(1)The knowledge generation: Growing your own...
How lay people turn into experts
Wolfgang Goede
Editor, P. M. Knowledge Matters
|
|
We are standing on a goldmine - the knowledge and expertise of billions of people. So far it has been tapped only socially and politically as the fast growing number of self-help and non-government organizations (NGOs) demonstrates. Worldwide more than one million NGOs are operating, in Germany alone 70,000 organizations with three million members. Political parties by contrast have only 1,5 million members. These new groups constitute the civil society and have become a strong pillar of our democracies. But [lay knowledgeability] (Brian Wynne, University of Lancaster) must also be utilized for the scientific process if we want to meet the challenges of this century: energy, nutrition, climate, above all peace. We science journalists must not only present the results of research and its applications in comprehensive and popular ways, we also must invent new ways of communication and interaction between scientists and the public. A new partnership of the stakeholders is needed, [a new social contract] (Michael Gibbons, Assoc. of Commonwealth Universities) which cultivates open democratic dialogues. Civic scientists and civic journalists can create civic engagement which will produce the social capital to settle our major problems. |
|
 |
(2)"The Space-Time Challenge:
Can Science Journalism Compete in the Next Millennium?"
James Cornell
President, International Science Writers Association
|
Tomorrow's science communicators face a crisis - and a challenge:
Finding an audience for serious, thoughtful reportage about difficult technical subjects and complex socio-economic issues in an era of superficial, sensational, and celebrity-based journalism. Most indicators suggest that public interest in science and technology, as well as appreciation for its central role in modern society, remains high, especially in the industrialized world. While this suggests there should be a growing audience for science and technology news in the mainstream media, the opposite seems to be true. The increasing commercialization of the mass media has given rise to a form of corporate journalism that blurs the line between news and entertainment, responds to advertising considerations rather than public needs, and strives to reach demographic groups determined by marketing experts rather than editors. The recent downturn in the global economy - and the resultant decline in advertising revenues - has put new pressures on the mass media to attract readers and viewers, while simultaneously reducing costs. No wonder, then, that research coverage is increasingly dominated by "medical breakthroughs," "miracle cures," and "landmark discoveries." Concurrently, the rise of alternative information outlets - cable, electronic books, video, and the Internet - has led to a fragmentation of the media, with more and more (Indeed, seemingly infinite!) channels available, but each attracting ever smaller and more focused audiences. Although more science information may be available, in a depth and detail never before possible, it is increasingly accessible only at specialized sites, e.g, the trade magazine, the cable channel, and the website. The result is a "ghettoization" of science and technology news. Unintentionally, science is again being presented as something esoteric and abstract, separate and outside of daily experience--a perception two generations of science communicators had attempted to erase. The outlook for the immediate future suggests these trends will continue and the competition for print space and air time will intensify. If media content continues to be shaped by pop culture and economics, the quality and quantity of science coverage can only suffer. And, if the trend toward "narrow-band" programming continues, general science news may never recapture the audiences it enjoyed in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, science journalists could become "newsletter experts," writing almost exclusively for an insular group of intellectually elite and influential "insiders" that determines the support--and direction--of scientific research for all of society. Of course, the technology of communication itself is changing so rapidly and so unpredictably that any prognostication about "obvious and certain" trends is foolhardy. One point is clear, however: the current transitional state of the mass media offers an excellent opportunity for journalists, scientists, and public interest advocates to create effective new communications approaches for the future. |
|
| |
| (3)Mamoru Mohri,
Director,Nippon Kagaku Miraikan (National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation)
|
The space shuttle or space station provides a commanding view of the spherical earth stretching 2,000 kilometers wide. During the daylight hours when the sun illuminates the earth's surface, the only life forms that can be discerned from space with the naked eye are the plants that comprises the dark green forests spreading across the land, and the animals that comprise the coral reefs sparkling green-white in the ocean. This view impresses on us that much of the Japanese archipelago is covered in forests. Humans are too small to see from space, but the patterns consisting of geometrical fields and gray-looking cities, and the clash of blue- and brown-colored water at the mouths of rivers as they meet the ocean are enough to signal our existence indirectly. In a few score minutes we enter the night side of the earth, where the sun's rays do not reach. We can no longer see the forests or coral reefs. Instead, an orange light spreads over the land like mesh. As we pass over Japan, clusters of light dotting the Pacific coast in an almost continuous line along the seaboard are visible. This night view shows us that the human that cannot be seen from space during the day already inhabit every corner of the earth. Just 100 years ago, when electricity first came into general use, hardly any of the lights that at night show evidence of human existence would have been visible from space. Indeed, the only nocturnal lights on earth visible from space 1,000 years ago would have been lightening, forest fires, and volcanic larva; there would have been no visible evidence of human existence whatsoever.
We are able to take this macroscopic look at the earth's surface because of the rapid advancement of science and technology. At the same time, macroscopic changes in the natural environment that are invisible from space, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, are spreading rapidly over the entire surface of the earth. Furthermore, genetic engineering at the molecular level is rapidly changing life on earth itself, including humanity itself. In the 20th Century, viewing the earth objectively from space has awakened humans to the realization that our earth is the only planet with a natural environment that can sustain life. Regardless of human activity, macroscopic and microscopic changes are always occurring simultaneously, and the time taken in these changes varies greatly, from momentary to eternal. Life forms born on the earth adjust to environmental changes; indeed, life on earth has undergone four billion years of diversification in response to environmental change. Unlike other life forms on earth, humans try to continue their existence through the use of science and technology. The world created by science and technology is also a new environment, one that raises the question of how well humankind is able to sustain the balance of life on earth. What is necessary at this time is for humans to see and understand with their own eyes that the earth is only one of many planets existing in space. Journalism has a tremendously important role to play in fostering a common awareness among the world's many peoples.
|
|
| |