Things just keep getting on getting better. The National Association of Science Writers is on a roll, kids.
In the last issue of ScienceWriters, I posed a series of ethical questions asking how we individually and collectively define conflicts of interest and I called for a debate.
Wow! What a terrific response! By mail, at NASW Online in CompuServe and on our web site the discussion has been energetic, informed and replete with fascinating ethical dilemmas. No one who has scrolled through the Online discussions can now doubt the powerful significance of NASW's cyber-presence.
For those of you who haven't partaken in the cyber-conversation a slight taste of the discussion will illustrate my point. In the last issue of this publication I asked: "A research lab is located in an incredibly remote area, accessible only at great cost or via transport provided gratis to reporters by the institution that runs the lab. Is it proper to accept gratis travel?"
Carol Cruzan Morton said that the answer for journalists had to be no, noting that "to maintain your long-term credibility, and that of your publication or broadcast outlet, you need to respect even the perception of the conflict of interest." And PIO A'ndrea Elyse Messer said that the institution, in order to avoid putting journalists in a dicey situation, ought to bring the researchers in to an accessible location.
Sounds straightforward.
But the complexities of that particular ethical question were revealed when Joel Shurkin and Robert Lee Hotz described problems involved with the National Science Foundation's annual reporter trips to the Antarctic research station. When Shurkin went to McMurdo 20 years ago for the Philadelphia Inquirer, all reporters had to travel on US Air Force planes. The Inquirer managed to get the USAF to send the bill for Shurkin's journey to New Zealand, but never could get an invoice for the New Zealand-to-McMurdo Sound leg.
"The Inquirer accepted the fact there was no commercial way to get to the continent," Shurkin writes in NASW Online. So the paper reluctantly accepted Shurkin's partially gratis travel. Two Antarctic journeys by Hotz -- one for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the other for the LA Times -- were handled about the same way. And Hotz's stories stipulated that the NSF paid for some of his travel, room and board.
Hotz concludes that, "a reporter does not accept any gifts, any money or any indirect financial assistance -- such as free travel or equipment -- for any story. There was an exception to this rule. It involved combat zones and two otherwise inaccessible parts of the globe: Antarctica and the ocean bottom.
" Remember the pre-Challenger days of NASA when many of us scrambled to apply for the slot of "Journalist-in-Space"? How the hell could any publication manage to cough up the cost of reimbursing the space agency for a seat? Think about it -- what's one fifth of the cost including Mission Control operations and rocket fuel, of a space-shuttle mission? I doubt that PBS or NPR could justify such an expenditure during a subsequent funding drive. Probably the Disney Corporation would insist that Peter Jennings wear Mickey Mouse ears in the Shuttle in order to justify the expense.
Finally Nell Boyce, who just joined our profession last year, asks how she should respond when scientific societies offer a banquet or a hotel room: "I have many friends who write music and film reviews. They always get free tickets and I honestly don't think that it influences what they write. I don't think they are compromising their integrity. Do you think that they are? I would like to learn from more experienced science writers about these issues."
Hooray! The discussion is on and the stakes in reaching some consensus are obvious. We have a forum. We have a debate, and all this takes us closer to reaching high standards of professionalism, both individually and as an organization.
Which will, I believe, be essential in coming years as the news marketplace completes its corporate/cyber transformation. There are many writer and journalism organizations out there, but none has yet developed adequate internal rigor and external professionalism and clout to significantly influence the course of events in our favor. NASW is uniquely positioned, I believe, to set some standards that will bolster our members' defenses against the Murdoch/Turner/Zuckerman/Gannett/Knight-Ridder/GE/Disney tentacles.
With that in mind I have closely monitored discussion among NASW members regarding rights and payments. My intuition, based on some personal experience and anecdotes, is that we writers are already getting ripped off and will certainly face grim professional futures if we fail to put up a smart, calculated fight. But science should have taught all of us the danger of acting solely on intuition and anecdotes.
In her column in this issue Mary Knudson discusses the initiative that arose from our freelance ranks, aimed at surveying payment rates and secondary-rights problems facing our members. I have requested that we go a step further, obtaining statistically valid data that can answer a few key questions:
I've asked the freelance committee to put some thoughts into how such a survey, providing valid sampling data, could be organized. Such data would be invaluable for assessing the scale of the problem, focusing our energies on appropriate targets and setting a standard for data collection that we might promote to other, larger writer organizations.
In other words, the first maxim of war is, "Know thine enemy."
Perhaps some of our J-school members would see advantage in bringing students into such an effort. And each one of you may have helpful ideas about how this might be realized. If so, please contact Joel Shurkin, Mary Knudson, or myself.
Finally, when your NASW ballots and plea for membership renewal arrive, don't forget to vote, and mail in that check pronto.
Laurie Garrett can be reached at the New York City office of Newsday, 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Tel: 212-251-6875