In today’s world of journalism, science writers are a special breed: well-trained, conversant in a wide range of medical and health issues subjects, and prepared at a moment’s notice to translate for readers the meaning of the latest technological breakthrough. In the past, their calls to action have been Barney Clark, Baby Fae, and, most recently, Bill Schroeder. At the same time, though, they often are viewed within their profession as the backbenchers of big-time journalism, experts in the scientific arcane whose subject matter only occasionally merits page-one attention or prime-time television coverage. What drives these journalists? What pressures are they subjected to as they strive to unravel the mysteries of science for an interested public and advance their own careers? In a landmark study, Jay Winsten, director of the Office of Health Policy Information at the Harvard School of Public Health, set out three years ago to answer these questions in an examination of how news judgments are shaped by organisational, economic, and professional incentives in the news business. He based his findings on interviews with science reporters and editors who are regarded as the best in the business. Winsten had impeccable credentials to undertake this project. He holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology from The Johns Hopkins University and has devoted considerable time to freelance writing for The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times. Winsten’s Office of Health Policy Information serves as a resource center for federal and state policymakers and for journalists. The next project in his research on the impact of the mass media on public understanding of science and health policy involves the development of a primer to help scientists work more effectively with science writers.
Kato S. chophy
Mass communication student
Nagaland University, Lumami
