Laurie Garrett can be reached at the New York City office of Newsday, 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016; 212-251-6875.
It was a genuine pleasure to see so many of you at our annual meeting in Baltimore in February. By all standards of measurement, from banquet ticket sales to workshop attendees' feedback, the gathering was a fabulous success and record turnout. It was, I believe, a watershed moment for the National Association of Science Writers.
When I first joined NASW in 1982, I was a cub science reporter for National Public Radio, awestruck by the giants among us: Cris Russell, David Perlman, Walter Sullivan, Phil Boffey, Don Drake, John Noble Wilford, Joanne Rodgers, Barbara Culliton and their peers. though I had been a working science reporter for five years, I frankly hadn't dared consider myself ready to join the ranks of such stellar figures until '82 when Perlman busted my chops for "not being a dues-paying science writer."
It was only after two or three years of membership that I started to feel as though I really was a member of the club. It felt good. I belonged among my peers.
Club.
That's the key word. It was a good club: a judicious one that treated everyone fairly and threw great parties. Though the majority of its members -- well over 75 percent in those days -- were men, the membership and leadership of women were never the source of visible (or audible) consternation. It was truly a club of collegial friends and associates.
But the club is gone. With remarkably little kicking and screaming, NASW has transformed itself over the last four years into a society of professionals. The best aspects of clubbiness have been retained (friendship, fairness, democracy, fun) but now thrive inside a new cultural context. As has been the case for so many of our counterpart societies of journalists, writers and PIOs, we have found compelling reasons to take ourselves more seriously, and technology that allows us to do so in a rapid and equitable manner. Clubs meet; societies act.
I hope your science writers still look upon their more experienced senior with some of the awe that I felt -- and still feel. But I think a serious society must be more accessible and open than was the NASW of bygone days.
Driving this cultural shift in NASW are several factors:
NASW On-line. For the last three years our CompuServe presence has drawn in large numbers of new members and served as a forum for the airing of grievances and demands for action.
ScienceWriters. Always an excellent publication, our newsletter has seen consistent improvement under Howard Lewis' leadership, serving as a vibrant forum for discussion of issues that face all of us in our daily work.
Changes in the News Biz. Every aspect of how Americans gain, digest and use information is changing at a pace so dizzying that no one feels confident in predicting where this morphing is going to end. It is a time of both uncertainty and excitement, requiring careful monitoring of out collective professional interests. For example, NASW was propelled last year into external action on protection of copyrights in cyberspace and publishing.
The Economy and Downsizing. We have all watched with despair and fear as the former bastions of great journalism have been battered into puff-piece submission or destroyed. The sobering state of affairs in all media has raised concerns about jobs, health insurance, the rights of freelancers and the future of niche reporting.
As you will read in Paul Raeburn's summary of the Baltimore business meeting, NASW voted to take further steps towards professionalizing our organization. In addition, we convened more than a day and a half of professional workshops that were aimed at helping members comprehend and take control of the new trends in media and communications.
The results are very exciting. As I write, Larry Krumenaker, Simson Garfinkel, and Joe Palca are working with cyber-engineers at Stanford to get NASW into the World Wide Web. In an exciting collaboration with AAAS and EurekAlert!, we're headed rapidly toward having a compelling presence on the Net that will, among other things, offer every dues-paying member his or her own personal half-megabyte Web page. I have been deeply impressed by the commitment, creativity, and energy displayed by everyone involved in the effort.
Our goal, voted upon in Baltimore, is to have all on-line options operational by April or May. I urge you to drive onto the highways at CompuServe and EurekAlert!, check out the views and either e-mail your reviews to Palca and Krumenaker or fax them to me (212-696-0396). By the end of July I plan to convene a meeting of the NASW Board to access the various options and make a final decision about the organization's permanent (if there is such a thing in the computer world) cyber-home.
I am also very happy to see that plans are already afoot to make next year's gathering in Seattle another powerful blend of professional symposia and outstanding parties. I urge Seattle-area NASW
members who may be interested in helping out to contact Paul Lowenberg at the University of Washington as soon as possible (206-543-2580 or e-mail: paullow@uwashington.edu).
Still other examples of our professionalization involve a forthcoming book and organization of our freelance members. The book, edited by NASW's Deborah Blum and Mary Knudson, contains chapters penned by many members, describing the dos and don'ts of virtually every aspect of science reporting. It will be published by Oxford Press in 1997.
As for the freelancers--well, all I can say is what took you so long? Having once led the life of anxious check-waiting, I have never understood why our self-employed writers weren't more visibly agitated. But at last, it seems agitation has occurred, and a formal freelance committee is alive and kicking with the always able Joel Shurkin at its helm. Freelancers with questions, concerns or agitation moods should contact Shurkin (e-mail at: joel@crvzio.com or call 408-438-3877).
We're on the road, driving into the 21st Century, and it feels great.
#
Return to ScienceWriters table of contents.