SPEC
IAL I
SSU
E: SC
IENC
E&M
-XQH 1R 1 ( : 6 / ( 7 7 ( 5 2 ) ) ( 0 6 )('(5$7,21 2) (8523($1 0,&52%,2/2*,&$/ 62&,(7,(6
The Circle Completed:
Science + Media = Better Science Scientists are usually not popular as communicators. Most often, the communicating is left to science journalists or press relations officers. 2001 Nobel Prize awardee on Physiology or Medicine and Royal Society President Sir Paul Nurse thinks differently about this. No, he does not have time to blog or join any social medium, but he believes that scientists should communicate their work and do it effectively. This should be a part of the scientist’s responsibility, he says, and should be encouraged. Read on for our interview with Sir Paul Nurse and more insights on this issue… FEMS Focus (FF): FEMS has an ambition to tie all microbiologists in Europe together for a stronger communications strategy. With the multicultural setting we have in Europe, we can still be much more connected. What do you think about this? Sir Paul Nurse (SPN): Well, I agree. It’s a
Source: Tone Tønjum
Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, PRS is a British geneticist and cell biologist. He was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Leland H. Hartwell and R. Timothy Hunt for their discoveries regarding cell cycle regulation by cyclin and cyclin dependent kinases. He is the current President of the Royal Society and Chief Executive and Director of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.
very good idea. And the use of social media, it’s something which many scientists, including me, just have not quite properly got into grips with yet. FF: Do you blog? SPN: I don’t blog, but I’m rather busy and I never have the time to blog. He received his undergraduate degree in 1970 from the University of Birmingham and his PhD degree in 1973 from School of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Beginning in 1976, Nurse identified the gene cdc2 in yeast (Schizosaccharomyces pombe). This gene controls the progression of the cell cycle from G1 phase to S phase and the transition from G4 phase to mitosis. In 1987, Nurse identified the homologous gene in human, CDK1, which codes for a cyclin dependent kinase. In addition to the Nobel Prize, Nurse has received numerous awards and honours such as Fellow of the Royal Society (1989), foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (1995), Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research (1998), French Legion d’Honneur (2002), Copley Medal (2005) and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2006). He was knighted in 1999. (source: Wikipedia)
From the Editorial Team Many scientists think that when they are done with their science, the work is completed. But in this modern world of mass media, internet and information overload, this cannot be so. The scientist, busy trying to answer the basic questions of life and making the world a better place, must also be able to communicate the relevance of the work. It is important for non-scientists to know not only what scientists are doing, but also to understand why. What is the relevance and context of the topic addressed? Why is it important? What does it mean to us? This not only makes for good and understandable science, but aids policy-makers and decision-makers as well. FEMS puts a high price on communicating microbiology - not only in Europe, but to the world. That is the aim of this special Focus issue and the FEMS2011 Science and Media workshop. So read on and let us communicate science! Tone Tonjum & Chared Verschuur-Ballo, Editors
FF: Are you on Twitter or Facebook? SPN: No. I’m not on any of these things. My kids are of course. And so are people in my lab. But no, I don’t do it myself. I know people do it, but you do need some time to do it. And there is one thing about blogging – people treat it as a conversation, but it is the written word and lasts forever. So in actual fact, and if you are
EDIA
in a position of some authority, of some power, you have to be a little careful with what you say. I can influence people so it means that if I blog, I have to take it more seriously. And it would take time to do it. So I don’t.
HPV, a case of bad press?
FF: What do you think of social media? SPN: The way social media has changed the way we have worked is clear. For example, you run out of a component in your lab and then you email everybody and say, “Have you got this chemical?” Of course, with the hundreds of laboratories that you approach, somebody will have it. We could never do that before. So this means that you can work in different places and still be quite connected. What we can do in research institutions is to think how we can exploit that. But that is only one thing. The second thing is more significant: one can have more impact. There is more scientific debate occurring in the blogosphere and that gives an interesting problem. Unlike journals where there is peer review and some pressure not to be so extreme and make some arguments, in the blogosphere, you can say whatever you like. You can have whatever influence. You can have a lot of influence. Sometimes, what people say can break through orthodoxy. Sometimes, people can say very stupid things and have big impact. We as scientists have not yet got to grips with how to handle that. Earning trust requires more than just focusing on the science. We have to communicate it effectively too. Scientists have got to get out there. They have to be open about everything that they do. They do have to talk to the media even if it does sometimes put their reputation at doubt. Because if we don’t do that, it will be filled by others who don’t understand the science and who may be driven by politics or ideology. This is far too important to be left to the commentators in the media. Scientists have to be there too. – Prof. Dr Sir Paul Nurse, Trust in Science, BBC Horizon FF: Could you give us an example? SPN: Last year, a group from NASA said that phosphate metabolism could be replaced with arsenic metabolism. The PR people there made a big fuss about this. It sort of suggested that maybe you could base other life forms on arsenic rather than phosphate. NASA made big news releases of it and then criticisms of it would be made on the blogosphere – very strong scientific criticisms – and the authors completely withdrew. Although they use the media to promote it, when they began to be attacked in the blogosphere, they did not respond. This led to a lot of criticisms and they were saying, “Well you used the media when you wanted it, now that you are in there, you are not prepared to have a proper debate.” So I think we’ve got to think about this because it changes the way you consider things. Normally, that would not have happened. Normally, you publish a paper and when there is something wrong, you might write a letter to the journal, you might talk on the phone, or you might have a discussion, con-
Source: Chared Verschuur-Ballo
Harald zur Hausen is a German virologist and professor emeritus. He has done research on cancer of the cervix, where he discovered the role of papilloma viruses, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008. He studied medicine at the Universities of Bonn, Hamburg and
Sir Paul Nurse explains the role of scientists in science communication to FEMS SecretaryGeneral Tøne Tonjum Source: Chared Verschuur-Ballo
ference, you know. It goes on slowly and it can be reasoned rather slowly. In this case, the blogs will be coming out one or two days so they are expecting a response within one or two days and they lost control. FF: Is it a sort of losing face? SPN: They lost their face and they lost control. And that makes people think, “Well, there’s probably something wrong here.“ I did a TV program “Trust in Science” in the BBC Horizon and I touched a little bit on blogs because I was looking at climate change and how you debate decisions. I find scientists are rather uncomfortable to go beyond
their zones so I waited and talked to these quite combated individuals, journalists and so on, on a normal conversation. What was really surprising was how they were influenced strongly by their politics and mixing politics and ideology with science. It was a really interesting experience. So we have to think about the way the things are discussed in the public media because sometimes things are projected as with science when actually, they are just somebody who is commenting from a particular political perspective. FF: This is really in the core of why we wanted to get you here, a person with a scientific track record like yours engaged in discussion. SPN: It’s a bit unusual to have somebody who would do that. I know that. Somebody who is a hardline scientist like me who is also prepared to talk in public. I mean there are re-
ally good public communicators, really good ones but they tend to be more professional and you need both. FF: But what should scientists do now? How should they communicate? Do you think science communication should be added to the curriculum? SPN: We have a responsibility to communicate. It is seen as an optional extra and it should not be. We have a responsibility. There is a good sentence, it’s not mine: “Scientists have to earn a license to operate with the public.” That means we have to communicate with them, not only communicate but have dialog, discussion, not just lecturing, but discussion. By that, we need to train our students and our postdocs and when somebody is good at it, they should be encouraged but all of us should be realizing it is important. #
Communicating the EHEC outbreak
Colonies of Escherichia coli bacteria grown on a Hektoen enteric (HE) agar plate medium Source: CDC
At the time this issue of FEMS Focus went to the press, the epidemic of enterohaemorrhagic E.coli (EHEC), which can cause the deadly haemolytic-uraemic syndrome (HUS), was emerging. It was not yet clear what the primary source was and if the epidemic has reached its height already. We, as editors of the Focus, are of the opinion that this also is a case that underlines the importance of science and media joining forces. For more detailed information and daily updates, please check: http://bit.ly/WHO_ EHEC.
Low-temperature electron micrograph of a cluster of E. coli bacteria, magnified 10,000 times. Source: Eric Erbe, digital colorization by Christopher Pooley (USDA, ARS, EMU) via Wikimedia Commons
Düsseldorf and received a Doctor of Medicine degree in 1960 from the University of Düsseldorf. Zur Hausen’s specific field of research is the study of oncoviruses. In addition to his role in the discovery of the papilloma viruses, he is also credited with the discovery of the virus causing genital warts (HPV 6) and a monkey lymphotropic polyomavirus that is a close relative to a recently discovered human Merkel cell polyomavirus, as well as techniques to immortalize cells with Epstein-Barr virus and to induce replication of the virus using phorbol esters. His work on papillomaviruses and cervical cancer received a great deal of scientific criticism on initial unveiling but subsequently was confirmed and extended to other high-risk papillomaviruses. Apart from the Nobel Prize, he received the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 2008 for his contributions to medical science. (source: Wikipedia)
One science story that has received major media coverage and criticism is the vaccine for the human papillomaviruses (HPV). HPV is associated with cervical cancer, genital warts and less common types of cancer. In many developing countries, this vaccine has been offered for free to teenage girls, sometimes even to teenage boys. Reports of its side effects include deaths, Guillain-Barré Syndrome and some neurological symptoms. Prof. Dr Harald zur Hausen, who discovered the role of the human papillomaviruses in cancer of the female cervix, reiterates this is not so. Read on for some parts of our interview with Dr Hausen which will be released in full in a later issue of the FEMS Focus: FEMS Focus (FF): How safe is the HPV vaccine? Harald zur Hausen (HZH): The vaccine is safe, even very safe, I should say. We just had a very bad press. The problem is usually, if you talk to the press in Germany, for instance, they believe that I get something from the companies as profit because I make propaganda for their vaccination. But I do not get a single penny from them. But since I am convinced that the vaccines are good, it would be difficult not to make some kind of indirect propaganda for the companies as well but I mean, I have to live with it. FF: How about the reported side effects? HZH: Long-term studies show that the side effects are extremely low. An Australian study indicates that there is but one side effect of a true allergy against the protein in the vaccine in 100,000 doses of vaccination. There were some reports of death cases occurring – of Guillain-Barré Syndrome and some neurological symptoms and so on – but to my knowledge, none of these cases which have all been carefully investigated has been linked to the vaccination.
FF: If you have a daughter, would you allow her to take the vaccine? HZH: I would not only allow her, I would urge her to become vaccinated. I did it with my granddaughter. She is vaccinated. I understand parents who are very worried that something wrong happens but there is good reason to really promote the vaccination. There is one disadvantage of the vaccination which one should not hide either and that is the price. The price is much to high particularly for the developing countries. Here it is covered by the health insurance so it is not so much of a problem. FF: So how can science communication get around for the HPV vaccine? What should one do? HZH: There are a couple of things which need to be done: first of all, the health ministries need to be well-informed and they need to propagate this intensively. Sad part is, the doctors do not know about the vaccination. They are not very well-informed and some are quite reluctant to give a re-commendation. And then of course, it is important to inform teachers and also the parents of the children. I guess what we need to have is much more active propaganda in favor of this vaccination. #
Get to know the speakers of the Science and Media event
Communicating science from a journalist’s perspective, Workshop: how to write a press release Mrs Chared Ve r s c h u u r Ballo was a Journalist in the Philippines before she joined FEMS as Communications Assistant. She finds
sharing of knowledge and information important but only if it is shared accurately. “Since I started working for FEMS, I have learned a lot about microbiology. I think it is only fair that we do not leave communication to journalists or press relations officers only. I would like to contribute to this event by teaching scientists how to share their story in an understandable way so more and more people will learn about it and understand it,” she explains.
Links and Resources Online Course in Science Journalism: http://www.wfsj.org/course/ Online Guide on Science Communication: http://communicatingscience.aaas.org Talking science, spontaneously: http://bit.ly/talkscience A Scientist’s Survival Kit: http://bit.ly/sciencesurvivalkit The Science of Storytellers: http://bit.ly/tellscience EU Research Guide to Successful Communications: http://bit.ly/euguidescicomm A Guide to Successful Communication: http://bit.ly/euguidesuccesscomm
Case Study on HPV Ms Meryll S. Lillenes’ Master Thesis is on the rapid implementation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in the Nor wegian C h i l d r e n’s Vaccination Program Program. Dur During the implementation, she learned that there is a symbiosis between the media and the ‘executive players’. Her motivation in contributing to this session is to share her experience which was “exciting and positive as well as intimidating and challenging.” “In this case, the media did well in covering the HPV vaccine story. However, the debate eventually displayed itself with a dual character and to some extent one could sense a general trend in whose side the media were on,” she asserted.
Contingency communication: Review of Q-fever in The Netherlands Mr Rinke van den Brink is a Journalist working for the Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS, Dutch Broadcasting Foundation). He has been H lth Editor Edit r off NOS News N Health since 2005. In that capacity, he extensively reported on the outbreak of Q-fever in the Netherlands and was amazed at the way the decision on this issue was made. A comprehensive reconstruction that he and a colleague made for the NOS made it abundantly clear that public health interests are made subservient to the economic interests of farmers. He finds that hard intervention was done through the tenacity of some key players and the media.
Mrs Jeannette van de Ven-Rijnen is owner of a dairy goat farm affected by Q-fever and Chair of the Dairy Goats Farmers Division of the Dutch Federati n off Agriculture A ri lt r and nd Horticulture. H r tion “Our company was found contaminated and partially cleared. That does something to you as a person and as an entrepreneur. You look for answers to the questions but know that the answers are not always given,” she explains of her experience. The media has left a deep impression on her, both negatively and positively, in the handling of the Q-fever story, “The media had an enormous influence on the case and they should be aware of the responsibilities that go with it.”
The FEMS Focus is published by the FEMS Central Office. Whom to contact? Prof. Dr Tone Tønjum (tone.tonjum@medisin.uio.no). Design: Zak Princic Production: Ilumina.si FEMS is a registered charity (no. 1072117) and also a company limited by guarantee (no. 3565643).
Dr Roel Coutinho is the Director of the National Center for Infectious Disease Control and since May this year was appointed professor of pid mi l nd prevention pr nti of infectious epidemiology and diseases particularly in the animal-human domain at Utrecht University. He finds it important to inform the public about Qfever because as he said, “there are strong emotions about intensive cattle farming in The Netherlands and probably also in other countries and what we see is that often there is a mix between emotions and facts”. In this situation, he said, experts should inform the public, politicians and professionals about the data and the risks while trying to make a distinction between emotions and facts.
© 2011 Federation of European Microbiological Societies FEMS Central Office Keverling Buismanweg 4 2628 CL Delft The Netherlands Tel: +31-15-269 3920 Fax: +31-15-269 3921 E-mail: fems@fems-microbiology.org