The rapid professionalization of the National Association of Science Writers now taking place is both terribly exciting and a bit dangerous. The sources of excitement are obvious: a greater sense of mission, a vaster range of services for our members, cyberspace interconnectedness and immediacy, more sophisticated annual meetings and the ability to respond rapidly to external events [e.g., copyright disputes] that affect us.
These changes have been warmly welcomed, even loudly applauded, by the majority of NASW members.
But professionalization has its danger points as well, and we are currently staring one of them squarely in the face. If we wish to have the external world view NASW as the ethical, political, professional voice of science writers we must be willing to undergo at least a modicum of self-scrutiny regarding our collective and individual values. I am reminded, for example, of Gary Hart's retort to one particularly persistent correspondent: "Oh yeah? Well, how many women have you committed adultery with?"
Science writers need not supply lust lists. Relax.
But we do need to undergo some collective introspection regarding journalistic ethical issues that are sensitive, even painful, to address. It won't be easy, because NASW is unique among professional societies in that both sides of the enterprise-the hacks and the flacks-coexist within the same organization. Standards of ethics are, by necessity, quite different for the two groups.
For example, it is perfectly reasonable for a university press officer to offer a delicious travel package to a news reporter as an incentive for national coverage of the opening of a new laboratory or observatory. Why not? If the university can afford a set of airplane tickets, hotel accommodations and meals to get a reporter to a remote locale, the rewards for the institution may be huge in the form of alumni donations, international credibility and excitement engendered within the scientific community.
It makes perfect sense.
But it makes no sense for that reporter to accept the plane tickets and the hotel room. Why? Because no matter how scrupulous the journalist tries to be in researching and writing the story, it will be tainted. It will carry the telltale scent of corruption. Credibility will be zip. Zero.
This paradigm is understood by us all, and I would like to believe that we are in agreement about the bottom-line ethical standards described above.
The hard part comes with the gray areas. Consider the following scenarios and ask yourself, "What are the rules of propriety here? Are the rules different for salaried reporters versus freelancers versus PR officers/writers? If so, how? And why?"
Extremely wise, moral individuals can-and will-give different answers to these questions. I think that those of us who have leadership positions among science writers have a duty to set some standards by example. Feeling the pressure, I've turned down thousands of dollars worth of speaking fees over the last two years-fees that were being paid by pharmaceutical companies or phony foundations that front for drug manufacturers. It's just too damned close to my beat.
But we can't get holier-than-thou about this or we risk wading into the riptide waters of the "politically correct" ethics police. Anyone currently working in academia knows how vile that can be.
As president of NASW, I will not stand for finger-pointing or name-calling among us. During my presidency, I've been approached by some members whose critiques of others' activities borders on personality assaults and character assassinations. I refuse to allow our dialogue to stoop to such levels.
Polite, intelligent individuals can-and will-disagree. That's fine. But it's not OK to avoid discussion altogether simply because it make some people uncomfortable.
In an upcoming issue you will read an article prepared by Nature Medicine editor Barbara Culliton and ScienceWriters editor Howard Lewis. Their discussion will focus on an issue that should be studied in a spirit of openness, candor and goodwill. It involves the best and the brightest among us. And although no malevolence or ill-will was involved in this case, ethical questions have been raised.
In the end I hope that you will all read the results with great care and level heads. And that you will ponder the issues on several levels: your personal careers, the behavior of your news organization or institution, NASW as a professional society and journalism as a whole.
There may be no absolute answers.
But the questions must be asked.
#
Laurie Garrett can be reached at the New York City office of Newsday, 2, Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016; Tel: 212-251-6875.