One of the great challenges in biomedical research comes after a study is completed, when it’s time to communicate the findings in ways that resonate with the public. Journalists can play a critical role in this process, transforming complex science into stories that are understandable and engaging. However, with budget cuts and shrinking newsrooms, this vital work has become more difficult. Journalists need access to training, and scientists themselves need to be better equipped to share their work in plain language so that a wider audience can appreciate their discoveries.
Larry Tye, an author and former best-selling author Boston Globe reporter, recognized these challenges through his experiences covering medical and environmental topics. He responded by helping start the Health Coverage Scholarship more than two decades ago, in collaboration with the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. The association, which Tye leads, provides journalists with the tools they need to report in-depth on health and environmental issues, and has a strong track record of fostering high-quality, award-winning coverage.
A unique aspect of the program is that it brings together scientists, public health professionals and thought leaders in a range of disciplines to share their expertise with journalists. I had the opportunity to attend this year’s fellowship and discuss the latest research on climate change and its effects on health. The experience reaffirmed for me the critical role journalism plays in fostering public understanding of science, as well as the importance of researchers themselves stepping out of their comfort zones and strengthening their communication.
I recently sat down with Tye to learn more about the friendship and his thoughts on how to improve science communication. He shared insights from his journalism career and his views on how scientists and reporters can work together to increase knowledge about emerging research, spark new story ideas and show the interconnectedness of our environment and health. to man.
A passion for journalism sparks a great idea
Rick Woychik: The Health Coverage Exchange has been operating for more than two decades. Can you tell me how it all started and what inspired you to create it?
Larry Tye: Twenty-three years ago, I was leaving the Boston Globe to switch to writing books full-time, but I still had a deep interest in health journalism. A friend of mine was starting a health foundation in Boston, and he shared my passion for journalism that covered health and environmental issues in a meaningful way. So we came up with the idea to train a small group of journalists each year to do a better job reporting on these topics.
It started small, with just 10 reporters, all from Massachusetts. But each year, other organizations began asking if they could participate, and the fellowship grew. Today, we have a dozen foundation sponsors and bring in 13 journalists each year, many from national media outlets such as CNN, NPR and Washington Post. The fellowship lasts for nine days and we accumulate an incredible amount of learning. Journalists hear from 50 to 75 experts, many of whom are leaders in their respective fields. And it’s not just sitting in lectures. Some nights, we’re on the road with doctors who treat the homeless and the mentally ill, for example. We want fellows to experience what is really happening in the field, not just in research labs.
The goal is to create a pool of journalists who are more knowledgeable, connected and dedicated to covering health and environmental issues. Even after 23 years, many of the friends from the early years still stay in touch. It’s a strong community.
Expanding climate and health coverage
RW: The evolution of the program is amazing and it is clear that society has a positive impact on journalism.
Lt.: Yes, and I remember one of the earliest success stories from our first year. A journalist from Boston Globe spent time with Boston Health Care for the Homeless and came across a man living in a tree. She wrote a remarkable piece about his life, using his story as a lens to explore wider issues such as mental health. That article was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and today, she is one of the leading mental health journalists in the world New York Times. She returns to the society each year to help train our latest crop of participants.
Another success story concerns a journalist who appeared on the program a few years ago. She was covering health care in rural America and was able to take what she learned in her fellowship back to her newsroom and apply it to a series of stories on the opioid epidemic. Those stories earned her national recognition and helped draw attention to an issue that, at the time, was underreported in many parts of the country.
One of my personal missions in recent years has been to encourage health journalists to cover climate change. For too long, we’ve treated climate change as an environmental issue, as distinct from a medical issue, and as something only environmental reporters should cover. But the reality is that climate change is a health issue. It affects everything from air quality to mental health and is too important to leave out of health coverage. So we’ve pushed our peers to see climate change as part of their news beat, and I think it’s helping to make a difference.
Making science relatable
RW: I couldn’t agree more. There is such a strong link between climate change and public health outcomes, and it is essential that we get that message across to build resilience in our communities. How do you encourage journalists to make this connection in their reporting?
Lt.: Part of the answer is drawing out human history. Climate change may seem like an abstract, distant problem, but when you show people how it affects their lives – whether it’s asthma, the toll of mental health from extreme weather events or the spread of vector-borne diseases – it becomes real. real and immediate. Smart journalists can humanize these issues and make them relatable.
During your session with peers this year, you did a great job describing how climate change affects our health. Several of the reporters told me afterward that they left your talk with a new understanding of how they can approach climate change in their coverage.
Institutes like yours have a tremendous opportunity to educate this new generation of reporters. Your visit showed how important it is to help journalists see the connections between climate and health, so they can bring these issues to the public in ways that haven’t been done before.
Just say no to jargon
RW: Well, science communication is an area I’m very interested in. I think we have a long way to go as a field. Scientists are trained to do science, but they are not necessarily trained to communicate in ways that evoke passion or engagement with their audience.
Over the years, I’ve found that when non-scientists speak directly to the researchers who generate the data, those close to the experiments, the message is more compelling.
At NIEHS, we have a program where we bring teachers from all over North Carolina to the lab for two weeks. They get hands-on experience with experiments and learn the scientific process. At the end of the program, they create lesson plans based on what they have learned and then bring them to their classrooms. I wonder if we could do something similar with journalists – bring them in for a few days to interact with the scientists and learn more about the research.
Lt.: I like this idea. I think hosting sessions at some of your main national meetings could also be a great first step. Journalists love to participate in these kinds of efforts, and in my experience, they are always grateful for the opportunity.
Also, scientists who can communicate clearly, without jargon, are far more effective than those who cannot. So sessions that highlight things like plain language would be helpful.
One more thing: Just by coming together and building relationships, scientists and journalists will go a long way toward building trust with each other, which is critical. One of the key takeaways from my career is that it’s important to establish relationships before a crisis or deadline hits. If scientists and journalists trust each other beforehand, it makes things easier.
Journalists should contact scientists early on, make those connections, and show that they are interested in accurately representing the work. Scientists, on the other hand, need to understand that journalists can help them get important information out to the public.
Sharing knowledge with the public
RW: Any final thoughts on Environmental Factor readers?
Lt.: In terms of science and public health, there is so much we understand now that we didn’t understand a generation ago. Journalists are eager to continue learning so that they can more effectively share such knowledge with the public.
But the challenge is that, with newsroom cuts, many media outlets no longer have full-time environmental reporters. They may not even have dedicated health journalists. So now we have generalists who can cover the environment one day and the courts the next. These reporters often lack the specialized knowledge to properly cover these issues.
We are trying hard to bridge those gaps through the Health Cover Exchange. But I believe that NIEHS and other research institutes also have a role to play, as well as large philanthropic organizations and nonprofits that can financially support good journalism.
The goal is to create a pipeline of journalists who are not only informed, but also passionate about telling the stories that matter most. It’s about equipping them with the tools they need to dig deeper, ask the right questions, and connect the dots between science and health. And it’s about helping researchers see journalists as partners in that process.
(Rick Woychik, Ph.D., directs NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program.)