The prospect of talking with journalists can be somewhat daunting for scientists, just as it is for many people in all walks of life. However, scientists and reporters have more in common than some people may realize.

As Terri Lomax explained at an ASPB media workshop sponsored by the Committee on Public Affairs last summer in Denver, traits often found in both scientists and journalists are: free and independent thinking, competitive natures, curiosity and higher levels of education.

Botany and Plant Pathology Professor at Oregon State University, Lomax is now directing a public education program on biotechnology with the support of the OSU College of Agricultural Sciences. Lomax noted that working with the media is key to communicating with the public. She said some advance preparation can help the media contact go more smoothly.

Lomax said that in preparing for an interview, a scientist should learn more about the reporter, publication and its readership. A scientist needs to have a goal in mind for the interview and deliver a focused message. Practice in advance by the scientist in answering expected potential questions can contribute to more accurate and confident answers during the actual interview.

If the reporter attempts to divert a scientist off the point or poses a hypothetical question, it’s important for the scientist to stay on message and politely transition back to the relevant points the scientist wants to make.

“As Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ‘Remember, they (reporters) get to ask the questions, but you get to give the answers,’” Lomax remarked.

Lomax worked tirelessly throughout the summer and early fall to educate the media and the public about the effects Oregon ballot issue Measure 27 could have on consumers and producers. Measure 27 would have required mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods in Oregon. (A story on the outcome of the ballot measure can be found in the ASPB News.)

Committee on Public Affairs Chair Peggy Lemaux coordinated the media workshop. Lemaux is Cooperative Extension Specialist at the University of California, Berkeley. She promotes public understanding of biotechnology through an active outreach program.

Lemaux said responding to calls from journalists merit top priority. “I will drop everything to talk to the press,” Lemaux said. She noted that too often, the media use misleading terminology such as “Frankenfood” and “killer corn.” Scientists need to use more accurate terminology in discussing genetically modified foods and should not repeat misleading terms if they are used by a reporter in a question.

Denver Post science writer Diedtra Henderson told ASPB members at the workshop that they need to convey their key points to the journalist. Scientists should be able to answer questions on their research such as, “What does it matter?” Scientists need to convey to the reporter what the relevance of their research is to the public. Henderson implied that this should not be difficult to do, because people have a life-long interest in science.

In talking to a journalist, scientists should speak as if they are speaking to a friend, Henderson advised. However, it is important to know that information from the scientist is not generally considered off the record if the off-the-record request is made subsequent to the scientist’s actual comment. Off-the-record comment agreements between scientists and journalists need to be agreed to by both parties in advance of the comment being made by the scientist. Some media relations advisors also warn that if you don’t want to see a comment to a reporter in print, it is best simply not to make the comment.

Alan McHughen, Biotechnology Specialist/Geneticist, University of California, Riverside, related some of his experiences in working with the media. Author of Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, McHughen interacts frequently with the media.

McHughen said a survey seeking public views on the credibility of different sources found that Americans have considerable respect for scientists and family physicians. “However, don’t assume that you’ll always have this. Don’t be arrogant,” McHughen advised.

Writing letters to the editor to cite a need for corrections in a science story, is one of the ways that McHughen has found effective in getting to know journalists. He said the letter might not get published, but it is likely the editor will have the reporter call him up to clarify any facts in dispute noted in the letter. At that point, a contact is made and McHughen can be identified by the writer as a valuable source in a particular subject area, such as genetic modification of foods.

When writing a op-ed piece for a newspaper, the scientist has a larger word count than for a letter to the editor to work with and you can “let yourself go a little bit” in delivering your message, McHughen advised.

For advice from a newspaper editorial page editor to ASPB members on how to get letters to the editor and op-eds published, visit the ASPB Public Affairs web site at http://www.aspb.org/publicaffairs/editorial/editor.cfm