Science communication done right

Kudos to Karl Bates, the manager of research communications at Duke University, for his recent launch of research.duke.edu. It's the university's marquee research publication and makes excellent use of the online-only format. There is the regular fodder you find in most traditional university research magazines: news articles, features, photos, Q-and-A's, and so on. There's also a pretty rich, complementary spate of multimedia and Web 2.0 fare: videos, slideshows, and of course, blogs, include a university-sponsored blogging effort of graduate students.

Karl did a great job as a long-time science writer at that other Michigan university in Washtenaw County. Though I was aware of his work for years, I got my first chance to meet Karl at an NSF meeting last fall. It was fun to compare notes and also to find a science writer who's also a sports fan, which is rare. (Yes, it is possible to be enthusiastic about muons and March Madness.)

Karl is also a former print news guy. Before migrating to university PIO-dom, he did a stint as a science writer at The Ann Arbor News, one of the better mid-sized dailies in the Midwest. Nowadays, neither The Ann Arbor News nor any other paper in Michigan employs a science journalist. Michigan is not unique in this respect as papers across the country have slashed science coverage. There is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about this among members of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW). Indeed, most recent NASW meetings and newsletters have been infused with a very discernible dead-man-walking vibe.

I'm a journalism school grad who also has the dubious honor of being the last in a long line of science writing interns at The Dallas Morning News, which whacked its science section several years ago and layed off much of its staff as part of a round of fairly significant round of downsizing. So I'm not at all happy about what's happening in journalism and have real sympathy for all those affected by the industry's woes.

However, I'm also not ready to declare the death of science communication. (Here is where some appropriate disclaimer should go about the difference between working as a journalist and PIO. I don't have the energy to jump into that particular maelstrom at the moment, but maybe in a future blog entry.) In fact, given the proliferation of new media tools, I often think it might be one of the best times to be a science writer, provided you're not afraid to experiment with some of the new technology -- or at least are able to hire a competent 22-year-old to show you the way. I've even thought about pitching something of a "get over it" perspective piece on the subject to the NASW newsletter, ScienceWriters, which I'm sure would endear me mightily to the old guard. All I know is that I'm happy to be a relatively junior member of the science writing tribe contemplating many more years in the field at a time when I'm neither limited to prose and paper nor constrained by the whims of small handful of science reporters and editors.

On another note, make sure to participate in Alfredo's Beamlines of the Word challenge. I believe he's still waiting for answers. Maybe we'll even offer a fabulous prize (new NSCL t-shirt anyone?) to the person who succesfully names all ten.