NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20418

OFFICE OF INFORMATION

12 July 1968

Professor Joshua Lederberg

Department of Genetics

Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford Medical Center

Palo Alto, California 94304

Dear Professor Lederberg:

I am happy to enclose a copy of the report of the
Subcommittee on Human Response of the Committee of
SST-Sonic Boom. Our routine in publicizing reports
of this nature is to send out a dozen copies or so
to a specially selected list of science writers and
a press release to a broader list with an offer to
send copies for their perusal as long as the supply
lasts. We customarily send to Harold Schmeck and/or
Walter Sullivan at the Times.

I must confess my chagrin when I learn that you have
not been receiving our news releases regularly; please
be assured that your name will quickly be added to our
mailing list. If time permits, we would rather have
you select the reports you wish to receive as you are
notified of their issuance. But if time is a factor,
we will be glad to send you regularly those of more
than passing interest.

Sma] I #

You are also interested in talking about the more gen-
eral aspects of communicating science information
through the mass media, and so am I. As you know,
there was a period shortly after the first Sputnik
when the National Science Foundation was happy to sup-
port almost any conference of scientists and science
writers to talk about the need for greater public un-
derstanding of science and the problems that arose in
the communications process. It is likely that these
dialogues resulted in a heightened awareness in each
of the other's problems, but whether this new aware-
ness resulted in better communications still remains
to be proved.
You look upon the main problem as the authentication of
scientific reports for earlier publication in the mass
media, and wonder how appropriate scientific criticism

can be brought to bear on reports for which detailed docu-
mentation is lacking. I would rather not deal with that
problem, simply because I do not think there is a solution.
Unavailable documentation cannot be evaluated.

Further, even if a technique was found that would permit
erttical evaluation before publication in the mass media,
is this really the way to handle the problem of the anti-
quated journal? Most of the bench scientists I talk to
in the Academy report that they get very little infor-
mation from the news media in the area of their own pro-
fessional interests. When I ask whether there isn't at
least sufficient information in the news article to en-
able them to determine whether or not they want to pur-
sue the matter further, the answer often is that the news
article is so garbled or so truncated that it is impos-
sible to tell whether or not the reported advance is sig-
nificant.

I feel that there are really two problems here. There
is the problem of publication lag among the journals.
But John Maddox of Nature has instituted a plan in that
journal that permits the publication in the June 1),
1968, issue of articles received in April and of let-
ters received as late as May 21. He has accomplished
this by establishing a network of paid reviewers, some
of whom are in the universities and some, I understand,
are actually on the staff of the journal. Granted

that the economics of publishing and of the scientific
enterprise are different in England, I wonder if our
journals simply don't need a bit of shaking up.

The second problem, of course, is the competence of the
science writers in the mass media. Like you, I should
like to have this correspondence off the record, for I
feel that the vast majority of them are neither good
communicators of science or good reporters (and there

is an important difference!) The crux of the problem,
in my view, lies in the fact that science reporters,
unlike sports reporters or business reporters, are not
subject to critical review by their readers. Ironically,
however, the field that they cover is far more demanding
of excellence than either sports or business. In this,
the science writer resembles most closely the foreign
correspondent -- and it is in these two fields that the
American public is worst informed.

(One way to illustrate the difference between the de-
mands made on the sports reporter and on the science

reporter is to compare what has to be explained to the
reader. As you are well aware, DNA has to be defined
anew each time it is used. On the other hand, I made

a quick survey of the
Sunday Sports Section
delighted to discover
page articles did the
name the sport he was
Davis Cup elimination
"tennis"; a report of

front page of the New York Times

a couple of weeks ago and was

that in only one out of ten front-
reporter feel any compulsion to
describing. An article about a
round did not once use the word

a contest between the Mets and

 

the Dodgers did not include the word "baseball." It

isn't necessary.)

I have been thinking some more about the assignment
for the Washington Post, but I prefer to make that the
subject of another letter.

HJL:ca
Enclosure

Very sincerely,

Howard J. Gents
Director
Office of Information