Serendipitous science

Serendipity in science is nothing new.  When it comes to media, however, more and more people are getting their information by happenstance.  The second session of the conference turned to the internet’s role in communicating science.

A search for “Spears,” as in Britney, may turn up a recent scientific observation that chimps use spears as hunting tools.  People who may never intend to read about science may be tricked into it, purely by chance. 

John Horrigan’s Pew report provided a basis for the discussion.  The report said that newspaper readership has steadily declined, while more and more people get their information from the internet.  While we all probably could have guessed that, the trends in the data were overwhelming.  The convenience and availability of the internet has led to a surge in its role as a news medium.  Science journalism has been swept up in this shifting tide.

Where does this leave traditional science coverage?  Is it moving away from a readership who faithfully sought out science coverage in traditional outlets?  (Did a readership like that ever exist in the first place?) Are we now hoping to catch the eye of someone who was reading about a shark attack?  Alfred Hermida mentioned that people are drawn in (sometimes serendipitously) at the story level, not by the topic.  Some participants mentioned that even LA Times headlines are happenstantial scientific readings.  No one picks up the newspaper just to read science, and it happens to be that one of the stories is science-related.  Is there a difference here, and if so, is it important? 

Although some attendants thought that the internet may lead to faster and sloppier coverage, some saw an opportunity.  KC Cole said that she thinks that the internet, with its rapid pace and limitless content, can offer an improvement in science communication.  The public’s appetite for news is changing, and their happy discoveries reflect this shift.