[Editors] why publicize science news?

[Elizabeth Thomson]

Hi Everybody,

Thought you might be interested in the following thread from a  
listserv I subscribe to for university public relations folk,  
principally science writers. I actually distributed this to Editors'  
Club in 2003, but just found it again, and thought it worth resending  
(esp. since we have many new members).

In the first message, a science writer at the Univ. of Utah asks for  
advice on how to convince a balky department head that publicity is  
good for his department and university. In  my opinion, most of the  
responses he gets are good.......

Elizabeth

================================
Elizabeth A. Thomson
Senior Science and Engineering Editor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
News Office, Room 11-400
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA  02139-4307
617-258-5402 (ph); 617-258-8762 (fax)
<thomson at mit.edu>

<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/www>
================================


Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:12:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Lee Siegel <leesiegel at earthlink.net>
Subject: NASW-PR: publicity and research funding

Dear Colleagues,
     I am having a problem with a department chair who apparently  
fails to see the need for publicity on his research, doesn't  
understand how the embargo system works, and fails to cooperate  
adequately in publicity efforts, even though he chairs a department  
that regularly produces newsworthy research and that is probably the  
university department most renowned for its research among all  
departments at my institution.
     This scientist recently had a newsworthy study published in a  
major journal. But he kept delaying being interviewed by the PR  
person who was supposed to write our news release. As a result, the  
release was issued four hours after the embargo expired, rather than  
being issued as an embargoed release a week ahead of time.
     Then, when a local TV reporter asked for an interview, the  
scientist declined. As a result, the local TV station ran a story  
briefly mentioning our institution, but with a taped interview from  
one of the co-authors at another institution two states away.
      As you might expect, coverage of the story was minimal.
      This scientist made remarks to the PR person who wrote the  
release to the effect of, "Publicity doesn't help me get grant money,  
so why should I bother?"
      Last, this department had its own PR person until last fall,  
and the person in that position for years was highly successful in  
getting lots of ink for research in the department. Despite my  
repeated pleas, the department chair has not filled the vacant PR  
position, assuming (wrongly, in my book), that the department's  
development person (fundraiser) should handle publicity, even though  
this person has zero media experience. This department is not  
dependent on the state budget, so I don't think the budget crisis  
here is a factor.
      I am meeting with this chair Wednesday, along with others on  
his staff who want to change his attitude.
      I would appreciate by the end of Tuesday any and all  
suggestions for convincing this guy that it is in his interest (and  
that of our university) to be more cooperative in efforts to  
publicize his work. Thanks in advance.

Lee Siegel, science news specialist
University of Utah Public Relations



Lee Siegel, freelance science writer
6120 S. Rodeo Lane
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
home office (801) 272-3331
************************************************************************ 
**

------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:45:46 -0500
> From: John Gever <jgever at nasw.org>
> Subject: Re: NASW-PR: publicity and research funding
>
> Lee Siegel wrote:
> >This scientist recently had a newsworthy study published in a major
> >journal. But he kept delaying being interviewed by the PR person  
> who was
> >supposed to write our news release. As a result, the release was  
> issued
> >four hours after the embargo expired, rather than being issued as an
> >embargoed release a week ahead of time.
> >     Then, when a local TV reporter asked for an interview, the  
> scientist
> > declined. As a result, the local TV station ran a story briefly
> > mentioning our institution, but with a taped interview from one  
> of the
> > co-authors at another institution two states away.
> >      As you might expect, coverage of the story was minimal.
> >      This scientist made remarks to the PR person who wrote the  
> release
> > to the effect of, "Publicity doesn't help me get grant money, so why
> > should I bother?"...
> >      I am meeting with this chair Wednesday, along with others on  
> his
> > staff who want to change his attitude.
> >      I would appreciate by the end of Tuesday any and all  
> suggestions for
> > convincing this guy that it is in his interest (and that of our
> > university) to be more cooperative in efforts to publicize his work.
> > Thanks in advance.
>
> You might tell him that while publicity may not help him  
> personally, it's
> good for the institution.  (That in turn helps him personally, but  
> if his
> ego is as immense as your story suggests, he probably won't see it  
> that
> way.)  Appeal to his generosity -- actually an appeal to his  
> vanity, which
> can be quite effective in cases of immense ego.  If that doesn't work,
> perhaps you can enlist someone else whose opinions he respects, or  
> at least
> can't ignore (like his dean or provost), to try persuading him.   
> You should
> definitely make sure your own superiors are aware of the problem  
> and your
> efforts to resolve it.  Good luck.
>
> - -john gever
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:21:24 -0500
> From: Carol Cruzan Morton <carol_morton at hms.harvard.edu>
> Subject: NASW-PR: RE: publicity and research funding
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> Is self-interest a motivating factor for him?  The journals  
> themselves want
> to see their work in the news, and for better or worse often seems  
> to be
> one of the selection factors.
>
> His citation count might do the talking.  I don't have the  
> reference on me,
> but there was a study with a clever control about 10 years ago (UCSD,
> David Philips?) that showed papers covered by media received more
> citations.
>
> The study looked at research covered in the NYT over two periods,  
> one of
> which when it was being written but not distributed because the  
> folks on
> the loading dock or some such were on strike.  People have more  
> time to
> scan the NTY science section than the dozens of worthy journals  
> piling up
> on their desks every week.
>
> Problem is, that might inspire your problem person to talk only to  
> the NYT.
>
> How about public accountability, if he's publicly funded?  How about
> democracy, so people can make informed decisions about funding for
> such work and other civic or private decisions based on such work,
> depending on the nature of the research?
>
> Both the NSF and NIH strongly encourage people to share their research
> with the public so appreciation and money will keep flowing into their
> coffers in the annual budget cycle. Their public affairs and leaders,
> especially NSF, are quite vocal about this.
>
> Joann Rodgers at JOhns Hopkins has an most excellent book on all this,
> thin and still available, and perhaps some specific tips in past  
> issues of
> ScienceWriters online at nasw.org for dealing with different  
> categories of
> folks.
>
> Rick Borchelt at the Whitehead is also a good resource of data and
> persuasive methods to bolster your case.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carol Morton
>
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:12:42 -0700 (MST)
> >From: Lee Siegel <leesiegel at earthlink.net>
> >Subject: NASW-PR: publicity and research funding
> >
> >Dear Colleagues,
> >    I am having a problem with a department chair who apparently  
> fails to
> see the need for publicity on his research, doesn't understand how the
> embargo system works, and fails to cooperate adequately in publicity
> efforts, even though he chairs a department that regularly produces
> newsworthy research and that is probably the university department  
> most
> renowned for its research among all departments at my institution.
> >    This scientist recently had a newsworthy study published in a  
> major
> journal. But he kept delaying being interviewed by the PR person  
> who was
> supposed to write our news release. As a result, the release was  
> issued
> four hours after the embargo expired, rather than being issued as an
> embargoed release a week ahead of time.
> >    Then, when a local TV reporter asked for an interview, the  
> scientist
> declined. As a result, the local TV station ran a story briefly  
> mentioning our
> institution, but with a taped interview from one of the co-authors  
> at another
> institution two states away.
> >     As you might expect, coverage of the story was minimal.
> >     This scientist made remarks to the PR person who wrote the  
> release
> to the effect of, "Publicity doesn't help me get grant money, so  
> why should
> I bother?"
> >     Last, this department had its own PR person until last fall,  
> and the
> person in that position for years was highly successful in getting  
> lots of
> ink for research in the department. Despite my repeated pleas, the
> department chair has not filled the vacant PR position, assuming
> (wrongly, in my book), that the department's development person
> (fundraiser) should handle publicity, even though this person has zero
> media experience. This department is not dependent on the state  
> budget,
> so I don't think the budget crisis here is a factor.
> >     I am meeting with this chair Wednesday, along with others on his
> staff who want to change his attitude.
> >     I would appreciate by the end of Tuesday any and all  
> suggestions for
> convincing this guy that it is in his interest (and that of our  
> university) to
> be
> more cooperative in efforts to publicize his work. Thanks in advance.
> >
> >Lee Siegel, science news specialist
> >University of Utah Public Relations
> >
> >
> >
> >Lee Siegel, freelance science writer
> >6120 S. Rodeo Lane
> >Salt Lake City, UT 84121
> >home office (801) 272-3331
> >********************************************************************* 
> *****
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of nasw-pr V7 #65
> >*********************
> >
> >========================================================
> ==================
>
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:19:53 -0500
> From: Steve Bradt <bradt at pobox.upenn.edu>
> Subject: Re: NASW-PR: publicity and research funding
>
> Hi, Lee -- A few thoughts ...
>
> I think the argument that's most effective with researchers who ask,
> "Why should I bother with PR?" is to point out that nearly all
> university research conducted in the US receives some public funding
> - -- NSF, NIH, DOE, NASA, DARPA, ONR, etc. I would argue, and I know
> that a lot of scientists would argue, that conducting research on the
> public dime carries with it some obligation to attempt to share
> results with the public.
>
> You might also point out that the kind of work that you and I do can
> help build public appreciation and understanding of science, which
> your scientist friend probably feels is woefully lacking in this
> country. Most people never open a scientific book after leaving high
> school, so for better or worse, what they can absorb from their daily
> paper may be the best we can hope for as far as keeping their
> scientific awareness even the slightest bit fresh. And, feeding back
> into Point No. 1 (and your researcher's view that "PR" and grants are
> mutually exclusive), these people are among the voters selecting
> those who set budgets for the array of agencies listed above.
>
> That said, your guy sounds difficult enough that I would really be
> tempted to just write him off. Before I issue a news release, I look
> for two elements: a newsworthy story and a scientist willing to tell
> that story to any and all comers. When you put someone out there
> before the public and they behave like a jerk, it doesn't reflect
> creditably on your institution -- or on the scientific profession,
> for that matter. What's more, reporters don't appreciate having
> someone like that unleashed on them, no matter how compelling the
> research. To put it bluntly, if someone's not willing to play the
> game -- and that IS their prerogative -- I have 300 more appreciative
> researchers with whom I could be working.
>
> I would question one of your underlying assumptions: Much as the big
> journals try to whip up a frenzy over their weekly embargoes, I don't
> see anything wrong with issuing a release four hours after an embargo
> lifts. That's still timely -- maybe not for the few embargo-crazed
> reporters out there, but certainly for all those journalists working
> at weekly or monthly magazines, or the many media organizations that
> relay news 24/7. If it's really newsworthy, in almost every case
> it'll be as much so at 6 p.m. as at 10 a.m.
>
> Good luck!  Steve
>
> - --
> Steve Bradt | news officer, science and engineering
> University of Pennsylvania | Office of University Communications
> Sansom Place East, Ste. 200 | 3600 Chestnut St. | Philadelphia PA  
> 19104
> phone 215 573 6604 | pager 215 524 6272 | fax 215 898 1203
>
> Research at Penn | http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn
> ********************************************************************** 
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:46:33 -0500
> From: "Alan Wachter" <awach at mycloudburst.net>
> Subject: Re: NASW-PR: publicity and research funding
>
> [snip]  This scientist made remarks to the PR person who wrote the  
> release
> to the effect of, "Publicity doesn't help me get grant money, so  
> why should
> I bother?"...
> *********
> He should bother because publicity DOES help to get grant money.   
> When I
> reviewed grant requests for a foundation, clips and videotapes  
> often were
> appended to the submission. Some of the coverage began with  
> university news
> releases.  Alan Wachter
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:40:50 -0700
> From: Dave Dooling <deesqrd at hiwaay.net>
> Subject: NASW-PR: Re: nasw-pr V7 #65
>
> Lee:
>
> Does this scientist get all his funding from private grant money,  
> hence the
> feeling that he doesn't need to explain to the public who foots the  
> bill on
> most other research? I am now at the National Solar Observatory  
> (after 25+
> years in Huntsville) and know that any NSF or NASA application  
> requires
> outreach & education work. If so, then he has a contractual  
> obligation with
> the funding agency to tell the public. If he is getting private grant
> money, then you might check to see what P.R. is generated by others  
> (Utah
> or elsewhere) who are getting money from the same source.
>
> Even if a private fund is immune to the funding roller coaster,  
> they often
> want to look good before their peers and the public. Howard Hughes  
> Medical
> does not have to put out that big, expensive, glossy magazine. That  
> means
> that they want people who produce newsworthy as well as journal-worthy
> science. Popular publication conceivably could be the tie-breaker  
> on his
> grant renewal before private sources.
>
> A more important consideration is that an article produced in-house  
> and
> approved by him serves as an accuracy benchmark for when other news  
> stories
> come out. When I worked at Science at NASA (96-99), we viewed our  
> stories as
> reference points so the scientists could tell their managers, "This  
> is what
> I said, regardless of how AP et al screwed up." (I had just such an
> incident last year when a double solar flare event mutated from  
> interesting
> coincidence to not-quite-apocalyptic proportions.) Scientists who  
> don't
> talk about their work are viewed with suspicion by reporters, partly
> because they are so rare, partly because of the Cold Fusion and  
> Raelian
> cloning scams. If your work is real, why won't you talk about it? A  
> lot?
>
> Finally, publicity will help him attract smart young grad students and
> undergrads. All things being equal, why should I work in a lab where
> there's no glory? Sure we do this for the good of mankind and  
> because of
> inherent curiosity. But I like a little attention now and then.
>
> :)
> D2
>
> ==========================================================
> Dave Dooling / D2 Science Communications
> 3019 Coronal Loop/P.O. Box 25
> Sunspot, NM 88349-0025 USA
> (505-437-2294)
> http://www.d2sci.com
> Pictures of our new location at http://www.d2sci.com/sac_peak
> ==========================================================
> Work:
> National Solar Observatory
> dooling(no spam -- insert@)nso.edu
> (505-434-7015)
> ==========================================================

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/editors/attachments/20071214/e24e133d/attachment.htm