A blog article discussing the arguments about how science is communicated to the masses and the importance of the internet in this process, is akin to preaching to the converted here on Nature Network. There has been much written recently (here, here and here) on how conventional scientific journalism is fading faster than the ink on last weeks newspapers, and what is replacing this. The rapid rise and popularity of blogs and other electronic formats of information are touted as replacing the print form, but many argue that these merely supplement rather than substitute conventional journalistic reporting.

I was therefore interested to hear what the opinions were of a range of scientific editors and writers at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Columbia Biological Society and Columbia Science Review. Although the aim of the meeting was to feature a panel discussion about careers in science journalism, the discussion evolved into a broader theme of the changing nature of communicating science and the role of science and its impact on society.

The panel consisted of five experienced writers / editorial including;

Ingrid Wickelgren – an editor and writer at Scientific American Mind who develops articles on psychology and neuroscience. Ingrid started as a freelance writer for numerous publications including Popular Science, Business Week and the New York Times, before joining Scientific American Mind.

Davide Castelvecchi – studied mathematics at the University of Rome and left academia to study science writing at the University of California at Santa Cruz before eventually becoming an editor at Scientific American

Claudia Dreifus – an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a regular contributor to the Science section of the New York Times. She interviews and writes about prominent scientists in the column “A Conversation With…”.

George Musser – a editor and writer for Scientific American who developed journalism and writing as a hobby before accidentally getting into science writing though a desire to escape the cold winters of upstate New York.

Noah Gray – editor for Nature, neuroscientist, blogger and twitterer.

After an individual introduction (condensed above) about how each person found their way into science writing and editing, a panel and audience discussion commenced. What became apparent from the panel was that the outlook for traditional science journalism as a career move is bleak. Not new information for anyone following the recent news of layoffs and altogether abolishment of science departments in the mass media. The role of blogs and the internet in replacing the traditional print form drew some apprehension from a number of the panel, who thought the print form was still preferred through in part its role in supporting the source. Some championed the role of blogs are other online forums for science as a way to bridge the broader reporting of science to interest people to seek out and find more detailed online information.

The questions then led onto why this change is occurring and whether the state of scientific literacy in America may be a factor in this. A range of interesting points were raised by the panel to explain the lack of interest from large parts of the population in science. One such point is that the perception of science and scientist have changed, and not necessarily for the good. Blame the media for one was a point; the perception of the “mad scientist” and their Armageddon devices in movies and the dividing issue such as stem cells and evolution. One of the main problems perceived was that scientists are not getting their message out clearly and can be perceived as elitist. Claudia Dreifus pointed out that as children we are naturally curious about the world around us, but through our development into adults, most of us lose our interests in science.

So what has changed and what can we do about this? Isn’t it the role of “science” journalism to get the message out? Are we failing as scientists to help with this? Perhaps, the evolving role of the science journalist could be something altogether different if we are to keep the interest of a greater percentage of the general public, and explain what it is we do. It seem that for most we have already lost them from and interest or understanding of science during childhood, and no matter what is tried this will not change. Therefore, could the evolving role of the science journalist be to learn how to maintain and develop the curiosity of children in the world around us?