Unsporting gesture at the FT

Remember the fuss about decisions to abandon specialist science reporting in places like CNN? An underlying theme of the discussion was that science journalism is somehow special. True, maybe, if you are a science writer, but business journalism, law journalism and sports journalism, for example, can all lay claim to needing special expertise and dedicated teams.

It is a shame when any of specialist teams gets the chop. But showing that science is not that special, an item in Cision, Media bulletin, tells us that the piece tells us that the Financial Times has "announced plans to cease sports coverage as of 14th February following ongoing cutbacks at the newspaper".

There is also a report on this development on the Guardian's web site. This tells us that the latest cuts are just the latest of many on the FT.

The good news has to be that science reporting is more important to the FT than sports coverage. If CNN were to chop its sports team, that really would signal the end of civilisation as they know it.

Media fellows report back

The British Science Association, formerly the "BA," has reports from last year's wave of media fellows on its web site. The 10 fellows worked all over the media, radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. They have all filed accounts of their gruelling times.

Emma Byrne spent some time on The Financial Times, working with Clive Cookson. Emma's account shows that the scheme is good at waking scientists up to the facts of media life. She writes in her account:

"During my placement I saw a few examples of communication between the media and scientists breaking down. Most of the time this was due to the scientists not understanding the constraints under which the media operate and expecting the nuances and complexities of their work to be conveyed in a 300 word newspaper article or 30 second radio slot. This would have been exactly the type of mistake I would have made before the placement."

So that's one scientist gone back to the lab with a better view of how we work. Let's hope the message gets back to her colleagues.

Applications are now open for this year's fellowships. There are full details on the BSA's shiny new web site.

Creationism – a media plot

Contrary to most of the newspaper coverage, Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Royal Society, does not believe that schools should teach creationism in science classes. The assembled hack pack must be wrong because the Royal Society says so. It has gone as far as to issue a press release pointing out their devious tricks "No change in Society position on creationism".

"Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss," it tells us. That so many hacks got it wrong is a bit of a puzzle.

Maybe it is the language that the good professor used. "I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

Just what he means by a "worldview" is not clear. Isn't evolution, or the whole of science, a worldview?

Maybe the RS doesn't mean the newspapers that unleashed the story. Over in the Financial Times, Clive Cookson quoted Reiss as saying "“Most scientists and science educators believe science teachers should not discuss creationism in science lessons – I disagree.”

Nothing there to suggest teaching creationism as science. Talking about creationism is a far cry from teaching it.

Maybe the RS meant The Times, which wrote "Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government."

The Independent went so far as to editorialise on the story, writing "Sir Michael Reiss, the director of education at the Royal Society, voiced concerns that up to a tenth of children in Britain hold 'creationist' beliefs in the origins of the world". Again, nothing to suggest that he wants creationism to have equal time with evolution.

Perhaps the RS should be a bit more specific in its denials, naming names and saying just which of the many interpretations of Reuss's comments caused it to get so hot under its stuffy collar.

Anyone wanting more depth on the prof's views should turn to the Guardian's Science Blog. Here he writes "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson." Not quite the same as teaching it as science, but all too easily misinterpreted.

Damian Carrington changes his environment, again

It seems like only yesterday that Damian Carrington unplugged himself from his role is web supremo at New Scientist, a job that he effectively created, and became a big cheese at the Financial Times. We now read over at the
Cision Media Bulletin that Damian is seeking a change if environment and is jacking in his job as Interactive Editor, Head of Communities at FT.com. He is to become editor of Guardian Unlimited Environment.

The solution solution

It is always interesting to see what crops up in the Cision Media Bulletin. It is where I first discovered that Damian Carrington had defected from New Scientist, where he ran the web team, to take up a similar role at the Financial Times.

It isn't often, though, that the newsletter provokes a chuckle. The latest issue has an item that will appeal to anyone who reads Private Eye and appreciates its "Solutions" column.

Environmental Technology Publications Ltd are due to launch a new title in April 2008 which will be titled Pollution Solutions and covers water and waste water equipment, air clean up, consultancy services, soil remediation and waste handling. The contact for the title is Marcus Pattison the Publisher and he can be contacted on 01727 858840 and info@envirotechpubs.com

As well as raising a smile, it may also offer an outlet for science writers, which is our excuse for passing it on, with all the gory details.