2001 Science in Society Journalism Awards

Presented February 14, 2002, at the NASW reception in Boston

2001 Winners of Science in Society Journalism Awards Named

Stories about the seriously flawed national flu vaccine program, the historic decoding of the human genome, the struggle to preserve the New England fish population, the inadequate science behind the country’s dietary fat dictates, troubling questions about depleted uranium lingering in former war zones, and the tantalizing potential of methane hydrates all earned top honors for journalists in the 2001 Science in Society Journalism Award.

Award winners were Vermont author and journalist David Dobbs; NOVA producers Elizabeth Arledge and Julia Cort and NOVA correspondent Robert Krulwich; San Francisco Chronicle reporters Sabin Russell, Reynolds Holding and Elizabeth Fernandez; Gary Taubes, writing for Science magazine; David Tenenbaum, writer for "The Why Files;" and Harald Franzen, writing for ScientificAmerican.com. Awards will be presented by NASW president Paul Raeburn, science editor of Business Week, 6 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 14, at a lavish reception hosted by Boston University.

The National Association of Science Writers holds the independent competition annually to honor outstanding investigative and interpretive reporting about the sciences and their impact on society for good and bad. The 66-year-old organization aims to recognize and to encourage critical, probing works in six categories — newspaper, magazine, television, radio, Web and book — without subsidy from any professional or commercial interest. Winners each receive $1,000 and a certificate.

In the first Science in Society prize for a book, the judges praised Vermont author and journalist David Dobbs for The Great Gulf. The book examines the conflict between scientists and fishermen who are struggling to preserve the New England groundfish population. It showed how science, history and politics in the region have collided to create a perfect storm of science and society. Since the 1980s, increasingly stringent fishing regulations for the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank have pushed two well-meaning groups — scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service and commercial fishermen — into repeated clashes over how many fish can be safely taken from the ecosystem-and how to understand the ocean itself.

By focusing on the efforts and lives of a few individuals, Dobbs created a balanced, engaging story, told with vigor and insight, and even a touch of humor. "A reasonable person might ask whether any of this mattered," Dobbs wrote. "Obviously it mattered a lot to the fishermen, who resented that Fisheries Service formulas allowed little room for the sort of anecdotal knowledge that fishermen possessed in abundance. (’You want to piss off a room full of fishermen,’ Jay Burnett told me a few months later in this same scientist’s lounge, ’just say the word anecdotal.’)"

It’s not easy to hold the attention of a television audience for a two-hour documentary — especially on the intimidating topic of molecular biology. In this year’s winning TV entry, NOVA’s "Cracking the Code of Life," producers Elizabeth Arledge and Julia Cort and correspondent Robert Krulwich presented the complex story of the sequencing of the human genome with accuracy, a noted inquisitiveness, and even humor. Judges particularly commended the producers for clearly elucidating the biological, cultural and social ramifications of this intricate endeavor. For those coming to this multifaceted topic with an incomplete grasp of the science and other complexities, it was a splendid primer on perhaps the most important science story of the year.

The two-year collaborative project between WGBH/Boston and Clear Blue Sky Productions began as a story of the race to sequence the human genome told in a pivotal year through the experiences of the people at the two main competing labs, Celera Genomics (a private company) and the Whitehead Institute at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the largest federally sponsored group, Arledge said. With extensive inside access, film crews recorded fresh reactions of key scientists as events unfolded. Usually, storytelling is uncovered after the fact. Even then, when the story was nearly finished editing, the scientific papers published in February 2001 revealed so much new and unexpected information (such as a reduced number of genes, the similarities in DNA between us and every other species) that the team rewrote, re-interviewed people, and found new visual materials.

In the newspaper category, San Francisco Chronicle reporters Sabin Russell, Reynolds Holding and Elizabeth Fernandez told a compelling and suspenseful story about the flu vaccine industry that reminded some judges of Upton Sinclair’s accounts of the meat industry nearly a century ago. The reporters revealed the fragile underpinnings of an important public health effort — a shaky collaboration between government and commercial forces that relies on guesswork, outdated technology and delivery of 500,000 chicken eggs per day. News reporting is often directed toward the future dangers of scientific developments, judges noted, but this story shows the risk posed today from wide-scale implementation of a scientific achievement. The result was a shocking look at the modern intersection of science and public health.

Last fall’s national chaos signaled a clear warning to Russell, a science reporter, about a flawed system that warranted greater understanding. He teamed up with Holding, who has a strong legal background and Fernandez, an investigative reporter. Investigative efforts ranged from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to meeting transcripts of obscure committees of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. What emerged was picture of a brittle system pushed beyond limits to vaccinate as many people as possible.

"All it takes is a subtle genetic change in flu viruses and we could have a pandemic like in 1918," said Russell, who hopes their stories add pressure to correct the system’s vulnerabilities. "I’d hate to write a story about how we were taken by surprise. The great irony about last year was that even though we weren’t ready and there were temporary shortages and panic buying, it was one of mildest flu seasons on record. There couldn’t have more painless way to get serious warning."

Freelance writer Gary Taubes won his third Science in Society award with his Science magazine story, "The soft science of dietary fat." Following his prize winning technique of evaluating how inadequate scientific tools are used to dictate important national health issues — what people should eat — he once again shows there is still much to be mined in a topic long considered settled and indisputable. With painstaking research and in-depth reporting, he challenges the accepted wisdom on dietary fat and displays the chinks in its armor. Many of his reported findings are still controversial, yet judges lauded his risk-taking reporting, making us think twice about obsessing about our dietary choices.

Taubes, a freelance writer, spent a year on the story mostly supported by other writing projects. Each story in this vein takes longer than the last, he said. For this one, He interviewed about 150 people. As a result, in his own shopping Taubes ignores the nationally approved health advice and hunts, sometimes in vain, for yogurt made out of whole milk. When his friends ask him for scientifically sound dietary advice, the only thing he can tell them is still what his mother told him: Eat your fresh fruits and vegetables, and watch your weight.

Two people shared the Web award, given for the first time this year to support laudable efforts in the new media. Both winners used mostly text to tell complex international stories, in part from a philosophy to reach as many people as possible on potentially slow home modems that make up a large share of the Web audience, whose computers might be stalled by large video, audio and graphic files.

Using the excuse of rising gas prices, "Why Files" writer Dave Tenenbaum followed up on a long-standing interest in the tantalizing potential of methane hydrates, a vast hard-to-tap resource deep in the crust. He deftly navigated among points of view ranging from Wall Street demands for profitable new energy sources and to scientific concerns about global warming. "Cheap energy is always assumed to be a good thing, but these days you can’t really discuss energy without considering warming," Tenenbaum said.

Following up on a tip from his dad, a radiologist in Germany, Franzen asked what happens after war when the shooting stops. Depleted uranium ammunition — used in the Gulf War and the Allied bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo — has been hailed as the military’s new silver bullet and condemned as the Agent Orange of the Balkan conflict. The question is now whether the abundant, armor-piercing metal that lies scattered over a wide area of the Balkans presents a health threat to soldiers and civilians, Franzen said. He explored the physics of radiation, the biology of exposure, and the science of modern weapons. Much of the controversy has focused on leukemia. So far, investigating health organizations haven’t found higher rates of leukemia, but believe some caution is warranted. The story has been widely — sometimes badly — reported in Europe, but has not received much attention in this country.

Last year, the award expanded from three categories (newspaper, magazine, and television and radio) to six categories (newspaper, magazine, television, radio, Web, and book). No prizes were given in the Web and book categories last year. No prizes were awarded this year for radio, because entries did not sufficiently meet the competition’s main criterion — a work that explores or explicates the role or ramifications of scientific discovery within the broader society. Stories about adulatory advances in sciences, however significant and well-written, were not eligible unless they also addressed the downside of science, such as ethical problems and societal impacts.

The award was co-chaired by Beryl Lieff Benderly, freelance journalist and book author in Washington D.C., and Carol Cruzan Morton, Boston Globe and Harvard Medical School in Boston. In the first stage of judging, finalists were selected from more than 140 entries.

The awards are administered by Diane McGurgan, executive director, National Association of Science Writers. The deadline for submission of entries for the 2002 Science in Society Awards is July 1, 2002, for work published or broadcast in North America between June 1, 2001, and May 31, 2002.

Science in Society Journalism Awards:
2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996
about | books | broadcast | magazines | newspapers | radio | television | web | enter