To those who didn't see the note on the NASW.org board, an explanation of why the summer issue of ScienceWriters was so long delayed. The issue was mailed in Seattle on September 5. Third-class mail being dicey at best, when it didn't show up after three weeks, we asked our mailer to check. After a considerable delay, the missing copies were located in the PO's bulk mail facility, held there for reasons that have yet to be revealed. The mailer apologized and remailed all copies first class.
[The explanatory note above elicited this consoling response from Jon Van: Regarding the problems encountered by Howard Lewis in mailing out our newsletter, John Ludwigson noted that some years ago in Maryland a lot of mail was found hidden because the clerks sought to avoid sorting it. In Chicago some few years ago bundles of mail were found burning for the same reason, but the postal employees had sought to destroy the evidence of their sloth. Howard, consider yourself lucky that our newsletters weren't destroyed!]
The print media and radio received high marks from a UC San Diego planetary scientist in the 11 October Science, but television ended up with a vote of no confidence. In a letter to the editor that led off the issue, John F. Kerridge, of the Department of Chemistry, wrote, "The printed media and radio seemed to have no problem with my skepticism [on recent speculations of ancient life on Mars], asking generally sensible and pertinent questions and making use of a significant amount of the material I provided.
"The television networks, on the other hand, were less receptive. Interviews that I taped for NBC News and ABC News were not used. The programs that were aired by NBC and ABC were relentlessly upbeat and contained only token criticism of the 'pro-life' interpretation. Planned appearances on CNN and ABC Nightline were abruptly canceled after my skepticism had been made public.
"For scientists facing such a situation in future, the bottom line seems to be, if you want to be on television, tell them what you think they want to hear. If you want the public to know the truth, stick to print and radio."
In her September 1996 letter to alumni, Joan Konner, departing dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism, underlined her disappointment in discovering that of the $30 million that had been raised over the past four years to support building modernization, "none of it, not one penny, has come from or for television and radio. That makes some kind of statement about that industry's interest in supporting journalism education."
On a more positive note, Dean Konner reported that Ken Goldstein, recently retired coordinator of the science and health program in the school, is actively raising money for the Ken and Irene Goldstein Science Writing Scholarship program.
According to a recent Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, some 400 members, in collaboration with major Chinese new agencies, selected the top ten science news stories of 1995. Listed here in the style of the David Letterman television show, they were as follows: (Thanks again to Jim Cornell.)
1. Five scientists win an appeal in a libel suit brought by the inventor of a rat poison particularly lethal to humans.
2. Chinese Arctic Expedition Team arrived at the North Pole after 13 days' walking;
3. Top scientists call for scientific knowledge to be more widespread;
4. Development of a massive parallel processing computer system;
5. Development of first manned magnetic suspension train;
6. Top Chinese leaders call for "invigorating China through science and education";
7. Approval of a new nuclear power plant in Zheijiang Province;
8. The development of a new variety of hybrid spring wheat;
9. The rejection of an inventor's claim that he had invented a liquid, a few drops of which could change a barrel of water:
10. The development of an active vaccine for Hepatitis A.