180 2Hillier Krieghbaum, "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Sci- ence Writers," Paper read at the Howard W. Blakeslee Awards Luncheon of American Heart Association, New York City, Oct. 3, 1959. 22+ want specifically accurate data you go to the scientists, not the newspaper--Charles B. Wheat, The Tulsa World (Oklahoma). Like any reporter, the science writer must write to please his editor; that is, he must write his story as the editor thinks the public would like to see it. Ideally, the science writer should strive to inform the largest number of peOple--Arthur Hill, The Roanoke Times (Virginia). Entertain and inform the public--Darell Garwood, Bethesda, Maryland. Strangely enough, the role of a science writer depends on the public for which he writer--Earl Ubell, Science Editor, New York Herald-Tribune. "Educating" scientists so specialized that all they know about what other disciplines are doing is what they read in the papers. So much of science is analysis that synthesis--i.e., "integration" of fragments of knowledge-- is rarely attempted by scientists themselves, and the well- hackgrounded science writer whose knowledge is in breadth rather than depth can bridge a gap in communications-- Donald G. Cooley, Scarsdale, New York. The role of the science writer is primarily to inform the general public and, only then, to inform the scien- tific community at 1arge--Carle Hodge, Science Editor, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson). In general, the science writers surveyed by myself agreed that the goal of the hybrid was to inform and educate the public on the advances of modern science. Since the adult pOpulation, after leaving school, can only receive its science information from the mass media, science writers and editors control to a great extent the knowledge of the masses in this rapidly increasing area of human conquest. We are often told that this is a "two-culture" society. It seems relatively easy for scientists to understand what is taking place in other areas of endeavor--the humanities, literature, archaeology, languages, and so forth-~but generally it is not easy for even the most educated humanists or social 25 scientists to understand what is taking place in the sciences. Perhaps, as Pierre Fraley recently said, the science writer really has two purposes, "to humanize the scientist and simonize the humanist."1 1Pierre 0. Fraley, "Should Science Writers be Scien- tists?," Unpublished talk read before the Science Writers Seminar on Birth Defects, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Nov. 14, 1962. CHAPTER III WHAT IS THE SCIENCE WRITER? The average science writer, based on my survey, is 48 years old1 (see Appendix F). He receives between 810,000 and 815,000 a year. He probably works with at least one other science writer and devotes at least 79 per cent of his time to reporting scientific events. He probably belongs to one scientific organization and at least two writing organizations, one of which is the NASW. The average science writer has been a journalist for 24 years and has covered science for 14 years, indicating that he began reporting science 10 years after he became a journalist. He has also spent less than two years doing scientific research. (Only 14 of the 72 writers had actually done scientific research.) I Seventy six per cent of the science writers surveyed had completed at least four years of college and more than 47 per cent had taken graduate work. The average had more than 16 years of school, a bachelor's degree plus. ‘ In trying to pinpoint some of the qualities of a "successful" science writer qualitatively--without particularly Wv—V‘ ‘P-r— —r y #7 r—v Y— ' v. . —r ——r—— Vi— v—r— W—i 1Fifty eight per cent of the subjects were below 50 years of age, a significantly lower percentage than the 71.1 per cent found in 1961 (Science Service, op. cit,, p. SWN1). 26 27 selecting those whom I believe to be outstanding--I attempted arbitrarily to base "success" in terms of salary, for this seems to be one of the most common measures of success in the Western World. However, there was no correlation between salary ranges and age, education, years of professional writing or science writing, or number of scientific and journalistic affiliations. These factors were, in fact, approximately the same average for the subjects in all of the salary groups. One peculiar facet of the survey was found in the comparison of salary with the number of years of scientific research. Only 20 per cent (3 out of 15) of the subjects in the $5-10,000 salary range and 17 per cent of the subjects in the 310—15,ooo (4 out of 24) and 815-20.000 (2 out of 12) ranges had done any scientific research. But 40 per cent (2 out of 5) of those in the $20-25,000 range and 30 per cent (2 out of 7) of those in the 825,000-and-above bracket had been engaged in scientific research. This could indicate that per— sons who have had first-hand experience in science have an advantage, at least salary wise, over those who have had none. A second indicator of success in our society is longev- ity or age. But the only correlations with age which indicated anything were the obvious: as age increased, so did the number of years of writing experience, the correlation with salary .showed no significant difference. 28 Competency of the Science Writer After knowledge is gained, it must be distributed to those who can use it. We shall not argue about which is more important, creation or use. Both are.1 This statement by Watson Davis, Director of Science Service, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reflects the necessity of teamwork between scientists and the science writers in informing the .public of the benefit of science. But, how much science in- formation which comes from the cooperation of scientists and science writers actually reaches the layman, even under the best conditions? And how accurate is it? The chart, Figure 2, created by J. Ansel Anderson of the Grain Research Laboratory, Winnipeg, Canada, shows the level of real scientific knowledge which finally reaches the pages of the newspaper under the best conditions-«that is, when science articles are even used. Stokley describes the detail and communicative accuracy of the science which is reported as follows: The scientist must record all that he does and has full technical knowledge; his notebook represents 100 per cent knowledge and 100 per cent detail. He writes a tech- nical paper about his work, addressed to other scientists who presumably have as much knowledge as he but they don't want all details, only the highlights: this is 100-50 per cent. The reader of a trade journal has still less tech- nical knowledge and wants less detail, perhaps 50-12 per. cent. Management provides the money and wants considerable detail as to how it's spent, but has still less technical knowledge, hence report to management may be 12-75 per cent. w... 1Watson Davis, "Writing and Science Presentation," Paper read before the Conference on Scientific Communication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, 111., Dec. 30, 1959. 29 The reader of the popular article may have almost no tech- nical knowledge and wants very little detail, only the main idea, so this might be 0-0 (or perhaps 0.1-0.1) per cent.1 DEGREES 0F DETAIL AND COMMUNICATIVE ACCURACY O O .F~““-AJE_- Scientist's notebook 100-100 ~“Scientist's paper 100—50 ..‘1 U1 ,i—v—*"Trade journal article 50-12 —q.—q:”" '0 U1 ,,I Report to management 12-75 fiL— Popular science story 0-0 % technical knowledge U1 C) o k l O 25 50 75 100 % usefulness of detail FIGURE 2 To a great degree this is true. The science writer can only report a small percentage of the information and knowledge that an individual scientist has obtained. The science writer must rather try to impart a general understanding of science to his reading audience. To write even this 0.1 per cent, however, science writers must have a fund of knowledge themselves. Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, oneof the physicists who helped create the atomic bomb, once remarked: "Nearly everything that is now known was v— 1James Stokley, Technical Writing Course Notes, Part 3. School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Fall Quarter, 1960. (Mimeographed.) 30 not in any book when most of us went to school."1 Even the basic laws of science are constantly changing, presenting a formidable task to communications experts. How science writers feel about this task of under- standing and writing this small degree and small amount of science which is daily recorded in the scientific notebooks in the millions of laboratories across the world is reported in Table 4. Question 14 of the Science Writer survey listed 23 specific science choices with fill-in blanks in which the sub- jects were to rate their relative competency, pertaining only to science writing. They were asked to rate themselves in each area of science on the basis of 5 for excellent (highly compe- tent) down to 1 for no competency. Zero's were used for no answer. The sciences for question 14, as well as for questions 15 and 16, were selected for various reasons, but primarily to attain a balance between the physical and biological sciences and to give as wide a range of general science areas as possi- ble. The "basic" sciences were selected first: biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. Then medicine, space, astronomy, engineering, meteorology, geology, anthropology and psychology were added, based on the other major fields which 1Hillier Krieghbaum, "What the Public Reads," Science and the Public, Proceedings of the Midwestern Science ommun eat one Seminar for Public Information Specialists (Evanstcn, Ill.: Northwestern University, March 21-23. 1962). p. 11, quoting Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. Note: 3 TAB SCIENCE WRITI Field Competency Agriculture 1.64 Anthropology 2.01 Archaeology 1.89 Astronomy 2.25 Biology 2.67 Botany 1.81 Chemistry 2.26 Civil Engineering 1.26 Electrical Engineering 1.68 Geography 2.08 Geology 1.92 Home Economics 1.10 Mathematics 1.75 Mechanical Engineering 1.33 Medicine 3.38 Metallurgy 1.42 Meteorology 2.00 Oceanography 1.99 Physics 2.22 Psychology 2.42 Space Technology 2.22 Statistics 1.44 Zoology 2.04 Other 0.93 1 LE 4 NG COMPETENCY Based on a score of from 5 for excellent competency to 1 for no competency. A score of zero was given to those who gave no answer, which lowered the over-all average con- siderably. science writers normally cover, and to be able to correlate with other similar surveys.1 Agriculture was selected because .it is a major science, taught in American colleges since 1862,2 and because there is a large group of agricultural writers in ——._.— F..— fl. 1Science Service, op, cit,, p. SWN 8. 21.1.8. Department of Agriculture, After A Hundred Years: The Yearbook of Agriculture 1262 (washington, 1962), p. 13. 32 this country. The general term "biological sciences" was broken into the recognized subsections; zoology, botany and biology. Engineering was broken into civil, electrical and mechanical engineering and metallurgy. Archaeology and geo- graphy were selected to represent transitional natural-social sciences. Oceanography, as a field, has gained its own place among the basic sciences, as has meteorologY. Home economics, although usually not considered a science, is finding itself more in_the health and nutrition fields along with medicine. The results of question 14 on competency are shown in Table 4. Several of the sciences stand decisively above the rest-~that is, science writers feel more competent to write them. Medicine leads the field, with an average self-compe- tency rating of 3.38 out of a possible 5 points. Biology, at 2.67, and psychology, at 2.42, follow medicine, trailed by chemistry, astronomy, physics and space technology. Home econ- omics, as might be expected, was the field in which the subjects felt least competent. Most of the subjects were men. It may, however, reflect their distaste in having it included with the sciences. These results, Table 4, may be compared with the results of the Science Service survey of science writers in 1961, shown in Table 5. In the Science Service survey it may also be seen that medicine is the field in which science writ- ers felt they had the most competence. Space and aviation, however, are second, followed by biology and psychology. Perhaps the competency they show in medicine and bio- logical sciences is due in part to what Hillier Krieghbaum 33 TABLE 5 FIELDS OF SCIENCE IN WHICH THE WRITERS JUDGED THEMSELVES RELATIVELY COMPETENTa 'Number of Field Writers Per cent Medicine 137 55.0 Space and Aviation 111 40.6 Electronics 40 16.1 Biology 107 43.0 Physics 83 33.3 Chemistry 61 24.5 Meteorology 57 22.9 Geology 60 24.1 Anthropology 59 23.7 Psychology 105 42.2 Other fields not 70 28.1 listed including; Astronomy, Mathematics, GeOphysics, etc. (EScience Service, 0 cit , Table 7, p. SWN 3. calls the "you" factor.1 In the NASW-NYU surveys, Krieghbaum discovered that the "you" angle, particularly in medical stories, give some additional audience interest: I think that this is the reason medical news is so popular and applied science gets more play than basic sci- ence. The public takes the news and information and then adapts it to its own purpose. In Table 3 from Krieghbaum's survey it is clear that . the public also reflects.his observations with a greater desire for medical news, usually containing the "you" angle. Whether 1Science and the Public, 0 cit , p. 15. 21bid. 34 the public's desire for more medical science news or the intuition on the part of writers of the greener fields in medical writing is the cause of this medical competency is another question. It may well be that science writers have used the "you" angle to write more medical news and have built up their own competency. What He Writes What are the fields which science writers cover? Ques- tion 15 used the same list of sciences as question 14. However, a simple underlining task was assigned to the subjects. An- swers were therefore based on a simple yes-no system, with a 1 assigned to all positive responses and zero assigned to all negative answers or non-responces for computation. The answers which appear in Appendix F are the machined answers. .A more significant summary may be seen in Table 6, however. We may note in Table 6 that medicine is the science covered by a majority of the writers, which seems to correlate with their competency. Biology, physics, psychology, astronomy, space technology and chemistry follow. It may here be added that medicine and biology are generally covered by the same writer, being closely related as life or biological sciences. The NASW-NYU and Science Service surveys found similar results, as seen in Table 7. From these two tables we can eas— ily see that medical sciences, or medicine, is the field most covered by the writers. Perhaps this follows the old sales line, "give the customer what he wants." 35 TABLE 5 SCIENCES COVERED W Field Number Per cent Agriculture 16 22 Anthropology 26 36 Archaeology 24 33 Astronomy 33 46 Biology 38 53 Botany 20 28 Chemistry 30 42 Civil Engineering 12 17 Electrical Engineering 18 25 Geography 14 19 Geology 25 35 Home Economics 5 7 Mathematics 19 26 Mechanical Engineering 14 19 Medicine 49 68 Metallurgy 18 25 Meteorology 26 36 Oceanography 25 35 Physics 36 50 -Psychology 35 49 Space Technology 32 44 Statistics 13 18 Zoology 26 36 Other 14 19 Total surveyed 72 The Road to Writing Science How does a person happen to go into science writing? There are a great many ways, many reasons. A recent obser- vation by James Stokley fairly well covers the major paths science writers have walked: Many science writers--including some of the best--were originally journalists who happened to be assigned to the science desk. Some had very little scientific knowledge when they took the post; they had to gain the necessary 36 TABLE 7 FIELDS OF SCIENCE COVEREDa ‘ NASW-NYU SurVeyfi Science Service Survey Field No. Per cent No. Per cent Medical Sciences 101 57.5 122 48.9 Biological Sciences 77 43.8 92 36.9 Physical Sciences 86 48.9 143 57.4 Social Sciences 60 34.1 88 31.3 Other Sciences 24 13.6 9 3.6 Total Surveyed 348 249 , aCompiled from: Science Service, cp,cit,, Table 10, p. SWN_5, and Table B, p. SWN 7. background by their own reading and study. But others were trained in science and were interested in writing.1 Question 11, posed to science writers as "when and'how did you become interested in science writing?," brought some very unusual and varied answers. Here are some of the reasons and the men and women who gave them: Have been actively interested in science since the age of seven. Started writing in 1922 as assistant Indiana Manager of the Uhited Press and have written about science and medicine whenever possible ever since--Raymond A. Bruner, Science Editor, The Toledo Blade (Ohio). I became interested in science writing while still in college--Robert Goldman, Parade Magazine. The involvement with science writing stemmed more from a coincidental succession of similar assignments rather than any predilection for science writin --Char1es Rae Corelli, The Toronto Star Weekiy (Canada . When the managing editor ordered me to do it--Gilbert. Cant, Time Magazine. 1Stokley, "Opportunities in Science Writing," p; 2. 37 Only after covering all of the other beats on the paper and finding that the stories I enjoyed most, the ones that were the most challenging and interesting to me, the news contacts that I found most intellectually rewarding, were all in this field--Mildred Spencer, Buffalo Evening News. By slow transition from news writing, in the period when science writing was conceived as a specialty--Rennie Taylor, Santa Rosa, Calif. Interest in science from childhood. Writing on science evolved chiefly for coverage of polar expedition--Walter Sullivan, New York Times. Throughout the answers to question 11 ran two streams of thought. One was that the three ways to science writing were: (1) a predilection for science writing from childhood or school days; (2) the interest came as the result of an assignment to science stories by the publication; (3) a coin- cident of sequential events which evolved an interest in science writing. The second was that there were three distinct times when science writing careers had been chosen: (1) about 1921, when science writing as a specialty first evolved; (2) about 1945, when the first atomic bomb was drOpped; (3) about 1957. when the first Sputnik went up. Education The science writer is a fairly well-educated being. The average was found to be 16.1 years of education, neglecting the three persons who did not answer. That is, the subjects had the average of more than four years of college. Thirty four of the 72 subjects had completed at least one year of graduate work and one continued formal education six years beyond his B.A. degree. Only two of the 72 subjects had not completed high school, and two more had not entered college. 38 Two-thirds of the subjects had a bachelors or masters degree (16 to 19 years). Figure 3 is a bar graph which shows the number of subjects who had completed each year of education. EDUCATION OF 72 SCIENCE WRITERS 25 - m ‘5 a L — (015 .. F' 010.. g 0 ES” [1 * r1 r1 [‘1' 1—1 _ r1 r1 nil—1 1o 11 12l13 14 15 16I17 18l19 2o 21 22Tm High School College M.A. Ph.D. FIGURE 3 In the 1957 NASW survey results shown in Table 8, we TABLE 8 COLLEGE COMPLETEDa No 1 to 3 4 5 6 Over 6 No College Years Years Years Years Years Answer Per Per Per Per Per Per Per No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent No. Cent 12 6.8 21 11.9 57 32.4 27 15.3 20 11.4 19 10.8 20 11.4 N.Y.: ~ 9.National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Statis— tical summary of the NASW survey of 176 members, Port Washington, (Mimeographed.) NASW, 1957, Table 3. (10:11.! I II.‘ I: I'll... I )1}, 39 can see that the majority of the 176 science writers surveyed at that time had also finished at least four years of college and a large number had gone on to some graduate work. How much of this education was devoted to training in the sciences, how much could be considered useful to the spe— cific task of understanding and writing about science, is answered by the results of question 16, shown in Table 9. TABLE 9 SCIENCE COURSES TAKEN BY SCIENCE WRITERS ' Per Average Course Number Cent Semesters Agriculture 4 5.5 0.14 Anthropology 16 22.2 0.46 Archaeology 7 9.7 0.22 Astronomy 16 22.2 0.43 Biology 31 43.1 1.29 Botany 13 18.1 0.42 Chemistry 43 59.7 1.80 Civil Engineering 5 6.9 0.18 Electrical Engineering 7 9.7 0.60 Geography 18 25.0 0.61 Geology 16 22.2 0.60 Home Economics 1 1.4 0.01 Mathematics 40 55.5 2.91 Mechanical Engineering 3 4.2 0.13 Medicine 16 22.2 0.72 Meteorology 6 8.3 0.11 Oceanography 3 4.2 0.06 Physics 41 56.9 1.87 Psychology 31 43.1 1.19 Space Technology 5 6.9 0.11 Statistics 11 15.3 0.32 Zoology 15 20.8 0.50 Other 1 1 4 0 03 (included was only: Rehabilitation and Public Health) 40 The subjects were asked to underline any of the 23 specific sciences in which they had received formal education and to indicate the number of semesters or terms of each. We see in Table 9 that chemistry was the course which was most frequently selected by science writers while they were in school, followed closely by physics and mathematics. Biology and psychology trail a significant distance behind the first three. However, we may also notice that for the average number of semesters of courses taken, mathematics out distances the rest by a wide margin. Nearly three semesters of mathematics was taken by each science writer on the average. Semester hours in physics were more than they were in chemistry, which was third, even though chemistry had been taken by more science writers than any other course. Biology and psychology again drop considerably behind the first three courses in number of semesters, averaging only slightly over one semester per sub- ject. A significant point may be made for the education of science writers in general from Table 9. More than 50 per cent have had courses in chemistry, mathematics and/or physics. Nearly half,had courses in biology and/or psychology. Nearly one-forth had courses in anthrOpology, astronomy, geography, geology, and/or medicine. In 13 of the sciences, 15 per cent .or more of the subjects had taken at least one semester. For comparison, Table 10 has been reproduced from the Science Service 1961 survey. Although the method of survey 41 was slightly different, there appear to be significant differ- ences in the findings which can not be accounted for by the differences in survey methods. Mathematics, for example, was included in the low-rated write-in sciences under the category "other" while it rated top spot in my survey. TABLE 10 sainnor CATEGORIES IN WHICH THE WRITERS HAD COLLEGE COURSESa Field Number Per cent Medicine 19 . 7.6 Space and Aviation 14 5.6 Electronics 8 3.2 Biology 108 43.4 Physics 82 32.9 Chemistry 94 37i8 Meteorology 21 8.# Geology 68 27.3 Anthropology 33 13.3 Psychology 121 48.6 Other fields not 33 13.3 listed including: Astronomy, Mathematics, Geophysics, etc. -3Science Service, 0 cit., Table 7, p. SWN 3. The results of this survey may be compared with_a some- what similar table reproduced in part from the 1957 NASH survey of science writers; Table 11. Again it seems important to point out that mathematics, far and above all the rest, taps the list of course credits which science writers answering the 1963 survey had taken, in contrast to the NASH or Science Service surveys. It seems only logical, however, that mathematics 42 should be the top rated courses, since most of science is build on mathematical foundation, and since mathematics is required of students in nearly every discipline. TABLE 11 SPECIFIC COURSES TAKEN IN COLLEGEa A. A“ Specific courses Number Per cent General Science 6 ' 1.3 Biological Sciences 135 29.1 Physical Sciences ‘ 106 22.8 Engineering & Mathematics 102 21.9 Sociology & AnthrOpology 22 4.7 Political Science & History 12 2.6 Languages 6 1.3 Journalism, English & Literature 28 6.0 Other 48 10.3 All courses 465 100.0 aRational Association of Science Writers, Inc., Statis- gical summary of the NASH survey_cf 176 members in 1957. Table The Composite From this composite built from the 1963 survey and other observations, we might conclude that science writing is a pleasant, rewarding field of endeavor primarily for persons with a strong and healthy interest in science and a background .which equips them specifically for the reporting of science. This, unfortunately, is a somewhat warped view due to the .averaging of the traits and backgrounds of 72 of the profes- sionals in the field. 43 Truly the field of science writing is generally re- warding and exciting. However, there have been men in the field who have never received more than 810,000 a year in their entire careers. There are also science writers who have never had the Opportunity to go to national meetings of sci- entists, to interview the really top-grade scientists or to see a space vehicle launched. But more of them have had these reporting opportunities and received salaries above $10,000. Educationally, science writers have as diverse back- grounds as could be found in any profession. A few were research scientists, others were teachers of science, others were Journalists, English majors or majored in "liberal arts." A few have less than a high school education and have never had formal courses in science or journalism. A few have Ph.D.‘s; some in science, others in completely unrelated fields. But the value of this diverse variety of backgrounds is evident. As Harland Manchester pointed out: Nothing in the liberal arts curriculum is ever wasted in the life of a journalist. The man who has been intro- duced to Greek will never say "helic-copter," and he will know what the "pter" means. The man who has learned hu- mility from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is in a better position to evaluate a scientist's theoretical structure in nuclear physics or the function of enzymes. The stu- dent of history is far better equipped to understand the relationships between government and science than the man who has skimped such study in his haste to acquire a wage- earning skill.‘ On the other hand, the science writer should have some basic education or knowledge of science if he is to be able to intelligently report it. 1Science Service, op. cit., p. R 5. 44 What the basic qualities and qualifications of the science writer are, how he should be educated, where he should best be employed, what type of reporting he should do--these are factors which cannot be generalized. A variety of sug- gestions come from a greater variety of science writers. But who may say what is the absolute best? Probably, as Loftin says, the most direct and truest definition of the science writer remains that he is a Hybrid--part journalist, part sci- entist.1 I hasten to add that he is part humanist. Primarily, the science writer is the man who is best equipped to weave the scientific community into the rest of the world's community and bring the public closer to science. As Margaret Kreig wroteix: her questionnaire: The science writer is a synthesizer and sometimes a catalyst. He is not just a mirror or a sieve. He is the missing link. 1Loftin, op, cit., p. 100. CHAPTER IV EDUCATING THE SCIENCE WRITER There are a great man conflicting theories [about science writing education and a wide variety of pro- posals--some sound and some apparently not so sound. But there is only one reservoir of facts on the basis of which these questions can be answered--and that is the accumu- lated experience of the best current science writers: the membership (both active and associate) of the NASW. Knowing how they were trained, the extent of their previ- ous experience, the kinds of training (both academic and non-academic) that have proved most useful to them, the kinds of training that would be most useful to them now, should serve as a reliable guide to the development of future plans.1 These were the views of active science writers, the NASW Committee on Fellowships and Scholarships, in 1957 when they were faced with the problem of formulating effective proposals for the future training of science writers. They .proposed that a survey of members be made to establish the needs of educational programs in this field. Such a survey was undertaken by the NASW in 1957. As a result of the survey, the Council for the Advancement of Sci- ence Writing and several other movements toward the education of science writers, the public and scientists were instituted. The Council, established in order to increase the quantity and quality of science reporting to the public, has five major '— 1National Association of Science Writers, Inc., Science, the Press and the Citizen, p. 8. 45 46 activities: (a) to increase the number of science writers; (b) to increase the quality of established science writers; (c) to cpen the gates for science reporting in various publications and broadcasting; (d) to do research on the presentation of science news to the public; and (e) to de~ velop new ways of reporting science to the public.1 Several types of training and education programs have been instituted by the CASH and NASH and by schools of joura nalism, private foundations, governmental agencies and industry in the past few years. But, based on the 1957 NASH survey and several other attempts to set up standard programs for science writers, there have emerged even more varied curricula, courses and seminars instead of more convergent ones. In fact, the NASH reached this conclusion as a result of its survey: No fixed and arbitrary decisions can be made at this stage as to the relative merit of the many possible tech- niques of training. The possibilities include academic course-work; contact with scientists and'research centers; Special short courses and seminars; and onmthe-job training or 'wcrking internships' under the guidance of competent science reporters.2 It appears that the basic reason for this lack of di- rection is the wide and diverse backgrounds of the science writers who generally have as many varied suggestions about the training programs'as they have individual needs. Too much emphasis on individual suggestions-cf science writers has led to a confused state of educational programs. 'lEarl Ubell, "Council for the Advancement of Science Writing," The Wiley Bulletin, IV (Fall, 1960), p. 6. 2National Association of Science Writers, Science, The Press and The Citizen, p. 17. 47 Onmthemjob Training Most of the science writers in the nation have become such by selfmeducation; they were at one time assigned to do a science story for their neWSpaper9 or they read a great deal of science as a hobby, or they chose to write science when they Joined a publication. Their primary or formal education was in Journalism or some phase of the communication arts. Repeating Stokley's observation, "many science writersmeincluding some of the bestnuwere originally Journalists who happened to be as- signed to the science desk."1 This course of development of interest in science writ- ing was reflected in the survey answers to question 11 (Appendix B), "when and how did you become interested in science writing?;' such as: I was assigned to cover science, among other things, when I started working on a newspaper in 1958 and have been doing it ever since-mMary Grant, Life Magazine. When I was assigned to itmwGeorge Getze, Los Angeles Times° In 1957. While covering a meeting of the American Medi- cal AssociationomNate Haseltine, Medical Writer,The Washington Post. Anyone can become relatively competent in an area of Specialization if he is willing and able to devote time to reading and study. One of the writers surveyed made this comment to question 113 1Stokley, "Opportunities in Science Writing," op. cit.9 p. 2. 48 I began reading books on science, also magazines, starting with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, progress~ ing in 1946 to Scientific American, later to Nature and Science. It became a hobby. This man, Ralph S. Ogleary, found his home as Science Editor of the Houston Post. On November 13, 1963, O'Leary died during one of his best science assignmentsmwa tour of the United States base in Antarctica during Operation Deepfreeze. And many more like him have become competent science writers in the same fashion. The primary reason why science writers have drifted into the field rather than being educated for the profession is that the field is young and unusual. Until 10 years ago, schools of Journalism did not see the need to teach anything more than the basic writing and editing skills required to become a general reporter. Several of the nationgs noted science writers of today still hold to the notion that science writing is no different than general reporting; that the same skills, the same know- ledge holds for all cases. They argue that they became science writers by apprenticeshipmtype programs or onmthemjob training or by dogged reading and studying and reporting of science, and that others can do the same. Some even go so far as to say that a high school education will suffice in these times when nearly everyone is forced through at least the eighth grade and usually complete the tenth grade, and when postmdoctoral work is a minimum requirement for many scientific positions. Nate Haseltine said in his survey that he felt a science writer should be educated "enough to be able to think straight and 49 write clearlymmat least completion of high school education for most persons." Haseltine was not aicne in his beliefs. Four other subjects felt that experience was the only requisite for good science writing {see question 17, Appendix F), Ron Kenyon, H a Canadian science writer, said ...there is a good argument for the idea of training science writers on the job." Onwthemjob training for science writers has been advoa cated by several men in the profession, In 1961, one of the resolutions adopted at the Science Service conference was that: Since the educational background and practical eXperia ence of the reporter assigned to cover the science field is so varied, anathemjob training programs are of parties ular value and importance. The potentials of such programs should be vigorously explored and such activities should be encouraged and given active support. Henry W. Hubbard of gewswegk magazine makes this observation in his 1965 questionnaire: Journalism school is no more useful than onathe-job training. Science training, beyond basic courses in chemm istry and physics, is superfluous for a general reporter. Too much formal training might actually harm the ability to communicate to laymen, There are currently some onwthemjob training programs offered to a very few young people in university public rela~ tions offices and technical information services offices of government and industry. In general, however, it is very difficult to sustain any sort of organized apprenticeship prom gram for science writers. Onwtheujob training has also been attempted by some schools of journalism, but the lack of avail- able experts, science writers who can devote time to help these 1Science Service, op. cit., Resolutions. 50 aspiring youths, has dampened these p°ograms. Most of the active science writers are too busy covering meetings, meeting deadlines and tending to their own work. Teaching has always been a notoriously poor profession—-toc poor to attract active professionals in general. The science writers surveyed by myself were asked where a beginning science writer should start (large newspaper, tech= I) nical journal, public relations, scientific r.searoh, etc.) in a" question 20 (Appendix B). Although a variety of answers were given, the majority of subjects said the writer should begin on a newspaper. Many suggested that he have cn-the-jcb train— ing on a newspaper before he graduate from college. The problems of the editor who takes on a young person as a science writer, or who turns a member of his staff into a science writer, are also inherent in the plan. Editors demand some degree of accuracy. They demand depth reporting on most assignments. To further complicate matters, they demand that the writer meet deadlines, limiting the amount of research which can be undertaken for a particular story. And, in gener- al, other science writers or reporters have little time to spend helping the newcomer. One recent development which the CASH announced may give impetus to this type of training, however. A grant was received for a threeuyear onuthe-jcb training program for science reporters which was intended "to provide training for general assignment reporters on newspapers of moderate size to give |..: J \III’ Il:l|1.lll1./| ‘1 l7 'ullllllul.ll’.]|u|lt.llu 11111 51 them skill in covering local science stories with confidence."1 This should help to tighten the ranks of science writers, with a total of 80 Journalists receiving this training in the next three years. The CASH has also proposed correspondence courses plus attendance at one medical and one non-medical science convention "for reporters who have established their Journal- istic competence but need additional background for science writing."2 However, few of these on-the-Job training programs are designed for the science writing student or new science writer. Seminars for Writers Other types of non-formal education of science writers are the science and science writing seminars, two distinctly different types of functions, which are gaining more and more importance in the training of science writers. The difference in the two types of seminars is that the science seminar is intended to provide background, in depth, in a particular science or group of sciences, while the science writing seminar is generally held to discuss science writing techniques and problems. In 1960-61, the National Science Foundation (NSF) alone granted 26 institutions a total of $621,595 for public w.— ~—‘ 1"Carnegie Corporation," Understanding. Winter 1952-53. p. 2. ‘ ' 2Hillier Krieghbaum, "Training of Science Writers," Report of the First Inter-American Seminar on Science Journal- ism, Santiago, Chile, 5ctober 15-18, 1952, (Washington, 5.5.: Pan American Union, 1963), p. 12. 52 understanding of science programs.1 The NSF program "to sup- port activities designed to increase the quality and quantity of science information that reaches the general public," was only inaugurated in 1959.2 Many other organizations and foundations have also joined in with programs of their own or by sponsoring seminars at universities. How professional science writers feel about science and science writing seminars is obvious in Figure 4, a summary of question 21. Asked to rate certain sources for their im- portance to the training of the science writer, "field reporting" was rated on top, followed by "science courses," "scientists" and finally "science seminars." Science writing seminars only rated as high as "colleagues," a selection in- tended to represent word-of-mouth or written communications between science writers or journalists. It may be particularly significant that 28 per cent of the subjects surveyed answered question 17 on the amount of education desirable for students, that science writers should get as much education or training as possible; that the process should be continual. They put particular emphasis on frequent science and science writing seminars, along with lots of ex- perience in dealing with scientists and scientific principles. fir 1"Summary: NSF Public Understanding of Science Program," Understanding, Summer 1962, pp. 2-3. 2Ibid,, p. 1. 53 IMPORTANCE OF ITEMS IN SCIENCE WRITER'S TRAINING 4r— - - F'- 7‘ r— 33” v {‘1 7f” H) ‘F '— .3 v»2'_ d m b H , H A B C D E F G H I J K L M N FIGURE 4 Notes: A,Science Seminars; B, Science Writing Seminars; C, Science Writing Associations; D, Journalism Courses; E, Science Courses; F, Field Reporting; G, Conventions; H, Editors; I, Colleagues; J, Newspapers; K, Magazines; L, Radio; M, Tele- vision; N, Scientists. Rating of items from O to 5 based on 1 for no help to 5 for excellent, with 0 given for no answer. Formal Education Conflicts Despite the fact that there are increasing numbers of on-the-job training programs and science and science writing seminars, science writing, as a profession, has not yet been formalized to any extent. The reason, in many persons' minds is the fact that there has been no direction in the few and varied formal education programs in science writing. Nor has there been any attempt to set up criteria for judging young science writers on the basis of education. As Dr. Herman M. Heisman, well-known educator-journalist, recently pointed out: 54 "As in any other profession, the source for science writers should be our system of formal education. The system is presently inadequate for the task."1 The question to be asked is, "how much education should the professional science writer have9 and in what areas?" The answer has eluded educators, scientists and science writers for more that 40 years, since the first real organization of science writing began. This point was developed in the survey in question 17. The answers are presented in Table 12. TABLE 12 SUGGESTED AMOUNT OF EDUCATION Degree of Education Number Per cent Experience only 5 4.1 High school 1 1.4 B.A. or 4 years of college 27 37.5 M.A. or equivalent 13 18.1 Ph.D. or equivalent 3 4.1 As much as possible 20 27.8 No answer 5 7.0 100.0 Total 72 Nearly 60 per cent of the subjects said that a college education is desirable for science writing students, and nearly 25 per cent suggested that graduate work be required. Another .27.8 per cent felt that the educational process should be con- tinuous, although not necessarily on a formal basis. This large group, by not giving a specific answer for what they 1Science Service, op. cit., p. 27. 55 believe necessary, created an anomaly in the results of Table 12. Their answers ranged from a facetious "the more the mer- rier" to the seriously thought-out answer of Charles Rae Corelli, Science Writer on The'Star Weekly (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), who said: I don't think there is a universallywapplicable figure. How much any one individual should have would depend on his powers of absorption and retention, his general intelligenca the nature of his science specialty, the medium for which he writes and a host of other factors. All the education you can get is desirable, of course, but I believe it is a mistake to assume that science writing competence is in direct prOportion to education. In probably the first harducover book published on sci- ence writing, Dr. John Foster Jr., Director of the Advanced Science Writing and International Programs at Columbia Univer- sity, writes: "it is not necessary to have a Ph.D. in one or more of the sciences to be a successful science writer."1 Few would disagree with Foster. In fact, it would probably be difficult to induce Ph.D. holders in the sciences into becoming science writers when they qualify for research or teaching. There are a few, like Biochemist Isaac Asimov, Physicist George Gamow or Astronomer Harlow Shapley, who do their share to popularize science. But generally, scientists write as an avocation, not as a vocation. Two of the science writers surveyed also have Ph.D.”s. But one, Dr. 0. A. Battista, is "also a fullutime scientist," as well as a free lance writer. The other, K. L. Boynton, majored in English and is a profes- sional free lance writer in Chicago. 1John Foster Jr., Science Writer”s Guide (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963}: p. 2. 56 A college education should, by all standards, be a minimum requirement for Hybrids. As we can see in Figure 3, the science writers surveyed have good grounds for advocating the college degree, based on their own educational experiences. Twoethirds of the subjects had completed at least four years of college; nearly the same number as suggested that a degree was necessary in the profession. Although many science writers agree upon the amount of education which is desirable for science writing, the widely disagree, sometimes quite heatedly, upon what kind of education the science writer should have. The reason, of course, is that no two have the same background or education. Three major philosophies of science writing education ,are held by science writers and educators. The first holds that science writers are no different than any other type of journalist and that they should have the same training and education. The second concept is that if a person is writing science he should have the formal training of a scientist in order to understand what it is that he is reporting. The third philosophy advocates a split formal education of science and journalism-~about half of each. This group most closely holds with Natson Davis” definition of the Hybrid-~part journalist, partscientist.1 There is also the small splinter group which believes, as has already been discussed, that formal education is not necessary for science writing. It is this very same conquion which lead to the 1957 1Loftin, op. cit., p. 100. 57 decision of the NASW Committee on Fellowships and Scholarships that no decision could be reached on the best training tech- nique or educational program. That is, even the experts were unable to agree. Table 13, the results of question 18, "what would you suggest that a prospective science writer should specialize in (journalism, science, both, neither)?," show this same degree of confusion, although one area appears to be stronger than the others. TABLE 13 SUGGESTED CURRICULA Curriculum Number Per cent Journalism 12 16.7 Science 8 11.1 Journalism and Science 35 48.6 No specialization 12 16.7 No answer 5 6.9 Total 72 100.0 Backing the journalism~first idea over both the science- first and science writing backers is the Editorial Liaison Committee of the NASH in the yet unpublished "A Guide to Careers in Science Writing," and its chief editor, Mrs. Mae Rudolph, a free lance science writer. The draft makes these comments: The most important thing to know about a science writer is that he is a writer, not a scientist. He is not chiefly interested in discovering the crystallographic structure of insulin; he's interested in telling other people how a scientist did the job and what his discovery 58 means. He’s a reporter, not a researcher.1 The science writer "must equip himself with the same battery of skills that would make him a good reporter in such fields as politics, religion, industry, finance..." Science writing is too new a craft to be scientific about setting up guides to becoming a success. But on the basis of the experience of those who are already successful in the field, some general suggestions can be made. The future science writer should have a good general education and training in journalism; a broad grounding in the liber- al arts, as much training as feasible in basic physical and social sciences, for example, chemistry, physics, physiol- ogy, psychology, mathematics. A good basic course in statistical methods wouldn“t hurt. And it would certainly help to take a healthy interest in literature, particularly the classic literature of non-fiction and "observation," such as Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, some of the works by Keynes,-Galileo Kepler, Margaret Mead, Jonathan Swift and Aldous Huxley.é And further, in reference to schools of science writing which are in operation in the United States, the guide says that "two things must be understood: it may be wise not to over-specialize, and there are no short cuts to becoming a good science writer."5 These views are surprising considering the general view of the NASW membership and the CASW is for com» bined science and writing courses. Campbell and Wolseley, in their book on general jour- nalism, also take space enough to deal with science writing, backing the journalism-first theory: . Why not major in science? In some instances that may be desirable. At the same time it must be stressed that the newsman essentially is a reporter, not a scientist. He must do what many a scientist cannot or will not do-- 1National Association of Science Writers, "A Guide to Careers in Science Writing," Draft of a brochure, NASW, 1963, p. 4. (Typewritten.) 21bid,, p. 10. 31b1a,, p. 11. 59 translate the achievements and possibilities of science into the lay reader's language. The science reporter, like any other specialist, needs wide experience in getting and writing news. Knowledge of police work, court reporting, social service agencies, poli- tics, business, and other fields is invaluable on the health and medical beat, for science and these activities frequent- ly are related.1 A few subjects also had strong feelings about the importance of journalism in the training of writers. Charles B. Wheat, Science Writer of The Tulsa World made this comment: The college degree is an economic asset in newspaper writing, but you learn by doing. Science background is often harmful, I believe, because I have seen my trained compatriots miss the obvious definitive question because they think they already know its answer. On several occasions they have been wrong. The sense of ignorant wonder is a fine armament for a science writer. To question 18, Mildred D. Spencer, Science Writer on the Buffalo Eveninngews, replied: Not science. The science writer, when he specializes, becomes so immersed in his reading and constant refresher work, that he can become very subjective about science if he doesn't have more background. Preferably I think the prospective science writer should have a broad background in the humanities with some technical training in journal- ism and writing. Miss Spencer, incidentally, holds a bachelor's degree in journalism with a minor in history and political science. 0n the opposite side of the question of the type of training a science writer should have is a statement by Stokley on the qualifications of a science writer: With the increasing complexity of science it seems likely that fewer and fewer science writers will be able to succeed unless they have a good background of technical 1Laurence R. Campbell and Roland Wolseley, How to Re ort and Write the News (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951), pp. 590-491. 6O knowledge. This doesn't mean that he has to have the same training as if he were going into scientific research. However he ought to have at least as much as a high school science teacher. This gives a basis on which he can talk intelligently with scientists from whom he gets material; he has better comprehension of scientific papers; and, as future advances are made, he will have the foundations that will enable him to understand them. This should include astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. As a minimum, the science writer should have a good knowledge (acquired with more advanced work after completion of the beginning courses) of one science and a general knowledge of at least two others.1 Several science writers agree with Stokley, especially many of the younger ones who hose not yet met requirements for NASW membership or who are still moving around within the pro- fession. From my own experience and those of many of my young science writing friends, I draw this conclusion. I, for example, was a geology student who felt there was more to life than pecking on rocks or plotting well logs. In my senior year of college I happened to take a technical writing course from Stokley. This was followed by a course in science writing and then more journalism courses. I had already written for newspapers as a hobby, but I became more interested. I was reporting science for the student newspaper, the Michigan State News.- After receiving my B.S. degree in geology, I went on into graduate studies in science writing. I was enthusiastic about learning "general science" as against learning a "specific science." During a ninewmonth period on the staff of Science Service, where I was the biology, geology and "nature" writer, I met several other young writers with similar backgrounds. 1Stokley, "Opportunities in Science Writing," 0 . cit., p. 2. 61 Some of the more established science writers are also in favor of Specialization in science in the educational pro- grams. Three of the subjects surveyed, averaging 57 years of age, were strongly opposed to journalism education. Julian DeVries, Science Editor of the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette, criticized Journalism schools, saying "I haven't much faith in Journalism courses." Bruce Bliven of Stanford, Cali- fornia, said science writing students should have "as little journalism and as much science as possible." Carle Hodge went even further to say that the student "should seek a broad, interdisciplinary background in science, and expect on-the-Job training to be sufficient journalistic training." Some advocates of the science-first idea undoubtedly go a little too far. Take this statement which was recently published in a reputable scientific magazine about the lack of scientific detail in mass publications: Why is it that so much otherwise excellent "pOpularized" science writing lacks an essential ingredient, a lack that minimizes its lasting value? I have found that scientific publications can be qualitatively evaluated into those which include bibliographic citation and those which do not. Librarians and scientists spend hundreds of hours tracks ing down precise literature citations which are missing in articles published in otherwise reputable publications like Scientific American, the New York Times, or The Sciences, a task that could be eliminated if brief but complete cita- tions were given.1 The author of this statement obviously missed the point to sciencewriting. As Wheat put it: "After all, the science writer is NOT the final source of information--he is the 1Eugene Garfield, "Citations in Popular and Interpretive Science Writing," Science, CXLI (Aug. 2, 1963), p. 392. 62 tribune to the common man..." One real difficulty in the sciencemfirst approach was recently pointed out very well by Pierre C. Fraley in his talk before doctors and science writers at the University of Mich- igan, Ann Arbor. He asked: Should the science writer be a chemist, a physicist, a biologist, a cultural anthropologist? Does the fact that a man is a darn good low—temperature physicist make him competent to report on the latest development in cultural anthrOpology, or zoology or astronomy? All these fields and many more the science writer has to cover. The last count I heard from a scientist was that there were 1,400 different subespecialties within the physical and biologi- cal sciences alone without counting the behavioral sciences} Science Writing Curriculum The third group of science writers who have expressed their ideas about education say that the student should not specialize in either journalism or in science, but take a comb- ination of the two; a special program for science writers which offers training in both areas. This is a rather large group of writers, nearly 50 per cent of the subjects surveyed, as seen in Table 13. ’ In 1957, the NASW survey of members obtained some results which may be correlated with those of my survey. Table 14 indicates the type of training which was then recommended“ for undergraduates. It also shows what the subjects thought about the teachers of these courses. What sort of program, what type courses, would a student he apt to take which would qualify him as a science writer? 7’ *— 1Fraley, op. cit. 63 Should he stress science courses or journalism courses? TABLE 14 TRAINING RECOMMENDED FOR UNDERGRADUATESa .L __A_ Type of training Number Per cent Special curricula to produce science writers 34 14.2 No special curricula, but science courses 103 43.1 Gourses in science writing 102 42.7 'Total responses 239 100.0 RECOMMENDED TEACHERS OF COURSESa Teachers Number Per cent Scientists , 11 " 10.8 Journalism professors 9 8.8 Working science writers 59 57.8 Other 1 1.0 Combination of above 22 21.8 Total 102' ' 100.0 . aNational Association of Scienceeriters, Inc», Statis- tical summary of the NASW survey of 176 members in 1957. Table 13. . bTotal responses greater than total number of respond- ents because some noted more than one type of training. Subjects of my survey were asked these questions in 19 (Appendix B), when they rated 29 courses for their importance or potential in the training of a science writing student. The choices to question 19 were selected to give the subjects an even amount of science and journalism or communications courses 64 in order to: (1) pinpoint the specific courses which are con- sidered to be the best curriculum for science writers; and (2) give an indication of how dedicated the three groups (science- first, journalism-first, or science writing curriculum advocates) were to their ideals. The results are shown in Figure 5. The course which science writers felt was most impor~ tant was English, obviously basic to all curricula but especially vital to the education of a writer., English received 4.22 points out of a possible 5.00 points (see Appendix F) in the machined grades with nine subjects not answering the question. One subject felt the course was only of a small amount of help, five felt it was average, and one other writer thought English was quite important. But 56 science writers, 78 per cent, felt that English was indispensible from the curriculum of the writing student, giving it a rating of five-- excellent. In the machine graded answers, the courses averaged highest in the following order: English, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, history, reporting, journalism, astronomy, and medicine. (A slight anomaly was created in the course called reporting, because several of the subjects Specified they marked the course hoping it meant field reporting rather than a reporting course.) It might be pointed out that 33 of the subjects gave both biology and physics a rating of excel- lent and 31 rated chemistry as excellent. Reporting received the next highest number of excellent ratings with 24, and 5 6 .5 team Kmoaeogoz or... “two: 098.96 . .1: an»! .bgofiowi m .mEDQC .wongsou Pic Egon: 0+ monooio mo 8:300 mo+o:oQ.x. Ksohunexo om, m+£o+som§¢ etaw .V woucc+somE_ ".4304 050a. «N “32+ 0: av mLOIvtu 0... «O Hwy—.02 UUEOWUM. omcsmccd (Togo . $365305. whoawnf mac‘s. xzmcswoo flotsam ESE? ...ooomm sigh 30mm $228M... msmalomut $29.3an .SEEK $3.630. xxmonoim tup.ongmogouoo so £929..“ o+¢€§oo .lxx+.»..+:040 ixmonowm *x.Eo...o..+m< 1>ao~Oun£uA< xao_oLpgr.._.c< toas+_3o-mkm< .m:..3..+su>m< O _. EH 3 _ L 1 . 10— I . [”8 l 1 FL WOW m +33 2.2. c 3:36 2.38 2.36 m emu S 228 new N5 23 S.” 73.32%ka QZEEB mu2m5m m0“. ambit; wwwmbou (3 '0 Number of Wrifers in Each Cafogory 66 journalism was next with 22. It may also be seen that math: ematics, history, astronomy and medicine were rated high on the average because of the higher number of subjects who gave them a three or four rating. The lowest rated courses in the survey were: adverq tising, radio-television, agriculture and speech. Other courses which did not even receive a two rating were: archae- ology, engineering, political science, sociology, and statistics. It appears as though science writers, in general, feel that students should have the basic courses in science and a solid grounding in English and journalism or reporting. Aside from statistics, the science courses, starred in Figure 5, were rated considerably higher than the scmcalled liberal arts courses. This tends to show that the overwall view of the professional science writer supports the science or science writing curriculum idea, with emphasis on science rather than humanities or social sciences. Indeed, despite their seeming differences, science writers hold most favorably to the vision of the true Hybrid--part journalist, part scientist. Schools for Science Writers There were 19 schools of journalism in 1961 which offered a concentrated special curriculum in science writing or technical writing, or having special courses or science requirements for students of journalism.1 Fourteen of these 1Science Service, 0 cit., p. 47. 67 offered the students a prepared curriculum, five others had only one or two special courses in science writing or science requirements for students of journalism. Since that time, other schools have picked up the challenge and begun programs designed to educate young men and women in the specialized profession of scientific journalism.1 However, it must be pointed out that several of these schools are teaching pria marily in the area of technical or trade magazine journalism. For the purpose of this paper, these must be eliminated from the discussion. Of the more than half a dozen schools of journalism which do offer special training in science writing, none of their programs are the same. In fact, they are not even similar. Dr. Herman M. Weisman, head of one of the technical writing schools in the United States and a science writer in his own right, made this comment about the science writing educational programs in 1961: The shortcomings of American education [for science writers] were identified long before Soviet technology thrust them into the front pages. In the last decade, there have been stirrings on many campuses and classrooms throughout the nation. However, American education is difficult and costly, and the weakness of science writing education is evident in quality and quantity.2 1"The Illinois Institute of Technology recently announced new undergraduate and graduate programs leading to degrees in science writing and science information--the programs will begin this fall," as quoted from the Chicago Tribune, August 25, 1963. 2Science Service, op. cit., p. 27. 68 It is true that science writing education is woefully lacking in this country. And what little there is is also woefully lacking in direction. At Indiana University and Michigan State University, for example, students are handled on individual bases, fitting the student's needs to rather ill-defined programs or designing a program for a particular student.1 These programs are not, however, without great merit, providing a very liberal edua cation for the student. At South Dakota State College, a regular program is entered into by candidates of science writing, just as in any other discipline.2 This leads to the bachelor degree in science writing. The University of Wisconsin has also begun a program of this type, leading to the B.S. or M.S. degree.3 At Boston University there is a single course which is offered to potential science writers.4 Columbia University, on the other hand, has had an entire section of its school of journalism devoted to science writing for several years. The Columbia program has, however, come under fire by educators, science writers and scientists. The 1Letter from John E. Stempel, Chairman of the Depart- megt of_Journalism, Indiana University, Bloomington, May 25, 19 3. 2"Curriculum in Science Writing," Department of Printing and Journalism, South Dakota State College, Brookings, Winter Quarter, 1961-62. 3Communications from Richard D. Powers, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Journalism, The Univerm sity of Wisconsin, Madison, May 22, 1963. 4Letter from Don Somerville, Assistant Professor in the Division of Journalism, Boston University, May 21, 1963. 69 following is taken from a debate which has been running in a prominent scientific journal: The main value of his [the science writer's] added contribution to the public debate of issues in which sci- ence is a factor will lie in his grasp of the underlying facts and principles and in the concomitant greater objec- tivity of his presentation. Mr. Lessing1 blames the lag in this develOpment solely on the conservatism of the nation's newSpaper editors and publishers who, it is true, act by and large on the premise that a good neWSpaper man can acquaint himself sufficiently with any subject to write about it convincingly. One would, however, think that this veinoint will be more and more difficult to maintain and that the need for science-trained writers will soon become imperative. What, then, has been done on the part of the scientific community and the schools of journalism to prepare the way? Apparently not very much. The only effort in this direction seems to be "The Advanced Science writing Program" at Columbia University School of Journalism, and its shortcomings are obvious. It is a postgraduate course of study, geared mainly to exposing a small and select number of journalists to some of the science courses available on campus. But it makes very little provision for training scientists who ve a flair for writing in the techniques of journalism. The Columbia program is still probably the largest and one of the best schools for science writing students to- day, with eight to ten professional journalists selected annually to engage in a year-long program with courses mainly in the sciences.' 1Lessing, o "cit., p. 88. 2Alice K. Kantor, Letters, Chemical and Engineering News XLI (June 10, 1963). PP. 4-5. CHAPTER V PROSPECTS FOR SCIENCE WRITING Science writers enjoy their profession for many reasons. They enjoy meeting and talking with scientists, educators and just plain people. They enjoy learning and reading and studying constantly. They enjoy the high salaries, good working conditions and pleasant companions which they en: counter. Most of all, however, they enjoy imparting knowledge to their fellow men. In science writing, probably more than any other area of journalism, teaching is one of the most important tasks; wrestling with a vast wealth of knowledge and communicating its fascination to a lawyer, a garbageman, a scientist, and a store clerk in a common tongue. In the survey of science writers in 1963, the question was asked: "What is the most important or interesting aSpect of profess onal science writing for you?" The following comments reveal some of the reasons science writers have for staying in the profession. Doing a service without preaching a gospelewand doing with simplicity and some of the elegance science deservesmm David Walker, Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. You meet a lot of interesting people-mmost of them other science writers—-Kenneth N. Anderson, Editor of Today's Health, Glen Ellyn, Ill. 70 71 The most important aSpect is in being able to further man' 3 knowledge and understanding of the world he lives in, and of himself. Almost every aSpect is interesting-~that' 8 why I'm doing it--David Spurgeon, The Globe & Mail, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The methods scientists use in learning from nature-- Raymond A. Bruner, The Toledo Blade. The fact that with my first interview with a scientist I felt that my real education was just beginning. With each subject, a whole new field, or aspect of a problem cpens up. It is never boring--Mrs. Margaret Krieg, Free Lance Writer, New York. Perhaps Earl Ubell best summed up the reasons why science writers like the profession when he said: Hard to say what is most important or interesting. I get a total feeling out of science writing compounded of the challenge of communication, the thrill of understanding, the income derived, the status achieved, the excitement of travel and the involvement in the greatest adventure in history-~science. The NASH guide to careers in science writing, yet to be published, is designed specifically for enticing qualified newcomers into the field of science writing. In it they sug- gest that anyone who can answer yes to a two-part question should consider science writing as a profession. The double question: "Do you find the spectacle of men 'wrestling with the mysteries of nature' more fascinating than any other human endeavor? and do you feel a powerful need to communicate this fascination to the largest number of people possible?"1 Employment Opportunities Science writers, in general, seldom lack for job A; 1National Association of Science Writers, "A Guide to Careers in Science Writing," p. 3. 72 offers when they want them. This applies to established sci- ence writers and to the beginner. Even the beginning general journalist has little trouble in locating some sort of posi~ tion. In 1961, the Newspaper Fund surveyed colleges and univeru sities that had schools of journalism.1 The executive director of the Fund, Paul Swensson, reported that enrollment in these schools is rising about 10 per cent per year on the average. Despite this fact, the Fund found that there were between 1 and 15 jobs available per graduate with an average beginning pay of about 890 per week. This was for the general journalist. For science writers there are more opportunities and higher wages than for the general journalist. Furthermore, the jobs are most often with the coveted "large neWSpapers." Stokley, in describing the Opportunities for science writers, puts it this way: As advances in science are rapidly extending our know- ledge of outer space, of the atomic nucleus, even the origin of life itself, public interest in science is continually increasing. Applications of such new basic knowledge have vastly changed our lives, and far greater changes are coming in the future. In recent years (mainly since World War I) "science writing" has develOped as a journalistic Specialty. The National Association of Science Writers, to which prac- tically all belong, had 76 active members working for newspapers in 1962. Some papers have more than one (the New York Times has seven). As there are 1830 daily news- papers in the United States, less than 10 per cent have any staff members primarily responsible for covering the science field. [Usually, however, they have sports, religion, fashion, entertainment, and various other specialists.] These include the largest papers as well as some of medium size. Many others could very well 1"Job Opportunities for Journalism Graduates," Saturday Review, November 10, 1962, p. 69. 73 support a staff science writer; doubtless many of them will recognize this in the coming years. In addition9 the active membership of the NASW includes 16 science writers working for wire services (AP and UPI) or syndicates. These organizations supply a large part of the science material used in newspapers. There are also 36 science writers working for magazines, 35 on a free- lance basis, three with book publishers and two whose work is mainly for television.1 NASW adds to the list of job Opportunities for science writers: Many other science writers are employed on semia professional publications, such as Science, Modern Medicine, Chemical & Engineering News, Medical World News, Dental Times. In addition, there are large numbers of science writers who write news releases or newsletters for scientific associations, hospitals, foundation, col- leges, research institutions, pharmaceutical firms, and government agencies. This last category, that of public relations science writing, cannot be neglected as a lucrative field. A National Aeronautics and Space Administration official recently said the agency had many good science writers, but was deSperately in need of others. A past president of the NASW has found government writing highly rewarding for the past 14 years, although he remarked in his survey that he will "be back in journalism again before too long." And most of the associate members of the NASW are truely top quality science writers, although few of them write directly for the mass media. Some of these people are "spoon feeding" reporters, especially the general reporters who are assigned to cover science, on news- papers, magazines, radio and television. 1Stokley, "Opportunities in Science Writing," p. 1. 2National Association of Science Writers, "A Guide to Careers in Science Writing," p. 13. 74 Most areas of science writing are fairly lucrative. This is illustrated in the results of the survey, shown in Appendix F. The 72 subjects, writers mainly for newspapers, mostly received around 810-15,000 per year. Some received above 825,000. From my own experiences with employment, I have seen offers beginning at 86,000 and as high as 88,500 for the beginning science writer with a bachelor's degree. Many of the technical writing positions which are Open are also available to science writers. A major advantage in science writing as far as mon- etary reward is the Opportunity for outside work. Free- lancing, such as radio or film scripts in science, magazine articles, books, brochures, pamphlets or public relations pieces, are quite often undertaken by professional science writers. Books are cepecially in demand, with more paperback science books flooding the market each year. Occasional lec- tures, television appearances or meeting arrangements fill out the choices for extra earnings for science writers. There are also many cash and honor awards for science writers: The American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence annually presents the Westinghouse Award for Science Writing; the American Chemical Society offers the James T. Grady Medal: the American Heart Association has the Reward W. Blakeslee Awards; and several others including the coveted Lasker Award. Each of these is accompanied by a cash prize of 8500 or t1,OOO or more. 75 Science Writing Improved Despite the money, prestige and other Opportunities offered to science writers, there are surprisingly few. It has been proposed that every large newspaper and every medium- sized newSpaper in the country should have a science writer on its staff. Magazines, syndicates, television and radio also need their share. Public relations offices employ many. This lack of qualified science writers to fill the rapidly ampli- fying needs, more precisely, the poor placement of unqualified persons in science writing positions, has led many of the tap science writers to decry the general quality of science writing. Krieghbaum, in a recent article, warned science writers and editors to take heed of the familiar cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists with the hands of the clock so close to midnight, because "the bells in the clock tower may be ready to toll for science writers in a special way." Krieghbaum was warning of the dangers of poor presentation of science on the part of a few "science writers." He listed five ways in which science is being reported now-a-days. Despite the fact that there is more Space in the newspaper for science, it is being handled in one of the following ways: 1. The police reporter approach. Stories of this type include the descriptions and the details that any good competent, inquiring reporter would gather on a fire, a bank robbery--or a missile launching. 2. The "What's-the-cold-war-score" angle. Americans seem to have become practically neurotic on the question of relating things to the cold war. I can't help but wonder what would happen to the U. S. Public Health Service?s budget if we ever got a hint that the Soviets or the Red Chinese were on the verge of a "major break 76 throug " on either’a one-pill cure for cancer or the synthesis of living cells in the laboratory. (It would have to be a "major break through" to rate many U. S. headlines or much American public reaction.) 3. The "For he's-a-jolly-gOOd-fellow" approach. This is especially good for astronauts, either United States or Soviet. Remember the stories about their wives and children that piled up column inches on the manned space flights. This approach did get a little tarnished, however, when Titov came over to the United States for a tour. 4. The Dr. Frankenstein touch. This is just the Opposite of the one cited above. If the "good fellow" approach doesn't seem to fit, a writer can play on out- moded conventions and always trot out that terror- inspiring machine manufactured by Dr. Frankenstein, who was a scientist of sorts. 5. The science classroom teacher or the hard news science aspects. And this almost always gets left out or pushed back into a corner--of page 29. In connection with this last point, I'd like to take a slight digression to argue that other news writers do provide background which could pass as "educating the reader" and there shouldn't be anything wrong with doing more of this very thing in science writing.1 Many of the science writers surveyed this year agreed that the quality and quantity needs to be improved. However, there is another side to the picture which Krieghbaum presents. Question 23 of the Science Writer survey asked: "Do you feel that most science writers achieve the goal of the science writer? If not, what would you suggest to improve the quality of science writing?" Charles B. Wheat gave this answer: . More sense of fun would improve science writing per- haps. More understanding that we are not writing for the ages, but for the breakfast coffee cup, and then the gar- bage pail. I'd rather read about drilling a hole to hell than investigating the Mohorovici Discontinuity. Ralph S. O'Leary added his analysis of the lack of quality in science writing: 1Krieghbaum, "It's Later Than You Think," p. 72 77 The chief difficulty I see facing the science writer is that he or she seems inevitably to end up writing in a technical manner which pleases the scientists but tends to frighten the present-day public away from reading sci- ence articles in the newspapers. There are some signs that this difficulty may some day in the future and as a result of better science education for coming generations in high school and college. Ralph H. Clark, valley Times Today, North Hollywood, Calif., sees two sides to the story: (1) Science writers are often lacking in background knowledge. This makes it difficult to interpret facts popularly for the public. Writers should spend more time accurately learning what the story is about before they write it. (2) On the other side of the coin, some science writers know their subject too well, and thus become too ' scientific in their news stories. The public can't under- stand what they're writing about. It's good to know a subject; better to write it clearly. From these comments, it is easy to see the difficulties facing the science writer. If he knows too much, he may over- write the story. If he knows too little, he can't explain it. He has to know the average intelligence Of his audience too. The first director of Science SerVice, the late Edwin E. Slosson, once wrote: "Don't overestimate the reader's know- ledge and don't underestimate the readerfs intelligence."1 Editors Versus Science The second, perhaps strongest, suggestion that science writers have for improving science writing is the improvement of editing, editors and the rest of the editorial red tape which science stories must pass. This suggestion of renovation is extended to the media, themselves. The science writers 1Edwin E. Slosson, "Don'ts for Would-be Writers of Science," Pamphlet printedby Science Service. 78 cited the dire need for "science-oriented editors," "construc- tive criticism from editors," "improved standards of the publishing industry," and "a better understanding by editors and publishers that science writing differs from other repor- torial specialties." There are many stories, some true, some exaggerated, of the lack of interest, knowledge and understanding on the part of editors toward science stories. Lessing cites an example which undoubtedly grew out of misunderstanding on the part of an editor: Not too many years ago I had an editor, grown impatient at our attempts to illustrate advances in chemistry with molecular models, issue an edict: "No more molecules!" That editor (in all other respects a great editor and a good man) is no more, but I am afraid there is no stop- ping the molecules. They go on and on. Indeed, most schoolboys now know--a measure of how far things have changed--that the very secret of life is bound up in the structure of a single large Spiral molecule called DNA.1 Lessing's experience is not the exception, unfortunate- ly. Gobind Behari Lal, one Of the original NASW members, told about an interview he and John J. O'Neill, another of the old- time science writers, had with cosmic ray expert Arthur Compton: We agreed to publish the story on the same Sunday. Mine appeared. Not his. How come?--I asked him. J. shook his head and with a sad Irish smile said: "My managing editor said that he didn't believe in cosmic rays, nor in atoms...but conceded there could be molecules." SO he wrote a piece on chemistry--some molecule stuff. Later on he had trouble in getting a big "atom" story published: they didn't publish that one too. Headached--in dealing with boss editors? Let's not talk about that sensitive subject.2 1Lessing, Op. cit., p. 88. 2oobind Behari Lal, "Fossil Tales," NASW Newsletter, II (December, 1954), p. 9. 79 Science writers quite often feel that science stories are different. Different enough so that they should not have to compete with sports or crime or fashions. "Look at the sports section," they say. "Why shouldn't science have its own section too?" Editors do not share this feeling about science. In fact, they lean the Opposite direction most of the time. At a seminar for southern newspaper editors, they resolved that "science news must be able to compete on an equal basis with other types of news in drama and significance in order to win attention and its share in news space."1 No more than four of the 28 editors in attendance had a reporter specifically I assigned to science. But sports? Well, they all had at least one sports writer, sometimes six. And two or three reporters covering the po ice, the jail, the county building and city hall. How, then, can science news "compete on an equal basis" with these other types of news? Who, on their papers, is equipped to make science stories as dramatic and significant? Oliver W. Brown Jr., of the Dayton Daily News (Ohio), pointed out the extension of the editorial problems of science stories down through the ranks of the newspaper: Most national and state science and medical stories which are published are those received by the wire services, New York Times service, etc.~-and are handled at the "wire desk" by copy readers who may have no background in science, no interest in it nor be aware of the potential signifi- cance of stories in these fields--whereas, a field such as business has an "editor" across whose desk the wire stories flow before appearing in the newspaper.2 1Science News and Newspapers, op. cit., p. 10. 2Science Service 0 cit . . p. 2. A letter entitled "Six Pages of Sports, Not E%en_Ufie’for Science." 80 Talking about the problems which face the science story is a favorite of Watson Davis. In "The Rise of Science Under- standing," based on an article in Science back in 1948, Davis made this point: Even when there was a publisher who understood the news value of science, there were pitfalls. About a year before the organization of Science Service, when I was on the staff of the National Bureau of Standards, after sundown I wrote science news for the old Washington Herald, then owned by Julius Barnes and Herbert Hoover. The fact that ragweed, not goldenrod as most people believed, causes hay fever was reported at a local meeting. My story was slugged for page one, much to my delight. Imagine my chagrin the next morn- ing to find that a friendly copyreader had "corrected" the story to read that goldenrod causes hayfever! Frequently even today copyreaders, and others, have to read something new three times or more before they believe it. Many times science writers are accused of using terms over and over which could easily be replaced by the scientific term, which becomes familiar in lay language. "Atom-smasher" for accelerator, "stuff of life" for molecules or chemical compounds, and "visitors from outer space" for meteorites or cosmic rays could be abolished after a few uses. But these "descriptive" phrases often remain not because of the science writer but because of the editor. Editors do not understand, or do not wish to understand, words like accelerator or mole- cules. They insist on "atom-smashers" because they "think" the reader does not understand. How to improve on this situation is discussed by some of the subjects surveyed in 1963. What is needed, they suggest, are "better and more sensitive media," "greater editorial 1Watson Davis, "The Rise of Science Understanding" (Washington, D.C.: Science Service, November, 1960), p. 8. Based on an article in Science, September 3, 1948. 81 interest in reporting on science and medicine, and "more appreciation from both editors and publishers." ' accord- "The biggest drawback to good science writing,‘ ing to Mildred Spencer, "is the city editor who was once a police reporter, has no interest in science writing and doean: think anyone else has." What we need is "more sympathy from editors, who con- sistantly underestimate the needs and educationof the reader and demand that every science story be a simple, lighthearted thing, preferably 'look what these crazy scientists have done now,'" says Arthur Hill of the Roanoke Times (Virginia). The final blow to editors comes from Margaret Kreig, a free—lancer from New York, who said: I believe the [science] writers are doing a good job. I have seen their copy before it was published. And I have seen what was published after a committee of editors, advertising people, art department consultants and Aunt Mamie got into the act. Usually, in cases like this, well...read some of the fluff in the magazines. Both the NASW and the CASW are trying to solve the editorial problem of science news. Occasional seminars are held for "gate keepers" in various parts of the country to discuss this very problem. But it is a long way from being solved. Perhaps the only solution is to accept an idea pre- sented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in December of 1962 which proposed the estabe lishment of media, a large newspaper in particular, which would be devoted primarily to lay science reporting. Even the editor would be science oriented. At least this might stimulate science reporting on other neWSpapers. 82 Better Science Writing Education . A third factor which science writers felt affected the quality of science writing is the education received; both the education level and the content. Particularly, they felt, the knowledge level of the general reporters who have been assigned to cover science either part time or full time, mainly against their wishes, is much lower than it should be. Carl F. Heintze, Science Writer on the San Jose News (California), said: The quality of most science writing in newspapers is pretty good, especially among most members of the NASW. What hurts is when incompetent reporters who don't know what they are writing about tackle scientific subjects and either write down to their audience or make a mess of trying to explain their subject. I'd say, with pardonable pride, that newspaper science writing on the whole is better than it is in a lot of magazines, particularly women's magazines where it is a sort of pseudo-medical home medical adviser. Other remarks ranged from: "what is needed is more and better education in the sciences at colleges and universities" to "more humility, education and talent." Still others men- tioned that science writers need more education and training in science. A very few thought that on—the-job training would help improve the quality of science writing. Henry W. Hubbard of Newsweek magazine gave this side of the picture: Formal scientific training is not too necessary, but there are too many of us who are totally ignorant in too many fields. This is presently gained only through exper- ience-utalking to scientists, exposing yourself at conventions, seminars, lunches, and so on, and soaking up background. It can also be gained by reading any number of excellent books in all the fields, if the newspaper makes them available, or if you can afford to buy them. It would also be nice if more colleges and universities would '83 institute survey courses in the sciences, such as Columbiats Physics for Poets. John Foster's gang up there is also an effective way to improve, but that is simply on-the-job training, with an able colleague available for guidance. I got the same thing here at Newsweek, and was paid for it to boot. From Figure 3, it would appear that the science writers are comparatively well educated, with the majority receiving between 16 and 18 years; a bachelor's or master's degree. These, however, are the experienced, qualified science writers. Their education is in a variety of fields, usually NOT science. In fact, in Table 9 it can be seen that less than three semes- ters of any science was taken, on the average, by science writers during their average four years of college. Only five science courses had been taken more than one semester. It would appear necessary for men and women who are reporting science, or any specialized field, to be well versed in the subject. Science, particularly, is advancing so rapidly that it is hard for even teachers to keep up. I recall an experience while in junior college of taking biology from a professor who was forced the next year to step aside for a new faculty member who taught the "modern biology." The old classi- fication type of biology courses, where taxonomy of plants and animals was taught, is no longer important in the curriculum. "Modern biology," including molecular chemistry and radiation biology, is now being taught in high schools. Ritchie Calder, reporting a meeting of atomic scientists and science writers at The University of Chicago, amplified this point for other areas of science when he wrote: 84 With the Space Age superimposing itself directly on the Atomic Age, public instructors, like the responsible science writers, have never been able to "catch up with the back- log" of information.1 1Ritchie Calder, Living With The Atom (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p.841. CHAPTER VI A PROPOSED TRAINING PROGRAM All of the programs of the NASW and the CASW, of schools of journalism and Specialized schools of science writing and technical writing, and Lf th: many seminars and meetings of persons devoted to outlining the path which a prospective science writer could and should take have not given any one substantial outline which a student could follow. It may be the case that there is no one particular path into science writing.- It is obvious, if fact, that there have been many. This lack of direction, this confusion, has provided headaches to many of the young peeple who have indeed entered the profession, at least through educational programs. The ones who have become science writers by assimilation have had problems which were not similar, although perhaps more difficult. What is needed is for science writers to stop pulling in separate directions and unite under a common cause; that of truly educating and training young people who can lend the profession more quality; that of giving youngsters a chance of selecting a profession which has the same professional standards as other professions, at least educationally. We can no longer afford to "pick up deadwood" or "let students wander through the maze" of non-directional programs which are available. 85 86 I propose a training program which should bring us closer to the qualifications of a professional status than most others. It has been consolidated from the many suggestions, experiences, programs and curricula of many individuals, groups and institutions in order to most closely fit the needs of science writers. And with it, I pr0pose the institution of a recruiting effort on the part of science writers and schools of journalism or science writing. For the Bachelor's Degree A high school graduate should be introduced to the field of science writing by recruiting programs similar to those in other areas such as engineering or medicine or journalism. He should also be able to select a program leading to the bachelorfis degree in science writing when he enters college. Whether this program is under the division of sciences or taken from the school of journalism should make no difference; which ever would like to administer the degree would be the best. During the first two years of college, regardless of the field, most of the program would be devoted to survey courses in the four major areas: humanities, natural sciences, communication skills, and political or social sciences. In all degree-granting programs, these courses are required, with the remaining electives usually taken up in the field of special- ization or related areas. Thus, the high school graduate becomes a junior without specializing. In the junior year of college, nearly any student could qualify for almost any degree. That is, a non-preference 87 student at the end of his second year could become an astronomy major, a journalism major, or major in nearly any other field, providing he selected some of the basic courses in the first two years. Therefore, a student at this stage could easily select science writing as his major. The junior and senior years would be devoted to a program which combines science and journalism. Four survey- type courses should be taught in the junior year which would round out the individual in both science and journalism. These could be called: Earth Sciences, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Communications. Earth Sciences would be an intensified year-long course similar to the one now taught at National Science Foundation Academic Year Institutes for science teachers. It would devote classroom and laboratory time to geology, astronomy, meteorology oceanography, archaeology and some anthrOpology. It would include such things as learning to identify rocks and clouds and stars, the history of the earth and the solar system, paleontology, weather prediction, rotations of planets and similar subjects. It would give a familiarity of terminology and a basic understanding of the laws of nature. Physical Sciences would include mathematics, physics, and chemistry, the basic courses in the physical sciences areas. Mathematics is fundamental to all sciences, but the mathematics usually required in most science curricula is not necessary to the science writer. What he needs is enough trigonometry, geometry, algebra and a slight amount of calculus to grasp 88 fundamental physics and chemistry. A few problems in statistics would be helpful. Chemistry and physics are so similar in the fundamental stages that they can easily be taught together; intertwined. The periodic table of elements, fundamentals of radiation and atomic and nuclear physics or chemistry, the differences_between molecules and atoms, the difference between organic and inorganic compounds, laws of matter, and fundamental mechanics should be understood by the science writer. A labor- atory section should be included in this course. Biological Sciences would naturally include modern biology and some of the taxonomy of the plant and animal king- doms. Medical science would be included in this course, with study of all the systems of man and animals, the understanding of genetics and an overview of population and health problems. This might naturally include a section on growing of food along with a section on life on other worlds. It should definitely have a laboratory section. The fourth area, that of Communications, would be a survey course of journalism; of science and technical writing, cOpy editing, history of journalism, and general reporting. It would naturally help the student with English and basic reading and writing skills. It would give the student a feeling for writing and editing in the area of science, as well as other areas. Writing assignments should be made primarily in the sciences. The course might also include a section on communi- cations surveys and advertising or marketing. It would be desirable to require assignments for local newspapers. .89 The last year of college could be mainly cpen to elec- tives of the student's choice in several areas. The student should take_at least one year of a particular science, a year of higher mathematics, a year of English and journalism, and a course in social or political science, psychology or humanities But he should be required to fill the requirements for both a major and minor in science writing; that is, in a combination of sciences and of communications, a major in either, a minor in the other. In some colleges and universities, the above program might cause some problems at first. Fitting a program such as this into the university's requirements might seem a task, especially when the student must use his physical sciences course as the first year requirement to take a second year course in physics, for example. But educators are generally interested in giving students what they need, not in remaining rigid and unflexable. I have found, for example, that to fill certain needs, they will offer advanced credit for undergraduate courses which are more necessary for the program. A program such as this for undergraduates would certain- ly give the student knowledge in both journalism and science and give confidence and competence in both. I feel it would best agree with the requirements suggested by professionals. For the Graduate Student A college graduate, whether fresh from campus or with thirty years of journalistic experience, would also benefit 90 from a survey-type program in journalism and the sciences. A graduate degree, master's or doctorate, could be obtained by a program similar to that offered in the junior year; that is, survey courses in each of the three science areas. However, an extra year of one science could be substituted for Communi- cations for men who have been editing and writing professionally. At the graduate level, the courses in science would not be the same level as at the junior level, however. They would necessarily have to contain more advanced information. In the Biological Sciences, for example, the detailed structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and the chemical reactions of photo- synthesis should be taught. Details of celestial mechanics and advanced atomic and nuclear physics couldwbe taught in the other areas. In other words, general specifics could be taught. It wouldn't have to include the mathematics which accompanies advanced courses in the sciences, but the specific subject matter should be advanced enough that a freshman engineer wouldn't understand. Science writers should be at the same level, knowledge-wise, as the high school teachers-or more. Conclusion Science writers are the transmitters of knowledge. They stand between scientists and laymen. Without them, the masses and. the scientists would be living in separate worlds. Science writing should be regarded as a difficult but honored profession, a profession of Hybrids. Without some Standard of educational quality, science writing will become a 91 nebulus curiosity, a field into which the failing scientist or the general journalist falls, its decline inevitable. Science writers should and must begin to agree on the way or ways in which science writers are recruited and trained. They must set up a program which can perpetuate the profession. I hope they will take notice of the situation and, whether they accept my program or another, come to a direct and definite conclusion and institute a sound program for the training of the science writer. APPENDIX A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing January 12, 1963 Communications Research Center Dear Science Writer: You have the interesting Opportunity of influencing the curric- ula of schools of journalism offering science writing and, at the same time, comparing your beliefs about a science writer's training with those of your colleagues. The question, "What is a science writer?", has long been a topic of discussion. Should the science writer be first a scientist or primarily a journalist or some combination of these? Should he have a college education or is on-the-job training the answer? Should he write to inform the public or to entertain scientists? The Michigan State University Communications Research Center is inviting you to answer these and other questions. The accompanying questionnaire is not an attempt to solve the educational problems, but to obtain the views of active science writers and pass them on to schools and individuals interested in this field. Your answers will be held confidential and used in tabulated form in a paper on the training of the science writer. Answer each item as fully and thoughtfully as possible. Please return the forms in the self-addressed and air mail stamped enve10pe by January 25, 1963 (or within two weeks of receipt). We plan to mail the results of the survey to all participants as soon as they become available. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, William E. Small Graduate Researcher 92 APPENDIX B THE SCIENCE WRITER Please answer each item as fully and thoughtfully as you feel possible. If additional space is necessary for answers or comments use the reverse side of the paper. 1. 2. 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. Name Address Age Salary ran e (thousands per year) (circle one): (1) Below 5; (2) 85-10: (3) 810-15; (4) 815-20; 5) $20-25; (6) Above 825. Number of science writers in your organization? . What per cent of your writing deals with science? per cent. Number of years of professional writing? years. Number of years of professional science writing? years. Number of years, if any, of scientific research? years. List your scientific and/or journalistic affiliations: When and how did you become interested in science writing? Last year of education com leted (circle one): 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 / 13 14 1 16 / 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 high school college graduate studies Degrees held: University: Major: Minor: 93 14. 15. AM 94 Rate your relative competency in the following sciences (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no competency; 0, don't know, no answer.) 1 _Agriculture 13 _Mathematics 2 :AnthrOpology 14 _Hechanical Engineering 3 _Archaeology 15 ___Medicine 4 -_'Astronomy 16 Metallurgy 5 ___Biolcgy 17 __;Meteorology 6 ___Bctany 18 _Oceanography 7 ___Chemistry 19 :Physics 8 ___Civil Engineering 20 :Psychology 9,___Electric cal Engineering 21 :Space Technology 10 ___Geography 22 :Statistics 11 ___Geology 23 :Zcolcgy 12 ___Home Economics 24 :Other (specify) Underline the sciences in the above list which you normally cover. (0, don't know, no answer; 1, positive reaponse.) 16. 17. 18. Underline those sciences in which you have received formal education and indicate the number of semesters or terms: é1)_ Agriculture (13 _Mathematics 2): Anthropology 14 _Mechanical Engineering (3 :Azchaeology 15 Medicine 4)— Astronomy 16 Metallurgy (5)_ Biology (17 Meteorology 6)___ otany 18)___Oceanography 7 ___Chemistry (19 _Physics 8 _Civil Engineering 20 :Psycholcgy 9 :Elec:trical Engineering 21 :Space Technology 10 :Geography 22 :Statistics 1 1 1 :Geology (23 :Zoology 2 —Home Economics 24 :Other (specify) How much education do you believe is desirable for the science wifiting profession? (0, don't know, no answer; 1, experience is sufficient; 2, high school; 3, B A. or 4 years M college; 4, M. A.. or equivalent; 5, Ph. D. or equivalent; 6, as much as possible.) What wauild you suggest that a prospective science writer should Specialize in (journalism, science, both, neither)? (0, don' t know, no answer; 1, journalism; 2, science; 3, both joicnalism and science; 4 neither.) 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 95 Rate the following courses for their importance or potential in the training of a science writing student (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no help): (0, don't know, no answer.) (1)___Advertising (16)___Mathematics (2)___Agriculture 17;___Medicine (3)___Anthr0pology 18 ___Meteorology (4)__‘Archaeology 19)___Cceanography (5)__;Astronomy (20)___Philos0phy (6)___Biology (21)___Physics (7;___Chemistry (22)__;Political Science E8 ___Communications Arts (23)___Psychology 9 ___English (24)___Beporting 10 ___Engineering (25)___Sociology 11 ___Poreign Language (26)___Space Technology 12 ___Ceography (27 ___Speech 13;___Geology (28 ___Statistics 14 ___History (29 ___Television-Radio (15)___Journalism (3O ___0ther (Specify) What do you consider as the most effective type of position for the training of a beginning science writer (large newspaper, technical journal, public relations, scientific research, etc.)? Please explain. Evaluate the following for their importance in the training of a science writer (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no help): (0, don't know, no answer.) (1 ___Science Seminars E8;___Editors 2 Science Writing Seminars 9 Colleagues 3 ___Science Writing Associationsé10 __NeWSpapers 4§___College Journalism Courses 11 __Mbgazines (5 ___College Science Courses 12 __Padio é6;___Pield Reporting £13 __Television 7 ___Conventions 14 __Scientists 15 __Cther (specify) In your Opinion, what is the role of the science writer? Should he write to entertain the public primarily or to educate scientists, to please the editor or to fill a given space in the publication? Please air your Opinion. Do you feel that most science writers achieve the goal of The Science Writer? If not, what would you suggest to improve the quality of science writing? What is the most important or interesting aspect of professional science writing for you? APPENDIX C MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing February 1, 1963 Communications Research Center Dear Science Writer: You received a questionnaire from the Michigan State University Communications Research Center some three weeks ago entitled "The Science Writer." The results of this educational research program will consti- tute a thesis for a graduate degree in Science Writing. Since we have scheduled the returns to be run through the college' computer on February 189 we would appreciate receiving your answers before then. You were selected fer the survey because, as an active member of the Naticnal Association of Science Writers, you are most qualified to suggest how colleges may plan the training of future science writers. Please help us complete the survey by sending your copy of the questionnaire to the Center. If you have misplaced the first one, please write the Center for another. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, William E. Small Graduate Researcher 96 1-5) 4-6)_____ 7-8)___ Q3 9-1o)___ Q4 11)___ Q5 12—13)_____ Q6 14-16)___ Q7 17-18)___ Q8 19-2o)_____ Q9 21-22)__ Q10 23)— 24) (end page one) Q12 25-26)__ Q:14 27)___ 28)_____ 29)____ 30)_____ 31l_____ 32)_____ 33)____ 34)____ 55)___ APPENDIX D THE SCIENCE WRITER STUDY 36 )_ 37 )_ 58 )_ 59)___ 4o)___ 41 )_ 42 )_ 45) 1+4) 45 >__ 46i_____ 47)___ 48 )_ 49) 50) ' 51) 52)_____ 53)— 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) Hill 97 59)____ 60)______ 61 )_ 62)_____ 63;)___ 64)— 65 )_ 66)___ 67 )_ 68)___ 69)__ 7o)___ 71 )_ 72 )__.‘ 73 )_ 74) 75 -79 Elena; 80) 1 (end of card one) 98 Duplicate COlumns 1-8 from card one. Q;15 9-10)_____ 11-12)______ 13-14)______ 15-16)_____ 17-18)_____ 19-20)_____ 21-22) 23—24) 25-26) 27-28)_____ 29-50)_____ 31-32)_____ 33-54)_____ 55-56) 37-58) 59-40) 41-42) 45-44) 45-46) 47¢48) 49-50) 51-52) 53-54). ___ 55-56) lllHlll 57-79)Blank Q:19 80) 2 9)_____ 1o)_____ 11) 12)_____ 15)_____ 14)_____ 15)_____ 16)_____ 17)_ 18) 19) 2o) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30)_____ 51)_____ 32)_____ 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38);...— :21 39)_____ 4o) 41)_____ 42)______ 43)_____ 44) 45)_____ 46)_____ 47)_____ 48)_____. 54) 1 55) 56-58) 59-61) 62-79) 8o) Blank .42.. APPENDIX E 7830 S. Colfax Avenue Chicago 49, Illinois May 10, 1963 Dear Science Writer: My sincere thanks for participating in The Science Writer survey some weeks ago. I am sending a statistical answer sheet for your review. It quantitatively records the machined averages of the survey. You may compare your Opinions with those of other science writers. The Master's thesis is well under way. From these answers and the fine suggestions and essay answers which I received, the paper will, I feel, prove to be a strong guide for schools of Journalism with science writing courses. Seventy two science writers from across the country replied to the questionnaire. This was 40 per cent of those asked to participate. I think this indicates a keen interest in the education of our future colleagues, The final paper, based on this survey and the existing literature, may be available on request when completed. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions about the survey results or the final paper, please drop me a card or letter. Again, many thanks for your c00peration. Sincerely, William E. Small Science Writer 99 APPENDIX F THE SCIENCE WRITER All answers to the survey are empirical averages, based purely on the machine results as coded directly from the answer sheets. No attempt has been made here to quanti- tatively analyze the results. Underlining of the most significant answers was based on an arbitrary cut-off point for each question. The results will be analyzed in the final paper. Age: 48 years, average. Salary range--percentage of writers in each catagory: (thousands per year) No answer 85-10 810-15 815-20 820-25 Above $25 12% 20% 37% 16% 6% 9% Number of science writers in your organization? 2,6.avg. What per cent of your writing deals with science? 12% avg. Number of years of professional writing? 24 years, avg. Number of years of professional science writing? 14 years, avg. Number of years of scientific research? 1,] years, avg. (Only 14 of the 72 replied that they had done research.) Scientific and Journalistic affiliations: Scientific Journalistic No. Organizations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. Affiliations 34 19 8 7 2,.2 0 0 22 28 15 2 3 2 Avg. no. of affiliations 1.0 2.2 Last year of education completed--number of writers: (high school) (college) (graduate studies) No answer 10 11 12 / 13 14 15 16 / 17 18 19 2o 21 22 3 2 0 2 3 1 6 21 16 13 2 2 0 1 Rate your relative competency in the following sciences (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no competency), average of answers in each catagory: 1.64 Agriculture 1.68 Electrical Eng. 2.00 Meteorology 2.01 Anthropology 2.08 Geography 1.99 Oceanography 1.89 Archaeology 1.92 Geology 2.22 Physics 2.25 Astronomy 1.10 Home Economics 2.42 Ps cholo 2.67 Biology 1.75 Mathematics 2.22 Space Tech. 1.81 Botany 1.33 Mechanical Eng. 1.44 Statistics 2.26 Chemist 3.38 Medicine 2.04 Zoology 1.26 ivil g. 1.42 KetaIlurgy 0.93 Other 100 101 Underline the sciences which you normally cover; most frequent answers (averages based on 0 for no and 1 foryes): 0.22 Agriculture 0.25 Electrical Eng. 0.36 Meteorology 0.36 AnthrOpology 0.19 Geography 0.35 Oceanography 0.33 Archaeology 0.35 Geology 0.50 Physics 0.46 Astronomy, 0.06 Home Economics 0.49 Psychology 0.53 Elggggz 0.26 Mathematics 0.44 Space Tech. 0.28 Botany 0.19 Mechanical Eng. 0.18 Statistics 0.42 Chemistry 0.68 Medicine 0.36 Zoology 0.17 Civil Eng. 0.25 Metallurgy 0.19 Other Underline the sciences in which you have received formal education and indicate the number of semesters, averages: 0.14 Agriculture 0.60 Electrical Eng. 0.11 Meteorology 0.46 Anthropology 0.61 Geography 0.06 Oceanography 0.22 Archaeology 0.60 Geology 1.87 Physics 0.43 Astronomy 0.01 Home Economics 1.19 Ps cholo 1.29 Biglogy 2.91 Mathematics 0.11 Space Tech. 0.42 Botany 0.13 Mechanical Eng. 0.32 Statistics 1.80 Chemistry 0.72 Medicine 0.50 Zoology 0.18 Civil Eng. 0.08 Metallurgy 0.03 Other How much education do you believe is desirable for the science writing profession; percentage of answers: Experience High As Much As No answer Only School B.A. M.A. Ph.D. Possible 7% 4% 1% 38% 18% 4% 28% What would you suggest that a prospective science writer should specialize in; percentage of writers in each catagory: No answer Journalism Science Neither Both 7% 16% 11% 17% 49% Rate the following courses for their importance in the training of a science writing student (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no help); average of answers in each catagory: 1.08 Advertising 2.56 Foreign Language 3.39 Physics 1.43 Agriculture 2.15 Geography 1.86 Political Sci. 2.21 Anthropology 2.24 Geology 2.49 Psychology 1.82 Archaeology 2.86 gisthy 2.72 Reporting 2.60 Astronomy 2.65 gournali§m_ 1.96 Sociology 3.49 Eiggg, 2.97 Mathematics 2.40 Space Tech. 3.47 eroticism, 2.54 Meiieiee. 1-49 Speech 2.03 Communication 2.03 Meteorology 1.99 Statistics 4.22 EEEQQEE, 2.01 Oceanography 1.33 TV-Radio 1.89 Engineering 2.43 Philosophy 0.10 Other Evaluate the following for their importance in the training of a science writer (from 5 for excellent to 1 for no help); an: 3.21 Science Seminars 3.81 Eield Reporting. 3.04 Magazines 2.99 Sci writ Seminars 2.71 Conventions 1.47 Radio 2.33 Sci Writ Assoc 2.64 Editors 1.68 Television 2.38 Journalism Courses2.99 Colleagues 3.60 Scientists 3.61 0.49 Other Science Courses 3.07 Newspapers BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents Pan American Union. ,Repcrt of the First Inter-American Seminar on_Science Journalism (Santiago, Chile, Oct. 16g18, 1962). WEShington: By the Pan American Union, 19 3. , Organization of American States, and Inter-American Press Association Technical Center, Inc. Science Journalism--Periodismo Cientifico. Washington: By the Organization of American States, 1963. U.S. Department of Agriculture. After a Hundred Years:‘ The Yearbook onggriculture 1962. ‘Washington,'1962. U.S. Public Health Service, Sur eon General's Conferen e on Health Communications: Nov. 5~8. 1962. Puincation No. 998. February, 1963. Books Calder, Ritchie. Living with the Atom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. Campbell, Laurence R., and Wolseley, Roland. How To Report and Write the News. Englewood Cliffs, N. .: Prentice- HalI, Inc., 1951. Foster, John, Jr.- Science ngter's Guide. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Krieghbaum, Hillier. Science, The News, and The Public. New York: New York University Press, 1958. _g . When Doctors Meet Reporters. New York: New York University Press, 1957. National Association ofScience Writers. A Handbook for Press Arrangements at Scientific Meetings. Port Washington, N.Y.: NASW, 1962. 102 103 Weisman, Herman M. Basic Technical Writing. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1962.. Wolfla‘Dael, Science and Public Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1959. Articles and Periodicals "Carnegie Corporation," Understanding(Winter 1962-63). 2. Garfield, Eugene. "Citations in P0pular and Interpretive Science Writing," Science, CXLI (Aug. 2, 1963), 392. "Job Opportunities for Journalism Graduates," Saturday Review (Nov. 10, 1962), 69. Kantor, Alice K. "Training for Interpretive Science Writers," Chemical & Engineerinngews, XLI (June 10, 1963), 4. Krieghbaum, Hillier. "American Newspaper Reporting of Science News," Kansas State College Bulletin, XXV, No. 5, Aug. 15, 1941. . "It's Later Than You Think," Thegguill, L (November, 1962), 71. . "Public Interest in Science News," Science, CXXIX (April 24, 1959). 1092. Lal, Gobind Behari. "Fossil Tales," NASW Newsletter, II (December, 1954). 9. Lessing, Lawrence. "The Three Ages of Science Writing," Chemical & Engineerinngews, XLI (April 22, 1963), 88. (Based on the Grady Medal Address at the 144th American Chemical Society National Meeting in Los Angeles, Calif.) Negus, Sidney S. "Public Information Service," Science, CXXXIX (Feb. 15. 1963), 629. "Plan Classes for Writing about Science," Chicago Tribune, Aug. 25. 1953. "Summary: NSF Public Understandin of Science Program," Understanding (Summer 1962 , 2. Tannenbaum, Percy H. "Communication of Science Information," Science, CXL (May 10, 1963), 579. 104 "The Technical Society," Scientific Americ an., CCIX (September, 1963). 82 Ubell, Earl. "Council for the Advamnc ement of 6Science Writing,' The Wiley Bu: lei-n, IV (Fall, 196C),6 Br: chum: s and Pamphlets "Curriculum in Science Writing." Department of Printing and Journalism, South Dakota State College, Brookings, Winter Quarter, 1961-62. Davis, Watson. “The Rise of Science Unders.anding. Washingiw a: Science Service, November 1960. (Based on an article in §333333, Sept. 3, 9M8 National Association of Scien ce Writers, Inc., Constitution. Port Washington, N.Y. 3 NASW, August, 1955. . A leaflet bearing background information on the NASW. Port Washington, N.Y.: NASW, 1963. . Memheiship List .. Port Washington, N.Y.: NASW Aug. 2, 1962. Slosson, Edwin E. "Don'ts for Wouldmbe Writers of Science." Washington: Science Servli ce. (Printed pamphlet on "How Science Service Cove:rs the Science Front. ") Reports Krieghbaum, Hillier. Impact cfS pace Age 0.3 Dai ly Newspaper Gov etrge of Scierce News. A report of a National Isa ..ion of Science Write: smNew Yo:rk University survey of United Stat .es Managin' g‘Edii.ors. Port Washington, N.Y.: NASW, 1958. National Asso.iation of Science Writers, Inc. Science, The Press and The Citizen. Report f the Committee on Phil: wships and Sch1.arsh‘rs Port Washington, N.Y.: NASW,1957. ‘ . Stat:isti cal so immary of th e NASW survey. of 176 mem- bers. P1r+ Washington, N. Y.: NASW,1957 (Mimeo- graphed.) National Conference for Scientific informati.o. New York: Stientes+rs Ins1r tutegfor PublIc InI‘I rmation, F61”). 1653‘?!) 196.50 105 The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media. A report on a Nation-wide Survey for the National Issociation of Science Writers. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, 1958. Satellites, Science and the Public. A report of a National Survey on the Public Ifipact of Early Satellite Launchings for the National Association of Science Writers. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, 1959. Science and the Public. Proceedings of the Midwestern Science CommunIEations Seminar for Public Information Special- ists. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University, March 21-23, 1962. ‘ ' Science News and Newspapers. Report of the Science News Seminar for Southern Newspaper Editors. New Orleans: Tulane University, Feb. 5-7, 1962. Science Service. Preliminary Material, Conference on thg Role of Schools of Journalism in the Professional Training of Science Writers. washington: Science Service, June 9-10, 1951. . Report, Conference on the Role of Schools of Journalism in the Professional Training,of Science writers. Washington: Science Service, June 9-10, 1951. Science Writing and the Public. A Report of a Pilot Study for the National Association of Science Writers. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, September, 1955. Southern Regional Science Seminar for University Information ‘ Officers. GainesvilIe: University of Florida, Feb., 19—22, 1961. Unpublished Material "Academic Year Institute in General Science for Secondary Teachers." Sponsored by the National Science Foundation at Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963-64. (Mimeographed.) Davis, Watson. "Writing and Science Presentation." Paper read before the Conference on Scientific Communication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, Dec. 30, 1959. 106 Fraley, Pierre C. "Should Science Writers be Scientists?" Unpublished talk read before the Science Writers Seminar on Birth Defects, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Nov. 14, 1962. Krieghbaum, Hillier. "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Science Writers." Paper read at the Howard W. Blakeslee Awards Luncheon of American Heart Association, New York City, Oct. 3. 1959. Larsen, Carl W. "Science Writing--New 0pportunities--New Problems." Paper read at the American College Public ReéatiOns Association Convention, Chicago, June 24, 19 3. Loftin, Horace G. "Science Reporting in the American Press." Unpublished Master's thesis, Florida State University, August, 1956. National Association of Science Writers, Inc. "A Guide to Careers in Science Writing." Draftlof a brochure, NASW, 1963. (Typewritten.) Scheer, Julian. "Science Writing; New Opportunities--New Problems." Paper read at the American College Public Relations Association Convention, Chicago, June 24, 1963. Stokley, James. "Opportunities in Science Writing." Unpub- lished paper, School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Other Sources Results of Project 099 of the Michigan State University Communications Research Center, East Lansing. MISTIC computer machined pa es of the results of the survey "The Science Writer,‘ under staff supervision of Jack Prather. Final pages run April, 1963. Small, William E. "The Science Writer." Mail surveys of 72 science writers in the National Association of Science Writers, Inc. Taken between January 12,1963 and February 28, 1963. Stokley, James. Technical Writing Courses Notes, School of Journalism, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Fall Quarter 1960. (Mimeographed.) r4. ‘2 Qt” “C’llllllfllllllfiflil’ W17 T