(1)A New Relationship between Science and Fiction
Hideaki Sena,
Writer
|
In recent years, there has been a profusion of novels published in Japan that have themes based on science and technology. Not only SF in the fiction genre, but also writers of a broad range of entertainment novels have expressed great interest in the field of science and technology, showing a strong tendency to incorporate these topics in their work. Plots are commonly set in the future rather than the present, and by creating stories that are extensions of readers' general interests, they attempt to express the surprise and fear that can be imagined by taking half a step beyond the science and technology of today. A major characteristic of this kind of writing is that it utilizes popular fiction writing styles without conforming to conventional novel genre etiquette.
I am a writer who writes novels and nonfiction, while at the same time teaching university classes in bioscience and cell biology. While a graduate school student, I wrote my first published work, Parasite Eve (1995). Later turned into a movie, comic book, and computer game, this novel pivots around cell organelle mitochondria and incorporates issues of organ transplantation, cell biology, and human evolution. Though my involvement with both science and story telling, I have grown to feel a great fascination for the "linking ability" that is an intrinsic part of stories.
By expressing the causal relationship between truths, stories are able to create new surprises and pleasures. In order to challenge giant themes, modern science has established a huge number of specialized fields and a system in which experts in each of these fields share the responsibility for research. However, because specialization has progressed in this fashion, individual researchers are avoiding proactive involvement in areas other than their own, and in actual fact, problems of communication breakdowns within specialized fields are increasing. For this reason, slogans such as "liberal arts education," "Exchange with Different Fields," and "interdisciplinary research" are being thrown about, but the reality is that these are not functioning satisfactorily.
I think that the "linking ability" inherent in stories may be able to provide an effective path for resolving these problems of modern science. The entertainment quality of stories could even dispel science and technology's abstract image. In the past, Japanese writers with a literary education, such as Sakyo Komatsu (1931-), exerted their organizational skills to depict science. From now on, however, is there not a need for us to produce writers, talented like Sakyo Komatsu, from the field of science who can search for techniques for creating "science" through "stories"?
Fiction techniques, however, also have some undesirable effects. The images evoked by fiction are extremely strong, and easily instill in the reader the idea of an "easy-to-understand" story. At times this exerts a strong influence on the progression of actual science and technology. The writer must be aware of the danger in this, but the writer who cowers before science and thus loses the substance of story telling is putting the cart before the horse. It seems that the time has also come for readers to considered new approaches to fiction in addition to conventional ways of reading. In this lecture, I will discuss my own thoughts, as well as opinions expressed to me, about the new relationship between science and fiction. |
|
 |
| (2)Werner Hadorn, President, European Union
of Science Journalists' Assosiations |
The Front line of science and technology is becoming more and more complicated for the public to understand[ - this is a key-sentence for the forthcoming Tokyo conference.
I would like to show why this gap between science and general public has opened and what its consequences could be.
I will also give a brief outline of the history of science journalism particularly in Europe and try to describe the role of the science journalist as a mediator between science, scientist and the public.
This role has changed significantly since modern science journalism originated in the period of the Enlightment (18th century).
Originally, the scientist was the mediator himself, and his audience were mainly other scientists. In the first half of the 19th century, science gradually becomes a more and more important and interesting topic in particular in magazines which are the first examples of true mass media.
In the 20th century, specialisation within the structure of the media demands for specialised journalists, and the dilemma arises: Should science journalists be good scientists or good journalists? More and more, the success of science depends on public acceptance, and the journalist's task between science and public becomes more and more difficult because the audiences' belief in progress through science is not as positive as it used to be in the sixties.
On the other hand, science in democratic societies depends increasingly on the attitudes of the general public thus creating the necessity of comprehensive and understandable information.
Finally, I shall outline some of the main obstacles science journalists encounter in their jobs and try to develop ideas how these obstacles could be mastered. |
|
| |
(3)SCIENCE IN SOCIETY - an optimistic view
Alun Anderson,
Editor-in-chief, New Scientist
|
Everyone knows the enormous power of science and technology to transform our way of thinking and our way of life. In Britain in the nineteenth century, for example, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution forced many to consider whether the creation stories of the Bible were true or whether science could provide a less flattering explanation of human origins. During the same era, the rapid growth of the railway system allowed the development of gigantic cities and an unprecedented shift from a rural to an urban way of life.
Since then changes have continued to arise, usually unpredicted and unpredictable. The motor car, aeroplane, radio, antibiotics, nuclear weapons, television, antibiotics, computers, the internet, and many other inventions continue to alter both how we think and how we live. At the same time, the scale of our activities has grown so great that we can now affect planetary scale processes, including the Earth's climate.
The commercial media that report science, of which I represent one part, have a special role and responsibility in communicating science and its consequences to the public. The media have a huge reach and are capable of altering public opinion on a large scale. The goal of the media, in my opinion, is not to tell people what to think, or to present the views of any particular group, but to entertain, inform and empower the public so that it can hold knowledgeable opinions and give support for advances in science and technology that truly benefit society.
To do this, the media need to provide information that is stimulating, intriguing, accurate, accessible and authoritative. But it does so if face of several key constraints: what scientists are willing to communicate, what the public is interested in (there is no point in speaking if no one is listening) and how it makes judgements, and commercial interests (pressure from sales and advertising).
To be effective, scientists who wish to communicate with the public, need to understand that the goal is not that of trying to teach the public "more about science", but rather to communicate more of "what science is about". Science educators have quite different goals from the media but this is often not understood by scientists.
To be effective, the media needs to understand how the public's "mind" works, tapping into its interests and how it makes judgements. I would argue from research conducted in the UK by New Scientist and others, that in the UK (other nations may differ) the effective communication of science requires:
* Creation of trust in the person we wish to communicate with. The UK has suffered from a huge erosion of trust in traditional sources of information. Other nations should learn from our errors!
* Understanding of the public's "common sense" assessment of costs and benefits of research and its "non-rational" assessment of risk.
* Understanding of the strong--but very changeable-emotional "gut" reaction the public may have in response to scientific advances.
* Understanding of what "sells" science-how it can be effectively marketed.
* Understanding that scientists themselves are often their own worst enemies, clinging to outmoded ideas about what science is and what they do.
Although many people have become pessimistic about the level of understanding the public has about science and about a possible backlash against science, I believe that the really important things about science and technology can be effectively communicated to the public and that overall interest in science has never been higher. Too many of the pessimists are simply poor communicators or cling to models of science that are no longer relevant. When an audience fails to laugh at the jokes of a comedian, the comedian should not blame the audience. Similarly, those who wish to communicate science can only blame themselves if no one listens. Given the ever-growing wonders of science, there can be no excuse if the public is not fully involved and engaged. The future is bright!
|
|
| |
(4)My Expectations of Scientific Journalism
Fumiko Yonezawa,
Professor, Keio University
|
For 40 years, I was involved in research in the field of material science theory. I was also a wife and mother during those years. Based on my experiences I'd like to share my thoughts and expectations concerning scientific journalism, by comparing scientific journalism in Japan and other countries.
First of all, I'd like to register a complaint. It seems to me that scientific articles written in the United States and other countries are of a higher standard. I read scientific articles in American magazines from time to time, and they always strike me as being well-written and informative. On the other hand, Japanese science journalism work seems based on supposition to a certain extent. The articles are not well-researched and lack seriousness, and most are unsigned, in contrast to other countries, where most such articles have bylines. Most Japanese journalists work for newspapers or other large organizations and have little inkling of what it means to freelance and make a living by the pen. Would it be overstating the case to say that this has a negative impact on the quality of the writing?
But this is not an issue unique to scientific journalism. In some ways, Japanese society lacks the maturity to fully appreciate intellectual property. That should change gradually so that scientific journalism is given more prominence in Japan, and for that the activities of currently active scientific journalists are essential.
In the 21st century, scientific journalists will have an increasingly important role to play. Many people today feel that science and technology are changing much more quickly than before. Take, for example, how quickly mobile phones and personal computers have evolved. The pace of change is hard to keep up with nowadays.
At the same time the scope of science and technology has broadened and the subject matter has become more complex. The field is becoming increasingly specialized and sophisticated as well. Today, the propelling force behind progress is clearly the profit motive, and individuals are becoming greedy. It's hard to believe that just 30 years ago Japanese believed it was shameful to show greed. Thinking back to those days makes me feel positively nostalgic. And while it is true that science has brought many benefits, I am equally concerned about its negative effects and whether progress is moving in the right direction.
I believe that specialists like me have a responsibility to inform the general public about these issues, and that journalism plays a unique role as the bridge between scientists and laymen. Science will determine the future of humankind, and the choices will be made not by scientists or by journalists, but by ordinary people.
|
|
| |