Re: Project PM Science Improvement Project

Gentlemen-

Thanks to each of you for expressing interest in Project PMs Science Journalism Improvement Project, which Id like to open for discussion today in hopes that we can agree on an actionable plan by September 1st, after which Ill announce our intentions in my monthly column for Skeptical Inquirer, as well as in other venues.

First, Ill introduce our initial participants.

Todd Essing, Ph.D, is a training and supervising analyst at the William Alanson White Institute as well as a columnist for Psychology Today and True/Slant. In 1992, he founded a pre-web online network for mental health professionals, which itself gave rise to an annual symposium as well as the first online continuing education course.

Robert Luhn is director of communications for the National Center for Science Education. Formerly he served as an executive editor at CNET Networks and has worked with other new media outlets as well.

Mano Singham is director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve, as well as an adjunct professor of physics and the author of several books on evolution, the philosophy of science, and related subjects. He is also a fellow of the American Physical Society and an active blogger.

Clark Robinson is a retired lawyer who has been instrumental in helping me to bring Project PM from conception to our current development status, in organizing participants, and in helping to design the various frameworks under which we hope to eventually operate. Formerly, he worked for the U.S. Social Security Administration.

In addition, we may bring on a few other participants at some point in the very near future, although Id like to keep this group reasonably small as our discussion will be necessarily informal and somewhat haphazard until such time as we implement some improved methodology or format above and beyond an e-mail discussion.

To start off, I will again note that the purpose of this group is to devise an effective strategy by which to improve the state of science journalism in the U.S. and elsewhere, and will also remind you all that my original and basic approach to this involved pairing freelance writers with members of the scientific community and having them produce articles which would presumably be better than the sort one generally sees in that genre, and then to assist in the sale and publication of those articles by, say, providing a database of contact info for editors at various publications and otherwise facilitating the process in whatever way we can.

I discussed this briefly with each of you, although thus far I have only spoken about the details with Robert Luhn, who has raised several specific issues (and with your permission, Robert, Id like to reprint what you wrote to me on the topic, unless youd like to summarize those points yourself; please let me know).To start out, then, I would like to pose the following question to each of you:

Would the pairing of freelancers with scientists described above be a viable foundation for our efforts to improve science journalism? If so, do you have any suggestions regarding the specific aspects of how this would best be pursued? If not, do you have another foundation you would like to propose?

Please hit reply all so that each participant can view your answer. Again, my thanks to everyone for participating, and please get in touch if you have any questions.