Of all the media fellows, my placement is distinctly non-scientific. Whilst the other fellows are writing about biomarkers and arguing about Darwin, I’m ringing profs up about learning and teaching, academic misconduct or postgraduate funding. This is fine, it suits me well, I’m comfortable reporting on all of these topics and I’ve got something to say. If asked. It's not the journo's job to opine, so I've heard.
However, the scheme is run by the British Science Association, for reasons of improving understanding between scientists and the media – necessarily so, as Zoe Corbyn reports in today’s THE. But whilst the academy and the media do have their spats, there’s not the same pressure for empathy that there is when public health, climate change or natural disaster are involved.
I guess the Times Higher wants to expand its links with academics and institutions, and by having one of its readership guest for a couple of weeks, they get some feedback on how the magazine is received, but can that really be it?
Two weeks free labour? Someone to train for no long-term gain? Supplier of contacts or a woman on the ground? I’m not yet sure why the THE buy into the scheme.
I’m enjoying it and learning lots, but my placement just seems slightly besides the Association’s aims. I’ll keep you posted in case of enlightenment.
well your fellow writing about biomarkers miss the point entirely.. as you so rightly put it - it takes more than one voice to tell a story..
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous diagnostic biomakers in development using multiple detection technologies that promise to revolutionise the way tumour burden is assessed in patients, not to mention the hundreds of pharmacodynamic biomakers that are an essential part of nearly all clinical trials for novel therapeutic agents. I'd say one journal article does not make a story.. as I think is even mentioned in the article itself