This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Schnabel, U. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

God’s Formula and Devil’s Contribution: Science in the Press

Schnabel{at}zeit.de

Scientists often complain, that journalists do not describe the "real" scientific work, but rather present an exaggerated—often alarmistic—negative image of science. But the contrary is also true: There is a tendency in the press to report about science in a very positive, even ecstatic way. In fact, there are two types of exaggeration: Scientists are either described as heroic figures, that bring "God’s formula" down to earth. Or they are portrayed as some form of fallen angel, whose science has turned into something evil and frightening—which is the devil’s contribution to the story of scientific glory. But this is not a unique feature of science-journalism; popular articles often carry an emotional message to attract attention. While politicians know (and use) this knowledge for a long time, it seems especially hard for scientists to accept it. But in order to make Public Understanding of Science successful, scientists should try to understand the laws and mechanisms of journalism. Recommendations as the Guidelines of the Royal Society can be helpful.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12, No. 3, 255-259 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662503123004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Young and R. Matthews Experts' understanding of the public: knowledge control in a risk controversy Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 123 - 144. [Abstract] [PDF]