7.14 Assignments
Assignment one: Finding the policy angle
What is the science policy angle of a story about the impending possibility that an asteroid will strike Earth?Assignment two: planetary defense
Here is one possible answer:
Although many aspects of the possible impact are grounded in physics or technology, societal issues will be of paramount concern to most readers, especially if you are writing for the general public. If a potential impact is not certain-for example, if the odds of a collision are 1 in 100 - should governments take action? What is a reasonable threshold of unacceptable risk? And what should the action be? Blow up the asteroid, or steer it off course? Relocate people from likely impact sites? Should people be compensated? According to what standard?
On top of that are many other considerations and angles, please think creatively about the possibilities and discuss them.
Let's return to the example of the asteroid impact. You race off to a NASA press conference where an Administrator announces that the asteroid Apophis, 300 metres wide, has a 1 in 37 chance of hitting Earth on April 13, 2015. Nations must act to prevent this catastrophe.Assignment three: mock press conference
Task one: make a list of the purely scientific information you need for a story (Where will it hit? What will be the physical consequences?)
Task two: make a list of the science policy issues you need to explore in a story (Will a nuclear weapon be necessary? Which nation will lead the planetary defense effort?)
Task three: based on your list of questions, decide which sources you will need to call.
Task four (optional): Have some fun! Make up the answers (for this assignment only—not for publication!) and write a several-hundred word story tailored for the audience—the media outlet—of your choice.
Imagine that Peking University is holding a press conference to announce the amazing news that one of its professors has discovered how to forge gold from two lighter elements, cobalt and tellurium. This modern day alchemy was the serendipitous result of routine experiments to bombard a cobalt target with various heavy atoms to see what is produced in the collision.Assignment four: reporting science policy
At the press conference, Peking University is announcing that the process is economically viable and that it has filed a patent for this process of gold production. The university has formed a company to profit from the discovery.
What would you ask the university spokesman at the press conference?
Some issues that come to mind:
Who will own the patent?
How will the university use the profits of this discovery?
Has this experiment been replicated by an independent laboratory?
Who would you call after racing back to your newspaper or magazine? Think of your audience:
What will your readers want to know?
What kind of objective experts will you call? Physicists?
What about a representative of the gold trade organization, who might comment on the potential for a glut of new gold on the market to depress gold prices?
How about jubilant officials from the cobalt and tellurium mining associations?
Optional: Have some more fun! Make up quotes and information and write a several-hundred word story for your media outlet.
Read the following news release on an OECD Review on China’s innovation, which says China still has a long way to go to build a modern, high-performance national innovation system. [ http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/809a2d78518a8277c125685d005300b2/ea2542c4ef366970c12573440033787b/$FILE/JT03231155.PDF ]
Remember this is a news release. Please try to develop this news release into a news story. When doing so, you have to answer several questions below:
1. Generally, for a short news piece, identify what information is missing and whom you need to interview for what? Design your interview questions.
Reference answer: The news release has summarized the main contents of the Review, but if you write a news story, you have to describe at least one of the failures of China listed in the Review - for example, how the country has failed to reach certain standards. When you to interview authors of the Review, ask them to give examples of the failure.
Also it is a good idea to ask for an independent comment, maybe from a Chinese policy researcher. Finally, if you have time, you can also get quotes from Chinese scientists or research-oriented entrepreneurs to comment on the Review results.
2. Suppose that you wish to write a feature story sparked by the OECD Review because of some of the following scenarios:
Scenario A. The OECD Review is the first such review done by international organisation commissioned by the Chinese government (say, the ministry of science and technology, MOST).
Scenario B. The OECD Review is based on the data offered by a Chinese local think tank, which is a quasi-official organisation. The think tank has done many similar reports but none of them have the high profile of the OECD Review.
Scenario C. The OECD Review is based on the data offered by a Chinese local think tank, but a major researcher of the local think tank claimed that the OECD Review has not correctly used his data.
Scenario D. The OECD Review has been rejected by MOST as having exaggerated problems in China’s science system.
Scenario E. Ten days after releasing the Review, the OECD science innovation section in charge of the Review has withdrawn some of its major conclusions, refusing to identify reasons.
Please identify one or more scenarios in accordance with your perceived story plot, and then try to imagine what you would do in the situations that you have selected. Identify the right individuals to interview and make up reasonable quotes for this exercise. Use this material to form the outline of a feature (or news focus) story that meets the type of readership of your own media.
Reference answers: There is no fixed recipe for selecting the situations. But if you choose some of them, you must be consistent in how you organize your story. If your story is intended to give a more detailed description of the Review, Situations A and B might be more suitable because they offer the chance for you to compare, through interviews, differences between the OECD Review and previous Chinese reports, in contents, orientation, methodologies and so on. You would need to interview the OECD Review authors, major researchers from the local partners, and relevant scientists, with a focus on how new and different the OECD Review is. Don’t forget to interview the MOST officials that commissioned the research for the OECD Review, asking them why they commissioned an international organisation to comment on the research results.
If you have already obtained the above interviewees and relevant information, you may organize your feature story thus:
Part 1. Outlining the major findings of the OECD Review
Part 2. Quoting someone to say about the local data
Part 3. Shifting to previous research by the local partner
Part 4. Quoting some officials to say why the research is commissioned despite previous research
Part 5. Major difference between the previous research and new OECD Review
Part 6. Concluding quotes on the usefulness of the OECD Review
But if you choose other situations proposed above, it would be better for you to write a feature story either challenging the existing Review or investigating some stories behind the Review story. Either way, you need first to study the difference between the OECD Review and previous studies, and then investigate according to your choice of situation. For example, if you choose Situation C., you must have a thorough interview with the researchers claiming the misuse of data. Then, you need to return to the OECD Review authors to ask them why there is such a difference. Do not write anything unless you find the different attitudes of the two sides represent some meaningful situation in general. If the misuse is only caused by incorrect recording figures, you seem to have no reason to develop it into a news focus.
If you choose Situation D, your investigation and article will have to be focused on the refusal of the commissioning agency to accept the OECD Review. This will be interesting especially if you can find stories from inside sources about why this has happened.
If you choose Situation E, you will have to first investigate whether it is technical problems or other reasons—say, the pressure from MOST -- that have led to the withdrawal of some of the conclusions. If it is not purely for technical reasons – unlikely in most cases – these are promising starting points for a story. Try your best to find why and use your contacts with policy researchers, many of whom should have learnt about the OECD Review during its preparation.
Home | Self-teaching questions | Answers | Assignments