2) Summary
British panelist Alun Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of New Scientist, described the pitiable response of the British government to the outbreak of mad cow disease in the United Kingdom and praised newspapers that had presented the opinions of dissenting researchers. Yuichi Iijima, an editorial writer for a local periodical, the Shinano Mainichi Shimbun, who has been writing articles on health issues for many years, commented that health is currently becoming a hot topic in the Japanese media, stating that: "Media has the obligation to provide articles on health which are easy to understand and of high quality. The media has a responsibility to take the time to foster specialized journalists capable of responding to science-related news." He pointed out that he was not only referring to individual newspaper reporters, but to the responsibility of the newspaper and its system overall.
Hazuki Saisho, a nonfiction writer with strong interests in life science, expressed concern that the situation was gradually progressing without information being disclosed to the public. She cited her experience in covering the enactment process for a law banning human cloning. Saisho, who felt it important to change this situation to the extent possible, stated that she had begun as a private individual a website concerned with general life science staring with the fertilized egg issue in order to bring together experts and the public at large, thus offering testimony that the scope of activities open to a writer has become broader in the age of the Internet.
Hideto Nakajima, an Associate Professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology specializing in science and technology studies, introduced the topic of consensus conferences. He predicted that the position of the mass media would diminish if opportunities for direct dialogue between the general public and specialists increased, offering the provocative suggestion that in the future, the media should organize consensus conferences, thus, serving as a bridge between specialists and the public.
Floor Commentator, Carole Cornell, a research associate at Harvard University, mentioned that coverage of a lead poisoning incident in Mexico had been one-sided, causing a large number of ceramicists to lose their jobs. She questioned whether such examples where needed information is not duly reported do not exist as well in other countries. Itaru Yasui, Professor with the Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, objected to the way coverage is handled, stating, "All the media does is harp on about danger. There are cases where something may not be 100% safe, but may not be cause for concern. However, the media doesn't report that there is no cause for concern." Representative of the journalists' side countered this argument with, "Responsibility for explaining that something is safe lies with the scientists", "The media is constantly looking for something new to report", "Scientists forget that judging whether risk exists is subjective", "People do not act logically just because they have been given accurate information.", etc. A representative from the scientists' side then retorted, "Scientists cannot be expected to provide explanations," adding "Journalists are professionals and should make a value judgment when reporting."
Yoshitaka Tsubono, Lecturer at Tohoku University specializing in public health, made the bitter observation that the media tends to report only what is easy to report. He commented that journalists and researchers would have to cooperate with one another. Lisbeth Fog, President of the Colombian Association of Science Journalism, had surveyed newspaper coverage of genetic engineering. She pointed out that problems exist, commenting, "News sources are biased and journalists have the tendency to use sensational wording."
Various diverse points were made during the limited 2 1/2 hours allotted for the session. The terms "reporting" and "media" both describe a tremendous range of activities and phenomena, making it impossible to lump them together in a single debate. When even evaluating the extent to which coverage has been meeting the public's expectations, careful consideration should be given to each topic concerned. Yet several points became clear during discussion: there are a number of issues in reporting that require improvement; the media's role is being reexamined as platforms for direct information exchange between specialists and the public increase; and scientists are not fulfilling their obligation to provide explanations and do not attempt to understand the general populace.
It unexpectedly became clear that both scientists and scientific journalists are dissatisfied with the way the other side handles itself. However, one can also not overlook that both sides shared the view that information should be reported responsibly to the people.
I hope that this session to be viewed as one step forward toward building a cooperative relationship between scientists and scientific journalists and then again amongst scientific journalists around the world in order to meet this end.

2) Yuichi Iijima
He discussed the state of reporting health-related issues in Japan in his speech entitled, "Health Information and Newspaper Coverage." He stated that health is such an overblown topic right now that there is a joke people would "die for the sake of health." The current attitude that people are leading such busy lifestyles, that they want good health immediately on demand has lead for the public to seek health-related news. He said the press has an obligation to provide information of high quality.
"Information of high quality" means accurate and lucid articles based on data and fact." Naturally, such articles must be readily understood by the reader. What links academism to the reader is the intent and enthusiasm of the journalist. Iijima said that newspapers should show consideration to people on a daily basis, taking the time to foster journalists who specialize in reporting science-related news.

3) Hazuki Saisho
She broached issues in the life sciences, including cloning technology. In June of this year, Saisho covered the enactment process of the world's first law banning human cloning approved by the Japanese government. Saisho commented that she had become keenly aware of how inexperienced the government was in discussing and making policies related to ethical issues. The increasing interest in reproductive medicines in Japan is evident in the dramatic rise in the number of related articles over the past decade. However, there are no legal restrictions or guidelines regarding the disclosure of new information governing such new technologies. The situation has been gradually progressing unbeknownst to the community at large. This lack of transparency has caused distrust amongst the public. Saisho thought about what an individual could do to change this situation, and, in response, set up a website entitled "Life Science Information Net." This site provides information and allows users to engage in dialogue regarding general life science starting with the fertilized egg issue and gathers civic opinion on the topic, aiming to then link this with policy-making. Saisho claimed, "The state is responsible for science having not been discussed in terms that are easy to understand. I would like to see specialists and scientists take action. The final objective is to have the state make this sort of information public."

4) Hideto Nakajima
He questioned the role of journalism in "The Consensus Conference and Journalism." In a "consensus conference," for example, approximately 10 members of the general public would hear a group of specialists explain matters regarding a given topic, such as the pros and cons related to the use of genetically engineered products and the like. Afterwards, the members of the public would discuss the topic and reach a consensus, finally compiling a report. The consensus conference was born in Denmark, and since then several have been held in Japan. Participating specialists reported that they found the conferences "educational," testifying that both the specialists and general public alike were able to learn from the conferences. He commented that we could anticipate such direct dialogue between the general public and specialists to increase in the future. When this happens, the mass media's position will inevitably diminish as a result. In Denmark and the United Kingdom, associated state organizations have been holding consensus conferences, and in Japan such conferences have been sponsored through the assistance of NGO and volunteer organizations. However, a neutral party would be a preferable host. "These conferences are effective if held when a problem is starting to arise." Suggested Nakajima, "Journalists are good at detecting problems, so what if the media was to organize a consensus conference as a neutral party and, thus, serve as a bridge between science and the public?"
From the floor was asked, "What sort of individual constitutes 'the public'?" Nakajima responded that Denmark selected citizens at random, but that this would not be possible in Japan. There is the stipulation that those with a definite opinion be excluded. Anderson commented that selecting representatives of the public was extremely difficult in the United Kingdom, which has a large number of immigrants. However, he added that the role of journalists is to empower the people and to allow them to make proper ethical decisions.

5) Discussion
Floor Commentator, Carole Cornell, a research associate at Harvard University, introduced a lead poisoning incident that occurred in Mexico. This incident received tremendous press when high levels of lead had been detected in the blood of children at the U.S. embassy who had drunk fruit punch from cups with a lead glaze. Production of the cups was then prohibited, causing more than 500,000 ceramicists to be out of work. A method of producing the glaze without using lead exists, but this was not reported. Carole Cornell commented that reporting on the incident was one-sided and unbalanced, adding that surely such cases occurred in other countries as well.
Itaru Yasui, Professor with the Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo criticizes the press, saying, "The media is willing to report when something is not safe, but then the number of articles and features drop dramatically once something is deemed safe. The media should report quantitatively on to what extent something is safe and to what extent it is dangerous." He adds, "There are cases where something may not be 100% safe, but there may be no cause for concern." He posed the question, "Is the media capable of reporting that there is 'no cause for concern'?" To which, Anderson countered, "There are two issues. The first is that the media's attention is directed toward new material. The second is that scientists forget that risk is always subjective. To the average person, driving, for example, may carry risk, but it doesn't pose a problem." Iijima commented, "People have the impression that science is scary. It would seem that scientists who fail to provide the public with explanations are responsible for this. While 70% of the public responded that it gained its medical and scientific information from the television, less than 20% it gained information from physicians. I would like to pose that this problem lies with the scientists." To this, Nakajima then retorted, "It's unreasonable to expect scientists to provide explanations. The journalists should approach the scientists, and not only just approach them, but serve to edit this information." Tadataka Shirouzu, Assistant Coordinator and Deputy Editor of the Yomiuri Shimbun's Lifestyle Department, commented, "People act irrationally. Assuming that people will behave rationally if given the proper knowledge is erroneous."
Yoshitaka Tsubono, Lecturer with the Graduate School of Medicine for Tohoku University, stated that studies considered significant by researchers are rarely reported. Conversely, data considered insignificant is reported at academic gatherings. He commented, "The media tends to report only that which is easy to report," emphasizing that journalists and researchers needed to cooperate. Lisbeth Fog, President, Colombian Association of Science Journalism, reported that after comparing coverage on genetic engineering as reported in 26 Columbian newspapers with 9 foreign newspapers, she reached the conclusion that news sources were biased and that journalists had the tendency to use sensational wording. She appealed to journalists, saying, "Both the journalists and the readers are confused. The readers want accurate information that will allow them to think carefully on the matter."
A comment was received from the floor saying, "The public is not ignorant. It doesn't accept blindly everything that is reported." Yuichi Iijima commented that "The media's role is not that of educator. I would like to see for the readers as well to have a more discerning eye and select information of high quality."
Finally, Hazuki Saisho commented, "Whether one is a journalist, a scientist, or a member of the general public, the important thing is to be aware and to take care with respect to information reporting, and to build whatever comes next using this care and awareness. This process should then be repeated over and over again." Nakajima pointed out that the problem was that the people doing the reporting are not familiar with science. Alun Anderson then concluded with, "Shouldn't the scientists have to understand the general populace? Scientists should maintain a more open dialogue with the public."