Why are scientists so dubious, wary, and even downright scared of journalists? While so many politicians, musicians and sportsmen seem to be in their element when talking to the press, attitudes to the fourth estate among the scientific community range from mistrust to open hostility and cynicism. Yet scientific issues have never been more important and newsworthy, and the public appetite for coverage of scientific issues has never been greater. So how can we get scientists to relax and feel comfortable speaking to the media?

It was this question that led to me finding myself sat on a panel last night alongside Wired magazine’s Adam Rogers, freelance science journalist Thomas Hayden, and Paul Rogers of the San Jose Mercury News. Facing us were several dozen scientists, all keen to find out exactly what we look for in a story and how they can get their message across.

One of the main differences between scientists and journalists is the audiences they play to. Scientists care first and foremost about impressing their peers, while one of the main standards used by a newspaper reporter to assess a story’s newsworthiness is “Why would my grandmother care about this?” This disconnect between the two audiences – one highly expert and highly critical, the other non-expert and mostly in search of interesting and entertaining information – often leads scientists to ignore the other golden questions of journalism: “who, why, what, where, how, and so what?”

Add to that the problem that scientists and journalists are fundamentally different in the way they go about presenting information. Every journalism student knows the ‘inverted pyramid’ model of news writing: present the crux of the story right up top, using short, punchy sentences, then fill in the caveats, back story, counter-arguments and other stuff as you proceed further down the page. Scientists, trained to present their reseach as ‘intro-method-results-discussion-conclusion’, frequently get their ‘news’ message completely topsy-turvy when interviewed by journalists.

We had fun asking some of the scientists present to summarize their latest piece of research as if they were pitching it to a harassed news editor. Then, perhaps a little unfairly, we then subjected them to a press conference-style grilling to try and uncover the news angle in their research. Suffice to say, it’s not often I find myself demanding to know what security lessons Pentagon officials can learn from marmots…

So what’s the answer then (to the main question, not the marmots one)? It seems that, for scientists to really communicate with journalists, they need to learn how to package and deliver a succinct, coherent message about what their research is and what it means. A well-thought-out quote means that you are more likely to get your exact views reproduced verbatim in the news. The caveats can come later, once you’ve got people’s attention (and a good journalist will make a point of asking about them anyway).

Not that it should all be a one-way street, of course. Journalists, for their part, need to respect the trust placed in them by scientists who agree to give interviews. A valued contact won’t be a contact for much longer if you misrepresent them or their work.

Most of all though, just as journalists shouldn’t be afraid to delve into science in search of the real picture, scientists shouldn’t be afraid to lend their considerable expertise. Some of the scientists attending the session say that they have simply not bothered to call journalists back when they get interview requests, for fear that they will be misquoted. But bear in mind that if you do that, someone else with less knowledge and a bigger mouth will step forward and get quoted instead of you. Expertise is a very sought-after commodity, and one worth using, if you know how.