January 19, 2004

Journalists speak out for Open Access

Science journalists play a critical role in linking the scientific research community to the general public. Their ability to access the research literature is essential for them to do their job well. Open Access Now talked to three British science journalists about how Open Access is affecting the mainstream media.

Tim Radford has been Science Editor at The Guardian newspaper for over twenty years.

"Those of us who were journalists before the Web - indeed, before computers - were accustomed to a certain amount of legwork and library-combing to get at any information of value at all," recalls Radford. "Universities used to distrust the press and it was quite difficult to get information. And, of course, you could only be in one place at a time and you had to wait for the post and for professors to ring you back, and so forth. The invention of the Web has multiplied access and made stories possible that would once have been beyond a daily journalist's practical reach."

"What's the point of doing science if it's not freely available to everyone?"

Tim Radford

"Now we have epic amounts of information, it is literally being chucked at us." Radford is convinced that Open Access publishing will have a big impact on science reporting. "The notion that there are places that we can go to browse and easily scan information, freely and at any time, is actually going to change the nature of the job quite a bit."

Unlike many science writers, Radford does not have a university education. He left school at sixteen and got a job on a newspaper. "But as a science reporter I am getting a seminar every day, being examined on it every night and then being marked the next morning by five hundred thousand people. That's an incentive to learn."

Radford admits that science reporting is locked into a weekly rhythm, with Thursdays and Fridays being busy days, because those are when Nature and Science are published. "But I am looking forward to Open Access changing the picture. I am looking forward to getting a better look at the kind of story that doesn't get into Nature and Science but is still potentially hugely entertaining."

"What's the point of doing science if it's not freely available to everyone?" asks Radford. "In a democracy, everybody has an obligation to explain his or her work to the rest of society. Unfortunately, there is no corresponding obligation upon the rest of society to listen. But that simply means that there is an onus on scientists to make themselves comprehensible - and with a bit of extra effort, downright compelling. Why would anyone not want to share the excitement of science? The more people know about it, and thrill to it, the better for everybody."

"Although Open Access is inevitably going to make my job easier it has also multiplied the choice of stories that I can do. But the time available to write them, and the space available to print them, has alas not multiplied in step." Radford makes the point that science has to compete with the rest of the stories coming from the other news desks. "I think it is true to say that no one ever bought a daily newspaper to keep up with science - although nowadays daily newspapers do quite a good job of keeping readers abreast of changes in science."

"The public wants to know [about science], but the public doesn't know what it wants to know until you have told it. This is the whole point of the news business," says Radford. "The public wants us to sort out for it what matters and what doesn't."

Radford feels that science reporting in the UK has matured considerably in recent years. "I fully expect Open Access to start making a difference to science journalism, but I also hope that there will be a role left for the newspaper reporter." He compares science data to raw diamonds. "They are of no obvious value, someone has to cut them and shape them first. People want their information filtered for them by someone that they have learnt to trust."

"I feel strongly that publicly funded information should be available freely and publicly. Most scientific information coming out of universities and government laboratories is financed, either directly or indirectly, by the taxpayer. So the public have already paid for it, upfront and in advance."

The Guardian has tried to keep its readers informed about Open Access news. "We have been pushing for open access and for the right to information at every level," says Radford. "That's why we have published quite a few articles about open access topics and we will continue to do so."

www.guardian.co.uk

Anjana Ahuja is a feature writer at The Times newspaper where she writes on science, health and social affairs. She has worked with the Royal Society and the British Association for the Advancement of Science on several projects aimed at improving science communication with the public.

"Open access to material is essential for me to perform my job as a science journalist. I am greatly hampered without it - it can take a long time to secure the necessary access to papers, and time is one thing I don't have", says Ahuja who often has only a few hours to write a feature story about subjects as diverse as cloning, alcoholism and space travel. "It is much better for me if I can get hold of information the instant I need it. Except in very limited circumstances when company confidentiality is at stake, and the information could affect the stock market, I do not understand why all scientific data are not freely available."

Before becoming a science journalist, Ahuja completed a PhD in space physics at Imperial College, London. "My scientific background helps me to cover stories that other journalists might find intimidating," says Ahuja, who always tries to dig out the original research article. "By covering science in this way, we can help to bridge the gulf between scientists and the public. The public doesn't know who to trust when it comes to scientific information, and members of the public should be able to access information at source, not just how the media choose to interpret it. That way, people can make up their own minds."

"Open access to material is essential for me to perform my job as a science journalist"

Anjana Ahuja

Ahuja cites her recent reporting of the debate about the safety of the MMR vaccine as a specific example. Andrew Wakefield's research linking the vaccine with autism created a lot of controversy. "Given the hysterical nature of the media coverage, it was vital for me to be able to access his papers and draw my own conclusions." She found many caveats in the studies and insufficient evidence to support the claims being made in the media. "As a result of this open analysis, The Times has been far more questioning of Dr Wakefield's assertion that the MMR vaccine is implicated in autism. It shows the importance of going back to the source articles," says Ahuja. "When parents ask me whether they should give their child the MMR vaccine, I recommend that they seek out Dr Wakefield's original papers and see for themselves whether his work establishes a credible link."

Journalists and the public will only be able to find the research for themselves if it is published under Open Access. "Denying the public access to scientific information only serves to heighten suspicion and mistrust," warns Ahuja. "Scientific information is not for the elite. People pay for science through their taxes, and deserve to know what they're paying for. This is especially true in the UK after the debacles of BSE, foot-and-mouth and GM foods."

Ahuja concludes that journalists can help by publicizing the issues surrounding academic publishing and Open Access. The Times has run several news articles over the last few months. "Journalists thrive on information, and it is natural for our profession to support greater access to it."

www.timesonline.co.uk

David Whitehouse is the BBC News Online Science Editor. He is keen to stress how important it is for journalists to have electronic access to the primary research literature. "In the past we spent hours on the phone and it meant that often we had to go with a story without having looked at the original research paper, going by other peoples' assessment of it, or press releases. It was very unsatisfactory."

"Now, with the Internet and e-mail, time zones don't matter so much and you can access the original paper," says Whitehouse. "And frequently you find that it is different from what the rumors or press releases said. It is particularly annoying when you want to get hold of an original paper and you are sent to a subscription service. It means you have to spend hours tracking down the author and getting a copy from them. It doesn't do the journal any good. I just don't bother with journals that I know we can't get into."

Whitehouse knows that some of his readers will want to check out the data for themselves. "It's really nice when you write a story to be able to have a link that sends readers straight to the original research paper. That is one of the things that the Internet is for and you can't do it in any other medium. Sometimes, if it's behind a subscription wall, I will still link to it anyway knowing that readers will be as annoyed about this as I am," says Whitehouse, adding that the journal has everything to benefit from links to their websites.

"Another reason to get to the original paper is to see the figures, to see if they spark up any ideas about illustrations we could possibly use," adds Whitehouse. "One important thing about the Internet is that you can show people the picture of a particular cell or organism." But he is aware that this raises issues about illustration copyright. "I think that it is outrageous that a scientist's work is copyrighted by a for-profit organization."

"The publishers' embargo policies stifle effective journalism"

David Whitehouse

Whitehouse, who has a PhD in physics and radio astronomy, says he searches anywhere for good story ideas. He checks out laboratory websites and institute homepages, as well as conference abstracts. "The regular journals often have good stories, but every other science journalist in the world is covering them too," says Whitehouse. In the search for something different he finds preprint servers to be a valuable resource. "You can easily search through them and anyone can download the papers. Once a week, I sit down with a cup of coffee and troll through the most recent postings."

Whitehouse is adamant that any information that is posted on the Internet should be available to journalists without restrictions. He recalls numerous situations where researchers were reticent about discussing data that had been posted on the Internet or presented at a public meeting. "It's ridiculous when you can't cover a story for three weeks because it's not out in Nature yet. A lot of scientists are still really worried about upsetting the journals. It is not the scientist's fault, it's the journals' fault for wanting to take publicly funded scientific information and exploit it for their commercial gain."

Whitehouse doesn't agree with the publishers' embargoes, which restrict publicizing a study until the day of publication. "The rational for embargos is nonsense. It used to be that embargoes were to give everyone time to find out what's in the journal and enable them to contact the scientist to check things out. But now any decent journalist knows what's in Nature next week. If everyone has to wait until a specific time then there are umpteen mentions of the same story, and of course advertisers like that and they make money. The embargos exist purely for the economic advantage of publishing companies; they stifle effective journalism. When you get a story you should be able to run with it without restrictions. We wouldn't accept embargoes in other areas of journalism."

Whitehouse sees himself as part of loop that brings scientific discovery to the public. "We offer a snapshot of what's going on in a particular field. If science isn't disseminated efficiently it is useless."

www.bbc.co.uk