Re: Project PM Science Improvement Project
Subject: Re: Project PM Science Improvement Project
From: Robert Luhn <luhn@ncse.com>
Date: 8/3/10, 18:42
To: Mano Singham <mano.singham@case.edu>
CC: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>, Todd Essig <tessig@me.com>, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>

The ProfNet model is the closest I can think of in this realm. (This is before it was bought by...um..PRNewswire?) If I was writing an article on antimatter and cosmology, I could query the ProfNet network, and get a half dozen physicists to reply. They'd definitely offer me technical counsel, help me sift my priorities, and on some (rare) occasions, actually look at a hunk of my article, to make sure I'd gotten the technical points right.

True be told, at NCSE, I've provided the same service to journalists writing about evolution.

I guess one issue that comes to mind--this is me putting on my journalist cap of 30 years--would said  journalists (and their impatient managing editors) have enough time to really do some kind of collaboration? And would said managing editor consider intimate input like this, from an outside (non journalistic) source...a problem? A conflict of interest perhaps? I mean, at NCSE, I dish out science to the media. But I naturally have an agenda. So...while I can see (in some circumstances) a journalist pairing up with a (presumably) independent professor to tackle a subject...I doubt said journalist would come to my organization. Although certainly, I could steer said journalist to someone who was 1) not affiliated with NCSE, but 2) had the scientific cred to help said journalist. So....

r




On 7/31/2010 1:46 PM, Mano Singham wrote:
Addressing Barrett's question:


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?


This would be new model. I have been trying to think of any examples of this kind of pairing in the past and have failed to come up with anything.

I think it is an interesting idea. While some scientists can write fairly well and usually know what they are talking about, they lack certain important skills that a professional freelance writer has. One is that scientists are used to writing for peers in a fairly specialized format and find it hard to tailor their writing to the needs of a particular popular audience or a publication. They also lack the ability to find a good hook or an arresting opening paragraph and are unaware of the wide array of publications that might be receptive to their work. These are things that the freelance writers would be skilled at.

I think it is worth a shot. As I said, this would be new and that alone makes it interesting.

Mano






Mano Singham, Director
University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education (UCITE)
Allen Building 101, LC 7025
Case Western Reserve
10900 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44106
Phone    : 216-368-1224
Fax         : 216-368-0197
Email     : mano.singham@case.edu






On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Gentlemen-

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

First, I’ll 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 I’d 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, I’d like to reprint what you wrote to me on the topic, unless you’d 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.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302


-- 
Robert Luhn
Director of Communications
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x314
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
luhn@ncse.com
http://www.ncse.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/evolution.ncse
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/NatCen4ScienceEd
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ncse