So you want to be a science broadcaster?

Many youngsters who have studied science hanker after a career in the media. Several courses have sprung up to satisfy this desire. But they cost.

The Wellcome Trust, which used to fund the ABSW's own scheme of student bursaries, has stepped into the breach with new Science Media Studentships.

In this case, the support will go to "practising biomedical scientists". They will have the opportunity to study for a postgraduate qualification in Science Media Production at Imperial College London and to follow this with a six-month placement working in the broadcast industry.

Biosciences Federation Science Communication Award 2008

The Biosciences Federation has unleashed this year's Science Communication Award. The idea is to reward "research-active bioscientists from UK universities or institutes who make an outstanding and consistent contribution to communicating science to the public". The deadline for nominations is 24 August 2008.

Aimed at working researchers rather than science writers, the award comes in two flavours, £500 for new researcher and £1500 for established researcher. (That should probably be the other way round, if you consider the need for the cash.) The winners will collect their awards at a Biosciences Federation meeting in London on 12 November 2008 which will also have a Science Communication event.

Yet another minister fingers the media

It is that time of the year again, the Glyndebourne Festival is underway and the Public Engagement in Science and Technology (PEST) season has started. In the same week when the first Glyndebourne production opened to mixed reviews, we had the annual bash masterminded the BA, the PEST practitioner par excellence. As yet there have been few reviews of this gig.

Such is the stature of the subject these days that the BA can even drag a government minister along to mutter some fine words at its Science Communication Conference. In this case, the speaker was Ian Pearson, Minister of State for Science and Innovation.

In his speech at the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pearson posed a number of questions in his conclusions. The one most relevant to members of the ABSW was "how can the media provide more accurate and balanced information that helps to improve scientific literacy?"

It seems that there will be yet another consultation paper with words on public engagement. You have been warned.

Science in the media goes up the poll

"Television was the most popular (61%) and most trusted (47%) medium for information about science, though there was a preference for traditional (47%), rather than thematic (27%) TV channels." That is how the EU sums up the findings of the latest survey of "attitudes to science in the media".

Check out the Press Releases on Europa. The headline sums it up: "Big differences still exist between Member States in attitudes to science in the media".

The press release marks the European Forum on Science Journalism in Barcelona on 3-4 December. The page also has links to the full survey, along with "Two special surveys of European scientists and media professionals" which are supposed to "identify key issues impacting the coverage of scientific information, and the professional challenges of science journalism across Europe".

Check out the "survey of European media professionals on how European research is presented and covered in and by the media". There is also the European Guide to Science Journalism Training "giving, for the first time, a full picture of training opportunities for science journalists across Europe".

Is this another new disease?

Every now and then, there is an outbreak of the well known infection of telling journalists how to do their job. The latest flair up comes from The Academy of Medical Sciences which has just put out the report Identifying the environmental causes of disease.

According to the summary, this "sets out five key recommendations and offers guidelines for the wide range of stakeholders involved in generating, communicating and translating research into the environmental causes of disease into policy and practice". The academy set up the study "to address increasing scepticism amongst professionals and members of the public that had arisen when claims from one such study were so soon reversed by those of another".

Given the "public" angle in there, it is no surprise that the document deals with communication. That's why there is a separate section on how to get the message across to hacks. They dress this up as "Guidelines for science or medical writers and journalists".

That is their first mistake, science and medical writers aren't the source of most of the propblems. These happen when such stories fall into the hands of people who are not familiar with how science works.

There is also an interesting section "Communicating the findings from causal research". This makes the important point that when it comes to communication "the prime responsibility lies with the researcher to communicate accurately, clearly and fairly what the study set out to do, how it sought to accomplish its aims and how secure were the findings, as well as the confidence that can be placed on causal conclusions, and the generalisability of the conclusions to the population at large."

They weren't quite devoid of knowledgeable input when they wrote this. Along with lots of eminent professors and scientists there was one Dr Geoff Watts, FMedSci, Freelance Science and Medical Journalist.

Descartes time again

"Nominations are now open for the next European Research Awards, which include the Descartes prizes for trans-national collaborative research, and the Descartes prizes for science communication. The total prize money on offer is EUR 1.7 million. Applications must be received by 17 July."

Check out the details over at the CORDIS: FP7 : News room.