How the Press Covers Science

Here are today's "Science" headlines from several news services via Yahoo! News:

AFP
* Third trans-Kashmir crossing opens for quake relief
* Ancient 'Godzilla' crocodile found in Argentina
* Half of South Asia quake dead were likely children: UNICEF
* Crop yield is good news for drought-hit Sahel states
* Mediterranean states and EU pledge environmental clean up

New York Times
* The Pope on Creation

BBC News
* Super-rocket's next critical test
* Water builds the heat in Europe

AP
* N.J. Biologist Studies Ice-Hardy Worms
* Huge Meteorite Found Underground in Kan.
* New Chewing Gum Could Replace Toothbrush
* Baby Panda at San Diego Zoo Named Su Lin
* Evidence of Huge Ancient Crocodile Found

Reuters
* Health problems up in Zimbabwe
* China unlikely to sign on to Kyoto emissions cuts
* Germany secures delay in EU chemical reform deal
* Proposed condom labels warn against spermicide

Very few of these stories deal with science. Most deal with the physical world, and thus pose a problem for news agencies.

Most of the "news" seems to be about people and their social or political behavior. So stories about earthquakes, crop yields, the environment, and health conditions are termed "science". The New York Times article (which to be fair, they called "international") is religious in tone, not science.

The science news is very heavy on "charismatic" stories, that have very little scientific importance -- ancient crocodiles, and a baby panda.

There are technology stories -- rockets and chewing gum! The story about the EU "Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals" bill does seem to have important implications for the industrial chemistry industries, but it is the exception. The public fascination with rocket technology seems far in excess of its importance, and many technology stories seem to find news space because of their cuteness.

On the other hand, the news that is called "technology" news is almost always about information and communication technologies, and seldom about advances in manufacturing, transportation, agricultural, biomedical or any of the other technologies critical to our lives. I am a great fan of information and communication technologies, but the other technology news is also important. As the failures of the flood control works around New Orleans has demonstrated, so too news about engineering technology can be important! And of course, Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate the importance of news about military technologies.

Where is the coverage of the physical sciences -- of chemistry, physics, botany, zoology, microbiology, and geology. Where is the coverage of the social sciences -- of anthropology, sociology and economics?

I am not against the press covering topics that interest people, and indeed items that are newsworthy such as the South Asian quake or hunger in the Sahel. Perhaps what is needed is a category of news about "physical events" as distinguished from "political", "economic", and "social" events.

I am concerned that important science is not covered in the popular news. The "science" press can find enough important materials to fill its pages. By science press I mean not the scientific journals serving their specialized scientific communities, but those seeking to inform generally about scientific developments, including Scientific American, and large portions of Science and Nature, as well as many other magazines. While many scientists read these publications, they do so for general awareness of what is going on in other fields, and generally not for developments in their own field of specialization. The science press produces materials for a general, intelligent, educated audience, but not for the specialist.

The mass media need better editorial work on science and technology. Opinion leaders and the general public need to be better informed, not only on what is going on in the physical world, but about important advances in technology that affect the economy and their everyday world, and about the changing understanding of the world developed by the sciences.