A journalist writing about science is seen by some as a channel for changing pure scientific research into a form easily understood by the masses. This view is one cause of disagreement between scientists and journalists about what is important scientific news, and the role of journalists reporting on science.
One study, carried out five years ago, discovered other significantly divergent views between reporters and scientists about the news media's function when reporting on science.
Journalists, the study found, see their role as more critical than scientists do. And while reporters believe they have to entertain, scientists do not agree.
Scientists want journalists to share their goals, to which reporters can be indifferent. Scientists also find it more difficult to understand the journalistic need to attract interest by using stylistic devices, such as a having a dramatic opening paragraph.
There are major differences between the professions. "Science progresses incrementally, one piece of knowledge added at a time," says Dr John Donovan, of the Irish Research Scientists' Association (IRSA). News, on the other hand, progresses from "breakthrough to breakthrough", he says.
Other differences include views on accuracy.
"Some scientists do get upset, arguing over what are the important details in a story," says Donovan. Brian Trench of DCU says "scientists and journalists have different views on what is accuracy". For scientists, this means all the qualifications are included, such as saying this research may cure cancer, for example, rather than the research will definitely cure it.
Journalists, however, want each section of the story to be correct, as not every detail will fit in a news story.
What is important to scientist may not be judged by a journalist to be interesting to readers, listeners or viewers, says Trench. Reporters constantly ask themselves what will readers understand, and will this research have implications or applications for the public? Scientists generally use standards internal to science to judge what are important stories, not a journalist's considerations of what is important for the public, says Trench.
"Scientists need to understand how a 400-page document is shortened to a feature of 18 column inches, or into a news story of four column inches," says Dr Kirk Junker, of the science communication programme.
But things are changing. Scientists are becoming more aware of the culture of journalism and scientists are now being offered training in media skills.
There is also an obligation for scientists to communicate their research. As many research projects are State-funded. "There is a growing acceptance that taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent," says Donovan.
