Tobacco Documents Online

I ~%`~'~` 4c lPls 0 a.fa•% , -~_Fi%-~:x ensational Approach to Lay Stories Decried at Science Writers Meeting By Worfd Widr bredicol Neve $ereier Foar COLLINS, Cot.o:-Science writers from 15 Rocky Mountain and Plains states were warned here that there is in- creasing misuse of the "break-through" and "promising discovery" type of inedi- cal story in the lay press. " The speaker, one of 35 at a week-long science news writing seminar conducted' by Colorado State University, was Dr. H. Jaek Geiger, postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard'Medical Schoolland a science editor for a national feature service. Dr. Geiger discussed several dangers in the "break-through" type of story: - False hopes are raised in connection with diseases in which no actual break- throughs have been made, for example, acute leukemia, and heart disease. - If misuse of the word'eontinues, "peo- ple are going to get tired of it," and'when true advances are made, they will doubt them. - The public will get the mistaken idea that "this is what scientific research is for-to make break-throughs," when ac- tually most basic research is done simply for its own sake and to advance under- standing. In connection with the first point, Dr. Geiger told the 22 writers here that before he became a physician he wrote a number of '"break-through" type stories. Later, as a physician, when he found how hard it was to inform patients and families that no break-through existed, such as in acute leukemia, he decided that too often writers use the expression "in attempr to make a story, interesting." Dr. Geiger was science editor for International News Service before going to medical school. He outlined two other problems in lay science writing: - Too little checking of the accuracy and validity of statistics contained in scientific papers and reports. - A tendency to accept news releases and papers in scientific journals without enough aggressive questioning. DR. H. JACKGEIGER Arthur Snider, science editor of the Chicago Daily News, cautioned reporters to guard against •'overenthusiasm of scien- lists'reportingdiscoveries."He noted that "most discoveries fall by the wayside." In commenting on the difficulty in writ- ing science news for the lay press, he said that it is hard to "conceptualize abstrac- tions, and abstractions make up science in large part." He also said it is sometimes necessary for a writer in presenting a science story to the lay public to compromise between "incomprehensible accuracy and compre- hensible inaccuracy." Gene Lindberg, science editor of the Denver Poct;another panelist. said he di- rected his stories toward "the nonexpert" and tried to write them so thabthe nonex- perr could understand them. In a panel discussion of biologic re- search, Dr. Verne L. Van Breeman, direc- tor of research at Mercy Institute for Bio- medical Research in Denverq argued that if technical terms are used often enough, the lay reader will soon pick themup and understand them, T'heodore T. Puck, Ph.D., Profcssor and' head of the DepartmenC of Biophysics at the University of Colorado Medical School, said the "biggest fault" in lay sci, ence writing is"the failure to connect up new discoveries with the main fabric of our body of~ knowledge." He maintained that more background should begiven in articles for the laypub- lic toshow how a current finding fits in with previous work. He said thatadditional faults ofpresent science coverage are: Too Ilttlespacein the news devoted to science and medieine compare&with sports; "Emphasis on the lurid and spectacular"' in science stories; Failure of reporters to check their articles with authorities for accuracy. In an informal' discussion among the writers about scientists; several said'that physicians were the most difficult to cope with. One writer attributed' the trouble to "doctors"having a messiah complex."