FEATURES

"Beyond Discovery" is intended to identifyand trace the origins of important recent tech-nologic and medical advances and to revealthe crucial role played by basic research, theapplications of which could not have beenanticipated at the time the original researchwas conducted. An advisory committee ofAcademy members selects topics that, collec-tively, cover the breadth of science. The first 4topics describe the basic research that led tohuman-gene testing, discovery of the ozone-depletion phenomenon, the global-position-ing system, and modern communication: thelaser and fiber-optic revolution.

Developing each topic is an iterativeprocess that includes senior scientists whowere involved in the discoveries beingdescribed working with professional sciencewriters who aim to write compelling articlesfor a nonexpert audience. Those manuscriptsare then subject to extensive reviews by manyother scientists. Their usefulness as a vehicle

for helping the public, as well as policymak-ers, science educators, and scientists readingout of their fields, is now being tested.

The main audiences are policymakers (toinform them about the contributions ofbasic research to current technologies andhuman benefits); science educators (to sup-ply information and models for communi-cating or teaching about basic research); sci-entists (to increase interest in and models forcommunicating about research to the pub-lic); and the college-educated, nonscientifi-cally trained lay public (to build awareness ofthe value of basic research). We now print10 000 copies of each topic, which are dis-tributed to policymakers, science and tech-nology centers and museums, science educa-tors, and a growing list of scientists. Ourdistribution strategy continues to evolve,and we have plans to target audiences thathave a particular interest in a given area. Forexample, the human-gene testing document

was distributed broadly to cancer-researchcenters and disease-related advocacy groups.

All topics are accessible in both HTMLand PDF formats through our Website(http://www2.nas.edu/bsi), where we are inthe process of making links to other relatedWebsites. We also invite feedback directly toan e-mail address, a strategy that has pro-duced scores of useful comments.

As this project continues, I, as projectdirector, would be most interested in hearingyour feedback about the utility of this kindof information. You can 1) access the Webversions of each topic by going to the Web-site noted above, and 2) request hard copiesof the topics produced to date by sending ane-mail to bsi@nas.edu. After you have had achance to review the topics, you are invitedto send your comments directly to me by e-mail (dgerardi@nas.edu).

+Resources on Popular Science CommunicationBarbara GastelAssociate ProfessorTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station,Texas

Jason E MooreGraduate StudentTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station,Texas

Many books and articles offer practical guid-ance in presenting science to the public.Likewise, a considerable body of scholarlyresearch exists on popular science communi-cation. Listed below are written materialsthat offer guidance and research as well asanthologies, newsletters, and electronicresources in the field. Although not exhaus-tive, the annotated list includes many of themain US resources on popular science com-munication and some British writings. Wewelcome suggestions of major resources toinclude in possible future versions of this list.

GuidanceMedical journalism: the writer's guide togetting published. T Albert. New York:Radcliffe Medical Pr; 1995. 127 p. Ameri-can adaptation of British primer on popularmedical writing; intended primarily forphysicians but also suited for other readers.

Science writing today and tomorrow. PBarnes-Svarney. The Writer 1994Nov;107(11):15-7. Basic guidance from ascientist turned science writer.

Late night thoughts about science writing. ABlakeslee. Quill 1994 Nov/Dec;82(9):35-8.Pointers from a longtime science journalist.

A field guide for science writers. D Blum andM Knudson, editors. New York: OxfordUniv Pr; 1997. Science-writing handbookintended largely for students and youngreporters; includes guidance on writing forvarious media and covers various fields.

News & numbers: a guide to reporting statis-tical claims and controversies in health andother fields. V Cohn. Revised ed. Ames (IA):Iowa State Univ Pr; 1994. 190 p. By a long-prominent science reporter; especially strongon topics such as evaluating study design.

Writing science & medical nonfiction: it's eas-ier than you think. MS Dahir. Writer's Digest1995 Nov;75(11):29-31. Basic guidance forthose new to popular science writing.

Presenting science to the public. B Gastel.Philadelphia: ISI Pr; 1983. 146 p. Intendedmainly for scientists; includes guidance onworking with reporters and on communi-cating science to the public directly.

Health writer's handbook. B Gastel. Ames(IA): Iowa State University Press; in press.Guidance on popular medical writing; areasaddressed include information gathering,writing style, ethical issues, and careers.

96 * CBE VIEWS * VOL. 20, NR 3, 1997

FEATURES

Reporting on risk: a journalist's handbookon environmental-risk assessment. MAKamrin, DJ Katz, and ML Walter. LosAngeles: Foundation for American Commu-nications; 1995. 113 p. Focuses mainly onhelping journalists understand risk assess-ment; also includes guidance on presentinginformation on risk.

Developing patient education handouts. TALang. In: Minick P, editor. Biomedical com-munication: selected AMWA workshops.Bethesda (MD): American Medical WritersAssoc; 1994. p 147-52. Brief but wide-ranging guide to developing written materi-als for patients; topics include ways to pro-mote understanding and recall, help readersfind information, and evaluate drafts.

Writing a publishable health article. J Lip-pert. The Writer 1992 Mar;105(3):17-20.Good basic advice for newcomers to popularhealth writing.

Editing and publication: a training manual.I Montagnes. Manila (Philippines): Interna-tional Rice Research Inst; 1991. 429 p.Reaching the nonspecialist, p 155-207.Good unit on presenting scientific materialto nontechnical readers; other units also use-ful in this regard; accompanying trainers'manual available.

Communicating science news: a guide forpublic information officers, scientists, andphysicians. National Association of ScienceWriters. 3rd ed. Greenlawn (NY): NASW;1996. 36 p. Useful handbook for facilitatingcommunication between the scientific com-munity and the news media; includes help-ful sections on news releases, media arrange-ments at scientific meetings, and commonpitfalls; electronic version available athttp://www.nasw.org.

Media guide for academics. JE Rodgers andWC Adams. Los Angeles: Foundation forAmerican Communications; 1994. 72 p.Designed to help scientists and other acade-mics understand and work with the popular

media; includes chapters on working with aninstitution's public information officer andon crisis communications.

Strategies for explaining complex sciencenews. KE Rowan. Journalism Educator 1990Summer;45(2):25-31. Drawing on research,provides advice on presenting scientificexplanations, including those designed toovercome popular misconceptions.

Communicating science: a handbook. MShortland and J Gregory. New York: J Wiley;1991. 186 p. British guide to communicat-ing science to the public; includes sectionson writing and speaking and on workingwith the print and broadcast media.

The cancer handbook: a guide for the non-specialist. DE Ward. Columbus: Ohio StateUniv Pr; 1995. 130 p. Initially developed asReporting on Cancer: A Guide for Journalistsmay be especially useful to reporters cover-ing cancer-related basic science.

The reporter's handbook: an investigator'sguide to documents and techniques. S Wein-berg. 3rd ed. New York: St Martin's Pr;1996. 553 p. Guide to investigative report-ing; includes chapters on healthcare andenvironmental issues.

The reporter's environmental handbook. BWest, PM Sandman, and MR Greenberg.New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers Univ Pr; 1995.346 p. Consists mainly of briefings on envi-ronmental issues; also includes informationon the assessment and perception of risk.

On writing well: an informal guide to writ-ing nonfiction. W Zinsser. 5th ed. NewYork: Harper Perennial; 1994. 300 p. Sci-ence and technology, p 156-73. Good chap-ter on writing science articles for the public;other chapters, such as those on basics ofnonfiction writing, also can aid in writingabout science.

Description, Analysis, and CommentaryCommunicating science to the public. D

Evered and M O'Connor, editors. New York:J Wiley; 1987. 214 p. Conference papersaddressing scientific literacy and learning,science reporting, museums, and the public'sperceptions of science and scientists.

Scientists and journalists: reporting scienceas news. SM Friedman, S Dunwoody, andCL Rogers, editors. New York: The FreePress; 1986. 333 p. Deals largely with theinteractions of scientists and journalists;contains a good bibliography, mainly fromthe 1970s and early 1980s.

The visible scientists. R Goodell. Boston:Little, Brown; 1977. 2 4 2 p. Thoughtful lookat "science celebrities" and their context;among figures discussed are Paul Ehrlich,Margaret Mead, Linus Pauling, Carl Sagan,and BF Skinner.

Social scientists meet the media. C Haslamand A Bryman, editors. New York: Rout-ledge; 1994. 256 p. A scientist-centeredexploration of how the media portray thesocial sciences and how journalists and socialscientists perceive and relate to one another;includes advice on interacting with the press.

Covering the plague: AIDS and the Ameri-can media. J Kinsella. New Brunswick (NJ):Rutgers Univ Pr; 1989. 299 p. Study ofAIDS coverage during the early years of theepidemic.

Health in the headlines: the stories behindthe stories. S Klaidman. New York: OxfordUniv Pr; 1991. 249 p. Review and critiqueof mass-media coverage of major health-riskissues; topics include smoking, cholesterol,radon, and AIDS.

Science and the mass media. H Kriegh-baum. New York: New York Univ Pr; 1967.242 p. Pioneering account of science cover-age by the US media.

A survey of activities in public communica-tion of science and technology in the UnitedStates. BV Lewenstein. In: Schiele B, editor.

CBE VIEWS * VOL. 20, NR 3, 1997 * 97

FEATURES

When science becomes culture. Boucherville(Quebec): Univ of Ottawa Pr; 1994. p 119-78. Extensive overview of US activities inpopular science communication; includesinformation on activities of government,mass media, museums, nongovernmentalorganizations, and other institutions; alsoprovides historical perspectives.

When science meets the public. BV Lewen-stein, editor. Washington: American Assocfor the Advancement of Science; 1992.212 p. Workshop proceedings; includes casestudies; contains chapters not only on televi-sion and newspapers, but also on museumsand girls' clubs as vehicles for communicat-ing science to the public.

The literature of science: perspectives onpopular scientific writing. MW McRae, edi-tor. Athens (GA): Univ of Georgia Pr; 1993.321 p. Scholarly essays exploring the por-trayal of scientific knowledge in popularwriting about science; areas consideredinclude the relationship between scientificknowledge and culture, myth, the role ofpersuasion, and the use of language.

Medicine and the media. [Multiauthoredseries.] Lancet 1996;347:1087-90, 1163-6,1240-3, 1308-11, 1382-6, 1459-63, 1533-5, 1600-3. Among topics addressed: publicunderstanding of science, newsworthiness,information sources, journals and the popu-lar media, and tensions between medicineand the media.

Journalists reading journals. JA Miller. CBEViews 1990 Apr; 13(2):44-5. Highlights of asurvey of science journalists regarding theiruse of journals as sources.

Health risks and the press: perspectives onmedia coverage of risk assessment andhealth. M Moore, editor. Washington: TheMedia Inst; 1989. 111 p. Essays by journal-ists and academics on risk communicationand related topics; also includes broad per-spectives on media coverage of science.

Importance of the lay press in the transmissionof medical knowledge to the scientificcommunity. DP Phillips, EJ Kanter, BBednarczyk, and PL Tastad. N Engl J Med1991;325:1180-3. Drawing on a "naturalexperiment", condudes that coverage in themass media increases scientists' awareness ofjournal articles.

Selling science: how the press covers scienceand technology. D Nelkin. Revised ed. NewYork: WH Freeman; 1995. 217 p. Examinesthe complex relationship between scientistsand journalists, as well as both groups' influ-ence on the coverage of science in the lay press.

Science reporting--today and tomorrow. JTroan. Science 1960;131:1193-6. Perspec-tive from nearly 40 years ago.

Medical researchers and the media: attitudestoward public dissemination of research. MSWilkes and RL Kravitz. JAMA1992;268:999-1003. Survey of 1st authorsof scientific articles in the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association and New Eng-landJournal ofMedicine; respondents gener-ally reported substantial coverage of theirresearch and showed positive attitudestoward the press.

OtherNews reporting: science, medicine, and hightechnology. W Burkett. Ames (IA): IowaState Univ Pr; 1986. 160 p. Combinesinstruction and description/analysis/com-mentary; includes a chapter on the history ofpopular science writing.

Directory of science communication coursesand programs in the United States. S Dun-woody, E Crane, and B Brown. 3rd ed.Madison (WI): Cent for Environmental andEducation Studies; 1996. 41 p. Guide tocourses and programs that US universitiesand colleges offer in communicating scienceto lay audiences; to order, contact SharonDunwoody, Center for EnvironmentalCommunication and Education Studies,School of Journalism and Mass Communi-

cation, University of Wisconsin-Madison;608-263-3389; fax, 608-262-1361; e-maildunwoody@facstaff.wisc.edu.

AnthologiesThe new science journalists. T Anton and RMcCourt, editors. New York: BallantineBooks; 1995. 340 p. Compilation of recentAmerican magazine articles, newspaper arti-cles, and book excerpts on science; consistsmainly of fairly lengthy pieces that draw onextensive research, use literary techniques, orboth.

Medicine, media and morality: Pulitzerprize-winning writings on health-relatedtopics. H-D Fischer, editor. Malabar (FL):Krieger Publishing Company; 1992. 263 p.Contains 36 Pulitzer-winning newspaperarticles published over the years on a widevariety of health-related topics.

Best science writing: readings and insights. RGannon, editor. Phoenix (AZ): Oryx Press;1991. 193 p. Examples of award-winningpopular science writing; the dozen authorsrepresented include Richard Selzer, CarlSagan, and John McPhee.

NewslettersScienceWriters. Newsletter of the NationalAssociation of Science Writers; for informa-tion, contact NASW, PO Box 294, Green-lawn NY 11740; 516-757-5664; fax,516-757-0069; e-mail 71223.3441@compuserve.com.

Sciphers. Newsletter of Science Communi-cation Interest Group, Association for Edu-cation in Journalism and Mass Communica-tion; for information, contact AEJMC,University of South Carolina, Columbia SC29208-0251; 803-777-2005; fax, 803-777-4728; e-mail aejmc@sc.edu.

SEJournal. Newsletter of the Society ofEnvironmental Journalists; for information,contact SEJ, PO Box 27280, PhiladelphiaPA 19118; 215-247-9710; fax, 215-247-9712; e-mail SEJOffice@aol.com.

98 * CBE VIEWS * VOL. 20, NR 3, 1997

FEATURES

Electronic Resources (http://www.nasw.org/). Includes NASWEurekAlert! (http://www.eurekalert.org). materials, links to other sites.Server for research news in science, medi-cine, and engineering. New England Science Writers (http://www

FACSNET (http://www.facsnet.org). Excel-lent resource for journalists; includesprimers, background, sources, and links ofuse in science reporting.

National Association of Science Writers

.umass.edu/pubaffs/nesw/). Hub with linksto science organizations, science publications,science news services, and more.

Society of Environmental Journalists (http://www.sej.org). Resource primarily for thosedoing environmental reporting; includes SEJ

materials, as well as links to sources of envi-ronmental information.

PCST-L. Electronic mailing list on publiccommunication of science and technology;to subscribe, send the command "subscribePCST-L firstname lastname", where "first-name" is your first name and "lastname" isyour last name, by electronic mail to list-proc@cornell.edu; for information, contactBruce Lewenstein at BVL1@cornell.edu. 9

Highlights of the CBE Views Survey ResponsesSeth Beckerman, ChairCBE Views Task Force

The survey "Review the Views" was distrib-uted at the 1996 CBE Annual Meeting andwas also printed in the June-July issue ofCBE Views. Of the 60 members whoresponded to the survey, 46 responded at theannual meeting and 14 responded to thesurvey in CBE Views. Because the survey wasnot designed to randomly sample the CBEmembership and because the total responserepresents only 5% of the membership (60of 1226 members), the results (pages 101and 102) must be interpreted with caution.

The survey was designed to learn how wellour periodical is serving members and to findout whether members wanted CBE Views, ora new CBE publication, to be devoted topeer-reviewed, research-based articles on thescholarly publication of science.

About 62% of respondents said thatwithin the next 3 to 5 years, they would liketo see CBE Views retain the mix of contentand the format it now has (item 20). As apublication to meet member needs, 62% ofrespondents said CBE Views was very effec-tive or effective (item 6). When asked howCBE Views measures up as a "calling card" topromote CBE membership, 47% of respon-dents said it was very effective or effective,and another 32% said it was somewhat

effective (item 7). As a way to keep up withCBE news and activities, 37% of respon-dents said CBE Views was very effective, andanother 52% said it was effective (item 8).

Respondents had numerous commentsabout publishing the reports of annual meet-ing sessions (items 14, 15, 21). Several werefrustrated by the length of time it takes topublish all the reports, and some suggestedthat all annual meeting reports should appearin 1 publication as soon as possible after theannual meeting, either as a special issue ofCBE Views or as another publication. In thepast it has usually taken a full year after theannual meeting to publish all meetingreports. Other respondents thought thatannual meeting reports were not necessarybecause they had attended the meeting, per-haps forgetting that less than 25% of mem-bers travel to our meetings. And even thosewho do attend often face tough choicesabout participation in concurrent sessions.

In seeking to meet member needs overthe next few years, respondents were askedto list their greatest challenges in scientificpublishing (item 12). Of the numerouscomments, Internet technology, online edit-ing, and other electronic technology issuesemerged as a theme, as did the pressure ofdeadlines, staff shortages, and generally try-ing to do more with less.

When asked how CBE Views could help

meet their challenges (item 13), manyrespondents seemed to focus on articles thatwould help with specific tasks-managingan editorial office; descriptions of "how oth-ers do it"; questions and answers about thestyle manual, changes in publishing, peerreview, and shared experiences.

In response to the question about expan-sions or additions to CBE Views (item 14), avariety of directly applicable, practical fea-tures were listed: problem-solving features,information for those new in the field; morejob announcements; "nitty-gritty editingstuff". Other suggestions included moreglobal information, more in-depth articles,and more on ethics, electronic publishing,and nonmedical topics. Two of the 31responses recommended no expansion.

If CBE Views were to be shortened (item15), some aspects to be deleted included"Looking Back" and annual meeting reports(but publish them in a separate publicationor publish selected reports). Several calledfor more concise writing.

In general, many members who respondedto the survey seem to be pleased with thechanges in CBE Views under the editorship ofMartha Tacker, and from their comments, lookforward to continued improvements.

CBE VIEWS * VOL. 20, NR 3, 1997 99