Just a few weeks after I happily was named a science writer at the AP, a pharmaceutical company called to tell me that it was planning a conference that I should cover. "Tell me more," I said. "It's in Geneva," the pharma publicist said, "and we'll pay your way there and back, put you up in a hotel, and feed you. And all you have to do is go to the conference." Or words to that effect.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, you know what I mean? I could have taken the junket, quit the AP, and launched myself into a glamorous world of travel and writing to promote the products of the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, I opted for long hours and a subsistence income. (The income has grown a bit over the years, but the hours don't seem to be any shorter.)
Pharma's offer was what's known, technically, as a junket. It wanted to pay me to write favorable stuff.
That's what seems to be happening with a couple of new European science journalism awards. Instead of offering cash awards to writers to promote good journalism, these awards offer writers junkets to promote the interests of the groups making the awards. The novelty here is that the junkets are dressed up as writing contests.
Earlier this year, The European Astronomy Society European Southern Observatory announced "a new journalism competition to capture and promote inspirational coverage of European astronomy." We're already on shaky ground; prizes are supposed to encourage good journalism, not inspirational coverage of somebody's pet project. And, it continued, "The prize is the ultimate for any astronomy enthusiast — a trip to the world’s most advanced optical instrument: the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) Very Large Telescope in Chile." The winners are not required to write about the Chilean 'scope. But...it made me think of those pitches for time-share condos--you can walk away, but it isn't easy.
The award is transparently self-serving, and it ought to be avoided. Reporters who want to go to Chile should raise the money some other way.
Another new award goes further--it also offers a trip, but it requires the winner to write a story about the trip. The Institute of Physics and the Science and Technology Facilities Council, both apparently based in London, are offering an Award for Physics Journalism. The winner "will be offered an expenses-paid visit to Japan, to inspect major science facilities including the T2K neutrino experiment amongst others," the groups say. And he or she "will be required to produce at least one news article or feature arising from the prize trip to Japan, for publication in Physics World."
And, as the late-night pitchmen say, "There's more!" Additional prize offerings "may be added" prior to the closing date, the announcement said.
I'd stay away from this one, too. Or, if you do decide to apply and you win, tell 'em you won't accept the economy air fare; you want to travel first class.
-Paul Raeburn


Comments
Thanks, Martin; I corrected it. I was misled by ESO calling it a "European Astronomy Journalism Prize."
PS Paul - Apart from Swindon, you are also maligning the good folk of the European Astronomy Society. The sponsors of the award you mention were STFC, the ABSW, the Royal Astronomical Society and the European Southern Observatory. The RAS was founded in 1820 by John Herschel, Charles Babbage and their cronies and got its royal charter from William IV. ESO is based in Munich and runs the European telescopes in Chile. The EAS had nothing to do with this prize.
Martin,
Sorry to have put SFTC in the wrong place; I just looked at the website again, and "Swindon" isn't easy to find there. Or not easy for me.
I have no problem with commercial outfits sponsoring awards; that's done all the time. You and I agree on the real issue: the "free" trips. The awarding groups would do better to offer cash, and see whether the winners choose to spend it on a trip to Chile or Japan.
On your other point: I'm a bit saddened that journalists would readily accept free trips to ESO and CERN from a scientific organization. They shouldn't accept free trips from scientific groups any more than they should accept free trips from, say, creationist groups or anti-vivisectionists. It's not right. Journalists owe their readers a fair view of what they see, not a view tainted by money from interested parties.
I am the Association of British Science Writers executive member who represents the Association on the judging panel of the physics award. (We have no connection with the EAS competition.) Incidentally, the STFC may be "apparently" based in London as seeen from Massachusetts, but its HQ is actually over 100km in Swindon, along with the other six UK research councils and the UK Space Agency. One day I shall pen the feature about how this dull town which does not even have a university became the epicentre of UK science.
There is a long history of all sorts of organisations with an interest in science writing supporting the ABSW's awards. They include the biotech company Syngenta, the research councils, and now Janssen, part of Johnson and Johnson. Of these, the research councils are in many ways the least controversial
The real issue with support of this type is that no professional journalist would ever spend a week (say) going to Japan without writing about it. The backers of the awards know this (I daresay the EAS is also aware of this factor) and there is probably no need to spell it out. Expecting a journalist to write an article....
STFC is the UK end of various international collaborations including CERN and ESO. It is routine for it to spend money on flying journalists to these places and (more importantly for ESO than for CERN) on organising the logistics for the visit. If you think this gets them a soft ride in the media, you need only look at the origin of STFC. It was set up after a parliamentary and media storm forced the government to kill off its predecessor PPARC, which had done the same.
For the past couple of years (that I know of — could be longer), a science conference held in Germany called Falling Walls has been offering free trips to science bloggers on the condition that you blog about it. From the email I got about it a year ago:
I know the same email went around this year, though I wasn't on the list for it as I declined when I got the offer a year ago. Against my personal ethical standards — others' mileage may vary.